Floor Statements

Mr. President, on August 1, 2008, the Senate passed H.R. 6432, the Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of 2008. Title I of this bill includes the reauthorization of the FDA's animal drug user fee program, while title II of this bill establishes the FDA's generic animal drug user fee program.

Performance goals, existing outside of the statute, accompany the authorization of animal drug user fees and animal generic drug user fees. These goals represent realistic projections of what the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine can accomplish with industry cooperation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services forwarded these goals to the chairmen of the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of the Senate, in documents entitled ``Animal Drug User Fee Act Performance Goals and Procedures'' and ``Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act Performance Goals and Procedures.''

According to section 101(b) of H.R. 6432, ``the fees authorized by the amendments made in this Act will be dedicated toward expediting the animal drug development process and the review of new and supplemental animal drug applications and investigational animal drug submissions as set forth in the goals identified, for purposes of part 4 of subchapter C of chapter VII of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, in the letters from the Secretary of Health and Human Services to the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate as set forth in the Congressional Record.''

According to section 201(b) of H.R. 6432, ``the fees authorized by this title will be dedicated toward expediting the generic new animal drug development process and the review of abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs, supplemental abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs, and investigational submissions for generic new animal drugs as set forth in the goals identified in the letters from the Secretary of Health and Human Services to the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate as set forth in the Congressional Record.''

Today I am submitting for the Record these documents, on behalf of Senator Kennedy, who could not be here today, which were forwarded to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on July 30, 2008, as well as the letter from Secretary Leavitt that accompanied the transmittal of this document.

I ask unanimous consent to have material printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 6432, a bill that reauthorizes the Animal Drug User Fee Act, or ADUFA, and create a new user fee for the approval of generic animal drugs. This bill also addresses the use of antibiotics in animals, and technical corrections to last year's Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act.

Like human drugs, animal drugs must be shown to be safe and effective before they can be marketed. An animal drug can take 7 to 10 years to develop, at a cost of $100 million or more. ADUFA supports the review of animal drugs by authorizing FDA to collect fees for animal drug applications, and for the establishments, products, and sponsors associated with these products.

This program is similar to the user fee programs for human drugs and medical devices which we renewed last year. Like those programs, ADUFA expires October 1. If we do not act on this bill, 60 valuable FDA employees could be laid off. Even if we simply delay renewal of this program, those employees will receive a ``reduction in force,'' or RIF notice, indicating they might be let go. Many will make that possibility a reality, and leave the agency, taking their talent with them.

ADUFA has been a success. The program has eliminated the review backlog for new animal drugs, improved the timeliness and predictability of reviews, and improved communication between companies and the FDA throughout the process. The renewal of this program will continue to enhance FDA review capacity, including more support for increasingly complex reviews. Also, there is a growing backlog of premarket inspections of foreign animal drug producing facilities, which is a very timely issue. The renewal of ADUFA would better prioritize those inspections, and eliminate the backlog, helping to keep our animal drug supply safe.

The renewal of this important animal health program would nearly double funding levels to $98 million over 5 years. I want to be clear that the renewal of this program does not speed up the review of new animal drugs. It holds FDA to the same performance goals for review times--it just keeps review times from getting slower.

The bill we are considering today contains another important advance for animal drugs. Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, FDA is required to review and act on generic animal drug applications within 180 days. Unfortunately, in fiscal year 2007, the average review time for generic animal drug applications was 570 days, and there was a backlog of 446 of these submissions. Without Congressional action,

the proposed target for action in fiscal year 2009 is 700 days--nearly 2 years. This is an untenable position.

We all know that FDA is seriously underfunded. Like many of you, I would prefer that appropriations be used to fund the agency's activities. But that is simply not in the offing. An appropriated dollar is better than a user fee dollar, but a user fee dollar is better than no dollar at all. The Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act under consideration today would create a new program to fund the reviews of animal generic drugs. This program will lead to progressive improvements in performance, with the time for review and action on submissions decreasing each year.

If we do not proceed with this initiative, our farmers, ranchers, veterinarians and pet owners like you and me will not be able to capture the savings that result from generic animal drug use. I want to point out that even with the creation of this new user fee, the performance goals do not return animal generic drug review times to the statutory requirement of 180 days. By fiscal year 2013, the fifth year of the program, the proposed review target is 270 days. Once again, the best we can do is to keep things from getting much worse as quickly.

The bill before us today also includes a section expanding and streamlining the reporting of the amount of antibiotics that are used to treat animals that are sold annually and the label information about those antibiotics. This reporting language is a carefully crafted compromise between the farmer, rancher and veterinarian communities on one side and those who think the FDA has inadequate information to assess the potential public health impact of antibiotic use on the other. I appreciate the House Members and staff and outside groups who worked together to achieve this agreement.

Finally, this bill contains just two of several changes necessary to properly implement the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. As with any large piece of legislation, there are some technical corrections necessary to fix inadvertent errors in the law.

These technical corrections are critical to ensuring that key drug safety and transparency provisions in the bill work as intended. I am disappointed that we could not complete agreement on a package in time to attach the package to ADUFA. I am even more discouraged that the House chose to cherry-pick just the technical corrections they wanted and attach those instead.

But given the approaching deadline for renewing ADUFA, we cannot afford to hold this important program hostage to unrelated provisions. I intend to continue pressing for passage of a full package of technical corrections. I appreciate Chairman Dingell's commitment to continuing to meet and work on this, and I look forward to preparing a full package of technical corrections that can be accepted by both Houses and go into effect.

I thank my colleagues for their hard work on these proposals. We have some work still ahead of us, but the bill before us today contains much that is good. I strongly urge my colleagues to support final passage.

Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in the Senate and the House, and with the people whose lives he touched all across the Nation, in saying how sorry I was to learn of the passing of Jesse Helms on July 4. He was a remarkable man, and he has left his mark on the United States that he loved so very much and the State of North Carolina that he served with great pride. He will not be forgotten.

Jesse Helms was an American in every sense of the word--one who was firmly and staunchly dedicated to the principles upon which our country was founded. Those principles guided him through his life and helped him to make every difficult decision that confronted him in his 86 years of life.

Jesse Helms was an established force in the Senate by the time I arrived. As a freshman Senator I knew I had a lot to learn and I was able to learn a lot from him as we served together and worked on several issues that meant a great deal to us both. We didn't always agree, but I always found him to be a man of his word who said what he meant and meant what he said. You always knew where you stood with him and when he said ``Yes'' you knew that you could count on him to do what he said he would.

Many of us come to Washington hoping to change Washington. Then, with the passage of time, we find that instead of changing Washington, Washington has changed us. How we are changed says a lot about us and our commitment to the principles and values that motivated us to run for the Senate in the first place.

That kind of change is only natural and, for many of us, the changes that occur help us to see other viewpoints and perspectives and make it possible for us to work with Members on both sides of the aisle so we can achieve common goals and work for the best interests of the United States and the American people.

Like so many of us, Jesse Helms was changed by his experience in the Senate. One of the most notable examples was the President's foreign AIDS relief package we worked on together.

For years Jesse was opposed to providing any assistance to countries fighting the AIDS epidemic. Some thought he would always oppose any kind of relief. Then, Bono, who is a powerful advocate for the cause, made an appointment to see Jesse Helms so he could share the human side of the problem with him.

I guess no one had been able to put a human face on the AIDS epidemic for him before. However Bono was able to do it, he was able to touch Jesse's heart and convince him that the need was real--and the right thing to do. In response, Jesse was big enough to admit that he had been wrong. After Bono's presentation, Jesse decided to work on a proposal that would provide the needed funds to fight AIDS in Africa. The proposal was passed and signed into law, and thanks in part to his support, countless lives were saved. It is no coincidence that the reauthorization of this legislation that he worked so hard to pass was recently enacted into law by President Bush. It is a part of his legacy that will continue on after him and make a difference all over the world for many years to come.

That is but one facet of his character, and one we are all familiar with. And, now that he has been taken from us, we will all take with us many more memories that come from our service with Jesse Helms in the Senate.

A lot of what we remember about Jesse Helms and his service in the Senate would surprise those who only knew him by reputation because people thought he was a tough guy. But when you met him, you quickly came to see that he was a friendly person. He enjoyed greeting the tourists he met in the Halls and he made them all feel welcome because he always had a kind word for everyone he met. Those who worked here in the Capitol liked him because he treated them all with kindness and respect.

At the top of Jesse's list were those who work with us to help the House and Senate function as it should--especially the pages. I don't think Jesse Helms ever missed a chance to say ``Thank you!'' to the pages for their service to the Congress. That was just one of the ways that Jesse honored the Senate's traditions and respected the office he was elected to hold.

I remember a story he told me about his first Senate race. The campaign was in full swing, but Jesse's numbers didn't look too good. Then one day he ran into a fellow Mason who handed him a Masonic lapel pin. ``Here,'' he said. ``Wear this during your campaign and I guarantee you that you will win.''

He took his friend's advice and wore the pin every day. Then, when the votes were counted, Jesse was the newly elected Senator from North Carolina.

He told me that story while we were in the cloakroom and I was watching him put a new back on the pin that now showed a lot of use. I told him that I was a Mason, too. As he put the pin back on his lapel, he told me that he had worn that pin every day since his friend gave it to him during that first Senate campaign.

As I came to know him, I saw that Jesse and I shared a great fondness and appreciation for the youth organizations that are recognized by the Congress. He knew that they were teaching our kids things they weren't going to be getting any other way. He knew that these groups were helping our kids learn how to be good citizens and good students and to stand up for the things they believed in. He knew that they were helping to prepare our young people for the challenges they would face in school and later, in life.

One organization we both worked to support was the Boy Scouts. He was a strong supporter of Scouting and he stood up for them whenever they were unfairly criticized or attacked. His response to each attack was to craft a bill that protected the promotion of volunteerism, values and faith to ensure those valuable lessons would continue to be taught to the Scouts.

That is just one example of Jesse's commitment to the values that meant so very much to him. That is why he was able to get a lot of things done over the years. His success was based on his strong foundation of values and beliefs that he would stand fast on and that was enough for him to win on most occasions. Watching him in action on the floor or in committee taught me that conviction counts, especially when you are firm and comfortable in what you believe.

Jesse was a kind, soft spoken, effective, persistent and successful individual. He paid attention to people and they responded to him--in North Carolina and across the country. Another of his great political secrets was his understanding that a problem always appears bigger if it is your own. That's why the people of his State sent him back to the Senate for five terms. He listened to the people of North Carolina, he understood them, and he made their problems his own.

Now that the last chapter of his life has been written, Jesse Helms' record speaks for itself. It reflects the fact that he was never concerned with being popular or taking positions because they mirrored the results of the latest poll. His focus was always on doing what was right--because it was the right thing to do. I think he owes his perspective on life to some advice his father gave him that helped to shape his character and point him toward his destiny. Jesse would often share his father's words with others, ``The Lord does not require you to win, but he does require you to try.''

Jesse never forgot what his father told him. In fact, he lived those words by putting them into practice every day. No matter the odds or how impossible the situation was, Jesse stayed true to the life lesson his father taught him many years ago.

Now that he has been taken from us, it will be for others to judge his place

in history and the impact his life had on the Nation. Whatever is decided, for me and for so many others, the record will show that Jesse Helms didn't always win, but he never let the fear of losing keep him from fighting for a cause he believed in. For Jesse Helms, the glory came not from victory, but from giving all he had in a noble effort in support of a worthy cause.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the conference agreement of the Higher Education Opportunity Act, which would reauthorize the Higher Education Act. This conference agreement represents a major victory for America's students and families. I can't say enough about the tremendous role that Senator Mikulski has played in getting this wrapped up. I often say, on bills it takes 90 percent of the time to get the 90 percent done, and the other 10 percent also takes 90 percent of the time. I think she did a significant job of cutting that other 90 percent to get the 10 percent done.

My only regret is that Senator Kennedy isn't here to share in this great moment. He has been working on this with me for 3 years. We actually worked a little bit on it before that. Without his able help on this bill and the superb help of his staff, who have continued to work on it, we wouldn't be in this position today. I will be eternally grateful, though, that he asked Senator Mikulski to step in and help out. She has been tireless and has done a phenomenal job. Without her leadership, we also wouldn't be here at this moment.

This is an important step, and it will have an impact on the lives of students of all ages for years to come. It is much like the launch just over 50 years ago of the Sputnik satellite that sparked a great debate about our place in the space race. The success of Sputnik sent shockwaves through the Nation. Russia was getting the better of us technologically, and we couldn't allow that to happen. It sparked a change in our education policies, and it sparked America to do what it does best, which is to rise to the challenge with innovation and a marked determination to be second to none. No longer could we rest on our past triumphs as a nation. We met the challenge of Sputnik through the National Defense Education Act.

Today, we are again being challenged but in a different way.

Now, instead of a race for space, it is a race for knowledge and skills that confronts us. It is a race we dare not lose, for the stakes this time are even higher. What is at risk is our strong economy. The solution to this difficult problem is to make a college education more accessible, more affordable, and more accountable for more Americans. It is more important than ever to make sure students and their families have good information to use on making decisions about college.

We find ourselves at a time when 200 of the 230 highest wage, highest paying, and in-demand jobs require some college education. In this environment, it is necessary for America's students to be able to access the tools and assistance they will need to complete their college education and acquire the knowledge and skills that will enable them to be successful in the 21st century economy.

Institutions of higher education and employers have expressed their dissatisfaction with the fact that our high school graduates need remediation in order to do college-level work or to participate in the workforce. Each year, taxpayers pay an estimated $1 billion to $2 billion to provide remedial education to students at our public universities and community colleges. The cost to employers is even greater.

The legislation before us will take historic steps to provide students with the tools, the means, and the power to get a higher education.

We can all appreciate the complexity of the Federal student aid system. Filling out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, prevents many of our students from even considering college. We have taken that from multipages down to three pages--incidentally, that is both sides. One of the significant things is that it has kept people from even applying for financial aid, and without the financial aid, they cannot go to college. In 2004, an estimated 850,000 individuals who would have been eligible for Pell did not file a FAFSA. Completing bureaucratic financial-aid forms should not be a barrier to thousands of students who need financial aid to attend college.

This bill breaks down FAFSA to just those necessary questions to determine a student's financial need. In addition, Federal agencies will be required to examine and reduce the amount of information needed to establish eligibility for student aid. We also have included sunshine and transparency requirements for institutions, lenders, and guaranty agencies to restore confidence in student loan programs and eliminate the appearance of inappropriate arrangements.

As important as it is to increase the number of first-time college- going students, the fact is that nontraditional students are the students of the future. With seven community colleges in Wyoming, I know the value of serving adult learners who are returning to college for additional education and training. This agreement provides Pell grants for year-round education. You can think of it as 9 months and 3 months off, but people who are in this position need to be able to go continuously until they get the certification or degree they are working for. Again, this agreement provides Pell grants for year-round education, so students can complete their programs more quickly.

One issue I have concerns with is the maintenance of effort provision. I am worried that it may serve as a disincentive to States to reasonably allocate resources to higher education. I expect that we will find the provision unworkable, and we will be back in the future to make technical changes to fix it. We will leave that for another day.

For students today, a higher education is no longer optional. Without a lifetime of education, training, and retraining opportunities for everyone, we will not meet the 21st century challenges. This historic piece of legislation goes a long way toward meeting our commitment to all Americans.

This conference report is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill and an important accomplishment because we followed the 80/20 rule. We focused on the 80 percent of the issues we could agree on, not the 20 percent we disagreed on. We also followed the regular order to craft this bill. It went through committee and was considered on the floor. The House did the same. Then we met with the House to draft a conference report. This process takes time, but the result is an important accomplishment for America's students and their families. What we are doing today will make a great difference in the lives of our children and our grandchildren for many years to come.

I thank all of the members of both the Senate and the House committees, and in particular Senator Kennedy for working toward this goal for years and keeping his commitment that we would get this done. Senator Kennedy has long been a champion for education in our country. He shares my determination that the education we provide to students of all ages will be second to none. That is a difficult challenge. When he and I started on this challenge to reauthorize the Higher Education Act 3\1/2\ years ago, we knew there would be many bumps along the way. I believe we hit every single one of those bumps, but he provided the kind of leadership in committee, in the Senate, and in the Congress that made it possible for us to reach this agreement today.

I also thank Senator Mikulski for the key role she played in assuring that we reached agreement on the bill.

In addition, I acknowledge the tremendous work of Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon of the House Education and Labor Committee. There were a tremendous number of meetings between us to work in a very positive way toward getting to this point.

As well, I thank Congressmen Hinojosa and Keller of the subcommittee. They helped to shepherd this bill through the House so we could take it up on the Senate floor.

There are many congressional staff who worked on this conference report. The breadth and importance of the issues, not to mention the length of the legislation, requires many people working on it to get it done.

I have always said that I have a staff worthy of gold medals and my staff who worked on this bill have shown their gold medal status once again. I must first acknowledge and thank Beth Buehlmann, my education policy director. It is no exaggeration to state that without Beth there would be no Higher Education Act reauthorization bill today. She truly was the force to start the reauthorization 3 \1/2\ years ago. She worked tirelessly to ensure that we drafted a bill to reflect the changing nature of our student bodies as well as to ensure that we, as a Nation, will maintain our status as having the best education system in the world. Her team of Ann Clough, Adam Briddell, Kelly Hastings, and Lindsay Hunsicker is comprised of remarkable individuals who brought their talents and knowledge to the forefront in this bill. I would also like to thank my staff director, Ilyse Schuman, and Greg Dean, Amy Shank, Randi Reid, John Hallmark, and Ron Hindle who also put in many hours and added invaluable input into the bill as well as the overall process.

I would also like to thank members of Senator Kennedy's staff for their hard work--Michael Myers, Carmel Martin, JD LaRock, Missy Rohrbach, Erin Renner, Roberto Rodriquez, and Emma Vadehra.

Additionally, I would like to thank all of the other HELP Committee staff for their hard work throughout this process, especially David Cleary and Sarah Rittling of Senator Alexander's subcommittee staff. Also deserving thanks are our Republican members' staff, including Allison Dembeck, Celia Sims, Glee Smith, Karen McCarthy, Juliann Andreen, Alison Anway, John van Meter, and Elizabeth Floyd, as well as their Democratic staff counterparts. Also, I would like to thank Scott Raab from Senator McConnell's office for helping us work through some of the more difficult issues in the negotiations.

Also deserving my gratitude is the House staff including Mark Zuckerman, Alex Nock, Gabriella Gomez, Julie Radocchia, and Jeff Appel with Chairman Miller's staff and Sally Stroup, James Bergeron, and Amy Jones with Mr. McKeon's staff.

Also, with any piece of legislation that we draft, we should not forget the legislative counsels in both bodies who worked tirelessly to put this 1,000 plus page agreement together--Steve Cope, Molly Lothamer, Mark Koster, Kristin Romero, and Amy Gaynor--who all deserve to be recognized.

I look forward to getting the conference report to President Bush for his signature soon so that students and their families who are making plans to attend college this fall will have the benefits of this bill to help them.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

I believe under the previous order we will move to Senator Murkowski for 5 minutes at this point.

The Senator from Oklahoma has up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have?

Mr. President, I won't use nearly that much time, and I would be happy to share with my colleague, if she wants to make some closing remarks as well.

I rise to summarize why the Higher Education Opportunity Act is a major victory for America's students and their families and for our future economic security. Simply put, it ensures that a college education, which is the gateway to the future for working families and for businesses, will be within their reach in the years to come.

I thank those who have made their comments earlier: the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, and the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, who pointed out some things that still need to be done in the area of higher education. It would have been nice to have been able to do them in the bill.

One of those is deregulation. If we have that much paper, that many billions of dollars' worth of paper that need to be done, it is time for us to appoint a task force to evaluate their usefulness. I did that with some of the elementary education issues the first year I was here, and we found that every single paper that was submitted to the Department of Education was looked at to be sure that every blank was filled in and every ``t'' was crossed and every ``I'' was dotted. Our disappointment was that they were then filed away and nobody made any use of them.

We were able to get rid of some of those forms. Obviously, this is an even bigger opportunity.

The Senator from Oklahoma pointed out the lack of metrics for progress in these areas. Although there are new programs, past experience has been that many of them do not get funded because they have to come out of discretionary funds. They are good ideas that probably will never happen. But it would be a good idea to have metrics in there so we can gauge how well things are doing. We have a law that provides for that kind of measurement and requires each agency have a program to set up the guidelines by which we can measure, and then they are required to measure. I have noticed over the years that there are a number of agencies that are actually failing their own evaluations. We never do anything with that, which is another challenge.

Our country is being challenged today, and it is a challenge we cannot afford to lose. We are engaged in a race for knowledge and skills, and the nation that wins will have a head start on building a stronger economy. The solution to this challenge is to make a college education more accessible, affordable, and accountable for all Americans. That is what we are trying to do in the Higher Education Opportunity Act.

In this era of rising college costs, students and families must have good information to use when making decisions about which college to attend, how to finance their college education, and how to manage their student loans once they are out of college. This agreement is about good information, sunshine, and transparency. College is no longer an option. It is a necessity. Most good jobs today require some college. I want to make sure everyone has access to the education and training they will need to be successful in the global economy. This legislation gets us much closer to that goal.

I am pleased to say that with the passage of this agreement, we will have completed the work of two of the four pieces that make up Federal education and training policy.

Late last year we finished Head Start. Today we will finish higher education. We still have more work to do because we must reauthorize and improve the Workforce Investment Act so that our workers have the skills they need to be successful in an increasingly skill-driven economy. That leaves reauthorizing No Child Left Behind to complete our education task.

Mr. President, as this debate on this legislation comes to a close, it is necessary to thank those who have worked long and hard on this bill. First and foremost, I thank Chairman Kennedy for his commitment to keeping this process bipartisan, and working with me and all of my Republican colleagues on the HELP Committee throughout this entire process, lately by telephone, but with the same passion and enthusiasm.

I also thank Senator Mikulski for taking the helm and getting us to the finish line when others might have given up.

Because this has been a bipartisan, bicameral process, I want to thank our House counterparts--Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, Congressman Hinojosa, and Congressman Keller--for their commitment to working with us to find ways to reach

an agreement on issues that many thought would be impossible to achieve.

There are many other Members I wish to thank for contributing the time and effort they did to make sure we were putting together good policy. It is difficult to single out just a few. I have to immensely thank every single Senator who is on my committee, both Republican and Democrat. That is where we share ideas. That is where most of the changes in the bills are made. That is where people are able to get together and debate at length their ideas for how to make things better. And we do.

I thank Senators Alexander, Burr, and Coburn for their comments. They have disagreements on some of the key issues in the conference report, but, nonetheless, they continued to work to reach a resolution and improve the final product.

There are many congressional staff who worked on this conference report. The breadth and importance of the issues, not to mention the length of the legislation, requires many people working many hours to get it done. Actually, it is not only many hours or many days or many weeks or many months--but this one has been many years.

I have always said I have a staff worthy of gold medals, and my staff who worked on this bill have shown their gold medal status once again. I must first acknowledge and thank Beth Buehlmann, my education policy director. It is no exaggeration to state that without Beth, I do not think there would be a Higher Education Act reauthorization today. That is what I hired her for several years ago. She truly was the force to start the reauthorization 3\1/2\ years ago. She worked tirelessly to ensure that we drafted a bill to reflect the changing nature of our student bodies, as well as to ensure that we, as a nation, will maintain our status as having the best education system in the world.

Her team of Ann Clough, Adam Briddell, Kelly Hastings, and Lindsay Hunsicker is comprised of remarkable individuals who brought their talents and knowledge to the forefront in this bill.

I also thank my staff director, Ilyse Schuman, and Greg Dean, Amy Shank, Randi Reid, John Hallmark, and Ron Hindle, who also put in many hours and added invaluable input into this bill as well as the overall process.

I also thank members of Senator Kennedy's staff for their hard work: Michael Myers, who has been tireless on this and has provided the kind of leadership that coordinated it through some of these difficult times; Carmel Martin, the expert on education; JD LaRock; Missy Rohrbach, who, incidentally, had twin babies today, a boy and a girl. It is my understanding she is doing well. She worked while pregnant and helped to get this pregnant bill done. I also thank Erin Renner, Roberto Rodriguez, and Emma Vadehra of Senator Kennedy's staff.

Additionally, I thank all of the other HELP Committee staff for their hard work throughout this process, especially David Cleary and Sarah Rittling of Senator Alexander's subcommittee staff. Also deserving thanks are our Republican Members' staff, including Allison Dembeck, Celia Sims, Glee Smith, Karen McCarthy, Juliann Andreen, Alison Anway, John van Meter, and Elizabeth Floyd, as well as their Democratic staff counterparts. Also, I thank Scott Raab from Senator McConnell's office and Jim Johnson in Senator Shelby's office for helping us work through some of the more difficult issues in the negotiations.

Also deserving my gratitude is the House staff, including Mark Zuckerman, Alex Nock, Gabriella Gomez, Julie Radocchia, and Jeff Appel with Chairman Miller's staff, and Sally Stroup, James Bergeron, and Amy Jones with Congressman McKeon's staff.

Also, with any piece of legislation that we draft, we should not forget the legislative counsels in both bodies who worked tirelessly to put the 1,500-page agreement together. They are Steve Cope, Molly Lothamer, Mark Koster, Kristin Romero, and Amy Gaynor, who also deserve to be recognized.

It has been 10 years since the last major reauthorization. I believe it was worth the time and the effort to get it to this point. The changes we make today will affect today's students and students for generations to come.

I yield the floor and yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. President, I just ask my colleagues to vote for this bill, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I, too, ask unanimous consent to extend floor privileges to Ann Clough for the remainder of the consideration of the conference report.

Mr. President, I rise today to continue the discussion we are having on our Nation's energy situation and to point out that it is a discussion, it is not action.

I point out that the other side of the aisle could be called the ``great pretenders.'' They are pretending to be interested in energy, but they are not doing anything about energy. The only thing we have been allowed to debate on this has been the bill on speculators. I have talked about speculators and the role they have and what the possibilities are for them to skew the market. It is the blame game. For every person who gains a dollar, a person loses a dollar.

Our airlines rely on the speculation, rely on those markets to hedge their prices, and we call it speculation. It has allowed them to lock in a reasonable price some of the time.

So it is the great pretender package, because it doesn't solve energy. If we don't find some ways to use less and find more, we are not going to be able to make the transition to renewable energies. We are being blocked from doing that.

What we are doing is ``gotcha'' politics. We have been doing it for several months now, and it is wrong. How can you tell when it is ``gotcha'' politics? When a bill doesn't go through the regular process, when it doesn't go to committee so that there can be extensive debate among the people who are expert in that area, so that the people in that specific committee have a chance to make amendments. That is where a lot of the legislating happens. By the time it gets to the floor, it is kind of take it or leave it--maybe a few amendments but not many are ever allowed. On this one, the most we have been allowed is four amendments, which have been written by the other side of the aisle.

That is unconscionable. It has never been done in the history of the United States. And then they demand a 60-vote margin on those. It will not happen, and neither is anything else, until we do something about energy because it is the No. 1 concern of people in America now. There is good reason for that. I know trucking firms that are going out of business. People want to take vacations, and they are either having to reduce the distance they are going or eliminate the vacation altogether. I know people who are having trouble getting to work.

We can put quick solutions, medium, and long-range solutions, in there that would resolve the energy problem for America. The world is becoming more energy oriented. The world understands energy. China understands energy. China is buying up every source of energy it can find around the world, because it grows their economy. They are using some of the worst stuff they can possibly use. That is why housing at the Olympic village isn't going to be able to used for the athletes, because they won't be able to breathe properly--even though they have bought clean Wyoming coal, and they tried to buy an oil company in the United States so they could take that oil to China. India is also competing for energy. That competition is driving up the prices.

Unless we find more and use less and transition into renewables, we are going to have a long problem in the economy of this country. As long as we keep bringing bills to the floor that have not been through committee, where people with disagreements can move off to the side and work that out and bring it in, it is not going to work. We are going to have a higher education bill this week, and that will make a difference to students throughout the United States--in high school, going to college, and those in college continuing with college. That went through the whole process. That has been through the committees in both the House and the Senate. A lot of changes were made. That has been passed in the Senate and passed in the House on the floor, and changes were made. Now it has been conferenced. Last night, it took us all of an hour and a half to work out the differences and finish the bill. That will be a privileged motion that will come here. So we will finish up a major bill in about an hour and a half because it went through the process.

You cannot take something such as energy, put out a phony bill, expect it to pass, and check off the box on energy. It is not going to work. We are not going to do that. That has never been the way we have done work in the Senate. We take a bill to committee, get it worked out, bring it to the floor, and let people make amendments. That is the way we do things here. It takes time, but it doesn't take nearly as much time as forcing all of these filibusters by putting up bills that the tree will be filled on, which means nobody can do any amendments--a take-it-or-leave-it bill.

As long as we are doing take-it-or-leave-it bills, nothing is going to happen. It makes good publicity because they will run ads in Wyoming that will say Senator Enzi voted against this and that. And you know, I think the people in Wyoming kind of have it figured out. They know we are actually trying to get something done. They know what a crisis it is on energy. We have to make a difference there.

So, remember, if a bill hasn't been to committee, it is a ``gotcha'' bill, designed by one party. Several times there have been negotiations started between the two parties, such as on the tax extenders bill. But thinking that would be a good ``gotcha'' vote, we had the package that you saw earlier that didn't make it through cloture. That could be negotiated out. That could make it through the process. It needs to make it through the process. But it is not going to make it through the process if one side says let's put this out there, and the other side will have a lot of trouble voting for this, and we can claim they don't like tax extenders. I don't think that has been the history of the country. I know it hasn't been the history of the Senate.

Energy is so important. Energy impacts every part of our lives. When gasoline and diesel fuel are more expensive, you pay more to fill up your vehicle at the pump. So do truckers who transport the items we need, such as food. In turn, you pay more at the grocery store. You pay more for gifts you buy for loved ones. The high cost of fuel makes it harder for families to fill up their gas tanks. They are canceling vacations or they are picking ones closer to home. Because they are forced to cancel vacations, main street shops are closing down because they don't have consumers to buy their products.

Low energy costs make it possible for our economy to flourish, and at a time of economic concern, we should be doing everything we can to improve

our Nation's energy situation as opposed to hindering it. The ``energy bill'' we are debating ignores this fact because it only deals with a small part of our energy situation--energy speculation.

I have noticed that whenever a situation gets bad, Congress plays the blame game. In this instance, the price of gas is making you angry. It makes me angry, too. I am sick of paying $4 a gallon to fill my gas tank. I want action. Instead of action, the majority has given us the legislation to punish speculators. Never mind that speculators are pension funds, airlines, and other consumers who are looking for certainty in an uncertain market. They have given us a bill that clamps down on speculators even though the Chairman of the Federal Reserve has said there is no evidence that speculation is impacting the market.

As I mentioned in my statements last week, this speculation bill might even have negative consequences on the market. I spoke at length regarding the possible unintended consequences of the majority leader's bill on institutional investors, including pension funds, and their ability to access and participate in our markets. Since I made those statements, I received two letters from The Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets, and from a group of 10 associations that represents pension funds, companies, and their investment managers and fiduciaries, expressing their concern about the majority leader's bill. I ask unanimous consent that both of these letters be printed in the Record.

While the majority has given us someone to blame, they have not given us a comprehensive bill that will get us out of this energy mess. They have not given us a proposal that addresses the heart of the problem--the problem of supply and demand. We need to find more American oil from American soil at the same time that we use less. We need to quit shipping those dollars overseas to countries that would like to do us harm. We need to do something with renewables. But there are also things we can do with the coal resources we have. My State has more coal than the Btus of oil in the Middle East. I have a lot of faith in our young people. When I was going to junior high, Russia put up Sputnik, and we panicked. We discovered--even in junior high we realized this--we were now behind Russia, and it was a crisis. We didn't want to be there. Education changed, parents changed, and teachers changed. We began inventing. We not only solved the problem of space, we sent a man to the Moon. We have sent vehicles to Mars and other planets. That was the rocket generation.

Then we went to the computer generation. We have people with extraordinary minds, because of the freedom we have in the United States, who came up with great inventions for computers. I remember when they said that 640K would be the maximum memory you could ever use in a computer. Nobody even knows what that is anymore, it is so small.

Then we went to communications, and we said there ought to be better ways to communicate. Then we began the cell phone generation.

Now we are in the energy generation. There are young people out there who can invent clean ways to do what we need to do, who can change things that we never considered to be energy. I have a lot of faith in them. I have challenged them. I do the inventors conference every winter in Wyoming, and I have asked the young people to come up with inventions--and they don't have to be difficult, but they should pertain to a pertinent problem so they can be marketed. We got more than 250 inventions as a result of it.

Now I am pressing for energy inventions. We have not built a new refinery in the United States for 40 years. Part of it is the permitting process and part is a fear of lawsuits. We permitted a new refinery in Douglas, WY. It will turn out diesel fuel. That is one of the biggest needs we have in our country, because of how much we rely on trucking in the United States, including trucking to be able to mine the coal.

By producing American energy, we reduce our Nation's dependence upon foreign oil sources and, at the same time, we work to develop new technologies that will make it so we don't need oil in the future. We can safely produce more American energy off of the coasts of States that want exploration to take place. We can produce nearly a million barrels of American energy each day from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in an environmentally sensitive manner, from an area smaller than Dulles Airport. In fact, it is smaller than the Casper, WY airport. A million barrels a day will bring down the price at least $20 a barrel. We can improve the permitting process to allow some of the leases that the other side claims are not in production to be drilled by restricting the amount of times we let radical environmental groups file frivolous lawsuits. They have to file all of their objections at the same time, so they can be done consecutively instead of sequentially. Most of the original leases are by small investors. It costs about $1,500 an acre. It is 5 or 6 years before they can even use the lease. We hear all of these acres of leases that are not being drilled, and it is because they are tied up in the courts. As soon as they can be drilled, they are. There is a tremendous investment. They don't know if they are going to hit oil, but the cost of a well now is about $8 million.

Instead of relying on oil from Hugo Chavez, in Venezuela, or other nations that wish us harm, instead of playing the blame game, we can do something to bring down the price of gas. That is what my constituents are begging us to do.

Unfortunately, we are not having a real debate on the bill. The Senate is oftentimes called the most deliberative body in the world. Yet we are not allowed to debate the issue that is most important to the American people. Why, you might ask? The majority leader has used a procedural tactic to prohibit us from offering amendments. He has used a procedural tactic to prevent votes on amendments. No votes, just a speculation bill, bills that haven't gone through committee. He has prevented a vote on amendments I have cosponsored to produce more American energy. He prevented a vote on my amendments to make the speculation bill more reasonable. He is preventing a vote on an amendment of which I am a cosponsor that would encourage production of diesel and jet fuel from America's most abundant energy source--coal.

It is the wrong way to legislate and will not help you when you go to fill your gas tank. It will not help you when you get your electricity bill, your heating bill this winter.

What we need is legislation that encourages us to find more American energy as we use less. I am the cosponsor of legislation to do that. The Gas Price Reduction Act, which is cosponsored by 43 of my Republican colleagues, includes a provision to open coastal waters in States where they want energy production. It ends the ban on the development of promising oil shale in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, oil shale that can provide as much as 2 trillion barrels of oil. At the same time, the Gas Price Reduction Act encourages increases in the supply of American energy, it promotes the development of better technology so we use less energy.

Thus far, we haven't had a vote on those issues. We have been told by the majority leader we can have limited amendments with limits as to how those amendments can be debated. That is not right, and it needs to stop. If it doesn't, we will not address this issue and the American people will continue to suffer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the importance of ensuring the people of our Nation have access to health care and what the Senate can do today to help the neediest people get the kind of care they need and are entitled to.

There are currently 61 million Americans who are either uninsured or underinsured. These people, many of whom are working and have families to care for, may have limited access to the kind of routine health care and nonemergency services so many of us take for granted.

Fortunately, at the present time, there is a large, vital network of health care providers in this country who are doing their best to address this need and provide care to this underserved population. We don't talk about this network much, as the Federal Government does not pay for it.

It is made up of volunteers, hundreds of thousands of health care providers, working across America, in almost every community, volunteering their expertise and donating their time to help those in need. These people are physicians, dentists, nurses, optometrists and chiropractors, to name a few of the professions that are represented in this group. Hospitals and outpatient surgical centers are also contributing to the effort.

Caring for our neighbor has always been a basic value for us as Americans. My mother always told me that the service we provide to others is the rent we pay for the space we take up on God's green earth. The people who are participating in this network of care have taken that philosophy to heart and we are all the beneficiaries of their efforts. They are making a difference in more lives than we will ever know.

We have all heard the saying that charity begins at home, and while it is an important part of any effort to address a need in our towns and cities, I am not suggesting that it is the final answer to correct the social injustices that exist in the world. We all realize that too many Americans lack health insurance, and that health care reform is a top priority for Congress. America needs health care reform, and I have a

plan to put that into action in my 10 Steps bill.

As we work on health care reform and all it entails, we can also do something to help provide some support and encouragement to the volunteer effort I have just described. Government has a role to play and it is to facilitate the care that is provided to those who need it so badly by those who are willing to freely offer it to them.

As with so many things, there is a catch, and that is why I am introducing my Volunteer Health Care Act of 2008. My bill will remove a legal barrier that currently prevents physicians and health care professionals from volunteering their services to individuals who either can't afford or can't access even the most basic of care. There is an overwhelming need for medical volunteers to work with the poor in the United States, but medical liability concerns discourage many doctors from providing voluntary services. This bill will help provide access for the disadvantaged and provide them with the care they so desperately need. In return, it will help to alleviate the concerns of health care providers who want to share their talents with the people of their community and give something back to make their part of the world a better place to live.

This legislation addresses the situation in a way that is fair to the patient. It provides an avenue to recover damages if, by chance, some harm is done. It makes use of a formula that has been tried before and been proven to be effective.

I have said before that States are the laboratories for the Federal Government. We know the positive effects that this program can provide because a few States have been using it for more than 10 years. Since the State of Florida started such a program 16 years ago, more than 20,000 health care volunteers have provided more than $1 billion worth of charity care at free clinics, community health and migrant worker clinics, and with other indigent clinics to provide health care that would otherwise not be available. This program calls for minimal expense, but it has the potential for a huge return. Eight other States have enacted this program and have had excellent results. But that is only 8 other States. The legislation that I am proposing today encourages the remaining 41 States to consider it.

Some people would say that the Federal Government has already made provisions for volunteer care with the federal Volunteer Protection Act of 1997. This act raises the standard of care from simple negligence to gross negligence. This law has two drawbacks however. It makes it more difficult for an injured party to prove substandard care and it leaves volunteer providers responsible for paying the cost of their defense.

The bill that I am introducing, the Volunteer Health Care Program Act of 2008, would provide grants to States that would accept medical liability for volunteer medical providers. These programs would protect providers from liability claims, while also ensuring that injured patients could recover damages. This bill addresses both drawbacks of the current Federal volunteer law, it does so at a minimal cost to Federal and state governments, and it has a proven record of working. The passage of this bill will take us one step closer to ensuring access to quality health care for all Americans.

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

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the importance of ensuring the people of our Nation have access to health care and what the Senate can do today to help the neediest people get the kind of care they need and are entitled to.

There are currently 61 million Americans who are either uninsured or underinsured. These people, many of whom are working and have families to care for, may have limited access to the kind of routine health care and nonemergency services so many of us take for granted.

Fortunately, at the present time, there is a large, vital network of health care providers in this country who are doing their best to address this need and provide care to this underserved population. We don't talk about this network much, as the Federal Government does not pay for it.

It is made up of volunteers, hundreds of thousands of health care providers, working across America, in almost every community, volunteering their expertise and donating their time to help those in need. These people are physicians, dentists, nurses, optometrists and chiropractors, to name a few of the professions that are represented in this group. Hospitals and outpatient surgical centers are also contributing to the effort.

Caring for our neighbor has always been a basic value for us as Americans. My mother always told me that the service we provide to others is the rent we pay for the space we take up on God's green earth. The people who are participating in this network of care have taken that philosophy to heart and we are all the beneficiaries of their efforts. They are making a difference in more lives than we will ever know.

We have all heard the saying that charity begins at home, and while it is an important part of any effort to address a need in our towns and cities, I am not suggesting that it is the final answer to correct the social injustices that exist in the world. We all realize that too many Americans lack health insurance, and that health care reform is a top priority for Congress. America needs health care reform, and I have a

plan to put that into action in my 10 Steps bill.

As we work on health care reform and all it entails, we can also do something to help provide some support and encouragement to the volunteer effort I have just described. Government has a role to play and it is to facilitate the care that is provided to those who need it so badly by those who are willing to freely offer it to them.

As with so many things, there is a catch, and that is why I am introducing my Volunteer Health Care Act of 2008. My bill will remove a legal barrier that currently prevents physicians and health care professionals from volunteering their services to individuals who either can't afford or can't access even the most basic of care. There is an overwhelming need for medical volunteers to work with the poor in the United States, but medical liability concerns discourage many doctors from providing voluntary services. This bill will help provide access for the disadvantaged and provide them with the care they so desperately need. In return, it will help to alleviate the concerns of health care providers who want to share their talents with the people of their community and give something back to make their part of the world a better place to live.

This legislation addresses the situation in a way that is fair to the patient. It provides an avenue to recover damages if, by chance, some harm is done. It makes use of a formula that has been tried before and been proven to be effective.

I have said before that States are the laboratories for the Federal Government. We know the positive effects that this program can provide because a few States have been using it for more than 10 years. Since the State of Florida started such a program 16 years ago, more than 20,000 health care volunteers have provided more than $1 billion worth of charity care at free clinics, community health and migrant worker clinics, and with other indigent clinics to provide health care that would otherwise not be available. This program calls for minimal expense, but it has the potential for a huge return. Eight other States have enacted this program and have had excellent results. But that is only 8 other States. The legislation that I am proposing today encourages the remaining 41 States to consider it.

Some people would say that the Federal Government has already made provisions for volunteer care with the federal Volunteer Protection Act of 1997. This act raises the standard of care from simple negligence to gross negligence. This law has two drawbacks however. It makes it more difficult for an injured party to prove substandard care and it leaves volunteer providers responsible for paying the cost of their defense.

The bill that I am introducing, the Volunteer Health Care Program Act of 2008, would provide grants to States that would accept medical liability for volunteer medical providers. These programs would protect providers from liability claims, while also ensuring that injured patients could recover damages. This bill addresses both drawbacks of the current Federal volunteer law, it does so at a minimal cost to Federal and state governments, and it has a proven record of working. The passage of this bill will take us one step closer to ensuring access to quality health care for all Americans.

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

Mr. President, today, the Senate will pass the now-infamous housing package for the last time. Each time this legislation has come before the Senate, it has been loaded with more taxes, more spending, and more liability for American taxpayers. As much as I oppose this legislation, I am relieved it is not headed back to the House so Members could add even more tax-and-spend provisions. This bill is a perfect example of how Congress can take a problem and make it worse. If it is worth reacting to, it is worth overreacting to in the Senate. Unfortunately, Americans will be paying for this particular overreaction for years to come, and the bill's implications will be much larger than we can even imagine now.

The first way Americans will be on the hook is through the HOPE for Homeowners Act contained in this bill. This program will create a $300 billion Federal loan guarantee program to bail out bad real estate investments and banks that made interest-only, no documentation loans. How will they do this? By shifting 100 percent of the liability of foreclosure onto the American taxpayer. Taxpayers could be paying for this provision for the next 30 years.

The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that this $300 billion program will only cost $68 billion. The CBO claims that few banks will use the program because it requires them to take a 10- percent cut in the mortgage principal. But to quote a Wall Street Journal article from July 24, 2008:

If no one needs the program, then why is it there? If

lenders do take advantage, they are bound to dump their worst

loans on the feds . . . the FHA guarantee will either be

superfluous or more expensive than we are led to believe.

I would like to submit the full article for the Record.

Second, this legislation taxes the government-sponsored enterprises nearly $1 billion per year over the next 10 years to cover initial losses stemming from this bailout, and in later years, to fund liberal activist groups posing as affordable housing advocates. This tax will be levied on companies struggling to stay solvent and keep our markets operational. Such a theory could only fly in Washington: tax a company in order to save it.

While Congress is taxing these companies into insolvency, it is their investors who are paying the price. Over the past month, concerns about passing this bloated bailout and tax bill have contributed to a drop of 80 percent in the stock price of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Americans' pension funds, 401(k) accounts, and other investments have taken a huge hit because Congress wants to micromanage the housing market. To date, Congress's action has only led to more market volatility and stock selloffs as investors wait to hear the next bad idea devised by Congress to fix our Nation's housing market.

I, along with several other Senators, have sent a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Cox asking him to comment on the impact this proposal will have on investors. As the agency charged with the mission of investor protection, I am very interested to hear the Chairman's opinion about this special tax Congress will levy on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Investors should not have to calculate the risks of Congress taxing their investments to death.

Finally, as if American taxpayers weren't squeezed enough, a recent proposal by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would allow the Federal Government to use taxpayer money to purchase Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae stock. This is potentially the biggest threat to taxpayers in the entire legislation because no one knows how much this will cost. I listened as Secretary Paulson urged the Senate Banking Committee to provide his agency with an unlimited authorization to buy stock. This is a blank check to the Federal Government, written against the taxpayer's account. Shockingly, the House voted for this proposal on July 23, 2008, and the Senate voted for it today.

The same Wall Street Journal article published on July 24 noted that the Paulson proposal:

could cost $100 billion, or it could cost nothing. So the CBO

threw a dart at the wall and assigned a $25 billion price tag

to the Freddie and Fannie bailout.

It is astounding how easily some Members of Congress can vote to give away taxpayer's money by the billions, especially when we do not even know how many billions of dollars we are giving away.

I continue to urge, in the strongest sense, for Members to vote against this legislation. Congress had the opportunity to pass sensible reform for the government-sponsored enterprises years ago that would have avoided this mess. Unfortunately, some Members have decided instead to fund mortgage bank bailouts, allow taxpayer money giveaways, and erode the public's confidence in our markets even more than it already has. A vote against this legislation is a vote to protect American taxpayers and to prevent a further erosion of confidence in the American marketplace.

Mr. President, I want to take this moment to remind everybody that today is National Day of the American Cowboy as designated by Congress. I was hoping to be at Cheyenne Frontier Days to make that announcement today, along with my fellow Senator, Mr. Barrasso, but our votes make that virtually impossible.

There will be a huge celebration there at Cheyenne Frontier Days, which is the daddy of them all, the first rodeo, the biggest rodeo, but at rodeos all over the country and on ranches all across the country, we will be recognizing the hard work and strong ethics of the American cowboy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the pending legislation, S. 3186, The Warm in Winter Cool in Summer Act. This legislation would provide additional funding in fiscal year 2008 for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP. An additional $2.5 billion would be provided, and under this legislation, these new funds carry an emergency designation that means it will be added to our debt.

I would like to first commend Senator Sanders, the sponsor of the legislation, on this well-intentioned bill. We all know that the price of oil has increased this year. We feel it at the gas pump every week when we fill up our tanks. And with winter just around the corner, Senator Sanders is trying to provide additional funding for a home energy assistance program that is one component of our country's social safety net.

But while the intent of this legislation is admirable, I cannot support this additional funding because it is not paid for. It is simply another IOU dropped on top of the pile that our children and grandchildren will be responsible for. It may be them who will have to go without heat or air conditioning because of the debt these types of proposals make them responsible for.

If Congress wants to boost funding for LIHEAP, then we ought to pay for it by cutting spending in a different program. This bill does not do that. It passes the cost to future generations, by charging the expense to the government credit card.

The debate we are having today also invites a discussion on budget process reform. We ought to have contingencies for emergency spending. Last month the Congress approved a supplemental spending bill that provided funding for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as extend veterans' education benefits and unemployment insurance. This spending is in addition to the approximately $1 trillion in annual spending through the regular appropriations process. My understanding is that in September the Appropriations Committee will mark up another supplemental spending bill related to infrastructure and the economy. I haven't seen the details of that proposal, but expect that it will be large in size and scope. Much of this new spending has merit and ought to be funded. I don't take issue with that. However, working outside of the regular budget process allows for new spending that does not count against the regular budget caps.

So for these reasons, I oppose the LIHEAP funding bill we are debating today. While I commend the supporters for bringing their proposal forward we ought to tighten the fiscal belt and pay for this new spending. If this is a high priority then we need to eliminate some spending that is a lower priority to pay for it. Regretfully, this legislation does not do that, and I intend to vote no on final passage.

Energy

Madam President, I am disappointed to be here and to have to give this speech today. I am disappointed because I am, once again, on the Senate floor discussing the fact that the majority leader has decided to use the Senate parliamentary tactic to stop members from offering amendments and to close off debate.

We are going to spend until tomorrow morning or whatever time tomorrow we decide to have another vote on another cloture motion doing nothing. While we can raise issues, we cannot get any votes on any issues. This is all valuable time that we could be voting on issues for the American people, issues that would actually solve some of the gas price problems I hear about all over Wyoming and all over the country. It is the No. 1 concern in this country right now.

The majority leader has a rain delay that has put a halt to this match, but this game will get played. We will debate alternative energy, finding more oil on American soil, deep sea exploration, nuclear energy, oil shale. You cannot stop us forever because the American people have told us the most important issue on their mind is the issue of energy.

The majority leader has told the world's most deliberative body we cannot have a real debate about this issue. But the American people are telling him something else. Hopefully, soon he will listen. It is no wonder Congress has an approval rating that is less than 10 percent.

Rather than working on the issues that are important to our constituents, we continue to play ``gotcha'' politics. It is not getting us anywhere. It is certainly not improving our Nation's energy situation. This brand of nonlegislating that the majority continues to peddle is not making a gallon of gas cheaper.

When will the leaders let us put real proposals on the table? This body will take some and this body will leave some, but we should be taking action. What we have now is not action, it is acting, acting in the dramatic sense. We evidently think that if we can place blame on speculators and get a vote on that and be done, we can check that box off and say that we took care of energy for America. Americans are smarter than that.

The majority leader is preventing a vote on an amendment that would increase production on the Outer Continental Shelf. We cannot vote on an amendment that will allow for more production of diesel fuel from our Nation's most abundant energy source, coal. We cannot vote on extending the wind production tax credit. We cannot vote on extending tax credits for solar energy.

The majority leader has said we need to get an agreement on amendments. Our side has agreed we need to work on energy amendments because this is an energy debate. We have been willing to put aside all the other kinds of amendments. But, no, that is not enough. We want to be able to read each of them and decide whether they are meritorious before they are put on the table.

I am not sure why that is the case. It does not match up with our historical energy debates or, for that matter, any of our debates.

The Senate considered the Energy Independence and Security Act last year. At that time, gas was $3.06 a gallon. I talked a little bit about that bill because I called it the anti-energy bill and said there was not anything in that that was going to bring down the price of gas. Obviously, I was right. The price is up another dollar from that. But even on that one, there were 331 amendments that were filed. Of those, 49 amendments were agreed to, and 16 amendments received rollcall votes.

The Senate considered the Energy Policy Act of 2005, that is the previous bill to the anti-energy bill. Gas was $2.26 a gallon then. There were 235 amendments that were filed and, of those, 57 amendments were agreed to and 19 amendments received rollcall votes.

The crisis is even greater now. So there ought to be amendments being debated, considered. We should not have the parliamentary tactic that keeps us from doing amendments.

Anytime a bill comes in here, and it is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, this body leaves it. So if you want to get something done, want to be able to check off the box, we need to be able to do some amendments.

Now, not only were both those bills fully amendable but both received significant floor consideration. We spent 15 days on the floor on one of them and 10 days on the other. Why? Because they are serious issues that deserve serious debate. We wanted to make sure ideas from both sides were considered.

As I recall, both sides lost some. But that is how it works. I have an amendment that relates to State mineral royalties. That amendment would encourage States to allow for energy production on their land by giving them their fair share of mineral royalties. We are not going to get to consider that. There are a number of other amendments that I would support relating to energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf in the States that want energy production and only those States that want it.

I would support an amendment to improve our Nation's energy situation by accelerating the development of coal-to-liquid fuels. That could be coal to diesel and coal to jet fuel. Those are the most expensive fuels in the United States right now. Those are the ones that have some great potential for decreased costs using our most abundant energy source.

We have more Btu's in coal--in fact, we have more Btu's in the clean coal in northeastern Wyoming than Saudi Arabia has in oil. It is an old technique from World War II, from converting that to, say, diesel, and also to convert it to jet fuel. Our military needs jet fuel. It can be done from coal.

Unfortunately, the majority leader has stopped me from doing so by using parliamentarian tactics to cut off the debate. He has also stopped me from

voting against a number of bad ideas I am sure we would see. I will not have a chance to vote against lowering the speed limit to 55 miles an hour. Why is that a bad idea? It actually led to higher traffic fatalities.

When we were talking about eliminating the 55-mile-speed limit, the argument was, if we do that, the number of fatalities in the United States would go up. Well, we raised the speed limit. We went back to where it was before.

Do you know what. Traffic fatalities went down. In Wyoming, the reason they went down is we eliminated a lot of those single-car accidents from driving the huge distances across our State at very slow speeds.

My dad traveled on the road. He said: At 55 miles an hour, you could watch a flower come up, grow, bloom, and wither before you got by it. So he started reading while he drove. But it kept him awake. So he did not have one of those single-car accidents where you roll your car.

Now, believe it or not, I agree with the majority party on some steps we could make to help this country be more energy independent. Wind tax credits are one example. By restricting Senators' participation, stopping them from representing those who put them in office is not going to get us any further than an empty gas tank, and that is what this bill in its current form is.

The bill before us blames speculators for our energy situation. It might be worth taking a moment to discuss exactly what speculators do. We have turned that into a cuss word. Oil speculation is two people or companies or organizations guessing what the price will be in the months to come. One of those entities thinks the price will be higher in the months to come, and so they buy the commodity now. Another entity thinks the price will be lower, so they sell the commodity now. The one who is right will make money; the one who is wrong will not. You can't have this kind of a transaction without two people who believe the exact opposite. Both are speculators. Both think they can make money based on their knowledge of the world and the gas supply at the current time.

What kind of entities do this? An airline might think the price of oil will be higher in the months to come, and, to stabilize their fuel costs, they will purchase oil futures for the next couple of months. If the prices go up, they will have stabilized their fuel costs and saved money. If they go down, of course, it will cost them what they bid it at, and they will lose money compared to what they could have gotten it for. But in order for them to have that market, there has to be somebody willing to bet against them, willing to say: Yes, I think the price is going to go down, and I am going to make that differential. Those are speculators. Without the speculator part of the deal, the airline doesn't have a deal. The airline cannot lock in a price for what they are willing to pay to make sure they will know in the future what their costs are going to be. That is speculation.

The market is a place where you anticipate what the cost will be in the months to come so that you can have certainty for what you are going to pay. Sometimes you guess right and you are paying below market value. Sometimes your guess is wrong, and you end up paying more than market value. What is commonly ignored in the debate about oil speculators is that for every dollar made, a dollar is lost by someone who would be called a speculator but without whom the market doesn't work.

Oil is not the only commodity that is traded. We speculate on the price of wheat, pork bellies, gold and silver, cattle--a number of other things. Speculation allows producers and consumers of these products the opportunity to manage the risk they have on buying and selling products that don't have a set price. This helps prevent wild fluctuations of price each and every day. That keeps major market failures from happening.

Earlier this week, I spoke about how the majority leader's energy speculation bill could have significant unintended consequences for institutional investors accessing commodities, futures, and capital markets. Today, America's largest pension funds wrote to me stating their concern.

The American Benefits Council wrote:

The Council is very concerned that the serious implications

of S. 3268 on retirement plan participants have not been

sufficiently evaluated. We are concerned that legislation

relating to energy policy could unintentionally harm the

long-term security of American workers and families.

I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.

I also ask unanimous consent to have an article on statistics on the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit printed in the Record.

I also have heard from other pension fund and institutional investor representatives that the provisions in the majority leader's bill have not been sufficiently vetted. Rather than pass a flawed bill on energy speculation, we should wait until we read the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's and the Interagency Task Force on Commodity Markets' report due out later this year. This issue is too important for us to act without all of the facts.

Few serious economists believe that this bill will do anything substantial to decrease energy prices. Warren Buffett, the Nation's wealthiest Democrat, doesn't think that it will make a difference. Neither does oilman T. Boone Pickens. Even the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, believes that this bill will have little impact on the price of gasoline. And yet we are still prohibited from offering amendments. We are still prohibited from voting on amendments that will have a real impact on the price of gasoline.

It is unfortunate that the debate is turning out this way, because I agree that there should be more transparency in the market. That is why I am the cosponsor of a bill that allows for more oversight by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. But in addition to that, the bill does something more. The Gas Price Reduction Act includes a provision to open up coastal waters in States where they want energy production. It ends the ban on the development of promising oil shale in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. At the same time it encourages increases in supply, it promotes the development of better technology so that we use less energy.

We should have the opportunity to vote on these proposals. We should have the opportunity to have a real debate on energy. Instead, we are going wrap up this debate and begin playing the blame game. It is disappointing that the Senate is working this way, and I hope we can stop playing politics and have a real debate in the near future. This issue is too important for the Senate to ignore.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a part of Wyoming's history that is celebrating its one hundred and fiftieth anniversary this year. The Lander Trail, which runs for 256 miles from South Pass, WY, to Fort Hall, ID, was an important part of the expansion of the American West in the 1800s when people took up the challenge to ``go west'' and settle new territory. In 1858, Frederick W. Lander began surveying and construction for the first federally funded road west of the Mississippi to provide a better route for emigrants headed to California, Oregon, and a new life on the frontier. Today, I would like to recognize the historical role the Lander Trail played in Wyoming and the American West.

It was tough going for emigrants going west in the 1850s. The dangerous journey halfway across the country could take 6 months or more. After the Lander Trail was completed, it was a better road through easier territory. Emigrants headed to California or Oregon could cut 7 days off their journey by following the Lander Trail, and there were good sources of food, water, and forage for livestock along the way. Thirteen thousand people traveled the Lander Trail on their way to homestead in western territories or to pan for gold in California. The Lander Trail is part of the National Historic Trails system and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The Lander Trail can still be seen today in Wyoming and the land looks almost the same as it did when Frederick Lander first started surveying it. The work of groups in Wyoming like the Lander Trail Foundation have ensured that the history of this unique piece of my State is being preserved and that people today can go and see and experience the Lander Trail. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the role that the Lander Trail has played in the history of my State of Wyoming and the settlement of the American West.

I thank the Chair.

I rise today to also discuss the No. 1 issue that is facing our Nation. That issue is the rising price of energy. Everyone out there whom this affects knows who they are: It is anyone who rides or drives or eats. While I am glad the Senate is finally considering energy legislation, I am disappointed by the scope of that legislation. I hear from my constituents each and every day that the Senate needs to do something about energy prices. I couldn't agree more. We need to put aside partisan politics in order to pass legislation that will address the energy situation we are facing.

Today, the Senate is considering S. 3268, the energy speculators bill. This bill is kind of like a hearty meal of meat, bread, and potatoes but without the meat--oh, and without the bread--and it doesn't really have potatoes in it either. This bill deals only with the issue of oil speculation. It does not deal with the issue of supply and demand. It does not deal with the need to encourage conservation. It does not deal with the extension of important tax credits to promote renewable energy.

Instead, the bill seeks to extend the long arm of the law to reach out and strike down those ``speculators'' who are supposedly driving the price of oil faster and higher than a rocket ship. I ask my colleagues now, why would we in the Senate want to strike down teachers, civil servants, and farmers? The bill does not recognize that that is who the so-called speculators are. Speculators are oftentimes pension fund investors who protect the retirement of teachers and civil servants. The ``evil'' speculators are American farmers who want to save money on their supplies and fertilizer and on airlines that want to cut fuel costs by locking in a price that will make the customer's plane tickets cheaper.

This legislation does not recognize that futures markets and the investors who trade in them are crucial to getting the best price for the product and attracting investment in the United States. Cities such as Dubai and countries such as India and China are the places that will benefit from this bill. They would benefit because many of the jobs that would be in New York or Chicago--jobs that are currently American--would no longer be.

I am the ranking member of the Senate committee that handles pensions, so let's get back to the people who have pensions and how this bill impacts them. These people are the employees of most of our largest companies and include airline, trucking, automotive, manufacturing, education, and public civil servant employees. This bill would hurt them. I am alarmed the bill could declare portions of our financial markets off limits to institutional investors, including pension funds, endowments, and foundations.

Laws we have passed say that pension money should be vested in a prudent manner. We in Congress have long insisted pension plans diversify their assets so they don't have ``all their eggs in one basket.'' However, if we start down the slippery slope the majority leader has set before us in his bill, then we will limit the ability of pension plans and other institutional investors to diversify their investment strategies. This bill takes away baskets that they could put their eggs in. If the pension plans are prudently invested and well- managed, there is no reason they should be barred from any segment of the commodities, futures, or capital markets.

The majority contends that this legislation will bring down the price of gas. Let's see, this bill will not result in the production of any more gas, nor will it result in any less demand for gas.

I tend to agree that many of the Nation's brightest minds who suggest that ``speculators'' have little to do with the increase in energy prices are right.

Warren Buffett, the Nation's wealthiest Democrat, does not believe speculators are the cause. T. Boone Pickens, who has been in the news for his efforts to end our Nation's dependence on foreign oil and who addressed Democrats at their weekly caucus lunch, has said that speculators play a minimal role. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke made his views clear at a hearing before the Senate Banking Committee on July 15 when he stated:

If financial speculation were pushing oil prices above the

levels consistent with the fundamentals of supply and demand,

we would expect inventories of crude oil and petroleum

products to increase as supply rose and demand fell. But in

fact, available data on oil inventories show notable declines

over the past year.

Bernanke continued:

This is not to say that useful steps could not be taken to

improve the transparency and functioning of futures markets,

only that such steps are unlikely to substantially affect the

prices of oil or other commodities in the longer term.

Chairman Bernanke's statement should provide us with a starting point for any legislation, and I am a cosponsor of legislation that begins the process of having a sensible energy policy. The Gas Price Reduction Act addresses the need for more transparency in our markets and more oversight by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. However, that is not the focus of the legislation. While the transparency is important, the larger problem we face is a lack of supply and an increase in demand. The majority leader's bill is like the novel an unwise motorist reads while driving down the highway. The novel is the wrong focus and while you pay attention to that you could get sideswiped by something you should be paying attention to--in our case, no supply and a whole lot of demand.

We need to find more American oil from American soil at the same time that we use less, and we need to look at alternative fuels.

The Gas Price Reduction Act includes provisions to open coastal waters in States that want energy production. It ends the ban on the development of promising oil shale in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. At the same time, it encourages increases in supply. It promotes the development of better technology so that we use less energy, and it explores alternative sources. The supply and demands issues are not addressed in the majority leader's oil speculation bill.

The majority leader's bill also ignores the important role that coal can play in securing America's energy future. It ignores the need to streamline the process for permitting new refineries. It ignores the need to increase the use of nuclear as a clean energy source.

You will notice that a lot of these things are also not in the Republican bill that I mentioned. That bill is a compilation of items that everybody here ought to be able to support. The items that have been controversial have been left out. We can use my 80/20 rule. We can agree on 80 percent of the issues 80 percent of the time. If we stick to that and leave the rest to the pundits, it will work out well. Sometimes we try to do things that are too comprehensive because one amendment will pull off 3 votes and another one might pull off 10 votes and another might pull off 15 votes. Then you don't have a majority to pass a bill. I am not sure that is what the other side is hoping for.

I hope we can keep this simple and get something done--something besides just speculation. I hope we are able to have an open debate over the next 2 weeks. I hope we are allowed to offer energy amendments and have up-or-down votes. If we can have that real debate, I am confident the Senate can come up with a package that could be signed into law, and both sides will get credit. Believe it or not, I actually agree with the majority party on some steps that would help to make this country more energy independent. Wind tax credits are one example. But restricting Senators' participation, stopping them from representing those who put them in office, is not going to get us any further than an empty tank of gas. That is what this bill will do in its current form.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.