Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say to my good friend, the majority leader, I think we are getting very close to being able to reach an agreement to go forward. This is a significant step in the direction I had hoped we might take.

I ask my good friend, I have a leadership meeting in an hour or so. I wish to consult with my leadership team about the proposal he has offered. But I think----

Mr. President, let me say, I am very encouraged by this

development. I thank my good friend for his offer, and I should be able to get back to him within a couple of hours or less, after having a chance to talk about it with my team. I thank him very much.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I understand it, this consent, if entered, would have the effect of moving us off of energy, and it is my view, and I think close to the unanimous view of my conference, that we ought to stay on this energy speculation bill, as it might be amended, and proceed to amendments such as we have in good faith discussed here a few moments ago. So I at this time would object to this.

Mr. President, I am heartened by the consent agreement the majority leader was about to offer a while ago, and I think it indicates that we are finally getting serious here about doing something significant about the price of gas at the pump. I appreciate the spirit in which that was offered. As I indicated, I will be getting back to him later this afternoon.

But make no mistake about what has been going on. The press has understood it. There has been a lot of bobbing and weaving, cancellations of Appropriations Committee meetings in order to avoid votes on offshore drilling or getting rid of the oil shale moratorium which was put in place just last year by the new majority. Great efforts have been underway, to the point where even the Washington Post a few days ago was calling on the Speaker of the House of Representatives--the Washington Post was calling on the Speaker of the House of Representatives--to allow votes on drilling.

There is no denying there has been a great effort to try to kick this can down the road and not deal with it. For example, the senior Senator from New York, who is the campaign chairman, if you will, for the Democratic Senate candidates, was quoted in the Post just this weekend as saying we should just wait until there is a new President before dealing with this issue; in other words, we should put it off for 6 months. In the meantime, consumers continue to pay these extraordinarily high prices at the pump while the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee recommends we just wait to deal with it until, he hopes, he has a better political lineup with which to deal. Look, we don't need to wait 6 months. We need to do it this week--this week.

The New York Times--I rarely cite the New York Times--in an editorial just this morning indicated that even though they don't share my view and the view of the majority of my Members who think increased domestic production will have a positive impact on the price of gas at the pump--while they don't share that view, this is what they had to say about the speculation bill which our good friends on the other side would like to pass essentially with nothing added to it--in other words, a speculation-only bill. The New York Times this morning on the speculation-only bill:

Democrats' misbegotten plan to curb speculation and oil

futures.

This is the New York Times, not the Wall Street Journal.

They go on:

Democrats should know that financial speculation is not

what's driving oil prices, and that curbing futures trading

could hamper the ability of companies like airlines and oil

refineries to manage their risks by locking in the price of

oil. Putting them together is compounding one bad idea with

another.

Again, this is the New York Times, not the Wall Street Journal.

The Times goes on:

A report by government agencies--including the CFTC, the

Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Energy Departments--found

that speculative trades in oil contracts had little to no

effect on the rise of prices over the last five years.

Again, this is not the Wall Street Journal and not Investors Business Daily. This is the New York Times about the underlying bill which our good friends on the other side of the aisle had been hoping to pass without any additional amendments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Hopefully, Mr. President, we will be able to construct later this afternoon a process by which we can go forward and consider amendments that would really have an impact on the problem. I look forward to getting back to the majority leader later in the afternoon on the prospects of entering into a consent agreement that will allow us to consider all of these important items--not 6 months from now but this week.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I would say to my friend from New Mexico, I have spoken, so whatever time remains on this side----

Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. President, the time on our side will be used by the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I am going to take a minute or so of my leader time.

The issue before us, I say to my colleagues, is whether we are going to stay on the Energy bill. I have some optimism based on a conversation I had with the majority leader on the Senate floor earlier this afternoon that we might be able to come up with an agreement to go forward. This is not the time to go off of the No. 1 issue in this country. On every poll you have seen the American people expect us to deal with the energy problem and to deal with it now.

With all due respect to any other matters that might be pending that all of us have an interest in, the question is, what is the most important thing to do in the Senate this week, right now, and it is to stay on energy.

I would urge my friends on this side to oppose cloture. We will get back to this issue later. Let's stay on energy, finish the job, and deal with the No. 1 issue before the American people.

Mr. President, I will be constrained to object because, as a practical matter, if we move to that issue, we will be off of the subject indefinitely because of concerns over here about this particular measure. We will be on it indefinitely. We will probably never get back to the No. 1 issue that is before us. So under these particular circumstances, I am constrained to object.

Mr. President, I am confident--I see my friend from Oklahoma on the Senate floor. Maybe he would like to ask me a question.

That is my understanding.

Reclaiming my time, I think the answer to my friend's question is, that is where we would be. Thus my observation that if we want to deal with the No. 1 issue in the country in the last week we are expected to be here, the appropriate thing to do is to stay on the subject.

Obviously, my friend from Oklahoma feels very strongly about this matter. He and the majority leader are likely to have this exchange again sometime down the road. The question for all of us is, what is the most essential thing to do for America right now?

The American people are asking us to do something about the price of gas at the pump. The way to do that is to stay on that subject at this particular moment, and the way to do that is to vote against cloture on getting off the subject and going to something else.

Mr. President, the majority leader just made a very strong argument for why this issue he is talking about should not be put off until next year. But the issue before us now is what to do immediately. We have been on the issue of energy for a week. It is time to stay on it and finish the job.

The majority leader, not the minority, determines what the schedule is. If the so-called Coburn bill is so important, I am sure the majority leader will turn back to it soon. But the issue is staying on the No. 1 concern in the country now and finishing the job. The majority leader, who controls the schedule, has it perfectly within his power not to delay this bill until later. In fact, this bill could have been done sooner than now--sooner than now. The issue today is whether we stay on the No. 1 issue in the country and finish the job. I recommend that we do that.

Let me say briefly, my good friend is making a campaign speech about who is going to pay a price for this or that or the other. I do not think the American people are particularly interested in that.

What we know they are interested in, all the surveys indicate what they are interested in, is seeing the Congress work together to do something important about the No. 1 issue in the country, and that is the price of gas at the pump.

We have a chance, if we stay on the subject--I am optimistic that we are going to have some amendments that are agreeable to both sides. We can move forward. The majority leader, who is in charge of the schedule, can get us back on any subject he chooses at any time of his choosing. So I would hope our colleagues would vote to stay on the subject of lowering the price of gas at the pump for the American people.

Mr. President, without prolonging this discussion endlessly, I want to take a moment to congratulate my friend from Oklahoma for his courage in making an extraordinarily important point to our colleagues, which is the way you pass legislation on a consultative basis. I would say to my friend from Oklahoma, I remember when we were in the majority and I was the second ranking member of our conference, having to tell our Members frequently that the only way we could get anything accomplished was to take tough votes, and that was the challenge of being in the majority. If you want to move something along, you have to give the minority an opportunity to have their votes.

There was always grumbling about it: Can't you do anything? Invariably people would say: I am up this cycle; I can't possibly do this.

In order to make a law rather than just check the box, the process in the Senate means the minority gets to offer amendments. What is going on here is a fundamental shifting of the way the Senate has historically acted. I know the majority leader is under a lot of pressure from his Members frequently to avoid tough votes. I have been there. I have heard those demands. But if your operating mode is to avoid all tough votes, you never accomplish much.

We haven't given up on this side. Our hope is that this Congress could actually be remembered for having done at least a few things that were important to the country. So I want to shift now to the issue that we have been sort of sparring back and forth on over the last week or so, and that is the energy issue. I owe the majority leader a report on a leadership meeting I had just a few hours ago. We had a good discussion. I think my membership and my leadership team believed that the consent agreement he offered earlier today went a long way toward meeting the requirements that many of us on this side of the aisle had believed were sort of a bare minimum threshold of credibility to actually have a chance of making a law rather than checking a box. When we finally end our public discussion tonight, I just want to say to my friend the majority leader publicly, I would like to have a discussion privately about how we might go forward. It sounds to me like we are very close to having a consent agreement that would give us a chance to operate on a major issue in the way the Senate has historically dealt with significant issues.

I want to end my comments tonight on a note of optimism, that we might be close to doing something important for the country on a very large issue. Again, on the question of the way the Senate functions, I congratulate not only the Senator from Oklahoma but the Senator from Pennsylvania for their strong insistence that they be allowed and that all Senators, really, be allowed to be part of the legislative process. It is really the only way we can actually pass laws, rather than just score points with each other. I think the American people would like to see us do something significant about the No. 1 issue in the country.

I end the evening publicly--and I will continue conversations with the majority leader privately--on a note of optimism that we might well be on the verge of getting an agreement that would be acceptable to both sides and give us a chance to go forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I know everybody is anxious to leave. Very briefly, voting for cloture on this bill will take us off of the single most important issue in America.

The American people are clamoring for legislation that brings down gas prices, and our leadership friends on the other side want to dismiss this issue instead of taking it head on with bold action.

We want to address the issue of gas prices, and the important thing is to stay on the subject. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this motion.

Mr. President, of course, none of what the majority leader listed has been offered. Not a single consent to allow any of those votes has been offered. That is the point of this vote.

In order to deal with energy--the No. 1 issue in America--we need to have an open process, such as on the Energy bills of 2007 and 2005, where all of the amendments relative and important to this issue have a chance to be considered here in the Senate. None of that has been offered.

The only way it will be offered is to vote ``no'' on getting off this subject and staying on the No. 1 subject in America, open up the process, and allow amendments on all of the issues the majority leader referred to and move forward. That is the way we legislate in the Senate.

Mr. President, everybody wishes to vote. The majority leader and I have a central disagreement here as to what has been said on the floor of the Senate. We will still be on this bill next week. It will be an opportunity to continue the conversation and, hopefully, get the kind of process that will allow all Senators to participate on the No. 1 issue in America.

Mr. President, I renew the unanimous consent that I offered several days ago that allowed us to begin the process of amendments and listed the first seven amendments that would be offered on my side.

To refresh everyone's memory, the unanimous consent agreement I proffered would have allowed us to go forward and rotate from side to side, as we have done in the past on major legislation of this type, with one amendment on each side. I listed the first seven amendments that would be offered on our side, and it was objected to.

Mr. President, I renew that unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, it strikes me that the public opinion polls are overwhelming. People, frankly, do not care who gets it done, but they know they need both sides to cooperate to get there. I think Senate Republicans this morning spoke almost with one voice, saying: Let's stay on this subject and get it right now.

Mr. President, I wish to proceed on my leader time. I am unsure what the time situation is.

Mr. President, the Senate took a defining vote this morning.

Americans have been crying out, asking us to act to lower high gas prices. They just heard the official response from the Democratic leadership in Congress: A few new guidelines for the energy futures market is enough. We don't need to do anything other than that. That is it. That is the Senate Democratic position.

The American people have been telling us for months that the house is on fire, and the Democrats just showed up at the scene with a squirt gun--a squirt gun.

The vote we took this morning was their response to $4-a-gallon gasoline. That is what a few of our friends on the other side are doing for all of those people out there who are standing at the gas pump, hopping mad at what it just cost them to fill the tanks of their cars. They have told 49 Republicans and more than a dozen Democrats who are open to increased domestic exploration the same thing: take it or leave it, speculation or nothing.

Americans are insisting that we do a lot more than that. They want us to do something to cut the price of gas and to lessen our dependence on oil in the Middle East. They don't want us to quit working until the job is done, and leaving this issue is what the Democratic leadership just voted to do.

A majority in the Senate wants America to be self-reliant and to find more American energy, but the Democratic leadership says: No, we can't.

To drive down gas prices, we should be opening the Outer Continental Shelf today, but the Democratic leadership says: No, we can't.

To drive down gas prices, we could be lifting the ban on development of the vast oil shale deposits in Western States that sit on three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia. The Democratic leadership says: No, we can't.

To drive down gas prices, we could have approved incentives for battery-powered electric cars and trucks today. The Democratic leadership says: No, we can't.

To drive down gas prices, we could have voted to open up untapped American oil today, but the Democratic leadership says: No, we can't.

To drive down gas prices, we could have voted today for new, clean, nuclear technology, but the Democratic leadership says: No, we can't.

To drive down gas prices, we could have approved new coal-to-liquid technology today, but the Democratic leadership says: No, we can't.

Nearly eight in ten Americans say we should do these things, but the Democratic leadership and their Presidential nominee have the same simple response to every one of them: No, we won't.

A dozen Democrats in the Senate say we should consider these things, but the Democratic leadership had the same answer for them: No, we won't.

The Democratic leadership just voted to give up on finding a solution to high gas prices. They just voted to give up on trying to find more and to use less. They just voted to give up on our effort to consider serious ideas from both sides of the aisle. They want us to tell the American people the Senate's time would be better spent on other things, and that it is time to simply move on.

Well, Republicans have a three-word response for the Democratic leadership: No, we won't.

I just voted to keep the Senate on the most important domestic issue facing our Nation. If there is a more important domestic issue facing the country, let's hear it; otherwise, let's get serious and work toward a big solution to this very big problem.

I mentioned yesterday that I received recently a letter from a dialysis center in Kentucky. They were pleading with the Senate to take action now on the high price of gas at the pump. The letter said that some of the rural patients who have to go to this center for treatment three times a week are now foregoing some of their treatments because they can't afford the gas to get there.

So I ask my friends on the other side the same simple question I asked them yesterday: If you won't act now, with dialysis patients cutting back on treatments because of high gas prices, when will you act? What is it going to take?

I know my colleagues across the aisle are stuck between the ``No, we can't'' position of their Presidential candidate and the Democratic leadership--stuck between them on the one side and the guy at the gas pump with smoke coming out of his ears on the other. For me, though, that decision is an easy one: I am going to be with the guy at the pump.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if you visit the U.S. Capitol through a certain entrance on the first floor of the East Front, you will see a plaque by the door. The plaque is in honor and remembrance of Capitol Police Officer Jacob Joseph Chestnut and Detective John Michael Gibson, where 10 years ago today they gave their lives in defense of this Capitol.

Their deaths remind us that, just as bravery was required from our Founders who built the Capitol, the bravery of great men is required today to protect and keep it. The names of Chestnut and Gibson will forever be remembered among American patriots.

Officer Chestnut, or J.J. to his friends, was 58 and a father of five. An 18-year veteran of the force, he was just months away from retirement. He was also an Air Force veteran of 20 years who had served in Vietnam and Taiwan, where he met his wife.

J.J. lovingly tended a vegetable garden in the back yard of his house, and

neighbors often saw him practicing his golf swing in his front lawn.

John Gibson also had 18 years of service with the Capitol Police. A friend of his recalls that just a few days before the shooting, John told him he had never had to draw his weapon on the job. Forty-two years old, he had three children, and was a native of Massachusetts.

Friends recall John's ardent love for his Boston sports teams--the Bruins, the Red Sox, and U Mass basketball.

Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson were the first Capitol Police officers to die in the line of duty. As we honor them today, we also honor the hundreds of brave men and women of that force who put their lives on the line to protect this House of democracy.

To the casual tourist, Capitol Police officers may just seem like friendly people who stand guard at the doors. But in truth, they are an elite, highly trained force charged with a critical mission. In moments of crisis, when not just lives but our very system of government is threatened, they stand ready at the front lines.

We saw again on September 11, 2001, how the Capitol can be a target for terror. And we saw again the bravery of the Capitol Police, who rushed into the building to rescue others when most of us were busy rushing out.

As my friend, the majority leader, a former Capitol Police officer himself; certainly know, police work is both an honorable job and a dangerous one.

In fact, in the 10 years since the loss of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson, 24 peace officers in my home State of Kentucky have also been lost in the line of duty. If there is no objection, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed in the Record.

So today the U.S. Senate remembers J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson. We are grateful for their heroic sacrifice. And we say a prayer for their families, who we embrace as we would our own.

Mr. President, I rise because a son of Kentucky who joined the Kentucky National Guard has been lost in service to his country. SSG Delmar White of Wallins, KY, was tragically killed on September 2, 2007, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle while he was on patrol in Iraq. He was 37 years old.

Staff Sergeant White had been stationed in Iraq for less than a week. For his valor in uniform, he received numerous medals, awards, and decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart.

For anyone who wonders how those who loved Staff Sergeant White will remember him, the words of his wife, Michele, leave no doubt.

``He went out a hero,'' Michele says. ``He was a hero before he went to Iraq, in my book. . . . He was a fantastic person that everybody loved.''

Born in Illinois, Delmar--or Dale, as his friends called him--was raised in Wallins, a small town in Harlan County, KY, in the southeastern corner of my State. He graduated from James A. Cawood High School there. He eventually moved to Lexington, KY, heart of the Bluegrass Country.

In Lexington, Dale worked as a corrections officer for the Lexington- Fayette Urban County Government. He also worked at the University of Kentucky, where he met Michele--the woman who would become his wife.

There was an instant attraction between the two. Their first date was to a local carnival, where Dale showed off his athletic prowess for Michele by winning some stuffed animals. Or maybe he had his old training to thank--Dale was a former U.S. Marine of 4 years who had served in Desert Storm.

Dale was proud of his service, and in 1998, he chose to enlist again, this time with the Kentucky National Guard. But he didn't do anything without first talking to Michele, by that time his wife. He was concerned she wouldn't want him to go. He shouldn't have been.

``You are military and always will be--do it,'' Michele told him in support.

One Labor Day weekend, Dale was in Cincinnati with the Guard, working crowd control for a local event. Michele tells us that an older man walked up to him and asked, ``Why would you wear that uniform?''

At that moment, a little boy approached Dale and stretched his hand up to him. The boy said, ``Mr. Soldier, can I shake your hand?''

After Dale shook the boy's hand, he looked the man right in the eye and said, ``That's why.''

Clearly, Dale was proud to serve his country, and confident in his mission. As Michele says, ``He was military 100 percent.''

Of course, there was a lighter side to Dale. He loved the outdoors and the go-cart track, where he was so aggressive he was known as ``the Competitor.'' He liked a good video game, especially one that involved shooting at something and honing his target skills.

Most of all, he was a devoted father to his two children, daughter Shelby and son Seth. He would plan special game nights for them and other children. Dale had previously served as a youth minister, and he told Michele that was something he was interested in doing again. He also hoped to serve with a fire department in the future.

Dale was deployed to Iraq in August of 2007 with Battery B, 2nd Battalion, 138th Field Artillery, based out of Carlisle, KY. He left an impression on his commanding officer, CPT Robert S. Mattingly, among others. This is what Captain Mattingly had to say:

There is a line that we are familiar with that says we will ``cheerfully obey the orders.'' That was Delmar White for certain.

Captain Mattingly said: he was an excellent [non-commissioned officer], who led by example and never asked anything of his soldiers he wasn't willing to do himself.

Captain Mattingly added: Delmar White was loved by everyone in the battery and will be terribly missed by all.

Dale talked to Michele and his children over the Internet the day before the bombing that took his life. Son Seth was so small all he could do was bang on the keyboard, but Dale would always write back, ``hey buddy,'' so Seth knew he was there.

During the funeral procession to Dale's burial in Camp Nelson, KY, Michele was overwhelmed at the people lining both sides of the street to pay their respects. Police cars and fire trucks stopped as police and firemen stood, solemnly saluting or with their hands on their hearts.

At the service, bagpipes played ``Amazing Grace,'' and there was a 21-gun salute. Three helicopters flew overhead as the American flag that had covered Dale's casket was folded and given to Michele.

Mr. President our thoughts are with Staff Sergeant White's family after his tragic loss. We are thinking of his wife, Michele; his daughter, Shelby; his son, Seth; his brothers, Robert and Doug; his sister, Tressa Fisher; his mother, Hazel White Blincoe; and many other beloved family members and friends. Dale was predeceased by his father, Perry White.

Mr. President, this U.S. Senate rises as one today to salute Staff Sergeant White's service, and to honor his sacrifice. The legacy he has left for his family, friends, neighbors, and a little boy in Cincinnati--who only remembers him as ``Mr. Soldier''--will live on. And that is a legacy that his loved ones can cherish forever.

Mr. President, when historians look back at the 110th Congress, they will say the most vexing domestic issue we faced was a rapid and dramatic rise in the price of gas at the pump. As it stands today, they will have to conclude that the Democratic leaders ignored the problem by refusing to unlock the domestic energy resources that were put off limits when gas and oil were cheap.

If these historians do their homework, they will note the irony in all of this. They will note that these same Democrats were the ones who took the majority less than 2 years ago, promising to do something about gas prices that were a lot lower back then than they are today.

I recently received a letter from a dialysis center in Kentucky. It was an urgent plea to do something about gas prices. The letter said some of the rural patients who have to go to this center for treatment three times a week are now foregoing their dialysis treatment because they cannot afford the gas to get there. This is the kind of crisis high gas prices is for low-income and sick people.

After reading that, I have a simple question for our friends across the aisle: If you won't act now, with dialysis patients unable to get into town for treatment, when will you unlock the natural resources Americans have right under their own feet? What is it going to take? Clearly, this is a very serious problem for the American people, and we have an obligation to address it, and the time to do it is now. I am afraid the Democrats who run the Senate want it all to somehow go away. They have been going to great lengths to make sure it goes away. They are cancelling hearings when they are afraid the issue might come up, and they are muzzling their own Members, more than a dozen of whom favor a balanced solution that includes more domestic production and increased conservation. They are telling them the same thing they are telling the American people: No, we can't.

The problem we face, as everyone knows, is that the demand for oil is rising faster than the supply, and the solution, as everyone knows, is to increase supply and lower demand. Yet this week, the Democratic leadership in Congress is saying: No, we can't. They are saying: No, we can't produce a single barrel of oil at home.

Instead of increasing supply, they are trying to distract us with the same blame game they roll out whenever the demands of some special interest group conflict with the will of the people.

This time they have turned their attention on speculators. They say the reason gas prices have nearly doubled since the Democrats took over a year and a half ago is the speculators.

Well, Republicans have no problem strengthening regulation of the futures markets. That is part of the bill that 44 of us are sponsoring. But if Congress does not allow any new exploration, it is perfectly clear what the speculation about future prices will be: not good. The speculators are betting on scarcity, and the majority is helping to prove them right.

So here we are. After months of frustration, Americans are hearing from the Democratic leaders that Congress is going to do one thing about the single most vexing issue in America today. The Democratic leaders are telling the American people that the solution is to write up some new guidelines for energy traders, call it a day, and head home. And if we do not support this very timid solution, they will go back to the blame game again. They will say Republicans voted against lowering gas prices, when the fact is not a single person in America who does not sit behind a desk on the other side of the aisle thinks this particular speculation provision will do anything to lower gas prices.

Let's be perfectly clear: A vote for this narrow bill alone is not a serious vote about high gas prices. It is an abdication of our responsibilities as lawmakers. It is an insult to the American people who are demanding every single day that we do something to ease their pain at the pump.

This is not a theoretical problem. This is not a looming problem. It is an urgent problem. It is an urgent problem with families who have to struggle to put food on the table or send their kids to school. It is an urgent problem for the dialysis patients in my State who can't get treatment because they can't afford to get to town to see the doctor. And Americans are hearing the Democratic leadership's response, which is: No, we can't.

The ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, my good friend from New Mexico, put it this way. He said that in his 37 years of service in the Senate, he has never seen a single bigger problem met with a smaller solution. The Senator from New Mexico said he had never seen a bigger problem met with a smaller solution.

I would put it this way: Americans are saying the house is on fire, and the Democratic leadership is showing up at the scene with squirt guns.

Let's put the scope of this bill in perspective. During last year's energy debate--a year ago--on the Energy Independence and Security Act, 331 amendments were proposed, 49 amendments were agreed to, and gas prices were $3.06 a gallon. Two years before that, during the debate on the Energy Policy Act, 235 amendments were proposed, 57 amendments were agreed to, and gas was selling for $2.26 a gallon.

With gas prices in some places at more than double what they were then and when Americans are clamoring for dramatic action and when it is clearly the No. 1 issue in the country, the Democratic majority wants us to tighten the leash on a few speculators and then head home and do nothing else until next year.

To drive down gas prices, we could be opening the Outer Continental Shelf. Democratic leaders say: No, we can't. To drive down gas prices, we could be lifting the ban on development of vast oil shale deposits in Western States that sit on three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia. The Democratic leaders say: No, we can't.

To drive down gas prices, we could be approving incentives for battery-powered electric cars and trucks. Democratic leaders say: No, we can't.

To drive down gas prices, we could be voting to open untapped American oil. Democratic leaders say: No, we can't.

To drive down gas prices, we could be voting for new clean nuclear technology, but Democratic leaders say: No, we can't.

To drive down gas prices, we could be approving new and promising coal-to-liquid technology. Again, Democratic leaders say: No, we can't.

When will the Democratic leadership listen to the 77 percent of Americans who want us to use our own domestic resources to drive down the price of gas and say: Yes, we can. When will they listen to more than a dozen of their own Members on the other side of the aisle who are saying: Yes, we can.

Americans never imagined they would be paying these prices at the pump, but if the Democratic leadership has its way, Americans will be paying even more in the years to come. When that time comes and there is no one else to blame, they will look around and see that there is no one else around to blame but themselves. Then Americans will know whom to blame, and I can tell my colleagues it will not be the speculators.

Mr. President, I see my friend from Arizona on his feet, and I am wondering if he wishes to ask me a question.

I would be happy to.

My understanding of Senator McCain's position is the same as my good friend from Arizona. I believe he states correctly the position of his senior colleague from Arizona on this important issue of whether it would be useful for America--the third-largest oil producer in the world, sitting on vast reserves--to expand the usage of those reserves, particularly on the Outer Continental Shelf.

I would say to my friend from Arizona, my view on that is probably not as significant as others. For example, the famous oilman, T. Boone Pickens, who has been in town this week and who has met with Republicans and Democrats, has made it quite clear that he thinks we ought to be doing all these things, both on the find-more side, which would certainly involve greater use of the Outer Continental Shelf which is currently off-limits. He thinks we ought to be doing all these things. I gather that most experts understand the law of supply and demand, and if you increase supply and diminish demand, you are working in tandem to get gas prices down. I think it makes elementary good sense that that is the only way we will be able to make progress on this issue.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we all agree--I know the majority leader agrees with me--and we all understand the price of gas at the pump is the biggest issue in America. The only thing that has rivaled this in recent years was terrorism right after 9/11.

The American people overwhelmingly are in favor of seeing us get at the business of solving this problem. With all due respect to my friend from Nevada, to deal with the biggest issue in the country with a couple amendments is not consistent with the traditions of the Senate, not even consistent with the traditions of this current Senate led by my good friend from Nevada.

On last year's Energy bill, we had 15 days on the floor. We had 16 rollcall votes. Forty-nine total amendments were agreed to. At the time we were dealing with our Energy bill last year, the price of gas was $3.06 a gallon--about a dollar per gallon lower than it is now. Even though it was a serious problem, it is even more serious now.

Back in 2005, when my party was in the majority, we had an energy bill on the floor. We spent 10 days on it. Gas at that time was $2.26 a gallon. We had 19 rollcall votes. Fifty-seven amendments were ultimately agreed to.

The American people expect us to approach this issue seriously, to grapple with it. I think sort of dealing with it in a dismissive fashion or trying to deal only with a small portion of it does not pass the threshold of credibility.

So, Mr. President, I would object to that consent request, and I would offer a counter consent request that would be more consistent--I do object.

That would be more consistent with the way we have operated on this hugely important issue, even in this Congress just a year go.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate proceeds to the bill, it be limited to energy-related amendments only; further, that the amendments be offered in an alternating fashion between the two sides; I further ask unanimous consent that the bill remain the pending business to the exclusion of all other business, other than privileged matters and other matters that the two leaders might agree upon.

Before the Chair rules, I would say to the other side that what this would do would be to allow us to have a debate on this issue consistent with the way we have dealt with this issue in the past, when it was not even the biggest issue in the country, as it is now, entirely consistent with the traditions of the Senate on matters of this magnitude.

I would say to my good friend from Nevada, what are we afraid of here? Why should we not be spending our time dealing with the most important issue in the country?

So, Mr. President, that is the consent request I proffer.

Mr. President, I notice my good friend from Nevada did not mention T. Boone Pickens' views on whether speculation is a part of the problem. Republicans are perfectly happy to have a speculation component of the overall issue. But if we are in the business of quoting T. Boone Pickens, I had a chance to meet with him for an hour on Monday. He told me, without equivocation, he did not think speculation had anything to do with this particular runup. I do not know whether it does. I think most of my Members are in favor of transparency. We want to put more cops on the beat to make sure the markets are working properly. But if we are quoting Pickens, I am sure I will be safe in saying Pickens would not be voting for this bill that the majority leader thinks is the way we ought to go.

Right now in Lexington, KY, and Las Vegas, NV, and every other city and town across the country, Americans are hurting from high gas prices. Right now, there is a man watching his hard-earned paycheck go into his gas tank instead of his daughter's college fund. That man doesn't care about cloture motions or second-degree amendments; he wants Congress to do something. He wants us to act.

We have all heard the frustrations from constituents literally for months. They have made their feelings known. So we were surprised yesterday to learn about the intentions of our friends across the aisle when it comes to high gas prices. The majority leader told reporters that voting on more than one amendment per side--this is in some ways almost laughable--voting on more than one amendment per side on the No. 1 domestic issue facing our Nation is unreasonable.

Let me repeat that. Our friends on the other side are saying that having a real debate and considering good ideas from all sides is too much for the Senate to handle. They have apparently rejected the idea of finding a serious solution to high gas prices. Instead, they want us to take up a proposal that is designed to fail. They want us to try to fool our constituents into believing we are addressing this problem in a serious way, when everyone knows we are not.

It is no surprise that the Democratic leadership won't allow Americans' top priorities to be heard. It is the same reason they have been canceling hearings and markups all week. They don't want to choose between their Presidential nominee--whose position on bringing down gas prices is: No, we can't--and the demands of the guy at the gas pump who is watching his daughter's college fund shrink with every gallon he puts in the tank.

It is a sad commentary, given the propositions they made. Our friends across the aisle promised a year-and-a-half ago in their ``Six for 06'' pledge to lower gas prices and to free America from dependence on foreign oil, but things didn't turn out exactly as planned. The fact is, a gallon of gas is now $1.70 higher than it was when the new majority took over and promised to lower it. At a time when Americans are clamoring for them to make good on their pledge, they must muster the political will to do something about it. We should not be content to leave town after a couple of failed votes and a speculation proposal that no serious economist in America believes will have a significant impact by itself on the price of gas.

Let me reiterate. The Republicans believe we can strengthen the futures markets. Our bill would do just that--the Gas Price Reduction Act. If bad actors are out there, we would like to find them by putting more cops on the beat and by bringing greater transparency to the market, but we don't claim this provision alone will solve the problem. No serious person would claim that. The other side has made the astonishing claim that the speculation provision alone will lower the price of gas by 20 to 50 percent. Yet I have found no one--not the chairman of the Federal Reserve, not the 27-nation International Energy Agency, not even the most famous rich Democrat in America, Warren Buffett--to back up that claim.

Yesterday, our colleague, the junior Senator from Texas, asked here on the floor for any citation backing up such a claim. My good friend the majority leader came back to the floor to respond, but the only person he could name who had made this claim had been so thoroughly discredited here in the Senate that the Democratic chairman of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued a stinging 11- page rebuttal of his recent testimony. In testimony before the committee, the majority leader's source--a lawyer, not an economist-- claimed that ``overnight,'' the speculation bill dealing with energy commodities would ``bring down the price of crude oil, I believe, by 25 percent.''

The committee's public response to this notion of an overnight reduction of 25 percent was blunt. Here is what the committee had to say:

There is no credible evidence that simply amending the

Commodities Exchange Act to regulate energy commodities as if

they were agricultural commodities will lead to lower energy

prices.

So in other words, the one source our friends across the aisle point to when they claim their bill will lower the cost of energy by 20 to 50 percent is the subject of an 11-page, bipartisan rebuke which says there is zero credible evidence to support his claim.

Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues the report from the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Let me say it again: We, as do our friends, support legislation that keeps bad actors from driving up gas prices. We have addressed this in our own bill, the gas price reduction bill, but serious people understand that if this activity

is occurring, it is a small portion of the overall problem.

This leads me to a broader point. The price of gas at the pump is a serious national problem that requires a serious legislative response. We cannot solve this problem with timid, half-hearted measures. We need to act boldly, and that means we need to consider good ideas from both sides, as we have typically done when dealing with the biggest issues in the country. Now is not the time to be timid or to play political games that are designed to benefit a single party. Our job, it seems to me, is to help the man or woman at the gas pump who is making hard choices in order to keep his gas tank full. That is why it is so irresponsible to shortchange this debate. Until we have acted boldly to cut gas prices and our reliance on Middle East oil, we will be ignoring the demands of the American people.

So it is time to be serious about this problem. No more unsupportable outlandish claims, no more relying on discredited testimony, no more canceling markups simply to avoid taking votes on a serious approach to lowering the price of gas at the pump.

We need to find more and we need to use less, and we need to start now. We need to consider good ideas from all sides, and we need to take seriously that energy is the No. 1 domestic issue facing our Nation. We simply can't go through a failed process, claim credit for trying, and then pack up and go home. Let's get serious. Let's open this debate to more than one good idea rather than bring it to a premature conclusion, and let's find a solution that incorporates increased domestic supply as well as conservation. We need to find more and use less, and the American people are simply demanding no less from us.

I see the Senator from New Hampshire is here.

I am happy to yield to my friend from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from New Hampshire, of course. That moratorium was installed by this new majority last year to shut down this promising new source that we have right here in our country, some have estimated as much oil as the entire reserves in Saudi Arabia times three.

I believe I have the floor, Mr. President.

I am happy to yield.

I think my friend from Arizona is correct. What I proposed to the majority leader and to the Senate--to which he objected, unfortunately--was that we proceed on this measure related to the subject that is most on the minds of the American people in a way entirely consistent with the way we have dealt with energy in the past when it wasn't the No. 1 issue in the country.

Last year when we were on an energy measure, the way we proceeded involved 15 days on the floor, it involved 16 rollcall votes and the adoption of 49 amendments. I say to my friend from Arizona, at that time gasoline was way too high, but it wasn't nearly as high as it is now. It was $3.06 a gallon; now it is about a dollar a gallon higher. That was in this Congress.

In 2005, when our party was in the majority, we passed an energy bill, and we spent 10 days on the floor. At that time gas was $2.26 a gallon. We had 19 rollcall votes, 57 amendments were adopted, and we passed the bill.

So if we were treating the subject of energy in a credible way consistent with Senate traditions in 2005 when it wasn't the No. 1 issue and in 2007 when it wasn't the No. 1 issue in the country, my thought is why in the world would we be trying to do something less than that--something that doesn't give all Senators, many of whom have good ideas to propose on both sides of the aisle, an opportunity to craft a proposal that gets at the No. 1 issue in the country. That is what my unanimous consent request would have allowed. I proffered it a while ago. It was objected to. It would have allowed us to have energy- related amendments only, I would say to my friend from Arizona, that we would rotate from side to side--a Republican amendment and then a Democratic amendment--and we wouldn't put a sort of arbitrary timeline on ending the discussion prematurely before we had dealt with the problem.

Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I believe the Senator from New Hampshire----

I would be happy to yield to my friend from New Hampshire for a question.

I say to my friend from New Hampshire that under the consent agreement I proffered, to which there was an objection lodged by the majority leader, such an amendment would have been entirely appropriate, and as he suggests, entirely

consistent with the subject that I know my good friend, the majority leader, cares deeply about.

He brought up in the Senate a climate change measure back in the first week of June--something he obviously felt was important. We spent a number of days on it. Many people feel nuclear power is one of the best solutions to the climate change issue, an entirely relevant subject to energy, and would have been permitted under the consent agreement that I offered earlier.

So I think the point is well made, that it is the kind of amendment you would normally expect in the Senate on the biggest issue in the country to be offering, debating, and voting on.

I see my friend from Texas.

I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. President, I might say to my friend from Texas that I was surprised to learn that not only was the meeting canceled, the rationale for canceling the meeting was announced by the chairman as being precisely what the Senator from Texas suggests, which was the avoidance of having to vote on the question of offshore drilling.

The last two surveys I looked at--one is a Fox survey and one a CNN survey--indicated that over 70 percent of the American people believe we ought to move in previously off-limits offshore areas to increase American production. I was surprised to see that the chairman of the committee doesn't want to allow a vote on that. It strikes me that there is a lot of dodging and weaving going on here to try to avoid voting on the things the American people are clearly asking us to do.

I thank the Senator from Texas for raising that issue. Does she have another question?

The appropriations process has certainly been used in the past to achieve the opposite result. I believe the process was used last year to put a moratorium on going forward with the development of oil shale, much of which is found in Utah. I see our friend from Utah. So it is not at all inappropriate, it strikes me, for the appropriations process to consider the other side of the equation, which is to actually provide additional domestic production.

It is pretty clear what is going on here, I say to my friend from Texas. There is a great effort to avoid having the Senate go on record on the issues that are on the minds of the American people, that they believe--I think correctly--would take us in the direction of moving toward energy independence, which is something that clearly has not been accomplished.

Mr. President, this is an important debate which I and most of my Members think we ought to continue to be on for many days, and to try to achieve an accomplishment for the American people that would make a difference. I don't think we should be afraid of this issue. That is what the Senate is here to do--grapple with the big issues confronting the country. This is the biggest one. It is time that we dealt with it.

I yield the floor.

I say to my Senate colleagues, to the American people, there is both good news and bad news. The good news is we are now on a subject that the American people are interested in. The bad news is, it only deals with a very tiny part of the overall problem we confront.

We know that over 80 percent of the American public believes we ought to expand domestic production of oil and gas, both onshore and offshore. We know a speculation-only bill, while interesting debate as to what part of the price of gas at the pump speculation involves, we know that alone is not going to deal with the core problem, which is we do not have enough supply of oil and gas.

As the most famous rich Democrat in America, Warren Buffett, said: We do not have a speculation problem, we have a supply and a demand problem.

As T. Boone Pickens, who has been liberally quoted on both sides of the aisle here, and has been in town this week, has repeatedly pointed out to us, his view is we ought to do everything we can to both expand domestic production and to conserve. But he too does not believe speculation alone has anything to do with the core problem.

The dilemma we have now is that we have a very narrowly crafted measure that the majority leader has made impossible to amend, that no experts in the country think would have a real impact on the core problem. Senate Republicans find that unacceptable.

The American people are pounding the table. They are angry as they gas up their cars every week and see the pricetag. They are saying: Do something and do something now that will make a difference. This is the biggest issue in the country since terrorism right after 9/11, and our response: A no-amendment approach. That is simply unacceptable and inconsistent with even the recent history of the Senate when preventing amendments by the minority has become all too common.

Look back to last fall or last year. We did an energy bill on the floor of the Senate, an important energy bill that, among other things, raised the corporate average fuel economy of automobiles. We spent 15 days on the floor. The price of gas at that point was $3.06 a gallon. It is a full dollar or so higher now. It was not the biggest issue in the country at that point. Although it was a big issue, it was not the biggest issue. We had 16 rollcall votes. We agreed to 49 amendments; in 15 days, 49 amendments when the price of gas was $3.06 a gallon.

In 2005, when this side of the aisle contained the majority, we had an energy bill, an important energy bill. The price of gas at that time was $2.26 a gallon, which we all felt was entirely too high then. We spent 10 days on the floor on that debate, we had 19 rollcall votes on amendments, and we adopted 57 amendments.

Both of those measures ended up becoming law. They were clearly not one of those check-the-box exercises where you put everybody on record and move on. I think the American people would be appalled and will be appalled as they learn that the plan here is to not do anything serious about the biggest issue in the country.

There is a lot of dodging and weaving going on. We know the Senate Appropriations Committee decided not to function out of fear that amendments would be offered relating to offshore drilling. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I gather, was rather candid about it: We are not going to meet because we might have votes on the No. 1 issue for the American people, which is to expand domestic supply.

Now, we have said repeatedly on this side that we do not think expanding supply is the key. We think you should both find more and use less--do both. As T. Boone Pickens repeatedly told us this week, both sides of the aisle: You need to do all of these things. You need to do all of them quickly. ``Get about it,'' he suggests.

I am sure he said to the Democrats, as he did to the Republicans, that he is 80 years old, he wants to see some results soon. He said he was running out of time. Well, the American people are running out of time too. So my suggestion is we proceed with this bill, the most important issue in the country, in a way that will get a result for the American people. A proven way to get a result, demonstrated last year when the Democrats were in the majority and in 2005 when the Republicans were in the majority, is to have a process that is fair to both sides, that allows all Members of the Senate to participate in writing a bill on an important subject.

Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 3268

Now, in that regard, I have indicated to my friend the majority leader that I was going to propound a unanimous consent agreement that I think would be reasonable, related to the subject, and begin to move us in the direction of having an accomplishment and not a check-the-box exercise.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the pending measure in the following manner: that the bill be subject to energy-related amendments only; provided further, that amendments be considered in an alternating manner between the two sides of the aisle, first an amendment on one side, then on the other. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill remaining be the pending business to the exclusion of all other business other than privileged matters or items that are agreed to jointly by the two leaders. I ask unanimous consent that the first seven amendments to be offered on my side of the aisle by the Republicans, by either myself or my designee, be the following: an Outer Continental Shelf amendment, plus the conservation provision; an oil shale amendment, including a conservation provision; an Alaska energy production amendment, including a conservation provision; the Gas Price Reduction Act, which has 44 cosponsors; a clean nuclear energy amendment; a coal-to-liquid fuel amendment, plus conservation; and a LIHEAP amendment.

All this would do would be to indicate what the Republicans have in mind on those seven amendments related to the subject, and would give notice to the other side that were we permitted to do so, those would be the first seven we would offer.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that that be adopted.

Well, Madam President, the good news is we are on the subject the American people are interested in. Republicans believe it is important to talk about the biggest issue in the country. We have agreed that speculation is something we are willing to take a look at.

As the majority leader pointed out, it is part of the Gas Price Reduction Act. But we need to do a lot more than that, and we will be arguing during the pendency of this issue that we ought to open this bill, give all Senators on both the Democratic and Republican side an opportunity to turn this into a serious, comprehensive energy proposal, debated and amended, consistent with Senate tradition.

That, we know, will lead to an actual law. What happens when you go through these expurgated, slimmed-down, check-the-box exercises is, you do not get anything done. The American people are out of patience. Maybe this is one of the reasons this Congress has a 14-percent approval rating, which makes the President's approval rating look pretty good. They sent us here to do something, and I think I can safely speak on behalf of the Republican conference that we are ready to do something about the most important issue in the country.

We are pleased to be on the subject matter, and I see my good friend from Arizona on his feet.

Madam President, I would be happy to.

Well, Madam President, I would say to my friend from Arizona, of course not. Members of our conference, as we know because we worked very hard on this, believe that the four provisions of the Gas Price Reduction Act--offshore drilling, oil shale moratorium--I see the Senator from Colorado here--battery-driven cars--I see the Senator from Tennessee here--and an important provision on speculation are a good place to start.

We would like to have that vote. But there are other members of our conference--I see the Senator from Alaska here who feels very strongly maybe this is a good time to debate and vote on ANWR or maybe a good time to discuss the proposal about which the other side has been talking about part of her State that is currently open that may or may not end up being productive.

The fundamental point, I say to my friend from Arizona, is, everybody in the Republican conference believes, since this is the most important issue in the country, we ought to spend some time on it and try to get it right. That is what we ought to be doing.

I see my friend from Tennessee on his feet. Does he have a question?

Madam President, I am happy to yield.

Madam President, I would say to my friend from Tennessee that is precisely what we had hoped to do. And that is the reason I outlined the way the Senate dealt with the broad subject of energy last year under a Democratic majority and 3 years ago under a Republican majority.

If we want to make a law around here, the way you do it is you give both sides an opportunity to amend and debate. That is not for the purpose of not going forward with a bill. That is for the purpose of going forward with a bill and getting a result. I think clearly I can safely speak for every single member of the Republican conference: We would like to get a result to make a difference.

Madam President, I say to my friend from Tennessee, I think I am hard pressed to think of a particular example of any conservation measure that virtually every Member of our conference is not in favor of. Every Member of our conference has said, as the Senator from Tennessee has indicated, that we would like to both find more and use less, and we are confident that we cannot have an accomplishment that actually makes a difference unless we do both.

So I think the Senator from Tennessee is entirely correct. Our goal here is to find more and to use less and to actually make a law and make a difference rather than trying to make an issue.

The only time I heard that suggested was by some of our friends on the other side of the aisle who think maybe you can only do half of that. But I am unaware of any American people who believe that. The American people get this. The reason this issue has jumped way up the charts is because they understand the law of supply and demand. They understand we both need to find more and to use less.

And I do not understand the reluctance here. I really do not. In a Congress enjoying a 14-percent approval rating, I do not understand what my good friends on the other side are afraid of. What is the problem? Why don't we join hands and do something?

Every one of our amendments may not pass; we do not know whether they will. But what is the reluctance of the majority to tackle the No. 1 issue in the country? I am perplexed by the strategy. I do not know why we should be afraid. We are all familiar with these issues. We wrestled with many of them in 2007 when we passed an energy bill. We did it in 2005 when we passed an energy bill. Most people think both of those bills made a positive difference for the country. It obviously is not enough.

If not now, when? When? Now is the perfect time to get started. And it is never a good answer to say if we do this or we do that it will not make a difference tomorrow. Almost none of these things make a difference tomorrow, unless collectively we do something that is so applauded by the rest of the world and by the markets that they think, my goodness, maybe these Americans are serious about getting on top of this problem and doing something about it.

So that is our goal, I would say to my good friend, the majority leader. There

is nothing tricky about it. There are no gimmicks involved. This is a serious effort and an overwhelming interest on our side to make a law-- a law that will make a difference, and to do it not tomorrow, not 3 weeks from now, not in November, but now. The way forward toward an accomplishment for our country is to get started. We have the opportunity to do that.

If my good friend on the other side would like to engage in further discussions off the floor about ways in which we can agree to sets of amendments that are fair to both sides and go forward, we are happy to do that. But we are relieved to be on the subject, and we think we ought to stay on this subject because the American people expect it of us.

Madam President, I will be happy to yield to the Senator from New Hampshire for a question.

Madam President, I say to my friend from New Hampshire, of course we would be happy to agree to time agreements on our amendments. We want to go forward. There is no effort to slow this down. We want to make progress. Frequently, as my friend from New Hampshire points out, the way you make progress when you offer an amendment around here is, you agree to a time agreement. There is a certain amount of risk involved because you do not know whether you are going to win or lose, but you move forward.

That, I assure my colleagues, is the way we handled the energy bill last year, it is the way we handled the energy bill in 2005, and it is the way to make a law and to make a difference for our country.

So I would say to my good friend, the majority leader, that is where we hope we will end up, in a position where both sides can have their fair say on this important issue and just maybe come together and do something important for the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in connection with debate on the motion to proceed, I ask unanimous consent that the time allocated to my side before the vote be equally divided between Senator Domenici and Senator Cornyn.

Mr. President, today the Senate will continue debate on the No. 1 domestic issue facing the Nation, but it now seems clear that the majority is not interested in a full and open debate, is not interested in good ideas from all sides, and is designing floor debate that is designed to fail. That is simply unacceptable. I was disturbed to read this morning that our friends on the other side are considering only a brief and limited consideration of this bill. It is troubling that at a time of $4.06-a-gallon gas, the Senate would treat the issue as if it is some technical corrections bill. Let me assure my friends it is not.

Let's be absolutely clear, Republicans will not accept a perfunctory approach to the problem. We are not content with a check-the-box exercise. More important, the American people will not accept a timid approach to such a major problem. This is the biggest issue in the country by far. The only thing I can recall in recent years that rivals it was terrorism right after 9/11. The Republican conference is interested in a solution. We are not interested in holding a pair of votes so that we can go home with political cover to blame the other side for our collective lack of accomplishment.

Let's be clear, speculation-only legislation is a very little piece to a massive problem. Americans are facing

that problem every day at the pump. The American people are speaking very clearly about what needs to be done, and the Senate has the ability to answer their call. Americans are going to continue to demand a serious solution that gets at both supply and demand. Nothing less can be seen as a solution. Nobody can say with a straight face that simply addressing speculation, a very narrow part of the problem, is a serious approach.

The majority seems less concerned with passing a bill which can bring down the price of gas and more concerned with just passing some bill. But it wasn't too long ago that the majority party, regardless of which party was in control, welcomed an open debate on energy legislation.

Let's look back to last year. Last year, when the Senate considered the Energy Independence and Security Act and when gas was $3.06 a gallon, 49 amendments were agreed to out of the 331 which were filed. Of those amendments, 16 received rollcall votes. In 2005, when the price of gas was $2.26 a gallon, a Republican majority allowed 19 rollcall votes on amendments during debate on the Energy Policy Act of 2005. A total of 57 amendments were agreed to out of 235 proposed. Neither of these bills was rushed through in less than a week. We spent 15 days on the floor debating last year's Energy bill and 10 days in 2005 because we wanted to make sure we got it right, that ideas from both sides were considered, that the legislation would have the needed impact.

We need to do that again. The current cost of gas is a serious problem that requires a very serious approach. The Senate insults the American people if it treats this problem with anything less than the seriousness such a big problem requires. We need to find more and use less. We need to consider good ideas from all sides, and we need to take seriously that energy is the No. 1 issue facing our country and act on it now. We simply can't go through a failed process, claim credit for trying, and then go home. Americans know better, and Americans expect more.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to note Senate passage of H.R. 3890, the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE, Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts, Act. This is bipartisan legislation that is now on its way to the President for his signature. In this effort, I was pleased to work closely again with my friend and colleague, Senator Biden of Delaware.

This bill--appropriately named in honor of Tom Lantos, a great champion of Burmese freedom and reconciliation--will further ratchet up the already strict sanctions against the State Peace and Development Council, SPDC, the grotesquely misnamed ruling junta. In doing so, it will restrict the importation of jade into the U.S. through other countries, one of the most lucrative sources of profit for the junta. It also enhances existing financial sanctions against the regime and includes new reporting requirements which will provide greater transparency about the junta. These reports include data about the SPDC's financial holdings; information about countries that provide military assistance to the regime; and background on the Burmese timber trade.

I would note that, like the annual Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, this legislation does not interrupt the flow of humanitarian assistance to the people of Burma, who continue to struggle in the wake of Cyclone Nargis. By focusing the sanctions on the SPDC, this bill sends a clear message to the junta that the United States stands squarely with the freedom-loving people of Burma.

As my colleagues can tell you, passing legislation sometimes means you don't get everything you want. I have been on record for over a decade as supporting the divestment of U.S. energy interests in Burma. I would have preferred it if Congress had taken binding action in this bill to compel divestment, but including such a provision would have threatened passage of this important legislation. Nonetheless, I would point out that Congress makes its position on the issue quite clear by encouraging the voluntary divestment of all energy companies operating in Burma.

Finally, I would also like to express my appreciation for all those who have worked diligently on this legislation. In particular, I would like to thank Frank Jannuzi and Keith Luse of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff for their efforts.