Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the importance of the renewable energy amendment that is coming before us on the next vote in the Senate. For the past several months I have worked with Senator Cantwell, as well as many other Members of this body, in a bipartisan manner to develop a way forward on renewable energies.

We know and agree that more renewable green energy is needed for the United States. That was evidenced by an amendment that Senator Cantwell and I brought to the floor on the housing bill last April that passed by a vote of 88 to 8. We all realize that there is broad bipartisan consensus and that we want more renewable green energy for the United States.

The question was, how do we get it enacted into law? What we have before us today, through working together in a bipartisan way once again, is a compromise of how to offset the cost of some of these tax credits.

I am very pleased that, with the help of Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley of the Finance Committee, Senator Cantwell and I were able to come up with this renewable energy amendment that is fully offset and fully paid for, so that we can get this bill finally passed into law.

What does this mean for our country? Well, first, I think most Americans are well aware of what is going on in Washington right now. Our country is on the brink of financial catastrophe. We are working very hard to stop this from happening and bring consumer confidence back to our financial markets.

This, however, only solves the immediate crisis. We have a longer term economic problem in this country. There is nothing more important to our economy than having a comprehensive energy plan for the United States. Renewable energy is only part of that comprehensive energy plan for the United States though.

Within the bill we have before us, there are strong incentives for all types of clean energy, including solar power, geothermal, wind, and biofuels. If somebody wants to add solar power panels to their home, there are currently some incentives in today's law, but those incentives are not adequate. We encourage more and more people to put solar power into their own homes so they can actually help solve the energy problems we have in this country in their own home.

I think it is important that the Senate say to the House of Representatives, let's pass this bill in a strong bipartisan fashion. This is so the House of Representatives will take up this bill, pass it, and send it to the President where he can sign this bipartisan piece of legislation into law.

I strongly believe that we need a comprehensive energy plan for the United States of America that includes an all-of-the-above approach. This would include alternative green energies, drilling for more oil and natural gas, more clean coal energy, and clean nuclear energy, all of which include more conservation for the United States. We need all of this if we are to stop sending $700 billion overseas. A lot of that money is going to countries who do not like us. Some is even going to fund terrorist organizations that want to do harm to the United States of America.

It is critical that we have a comprehensive energy plan. Let's at least do the renewable energy part of the energy plan, today. I want to thank all who have worked so hard on this. On the solar part of this bill alone, it is estimated that 400,000 jobs could become permanent in the United States between now and the year 2016. These people would be building solar panels for houses, for businesses, for powerplants and the like. Over 1 million jobs will be produced in the building of a powerplant.

This is a good bill for our economy. It is a good bill for the power generation of the United States of America, and it is a good bill for our environment.

In many ways, this is a very exciting bill. Right now, unfortunately, it is being overshadowed by what is happening in our financial markets. But that does not mean this bill is not important; it is more important than ever. I encourage all of our Senators to vote for it, and then the message needs to go to the House of Representatives: Let's not delay on this bill; let's get this bill signed because this is the last week of business we have this year. Let's get it passed in the House and sent to the President so that he can sign this bill into law and we can start getting these jobs now.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between both sides.

Mr. President, I hope this can be worked out very quickly, and I applaud both the majority leader and the Republican leader for their efforts to get passed the renewable energy tax bill that Senator Cantwell and I have worked so hard on this entire year. I also want to thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley for their work in putting this whole package together. We have been working the last couple of weeks trying to come up with a compromise and we are finally almost there.

The Ensign-Cantwell Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act passed the Senate by a vote of 88 to 8 back in April. The bill was not paid for at that time, and the

House of Representatives did not want to see a bill like this enacted into law without it being paid for. So over the last couple of weeks, we have worked to make sure there was an offset and to make sure this offset was not going to be damaging to further exploration of other new energy. While producing more green energy, we do not want to hurt the production of other types of energy. So we worked hard to do that, and I think we have succeeded in this bill.

This bill will create at least 440,000 permanent jobs just in the solar energy sector alone, and Senator Cantwell and I are very proud of this legislation. It is critical we get this passed before we leave town. We need to enact proper policies to help create more jobs all over the United States right now. The economy is in trouble, and this is a shot in the arm to the economy which also will produce more green power for the United States, makes us less dependent on foreign sources of energy, and it is the right thing to do.

We want to join together to push this important legislation through, and obviously we have to work to make sure the House of Representatives takes up the bill and passes it in time to get to the President's desk. I am convinced the President will sign it.

The renewable energy tax extenders will be combined with AMT relief and other business extenders that are important for our entire economy, especially to the high-tech sector of our economy.

The American people are calling for bipartisanship. Senator Cantwell and I have joined together and have been working very hard to get the rest of the Senate, including the two leaders and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, to go along with us. This is the time for bipartisanship to show that we are Americans first and that we can join together to accomplish important tasks.

I hope we can go to this bill as quickly as possible, get it passed through the Senate and on to the House of Representatives, where I hope they will pass it. Then we can send this bill off to the President so we can see these renewable projects begin--these important projects on solar, on wind, on geothermal, on biofuels, and on so many other things.

In my State, there are a lot of people who would like to add solar panels to their homes to help produce their own electricity. Current law just doesn't work effectively enough to incentivize that activity. The credits are not right. There is no predictability. Financially, it just doesn't pay off. With the bill we have on the floor, there would be a financial payoff to actually encourage homeowners to put solar panels on their homes where there are States, such as mine, that have a lot of sunshine.

This is an important bill, and once again I thank my colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Cantwell. She has been absolutely fabulous to work with this on this, both she and her staff. I appreciate both our staffs. Jason Mulvihill on my staff, and Lauren Bazel and Amit Ronen on Senator Cantwell's staff, are working together on this so that hopefully we can get this bill done as soon as possible.

I yield the floor so Senator Cantwell can make a few comments.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the importance of renewable energy and addressing our current energy crisis in the United States. We need a comprehensive approach to our energy problems in the United States. Renewable energy is one of the answers.

Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from the State of Washington, and I have been working tirelessly together, in a bipartisan way, to get a renewable energy bill passed through the Senate, passed through the House, and onto the President's desk for a signature. I applaud her for her efforts in this battle.

We passed our renewable energy bill--a bipartisan bill--back in April. We attached it to the housing bill that was done then. It passed this body with a vote of 88 to 8. Not too often around here do you see Republicans and Democrats joining together in such a bipartisan way. But it shows you the kind of support this body has shown toward renewable energy. Unfortunately, the Democrats in the House of Representatives blocked our renewable energy bill from being considered as part of the housing bill.

Once again, we attempted, in July, to get our amendment added to the housing bill that would expand renewable energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and other types of green energy to the United States. We would have been able to attach that to the housing bill if the majority party had allowed us to have that kind of a vote. Unfortunately, they used the excuse it wasn't paid for and that the House of Representatives--the Democrats in the House--would block our piece of legislation from being considered in the final package.

So we offered a compromise and we said, OK, we will pay for it, except that instead of raising taxes to ``pay for it,'' we will offer spending cuts. The Federal Government is too big anyway. We said let's have a very small ``haircut'' from nonveteran spending programs across the board. We will do across-the-board spending cuts--a tiny percentage.

Once again, the Democratic majority said no. It was very disappointing. We need to come together in a bipartisan way to address the energy needs of this country. Republicans have been saying: Let's do a comprehensive approach; let's include renewable energy and more conservation, but let's also pass a comprehensive bill that allows us to drill in places such as our Outer Continental Shelf. Deep sea exploration is a great way for us to bring more oil and natural gas to the United States, to make us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

My colleague from South Carolina talked about oil shale. Up to 2 trillion barrels of oil--which is three times more oil than Saudi Arabia has--is potentially available between Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. Right now, we have a moratorium put on that. Why? Because the Democratic majority put that into law last year.

We need to repeal that moratorium so that progress can go forward to make us less dependent on countries that--frankly, a lot of them don't like us. Whether it is Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or some of the other more volatile regions of the world where we get a lot of our oil today, those are not exactly the places where we should be sending our money.

Currently, the United States sends about $700 billion a year overseas, funding a lot of governments that are not our friends. We, as Republicans and Democrats, need to lay our party labels aside and become Americans. Let's do something that is right for the country. Let's bring more American energy production to America, so we are less dependent on other governments around the world.

I strongly believe we need to tap more of our coal reserves. That is one of our cheapest forms of power we have in the United States. There is exciting new technology for coal, called carbon recapture technology. Senator Kerry and I have a subcommittee--he is chairman and I am the ranking member--and we have done several hearings over the last couple of years on this carbon recapture technology to make coal even cleaner than it is today. That carbon recapture technology is exciting. We are talking about capturing 95 percent of all of the carbon produced by coal. It can produce more and more electricity for the United States.

When we are talking about battery technologies for cars, or hybrids, you can also produce more electricity so that we can take natural gas away from some of these powerplants and convert some of our cars to natural gas. All of this will lower the price of gasoline, because we will need less.

Today, the price of oil and gas is up so high because there is more demand than there is supply. The world is demanding more energy, including oil, than it is currently supplying. That is the reason the price has been going up. That is the reason prices will continue on their upward trend over the next

several years, unless we bring more supplies. I would like more of those supplies to be right here in America. I think that is the right thing to do. It is good from a national security standpoint, from an economic security standpoint, and it is good for the pocketbooks of ordinary Americans across our country.

I call on my colleagues to look at a comprehensive approach that would include renewables, more conservation, and looking for more American energy in the form of oil and natural gas. It is the right thing to do for the American people.

It is time for us to act and to quit playing more politics. The motto on the Republican side has been to ``find more and use less.'' Well, the only way we are going to be able to do that, frankly, is for the Democrats to talk less and start voting more. We need to have amendments that are fully debatable on the Senate floor, because there are answers out there. There are no silver bullets, but in a comprehensive approach, we can have answers to bring down the cost of gasoline in the United States.

Let's join together as Republicans and Democrats and act for the good of the American people.

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

Mr. President, President William McKinley once said, ``That's all a man can hope for during his lifetime--to set an example--and when he is dead, to be an inspiration for history.''

Of all his accomplishments during his lifetime, the example that Senator Jesse Helms set for treating others rises above everything else. During my first term in the Senate, I had the privilege of traveling to Mexico as part of a congressional delegation with Jesse Helms. I saw his kindness and sincerity in the way he treated everyone, regardless of position. The foreign dignitaries received the same respect and consideration as staff. Not enough Senators treat members of their staff like members of their family, but Jesse Helms did. And that gentleness extended to all who came into contact with him.

The kindness with which he touched so many lives stands in stark contrast to the harsh and tough image which many had of Jesse Helms. Seen as rough and hard-hitting, a more fitting description of Jesse Helms is that he was a steadfast believer in the principles of America. Jesse Helms was the voice, sometimes the lone voice, of a centuries' old vision of a sovereign United States committed to freedom, a strong national defense, and free enterprise. He was willing and able to stop business in the Senate when the strength of our Nation was threatened.

But to those whose lives were personally touched by Jesse Helms, progress was never paused. Instead, Jesse Helms was a conduit of democracy and opportunity. Generations of Cubans, Taiwanese, Iraqis, and Africans will always remember the support that a Senator from North Carolina dedicated to their causes.

And countless North Carolinians will remember the meaningful impact that Jesse Helms had on their lives as their advocate to a sometimes unyielding government bureaucracy. One constituent from Raleigh noted her Senator's efforts on behalf of her aging parents. She remembered her mother saying if there was a problem that couldn't be resolved, ``Call Jesse Helms. He won't stop until he gets it solved.''

His commitment to his constituents speaks volumes about Jesse Helms's passion for his job and the people who elected him. He always remembered who he represented and why. And he always remembered that we ensure the strength of our Nation by inspiring young people to continue the work of generations of patriots. He never turned away young men and women looking for advice and often engaged them in dialogue. Time and again he told them to stand up for their principles. And then he showed them by example.

Very few Americans in our Nation's history have risen to the level of accomplishment and reverence as Jesse Helms. During three decades in the Senate, he set an example for all Americans as he always stood by his principles and extended kindness to friend and foe. Now he is an inspiration for history.

Mr. President, when I am approached about the energy crisis we are facing--and I am approached frequently by constituents and even family and friends--you can tell that people are feeling at the least very uneasy about this situation. There is a weight that comes with soaring prices on fuel, food, and everything else that is part of our daily spending habits. Every time Americans fill up their tanks, check-out at the grocery store, or make a decision about where to cut spending, that weight gets heavier and heavier.

The American people are looking to us for solutions. We have a responsibility to make difficult decisions here in order to provide them much needed relief at home. For many months, Republicans have been working to provide that relief. We have been focused on a three-pronged approach: boosting renewable energy, encouraging energy efficiency, and growing our American supply of energy. This line of attack balances the need for us to be responsible stewards of our environment with the need for reliable, affordable energy to fuel our lives and our economy. We are not in a position to rely on any one solution to lift us out of this crisis.

However, the Democrats are focusing their efforts on a single idea to respond to the pleas of Americans. Rather than dedicate this body to building a comprehensive energy plan that provides real solutions for the future, Democrats have put forward a plan to curb speculation. This approach does little, if anything, about high gas prices. Instead, the Democrats' speculation bill could hurt our economy by eliminating investment options that our Nation's retirees depend on, make American businesses less competitive, and ultimately drive U.S. jobs overseas. The only way to significantly lower the price of gas is to increase supply.

Let me repeat that. The only way to significantly lower the price of gas is to increase supply. Let's harness the power of our commodities markets and take concrete steps to expand the future supply of American energy. The market will take this into account, and I am certain we will see prices at the pump fall.

This plan to blame all of our troubles on speculators does nothing to bring down prices at the pump, which means it does nothing to bring down the price of food, clothing, or any other consumer goods that are affected by the price of gasoline. It will not provide relief for struggling Americans, and it lacks the vision and the leadership our country needs on this issue. All it does is delay other efforts that would make a difference.

One thing the Democrats are doing successfully is blocking the efforts of Republicans to fully participate in shaping this legislation. The problem is bigger than speculation. Good ideas from all sides should be considered.

We are talking about one of the greatest challenges facing our Nation, and our constituents have no voice in this process. They need to have their voices heard. Countless constituents have taken time to share their personal stories with me, and there is a common thread in their messages. Fixed-income seniors worry about driving to the doctor, buying their medicine, and paying for food. They are asking for real solutions. Many Nevadans cannot afford to travel to visit ailing relatives, and our entire tourism industry in the United States is being hurt by the high cost of fuel. The airlines are in trouble and will be cutting jobs. Manufacturers are cutting jobs. Families have to cut spending a little deeper each week to balance their budgets. They are asking for real solutions, and they are asking for them now.

There is a real solution. It is a plan that reflects the innovative spirit of our country and the commitment we all have to preserving the environment. It involves going back to that balanced approach that boosts renewable energy, encourages energy efficiency, and grows our American energy supply.

With families tightening their budgets more and more, with seniors struggling month to month, Americans do not want to hear that there are trillions--literally trillions--of barrels of American oil off limits to meet their energy needs. Trillions of barrels--not in Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, or in some other country that hates us--but right here in the United States, under our control.

At least 10 billion barrels are up in ANWR; at least 8.5 billion barrels in deep sea exploration; by some estimates, 1.8 trillion barrels of oil from oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. We also have a 230-year supply of coal and great potential in nuclear energy. These American sources, combined with conservation and aggressive investment in renewable and green energy--solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, fuel cells, and electric vehicles--are the key to setting us on a course to energy independence and security.

There are some who argue that increasing American energy supply will provide no immediate relief. They argue that ANWR, deep sea exploration, and oil shale are years away from producing sizable amounts of energy. The same could be said for renewable energy development. But these changes would lower prices and would do so quickly because the market will react to expected energy supply increases. The American people would react to the fact that we have shown vision and accomplished something for their good.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Even so, when has instant gratification been the mantra of investing in American innovation? Highways and bridges aren't built in a day, but we know they are an investment in our infrastructure. Schools and libraries aren't built in a day, but we don't throw our hands in the air and say ``never mind.'' We plan for the future.

Standing around talking about how long it will take to get these projects on line doesn't help get the process started any faster. The time for talk passed as quickly as $3.50 a gallon came and went. Enough is enough. The American people are looking to us to provide much needed relief. We must rise to the occasion.

I ask my colleagues across the aisle, what is the magic number for gasoline per gallon before they are willing to act on a comprehensive energy strategy? The American people want to know how much longer they must suffer, while we stand here debating oil speculation.

Bill Clinton vetoed ANWR 10 years ago in a bill passed by a Republican Congress. If he had signed that bill into law, at least 1 million barrels of oil per day would be coming to the United States. Gas prices would be lower.

Let's not miss another opportunity for action, and let's not ignore the cries of frustration from our constituents. Let's show them we understand the difficult choices that they are making, and that there are solutions on the horizon. Let's act now.

We need to extend renewable energy tax incentives before they expire. If we fail to act, we will be responsible for the end of American renewable energy innovation.

We need to improve the barriers that stand in the way of our new American energy frontier. Let's send our enemies in the Middle East a pink slip that we won't be requiring their services any longer. Isn't it time to stop subsidizing their economies? We send them $700 billion a year and, at the very least, they are teaching a new generation to hate America. At the worst, they are funding the weapons used against Americans. A comprehensive energy plan means that our economy and livelihoods won't be held hostage any longer.

That is the day I look forward to and that all Americans look forward to. But to get to that day, we have to act. On behalf of the more than 2.7 million Nevadans, who need us to do something, I ask you to make comprehensive energy legislation something we can all be proud of.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in the last few days, we have been talking about the housing bill. Last night I got to speak as I had the day before about an amendment I have been trying to get onto the housing bill. I would like to speak about the importance of that amendment, once again.

This country is facing high energy costs right now, with gasoline over $4 a gallon. Home heating oil is being affected by the price of energy. Natural gas prices have gone up by over 70 percent. It is affecting literally every single family and business in the United States. We need to have a broad-based approach to finding all the sources of American energy we can possibly find to help make us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil and other energy supplies coming from outside the United States. It is important for our national security, and it is also important for our economic security.

The amendment I wanted to offer to the housing bill deals with alternative renewable energies. These are energies such as solar, wind, geothermal, and many others. This amendment is identical to a bill Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat, and myself worked on together. In total, 45 Members have cosponsored this bill. We actually offered this legislation as an amendment to housing bill the last time that bill was on the Senate floor in April.

At that time, our amendment passed with 88 yea votes and only 8 nay votes. Rarely does something around this body pass 88 to 8 in such a bipartisan fashion in these partisan days. We should take advantage of that bipartisanship and do something right for the American people.

Not only do we want more American energy, but whenever we can, we should certainly try to incentivize bringing more green energy to the United States. That is the reason we introduced this bill, and it is the reason there was such a strong vote on it.

There have been a couple of objections as to why we should not include this amendment on the housing bill. It has been said that this amendment has nothing to do with housing. I would beg to differ. First of all, the stronger the economy, the more people will be able to afford to buy and retain homes. This renewable energy tax bill literally will produce probably 100,000 to 200,000 jobs in the United States and billions of dollars worth of investment in the United States. When people have jobs, there is a better chance they can afford homes.

Second, there are many provisions in our renewable energy tax bill that directly relate to housing. My amendment provides incentives to expand energy efficiency in new homes, existing homes, and appliances used in homes. For example, if you want to invest in solar energy in your home, if you want to help the country out by taking some of your electricity demand off of the power grid and actually produce your own electricity with solar energy in your home, we have tax credits to encourage this activity. If somebody is building a more energy- efficient home, we have tax credits in there to do that. In addition, we encourage the production of more energy-efficient appliances for your home. So this amendment is directly related to housing.

One of the other provisions the managers of this bill--and especially the Democratic leadership--do not want this amendment attached to the housing bill is that it is ``not paid for.'' Well, there are already $2.4 billion in tax-related items that are not paid contained in this housing bill. I will not go into the details because they are fairly complicated, but know there is almost $2.4 billion in unpaid-for tax incentives in this bill.

The Democratic manager of this bill said the Democrats in the House of Representatives would not go for our particular renewable tax credit legislation because it was not paid for, that there were too many Democrats in the House of Representatives who would object to it. Well, how do they expect $2.4 billion in other tax incentives that are not paid for to be accepted over there and then argue that ours would not be accepted as well? So I think we should do absolutely everything we can at this time--with high energy prices on gasoline, home heating oil, and natural gas going up in the United States--we should do everything we can to get Senator Cantwell's and my amendment on renewable energy tax credits put onto this housing bill.

Another reason it is important to have this amendment on this bill, instead of waiting for another bill in the future, is that a lot of the contracts and the financing of renewable energy projects--whether they are solar, geothermal, wind, or any of the other

clean energy we have in the United States--it is critical for the financing of these projects that we have predictability and we get the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus amendment done as soon as possible. For each quarter that passes--and the Senator from Washington has spoken eloquently about this--that is more projects that do not get financed. Projects will not always be financed in the future if they have lost their financing now. Investors lose confidence.

So we need to have predictability, and we need to enact my amendment soon as possible. The housing bill, everybody around here knows, is going to be one of the few bills that will be signed into law this year. So we need to have the renewable energy tax credits on a bill that is going to be signed into law. If we actually care about advancing use of renewable energy in this country, if we care about jobs in the renewable energy sector of our economy, then we need to have this amendment passed into law.

The Democratic leader has already said he is going to pull the bill and we are going to come back to the housing legislation after the Fourth of July break. I encourage all Americans to contact their Senators and Representatives in the House, and let their voices be heard that this is an important issue to them. Write in, e-mail--do all the types of things that are necessary to participate in our democratic process, to say yes to renewable energy, to say yes to jobs in America.

Let's put this amendment on the housing bill when we get back after the Fourth of July recess. Let's do it as quickly as possible. Let's get the House of Representatives to cooperate with us on something that is good for America. I happen to be a Republican Senator but this is a bipartisan issue. In fact, this should be nonpartisan. This should be something that is done forgetting about whether you are a Republican or Democrat. Let's do something that is good for America. Let's do more of that around this place, and I think we will all be better off for it.

I conclude by imploring my colleagues: Think about this during the break. Think about what is at stake with the tens and tens of thousands of jobs, the billions of dollars in investment in renewables, and the chance that we can do something good for America and bring more green energy, more clean energy to the United States.

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

Madam President, I will object. I have been attempting, with the Senator in the chair right now, to attach the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus amendment to the housing bill and get a vote on it. This is an amendment that passed on the housing bill a couple months ago by a vote of 88 to 8 in a bipartisan fashion in the Senate.

People say: What does this have to do with housing? Well, it has several things to do with housing. There is energy efficiency built in for new home construction. If somebody wants to upgrade their home with renewable energy products, they can do that with the help of tax credits in this amendment. It is a good amendment because this country is facing an energy crisis and gasoline prices are too high; home heating oil is too high; and natural gas has gone up by 70 percent. We need to have more renewable energy in the United States. All we have to do is have a vote on this amendment, and we could proceed with the housing bill.

In a moment. I would say in closing that people have said--we can't do this. The House of Representatives would object because it isn't ``paid for.'' Well, there is $2.4 billion in unoffset tax provisions included in the Dodd/Shelby amendment and a large amount of this does not even relate to housing. Why should the House of Representatives accept $2.4 billion worth in tax incentives not paid for and object to our clean energy tax provisions at the same time? That is an example of why there is inconsistency in objecting to our amendment being voted on.

I yield for a question.

Madam President, there is no question that the whole country is facing a housing crisis and it is not just housing; it actually is leading to a liquidity problem, and my State like others has experienced difficulties. I wish to solve this problem, and improve this bill with the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus amendment----

I object.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so I may offer amendment No. 5020.

Mr. President, I am sorry to see objection has been raised. This is the amendment that we are trying to get brought up on the housing bill that passed with an 88-to-8 vote in the Senate the last time we were considering the housing bill. This is the tax bill that will extend the renewable energy tax credits for the United States. It includes solar, wind, geothermal, and many other forms of renewable energy that are so important at this time of high energy prices in the United States. It seems absolutely ridiculous to this Senator that with an amendment that passed 88 to 8 in the Senate, one of the few bipartisan actions we have taken for a long time around here, that there would be objection to adding it onto this bill.

So over the next couple of days, I want to let the managers of this bill know that there are some procedural things that can go on so it is going to take them a little more time to get this bill done than they would otherwise have liked to have done.

I alert them this Senator will be exercising his full rights to try to get this renewable energy tax credit put on this bill.

So it is a critical piece of legislation. It is not only critical to get it done, it is critical to get it done soon, because a lot of jobs in the United States are going to be lost if these contracts cannot be let out for a lot of the projects in renewable energy across the country. There are a lot of people out there right now, whether they get their financing put together or not, who are looking to see if the Senate will extend the renewable energy tax credits.

This is an amendment Senator Cantwell and I have worked on together. We are pushing this any way we can to get this thing done. I applaud her for her efforts. But it is absolutely critical that this body act at a time when we can create jobs, we can produce more green energy for the United States, and we can become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

This is a small part of the energy package but an important part of the energy package that we need to put together. We are going to continue to work on this.

I see my colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Cantwell, is on the floor. I will yield the floor so she can make some comments.

Madam President, I plan to ask for unanimous consent in a moment, but I would like to say a couple of words about what I am going to ask for.

We had a vote in the Senate on the renewable energy bill the last time we had the housing debate. That vote was 88 to 8 in favor of the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus amendment. This was the amendment that I offered with Senator Cantwell and others. It included extensions of tax credits for solar, geothermal, fuel cells, wind, and many other forms of renewable energy. At a time when we are looking for more green energy in the United States, it is the right thing to do. This body spoke very strongly with an 88-to-8 vote. We rarely ever have votes like that around this place. I believe it is important for us to move forward with this important piece of legislation.

The Democrat majority has been attempting to deal with renewable energy tax credits on other bills. While I appreciate those efforts, we have to make sure this bill is actually signed into law. It was part of the housing bill last time. I believe the housing bill has the best chance of any major piece of legislation to become law this year.

The bottom line is, do we want the renewable tax credits extended and signed into law? I think this is the best vehicle we can possibly have to ensure that.

Right now, the Democrat majority has been bringing to the floor--as they did a few days ago--extenders legislation that has many objectionable items that the President said he would veto. All of the tax extenders, which both sides support, were coupled up with some very objectionable items, including a $1.3 billion tax earmark. You know, we are talking about earmarks around this place; there is a $1.3 billion tax earmark in that bill. There are also other very objectionable special interest projects and tax increases that are in that bill. For these reasons the President said he would veto it. These reasons are also why the Republican minority has been objecting to what the Democrats have been trying to do.

So I ask our colleagues, let's join together the way we did before in an 88-to-8 vote to extend the renewable tax credits. Let's bring more green energy to the United States. Let's bring more jobs to the United States. This is good economic policy. It is also good energy policy. We have already recognized that in the Senate. So let's join together again on this amendment, and allow this amendment to be voted on so that we can get this amendment signed into law this year.

I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up amendment No. 5020 which is filed at the desk.

I am deeply disappointed. I think this is an important piece of legislation. I hope the Senator from Vermont, who is a cosponsor of the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act, will reconsider. There are serious objections to what he is trying to do, obviously, on this side. And I will say he does not have the kind of support that this amendment enjoys. This amendment was supported by a vote of 88 to 8 in the Senate. This is an amendment that should be allowed to go through. It should remain part of this bill. We should put away the partisan squabbling and get this bill done. I hope that while we are negotiating, we can make sure this amendment becomes part of the final bill.

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

Madam President, I rise today to warn the American people. There is a Trojan horse riding across our country and onto the Senate floor. Its creators want everyone to believe that their climate tax proposal will clean the planet while causing minimum impact on our lives. They want us to believe that everyone will live happily ever after. However, this is not a legend or a fairy tale. Hiding inside this Trojan horse is a monster of a tax increase to pay for the largest expansion of the Federal Government since FDR's New Deal.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that this proposal will cost the American taxpayer $1.2 trillion dollars in taxes over just the first 10 years of this bill. And that tax bill is only expected to rise with time. With the hefty price tag and a huge expansion of bureaucracy, the legislation actually does very little, if anything, to improve the environment. The American people cannot afford to pay for this reckless attempt at energy policy. Instead, we should let American ingenuity lead the way toward exploration of American energy, expansion of renewable energy, and increased conservation.

This Climate Tax bill imposes a cap on greenhouse gas emissions that can be released into the environment by certain businesses, and this cap will gradually reduce every year until 2050. The bill creates allowances that gives companies the right to emit specific amounts of these greenhouse gases.

Some of the allowances will be distributed for free to various entities. The rest of the allowances will be auctioned to the highest bidder. These allowances can then be sold, traded, or transferred. The cost incurred by businesses to obtain these allowances will be passed on to consumers, hitting low-income households the hardest. But before we talk about the revenue windfall for the Government and about the people celebrating this legislation, let's discuss the victims.

First and foremost, this Climate Tax bill will cost our economy and our working families greatly. Restricting carbon dioxide emissions drives our energy supply down. Just as the bill hopes to do, the price of energy would increase. With gasoline prices already over 4 dollars a gallon and predicted to continue rising, we will all be hurting.

According to the EPA, this bill will increase the price of gas by at least 53 cents a gallon. 53 cents. In my home State of Nevada, this would translate currently into about $4.68 a gallon at today's average price for regular gasoline. And gas prices aren't the only thing that will go up. Electricity bills will increase by 44 percent or more.

And the cost to our overall economy would be devastating. By 2030, the annual loss to the United States' gross domestic product could reach nearly a trillion dollars. The proposal is called America's Climate Security Act, but with millions of jobs being destroyed because of this bill, not many Americans are going to be feeling secure. Many of the jobs lost are going to be in the manufacturing and mining industries that support so many of our smaller and rural communities. These valuable jobs will be forced to move overseas to countries like China and India, where companies will continue to emit greenhouse gases freely and without constraint. In case you haven't noticed, we all occupy the same big greenhouse--the planet Earth. So Americans lose their jobs, but our air on our planet is still polluted.

In fact, this bill makes such a minor impact on the worldwide greenhouse gas emissions that any reduction in the United States is swallowed up by the uncontrolled and rapidly growing emissions of China, India, and other developing nations.

If emissions continue to increase in these countries, the problems resulting from the global warming predicted by many scientists may still occur.

It just does not make sense for us to dramatically restrict our greenhouse gas emissions if China and India do not do the same.

If this bill isn't good for our families, our economy, our workers or our environment, who is it good for? The special interests and Washington lobbyists. By auctioning off carbon emission allowances and giving away even more for free, there will be more than $6 trillion dollars worth of allowances and offsets and funds to dole out to a hungry and a fierce pack of special interests. It's being called ``environmental pork,'' and the wolves are going to be ready to pounce. Hundreds of billions of dollars of that pork won't even stay here in America. Instead, it will be given away to foreign governments and companies.

So do we stand by as the proponents trot around this plan that means new taxes, higher gas prices, higher electricity bills, and more bureaucracy? In fact, the only thing this proposal reduces are the jobs of hard-working Americans and our standard of living.

Now, don't get me wrong, we absolutely need comprehensive energy reform. Americans are hurting at the pump and their budgets are being busted by rising cooling and heating bills. As a Nation, we are too dependent on Middle Eastern oil--a resource that is too often in the hands of brutal dictatorships.

But as is often the case in our Nation's history, we must look forward to a policy that unleashes the innovative spirit of Americans, takes a commonsense approach to our challenges, and rallies everyone to the cause.

We do this by encouraging conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy expansion through incentives, not by imposing unworkable mandates and impossible timelines.

As we spend time debating this legislation today, crucial tax credits that encourage innovation in solar, geothermal, wind, hydropower, and other alternative energy technologies are scheduled to expire. America's energy security needs those tax credits, and Congress should act to extend them immediately without offsets. The Senate

took an important step toward that objective by voting 88 to 8--to include the bipartisan Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act, which I sponsored as part of the Senate-passed housing bill. Now the House must act so we can send a bill to the President that can be signed into law as soon as possible.

With exciting energy technology on the horizon, we can't afford to let these tax credits expire. In Nevada, some innovative projects have already begun harnessing the power of the Sun and to provide energy to our residents.

Nevada Solar One in Boulder City is one of the largest capacity solar plants built in the world and generates enough electricity to power at least 14,000 households a year.

Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas has the Nation's biggest photovoltaic solar power system, which supplies 30 percent of the energy needs at that base.

Henderson has Nevada's first solar home community, where each home has a rooftop solar electric system that generates 4,400 kilowatts hours per year. And late last year, Ausra, Inc., selected Las Vegas as the site of the first U.S. manufacturing plant for solar thermal power systems.

The world's largest geothermal power producer is headquartered in Reno.

And Nevada is home to the only associate degree program in the Nation in energy efficiency.

This is the innovative spirit that has powered American progress for centuries and will continue to drive us toward energy security for the 21st century and beyond. Renewable energy is a large part of that security, and my renewable energy bill encourages further investment in all these technological advances.

I believe that energy efficiency is the key to increasing conservation of our nation's energy resources. For this reason, my bipartisan Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act contains a number of meaningful incentives to put us on the path to greater energy efficiency and independence. My bill encourages Americans to make energy efficiency improvements to their homes and businesses. This bill also encourages appliance manufacturers to produce more energy- efficient appliances.

But we also need to grow America's energy supply so that our economy and our wallets are not in the hands of unpredictable and unyielding hostile nations. What can we do? We can open a new frontier in American energy. I'm talking about responsible exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, recoverable oil in deep-sea resources, opportunities with oil shale, a new era of nuclear energy, and a push toward clean coal.

I know these projects are controversial. When I first started considering exploration of ANWR, I had serious concerns. Proponents and opponents have been very vocal on this issue. I sought out neutral information so that I could make an informed decision. When you really get to the bottom of the debate over ANWR, you learn a few things.

Exploration of ANWR, which would not impact habitat and wildlife, would be limited to a tiny area, roughly the size of a postage stamp on a football field. With such a limited environmental impact, the benefit would be great. ANWR could generate more than 10 billion barrels of oil, enough to replace decades' worth of oil imports from Saudi Arabia. ANWR alone could save the United States $40 billion dollars annually in money now spent buying oil from overseas. It would also create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Thirteen years ago, President Clinton vetoed legislation that would have opened ANWR for exploration. If he had signed it into law instead, 1 million barrels of domestic oil would be flowing into the United States every single day.

This is American oil that would create American jobs. I'd say that is a much better investment than filling the coffers of countries that despise America and use our money to further that hate.

And we can access more American energy through deep-sea exploration in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. This doesn't mean we set up oil rigs on our beaches and our shores. Development would take place at least 50 miles offshore, well beyond the visibility from land and at the discretion of coastal State Governors. Again, with very limited environmental impact, the benefit would be great.

There are about 8\1/2\ billion barrels of recoverable oil and 29.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas available through such deep-sea exploration.

Oil shale is another promising supply of American energy that could make us more self-reliant and less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Oil shale can be mined and processed to generate oil. By far the largest deposits of oil shale in the world are found in the United States in the Green River Formation, which includes portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. If we estimate there are about 1.8 trillion barrels of oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation, it is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. It is also important to note that more than 70 percent of oil shale acreage in the Green River Formation is under federally owned land. Another positive attribute of oil shale resources.

America has more than a 230-year supply also of coal. Making us the Saudi Arabia of coal. It would be irresponsible for us to ignore this valuable resource that is abundant and affordable. With the progress being made in clean coal technology, we need coal to balance our energy portfolio and make us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

Another energy supply that we can take advantage of right here on American soil is nuclear energy. America was once the leader in this technology, but we are so far behind today that if we don't make drastic changes in our policy, we may never catch up.

Nuclear energy is clean and safe. It causes no air pollution, no water pollution, and no ground pollution. Nuclear energy in the United States has never caused a single injury or death. Unfortunately, only 20 percent of our electricity is coming from nuclear reactors. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

We have several challenges when it comes to nuclear energy. President Carter outlawed nuclear recycling back in 1977. Another terrible blow came with the requirement that all radioactive byproducts be disposed of in a nuclear waste repository. Today, Britain, France, and Russia are recycling their nuclear waste, negating the need for a controversial repository, like Yucca Mountain. France has actually used nuclear power to produce 80 percent of its electricity for the last 25 years. France also manages to store all its high-level nuclear waste in a single room.

On the other hand, lawmakers in the United States have been throwing billions of dollars at a mountain in Nevada that is unsafe and unfit for nuclear waste storage. And why on Earth would we bury material that could be recycled into more energy? I also believe we must create incentives for the private sector to tackle the challenge of spent fuel storage. We know that Yucca mountain is not an option. For this reason, I plan to introduce a bill to establish monetary prizes for achievements in the research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of spent fuel storage alternatives. In the past, prized competitions have been very effective ways of encouraging creative solutions to address difficult technological challenges.

Technology has led to tremendous progress when it comes to nuclear energy, coal, and many other energy fronts. As ranking member of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation, I have had the opportunity to delve into the latest advances, and they are exciting. I can tell you technology and innovation will be keys to overcoming our energy challenges into the future. No other single road--renewable energy, conservation, domestic supply--can get us there. But technology, together with these American energy resources, will help lift us from the control of unconscionable nations.

These are the answers to our energy challenges, not some ill- conceived fantasy legislation called America's Climate Security Act, that will only drive us into greater energy insecurity. We can, however, learn from history and if we open this Trojan horse, we shouldn't be surprised to be engulfed by hidden tax hikes, $5 dollar-a- gallon gasoline, and an army of new Washington bureaucrats.

Instead, let us put our resources into American ingenuity. The innovation that has always come out of our inventors, scientists, and entrepreneurs will fuel our quest for energy security in the 21st century.

Ronald Reagan once said:

Preservation of our environment is not liberal or

conservative challenge, it's common sense.

We need to come together to address this issue because it impacts every facet of our lives. I know that we can be champions of a commonsense energy policy that is environmentally responsible as well as economically responsible. Let's not look back on another 13 years and wish we had acted today. The price for inaction is clearly too steep.

I yield the floor.

We have both had the pleasure to know and work with Joe. He was a brilliant man a Minnesota native who received three degrees, in physics, nuclear engineering, and technology and policy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He received his law degree from Columbia University. During his lifetime, Joe did everything from working in the control room of a nuclear powerplant to serving as president of the International Nuclear Law Association. Joe was a strong supporter of nuclear energy. Throughout his life, he fought for the development of sensible, sound, and safe nuclear policies.

Joe served as Nevada's lead attorney in the fight against dumping nuclear waste in Nevada. Applying his deep knowledge of the law and nuclear engineering, Joe helped the State of Nevada in our fight against Yucca Mountain.

The work that Joe has accomplished during his lifetime will forever stand as a fitting testament to his character. He was an amazing lawyer, a great father, and he will be sorely missed by all. My sincere condolences go out to his family.

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

Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to address some of the critical issues this body faces at this point in history, and to reflect on why these challenges are surmountable if we focus on working together to forge ahead.

These are clearly not easy times. We are engaged in a global battle for the future of freedom. We are up against radical Islamic extremists who will do anything they can to annihilate those who do not live and believe their way.

At home, we face some daunting questions when it comes to expanding opportunity for all Americans. So do we follow a proven path of tax relief? Can we change the way we educate our children to prepare them for global competition in the 21st century? How do we provide quality health care that is accessible and affordable for all of our families? How do we secure our borders and strengthen legal immigration? Can we come together to make difficult decisions about the future of entitlements before they bankrupt this country?

Today, we face the task of funding the global war against Islamic extremists, providing our troops with the resources they need and prioritizing funding so we do not incur unnecessary debt.

Yes, these are tough questions, with serious consequences. But more than two centuries ago, a group of patriots convened to write our Constitution, and they provided the framework for the Government in which we have the honor to serve today.

They faced questions we take for granted centuries later but which could only have been resolved by incredible vision and the grace of God.

As Delegate James Wilson stated:

. . . we are providing a Constitution for future generations

and not merely for the circumstances of the moment.

How votes would be apportioned in the Congress was one of the first and most difficult questions this convention tackled. The smaller States wanted an equal vote, and the larger States, obviously, preferred a proportional vote. Some argued that the vote in the lower House should be based on taxes paid. There were threats of breaking up States to make them smaller and more manageable to govern. Decisions had to be made regarding the terms of Members of Congress. How would they be paid? What powers would be granted to the Government?

Remember, this was a country that had fought its way out from under the control of a powerful monarchy. The Framers of the Constitution were incredibly aware of that fact.

The Great Compromise was the measure that gave every State two Senators. But would foreigners be permitted to serve in the Congress? Where would the seat of Government be? Would officers of the Government be required to swear an oath to support the Constitution? Who would ratify the Constitution--the States or the people?

To think today about the number of decisions and compromises that were made over the course of a summer is humbling. The North Carolina delegates wrote to their Governor:

A very large Field presents to our view without a single

Straight or eligible Road that has been trodden by the feet

of Nations.

Yet great thought, debate, and deliberation went into every single decision. Issues were often revisited time and again before a consensus was painstakingly reached.

The Constitution was by no means thrown together quickly or haphazardly. Once decisions were ultimately made about the branches of Government and their powers, a document needed to be artfully drafted to steer the United States in 1787 as well as for generations to come. The product was nothing short of miraculous. Yet the Constitution was still not a done deal.

The Constitution and its revolutionary ideas had many supporters, but it also faced fierce opposition. It was described as ``a most ridiculous piece of business'' by some. Those who stood against the Constitution honed in on people's fears. After all, this was a completely experimental government with no proven model to follow. As delegate Davie of North Carolina declared: ``It is much easier to alarm people than to inform them.''

Fortunately for this Nation the constitutionalists prevailed. To study the transformation of a blank slate of hopes and aspirations to a functioning Constitution that would guide a democracy for more than 200 years is awesome. There are several valuable lessons that I wish to share with my colleagues.

It is difficult to pass legislation today with a closely divided Senate. It was painfully difficult to make decisions about forming a new government and then determine and agree on what should be included in our Constitution. To make progress even more frustrating, a subject already voted on could be reconsidered again the next day and voted on again.

But these men did not let the process interfere with their progress. Their experience and their reasonableness

shined during the most difficult days. They understood if they were serious about creating this Constitution, they would have to work together and consider and respect each other's differences.

In the end, the Constitution was the work of those for it and those against it. They came to many compromises in order to make the final product that all could live with. John Adams described the Constitution as:

If not the greatest exertion of human understanding, the

greatest single effort of national deliberation that the

world has ever seen.

Although I serve as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, I have always prided myself on reaching across the aisle to work for the common good. For example, my home State of Nevada has greatly benefited from the work Senator Reid and I have done together on several public lands bills. He brings certain people to the table who trust him; I bring others to the table who trust me. We encourage a dialogue that has resulted in crucial legislation for our State. I imagine this is the kind of give and take that made the Constitution possible.

Another important lesson from the Constitutional Convention was the understanding of the implications that our leaders' words have around the world. There were people who were completely opposed to the Constitution, but they knew how damaging their opinions could be, especially if those opinions were made overseas.

Benjamin Franklin stated:

The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrificed to the

public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them

abroad. Within these walls they were born and here they shall

die.

I think this is a critical flaw that is too often made in this body today. Our words have consequences. Today, it is much more difficult to contain what we say. Technology ensures that our enemies have access to the same television shows, Internet sites, and newspapers that our citizens have today. It is naive to think that a debate on the floor about retreating from Iraq has no impact on those plotting against us. It absolutely feeds into their strategy and their hope for our failure and our demise. We should all remember Benjamin Franklin's approach of working to contain our opinions that may be harmful to our Nation.

Finally, there comes a time after a contentious issue when we must come together and move forward. Abraham White, a fierce opponent to the Constitution, gave his word that he would work to convince his constituents to submit to the new law of the land and to live in peace under it.

Mr. President, 220 years ago, the States were in the midst of deciding whether they would ratify the Constitution. It was the pinnacle of a turbulent summer that left many of our delegates amazed at what they had actually achieved. George Washington called it ``little short of a miracle.'' The entire effort, from the first days of the convention to the parades that celebrated the United States and its Constitution, was in fact a miracle. Benjamin Rush, a Philadelphia physician who signed the Declaration of Independence, described the unparalleled emotion that was shared by all during the Philadelphia celebration of the Fourth of July--even greater than at any wartime victory. His description included the words: ``We have become a Nation.''

It is overwhelming to think about the work that was done hundreds of years ago so that we could continue to live and uphold the tenets of an enduring Constitution today. What a remarkable tribute to the delegates of the Convention and to the leaders whose vision led to the ratification of our Constitution.

I hope we can keep in mind the many hurdles overcome in 1787 by the Constitutional Convention and the men who were gathered there and come together in drafting a real supplemental that will fund our troops, give our military leaders the tools they need, and show the Nation we are united and that we are committed together in this global war against radical Islamic extremists. We have a tremendous legacy on which to continue building. Let's commit to doing that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of this resolution to recognize Cuba Solidarity Day and the struggle of the Cuban people as they continue to fight for freedom. Cuba Solidarity Day is a call for the world to join together in the fight against oppression in Cuba. It is a way of drawing attention to the injustices faced by the people of Cuba under the current regime and a way of saying that our country stands together with the Cuban people as they work toward democratic change.

I believe that it is our country's duty to push for a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba. It is a travesty that, more than a decade after the Cold War ended, a brutal communist dictator is still oppressing people just miles off the coast of Florida.

The people of Cuba continue to be denied the most basic human rights and the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly. It is estimated that more than

220 individuals are being held as political prisoners by the communist regime in Cuba. For the dissidents suffering prison terms, and for their families and loved ones, their suffering is real. And it is our duty as a free nation to let them know that we remember them, that they are not forgotten, and that their suffering is for a purpose. They must know that the world is watching and that we will not rest and will not tire and will keep working to support them until they are finally free.

I am reminded of the story that Natan Sharansky tells about his time in the Soviet gulag, when word came that President Reagan had called the Soviet Union an ``Evil Empire.'' For the political prisoners, it was the first sign that they had not been forgotten. It was a signal to them that the leader of the world's most powerful democracy had no illusions about the true nature of that regime, that he knew of their plight and was ready to call the Soviet system what is was--evil.

This resolution sends a signal to all the dissidents and political prisoners in Cuba that we have no illusions about the nature of Castro's brother's brutal regime and that we know of their plight and stand ready to help them.

I truly believe there is hope. We are witnessing a remarkable time in history as freedom prevails in places that were once rife with oppression. As former Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel once said, ``without free, self-respecting, and autonomous citizens there can be no free and independent nations.'' It is now time for the world to voice its support of the Cuban people so they too can rise above the injustice of the communist regime and finally achieve the freedom and independence of a democratic nation.

Mr. President. I wish to speak about Government barriers to competition in the aviation sector. Like many of my colleagues, I am disappointed that the Senate was unable to pass the legislation reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration last week. This is a difficult and dynamic time for the aviation industry, and it is important that Congress review and update our Nation's aviation policies.

Rising ticket prices and increasing delays have made the flying experience more unpleasant for many travelers. Any inefficiencies introduced into the system only serve to exacerbate such problems. Therefore, I believe it is important that Congress reduce barriers to competition whenever possible so that the marketplace can best serve consumers and the public interest.

One issue that needs to be addressed is how Government-imposed slot controls at a handful of U.S. airports effectively bar the entry of new airline competitors at those airports. These federally regulated slot controls are intended to reduce congestion-related delays; this congestion mitigation, however, comes at the expense of open competition.

Once slots at an airport have been doled out to the airlines, it becomes very difficult for new entrant carriers to break into the airport because the market has essentially been closed. Airlines with limited operations at these airports face similar problems should they wish to increase their presence in an effort to compete with the larger airlines. Because the marketplace has been artificially constrained, this leads to higher ticket prices and fewer flight options for travelers.

It has been proven time and again that prices go down and flight options go up when airlines are allowed to freely compete. The Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration should take every step possible to ensure that competition can flourish at these slot-controlled airports. As these agencies administer congestion programs, I hope that they will develop mechanisms that will allow for new entrants to compete with

the more entrenched airlines at these airports. If they are unable to do so, it may be up to us in Congress to provide them with legislative guidance to ensure a more open marketplace.

Another arbitrary barrier that Congress should address is the outdated perimeter restriction at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. For over 40 years, Federal law has restricted flights at Reagan National and delayed the arrival of competition at the airport. With Senator Boxer and Senator McCain, I introduced an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill to revise Reagan National's outdated perimeter restriction.

The American flying public has shown strong demand for more flights between the Western United States and the Washington, DC, area. Unfortunately, the perimeter rule prevents airlines from responding to that demand by largely prohibiting flights to western cities such as San Francisco, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Denver, and Seattle. Revising the Reagan National perimeter restriction would help free-market competition, directly benefiting consumers. While I am disappointed that the FAA reauthorization bill was pulled from the floor before my amendment could be considered, I will continue to work with my colleagues to find a way to revise the perimeter restriction so that air service between the West and Reagan National is increased in a market-based manner.

We owe it to the American flying public to squeeze every last bit of efficiency out of our aviation system. As the Senate considers aviation issues in the future, I hope my colleagues will work together to reduce the artificial barriers to competition created by well-intentioned yet burdensome Government regulations.