Floor Statements

Mr. President, as Washington, and all of America, continue to pay tribute to Tim Russert, I wish to add a few more words about a man who impacted everybody in this body in one way or another over the years.

I have been a fairly regular guest on ``Meet the Press'' over the years, so I got to know Tim Russert primarily as a tough interviewer, but I also came to appreciate and admire his extraordinary people skills, which were as good as those of any politician here in Washington.

I remember him saying once that his son Luke was a big fan of Tubby Smith, the old UK Wildcats basketball coach. I think Luke even went to Tubby's basketball camp one summer. Well, anytime I or anybody else on the staff got on the phone with Tim, he would also start off with ``Go Cats.'' It is just one example of the great mind he had for small personal details and how he employed that skill in a totally unpretentious way.

He also knew I was a Louisville Cardinal basketball fan, and he invariably would turn the subject to Rick Patino and his considerable skills, and that is a way in which he kind of related to everybody.

Bill Kristol was getting at the same thing in his column this morning, in which he related a story that has been around this town for a while. The story goes that when Pat Moynihan was trying to convince Tim to come down to the Capitol to be his Chief of Staff, Tim didn't want to come because Moynihan's office was all Ph.Ds and intellectuals. He didn't think he would fit in. Moynihan said:

Tim, the things they know you can learn. But the things you

know they can never learn.

So as Tim Russert rose to the height of his profession, it became clear Pat Moynihan was right on target.

I found it particularly moving to see Luke paying tribute to his father on television this morning. As Tim often said, being a good father was the job he put the most stock in, and it appears he has done a superb job in that respect as well.

Tax Extenders Bill

Today the Senate will vote on whether to proceed to the House-passed tax

extenders bill. Republicans support the provisions being extended in this legislation. That is why I, along with several of my colleagues, introduced an even stronger version of the House bill, one that contains even longer extensions of the expired provisions, provides AMT relief excluded from the House bill, and does both in a form that would avoid a veto; that is, of course, without raising taxes.

The tax provisions in question are an enormous help to millions of Americans, and a long-term extension would provide the added comfort of predictability into the family budget and the small business balance sheet in the midst of a difficult economic time.

Republicans have been firm on this point, which is why I read with some amusement a letter which was sent to me on Friday by my friend the majority leader, extolling the virtues of the House bill. As I said, Republicans truly agree that the expired provisions certainly merit extension. This is not a State secret. Our point of departure, the principle we have insisted on, is this: Short-term tax extensions should not be the occasion for permanent tax increases. If a new tax policy is being created, that is one thing. But if current taxes are simply being extended, those extensions should not be accompanied by new tax increases. To do so would be to transform the annual ritual of extending current tax law into a stealth exercise in increasing the size of Government.

Unfortunately, the House Democratic leadership seems to have dug in, saying it will not pass an extenders bill without tax hikes. This brings us to an impasse for no good reason. First of all, it strikes me as odd that the House Democratic leadership would single out these particular tax extenders for a fight on offsets. They didn't need offsets on the stimulus bill earlier this year. AMT relief will apparently not require offsets this year. House leaders have signaled that a new GI benefits expansion would not require offsets. And just last week, the House passed an unemployment insurance expansion bill that did not have offsets.

It is entirely possible that the Democratic leadership is open to compromise. Recall that during last year's AMT debate, House leaders also insisted on offsets. On December 18, just last year, House Democrats were saying they would not consider AMT relief unless it included tax hikes elsewhere. Then the following day, September 19, they passed an AMT bill without tax hikes by a vote of 352 to 64. After all the press releases and letters had been issued, our friends on the other side sat down with Republicans and did something we should do a lot more of around here: they negotiated.

So notwithstanding the letter I received on Friday from my good friend, the majority leader, I am hopeful we can do the same thing on this tax extenders bill--sit down together and come up with a solution that is acceptable to both sides and which actually has a chance of being signed into law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today the national average for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline hit another all-time high of $4.06. For truckers it's even worse, with the average cost of diesel now at $4.79 a gallon.

Every American is suffering the effects of high gas prices. But low- and middle-income families are hurting the most. Many now spend a significant portion of their income just getting to and from work. A good number of people in eastern Kentucky are spending 15 percent of their income just on gas.

Some people are taking second jobs just to cover the cost of getting to and from their primary jobs.

Prices are so high Democrats are starting to talk about gas prices being a serious problem. A number of them spoke yesterday about the effect that gas prices have on the wider economy.

The junior Senator from Colorado told us about a farmer in Kit Carson County who is worried he won't be able to afford the diesel fuel he needs to harvest his wheat crop at the end of the summer.

The junior Senator from Montana said manufacturers in his State are at risk of shutting down, that truckers are struggling to make ends meet, and farmers are struggling to pay for fertilizer. The junior Senator from Minnesota said the people of her State are lining up around the block at the

Costco in Minneapolis just to save some money.

Even the senior Senator from New York got in on the act, though mostly as an excuse to go after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. I am not sure how this was relevant to gas prices. Maybe he thought people would feel better if they realized they'd be even worse off if we hadn't cut their taxes.

But to all our friends on the other side who have spoken about the crushing effects of high gas prices, I would simply add that they are right on target. High gas prices do affect everything. High gas prices do hurt. And I would also add this: Democrats in Congress have no plan to lower them.

In a month when gas prices have hit record highs, Democrats have proposed three things: a massive carbon tax, a tax on energy companies, and allowing trial lawyers to sue our trading partners. This isn't an energy plan. It is a caricature. It is a caricature of a party that seems incapable of conceiving any solution to any problem that doesn't involve taxation or litigation.

With gas prices causing unprecedented pain at the pump for working Americans, Democrats have responded by trying to raise taxes that we know will be passed onto consumers. Ignoring the iron laws of supply and demand, they insist that high gas prices must be the result of some corporate plot instead. But the current crisis is a supply and demand problem--not a supply and demand and litigation problem, not a supply and demand and taxation problem, a supply and demand problem.

It is fairly straightforward: at the moment, there's greater demand than supply. And last year, Republicans joined Democrats in addressing demand by passing the first increase in national fuel efficiency standards in more than 30 years. We have also tried to address the supply problem by increasing production of American energy. At every turn, we have been blocked.

Since 1991, the Senate has voted a dozen times on allowing limited exploration in a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A Democrat President has vetoed it or Democrats have blocked it every single time. When he did it, incidentally, gas at the pump was $1.06 a gallon.

Last year, the Senate voted on proposals to expand refinery capacity, invest in coal-to-liquid technology, and open up more domestic reserves. Democrats blocked each one.

Last year, Republicans proposed allowing Virginia to go forward with deep sea exploration off its coast--something that Virginia, under a Democratic Governor, wants. Democrats in Congress said no.

Republicans have tried to allow the use of oil shale from Western States as an alternative to foreign oil. Democrats imposed an oil-shale ban in last year's Omnibus Appropriations bill.

Last month, Republicans tried to increase production of American energy again, along with an increase in support for clean energy technology and plug-in hybrid vehicles. Democrats said no.

And just last week, I offered an amendment to ensure that if the Boxer climate tax bill caused gas prices to go up, we would suspend its provisions. Democrats blocked that too.

For years, Democrats have blocked every effort to increase the production of American energy and help bring gas prices down. They have said no to States that want to allow for deep sea exploration off their shores. They have blocked the use of oil shale. They have blocked a dozen efforts to open a small portion of ANWR for environmentally sensitive exploration, which--if it had not been vetoed 13 years ago-- would be providing a million barrels of oil a day to American consumers right now.

That's twice as much as the senior Senator from New York wants us to beg from the Saudis. And now, they want to raise gas prices even more through higher taxes.

It should be abundantly clear by now to anyone who is paying attention that our friends on the other side have no serious plan for lowering gas prices. As the record suggests, their primary concern is blocking increased production, which has inexorably led to record gas prices.

If people are being forced to change their lifestyles, if the price of goods is skyrocketing, that is apparently all right, according to our friends on the other side. Their Presidential nominee even admits it. He says the high price of gas isn't the problem. The problem, he says, is that prices went up too quickly. If he had his way, he would have raised prices much more slowly.

He would have preferred that gas prices go up more slowly than the $1 increase we have seen under the new Democrat Congress over the last year.

He would have preferred they go up more slowly than the astonishing $1.73 increase per gallon of gasoline we have seen just in the 17 months since Democrats took over Congress in January 2007.

As the Democrat nominee put it in an interview earlier this week, he would have preferred a ``gradual readjustment'' in gas prices, presumably so Americans wouldn't notice the shock of it.

We used to think $4 a gallon gasoline was unthinkable. Our friends on the other side were apparently thinking about it all along. ``I think I would have preferred a gradual readjustment.''

Those are the words of their nominee.

While Americans are reeling over high gas prices, increasingly demanding that we increase our production of American energy, Democrats haven't let us turn over a single shovel for exploration here at home. And now they have got what they wanted.

We all agree that the key to our energy future is clean energy technologies and alternative fuels that move us away from oil. What the other side refuses to acknowledge is that it will take some time to get there. We are moving in that direction as quickly as we can. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion in both the 2005 and 2007 energy bills to accelerate the process of moving to clean energy technologies and alternative sources of fuel.

But the facts are clear: in the short term, America will depend on fossil fuels to drive our economy. For the foreseeable future, our choice is the same as it's always been: either import our energy from people like Hugo Chavez and from Saudi Arabia or use more of our own. But our friends on the other side have removed the option of increased American energy created by increasing American jobs. They have made sure we have only one option. They have put domestic energy off limits. And now we're paying the price.

Republicans have been willing to work with Democrats to address both sides of this problem. Republicans enthusiastically support conservation.

Last year, we supported the first increase in automobile efficiency standards in more than three decades. We have supported investments in alternative energy. We know this problem requires action on both the supply and the demand side. And we have shown it. But we're still waiting for our friends on the other side to show the same commitment to actually address the problem.

For the sake of all the American people, who will today make hard choices at the gas pump, we need to work together to lower prices now, and that means that as the third largest oil producer in the world, America needs to increase its own domestic supplies in an environmentally responsible way so we are less reliant on Middle East oil and so our people finally get some relief.

Mr. President, today is the anniversary of an important event in recent world history that demonstrates the impact that words--well-chosen words--can have.

June 12, 1987, marks the day that President Ronald Reagan issued a challenge to Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to make unmistakably clear his commitment to lessening Cold War tensions and increasing freedom in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe.

Speaking before the Brandenburg Gate in what was then West Berlin, President Reagan stood only 100 yards away from the Berlin Wall, which had divided the free people of West Berlin from the captive Germans in Soviet-controlled East Berlin for decades. An estimated 20,000 people gathered to hear him, including West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl.

``There is one sign the Soviets could make that would be unmistakable,

that would advance the cause of freedom and peace,'' President Reagan said.

Addressing the Soviet Premier directly, he then continued:

If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet

Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberation: Come here

to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev,

tear down this wall!

Two years later, Germans East and West did raze that wall, presaging German reunification and the fall of the Soviet Union. A piece of the Berlin Wall is preserved today in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA.

At the time, the Soviet state-run press agency called this historic speech ``openly provocative'' and ``war-mongering.'' But Chancellor Kohl, who was there, knew the truth. ``Ronald Reagan was a man who achieved great things for his country,'' Chancellor Kohl said in 2004. ``He was a stroke of luck for the world, especially for Europe.''

There we have an example of the power to make walls crumble, by the sound of freedom--all because of the right words, well chosen and linked to the right policy.

We cannot say what national security crisis will confront us in the future, but we can say that confront us they will, no question about it. When that happens, the world must know that America will fight on the side of justice and freedom.

One great leader made that clear 21 years ago today when he said four simple words: ``Tear down this wall.''

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the speech of my good friend, the majority leader, sounds eerily similar to the one he made yesterday morning at exactly the same time, so I won't prolong this back and forth other than to say it is an interesting campaign speech, but the issue before us is, if we do want to legislate, we know how we have to legislate in the Senate. We had the same discussion yesterday morning. The way you don't legislate in the Senate is refuse to let the minority offer amendments.

I know this is inside baseball to most observers who don't follow every nuance of what we do in the Senate, but the way you legislate in the Senate is you call up a bill and you have a free amendment process and then you pass it. Prematurely filing cloture, filling up the tree, preventing the minority from having any serious impact on legislation doesn't work. You can call that obstructionism if you want, but another way of looking at it would be to say the majority leader would like to turn the Senate into the House, and that is not the way we operate here. The Republican minority is pretty unified over the notion that they do not intend to be irrelevant.

With regard to the issue that is of most importance to the country-- global warming--in fact, it is still the pending business. My Members are anxious to offer amendments on that debate. We have been on that measure. We discussed it all day yesterday and have been discussing it in previous days. We actually voted to continue the debate and would like to have a chance to offer amendments to it.

But I think my good friend, the majority leader, would like, rather than giving us a chance to truly amend the bill, to just simply check the box and say: That is another filibuster, and move on.

It is a fact--it is not any kind of Orwellian spin--that gas prices are up $1.70 since the Democratic majority took over. It is also a fact that Republicans, as I indicated in my comments earlier, are open to any of the conservation measures that have been suggested. But the fundamental problem is that our good friends on the other side are not willing to do anything whatsoever on the production side.

Even though I think, for example, that suing OPEC is somewhat ludicrous, I would be open to it if someone on the other side would say: OK, we will sue OPEC and we will add to that a measure allowing the opening of the Outer Continental Shelf, where States want to. I mean, why should the Federal Government prevent a State that actually wants to open the Outer Continental Shelf from doing so?

That is the way you go forward around here, with each side getting something. But, unfortunately, in these debates, they want it their way or not at all, and they do not even want to give us a chance to consider or approve these efforts to increase our production.

So the way to legislate in the Senate is pretty clear. The majority leader and I have been around here a while. We remember when we used to pass legislation, and we also remember how we did it. As I indicated yesterday morning, a good model for big, complicated bills, as the Clean Air Act of 1990 was--it was on the Senate floor for 5 weeks with 180 amendments and everybody participating, everybody offering amendments. We worked our way through the process, and we passed a major piece of legislation. You can't bring up something like a climate bill, fill up the tree and file cloture, and call that a serious effort to legislate.

I am sure it is somewhat confusing to casual observers, all this spin back and forth, but the fact is, the Senate is a place full of serious legislators on both sides of the aisle, and the only way we will actually be able to accomplish anything for the American people is for everybody's rights to be respected, for everybody to have a chance to participate, and at the end of the day to make some kind of bipartisan accommodation that would include some things the other side would like to accomplish, which I might not think is a great idea, but would also include some things that most of my Members believe would make a difference. That is the way to pass major legislation.

So, Mr. President, I enjoy these morning discussions with the majority leader. He is a good friend of mine. I like him a lot, I enjoy working with him, and I hope we can get past making a campaign speech every morning and actually see if there isn't some way to move forward on important legislation for the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, our greatest successes in this Congress have come when both sides have worked together. We saw it last year on the Energy bill when we increased the CAFE standards to historic levels and, more recently, the first thing this year on the economic stimulus package.

We started initially down the path of compromise when we began the Medicare discussions. Both sides wanted to prevent cuts to physicians in the Medicare Program and to preserve access to the quality of medical care our seniors have come to depend upon.

Unfortunately, the majority walked away from these bipartisan discussions. In an effort to preserve some of the progress, protect benefits for seniors, and to produce a bill that can be signed into law, Senator Grassley crafted a Medicare bill which, if it were to be passed today, it would be signed by the President of the United States.

Senator Grassley's alternative, which I will shortly ask consent to go to, includes a 1.1 percent increase in the physician update, protection for patients who need extensive therapies following a stroke, 2 years of funding for the special diabetes program, a new cardiopulmonary rehabilitation benefit--this is, by the way, especially important to Kentucky where far too many of our citizens struggle with pulmonary diseases.

There is a new program to improve care and save money by encouraging doctors to write prescriptions electronically, a very important step in the right direction. And it also preserves patient choice and access to Medicare Advantage, which helps retired Kentucky teachers.

We all know what is going to happen. Once this bill is not proceeded to, we will have bipartisan negotiations, which is the way this process started out in the first place and, frankly, the way it will ultimately end. That is the way the Senate does its best work. Having said that, I have notified my friend, the majority leader, that I did have a consent agreement to propound. I see that he is now on the Senate floor. I will ask that consent at this time.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion be temporarily set aside and that it be in order for the Republican leader to move to proceed to S. 3118, a bill introduced by Senator Grassley to extend expiring provisions under the Medicare Program and to file cloture on that motion. I further ask that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 3118 occur immediately following the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 3101. I further ask that if the motion to proceed to either

Medicare bill is adopted, no other pending business be displaced.

Parliamentary inquiry: Is this an objection?

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the second Bluegrass Chapter Honor Flight. I had the privilege of meeting 38 World War II veterans from the Commonwealth of Kentucky who arrived in our Nation's Capital yesterday morning to see the memorial on the National Mall dedicated to them.

Thanks to the national nonprofit organization, Honor Flight, which transports World War II veterans from anywhere in the country to see their memorial, and a group of dedicated volunteers, veterans from all over the state

are able to make this memorable trip, free of charge.

The World War II Memorial was completed in 2004 and is a fitting tribute to the men and women who put on their country's uniform to fight the greatest and most destructive war the world has ever seen. Anyone who has ever visited this special place will agree that its stateliness is nothing short of awe-inspiring much like the men and women for whom it was built and who are so deserving of their title as ``the Greatest Generation.''

On the memorial's field of gold stars, known as the Freedom Wall, the inscription reads ``Here We Mark the Price of Freedom.'' The veterans from my home State of Kentucky who visited today paid that price with their blood, sweat and tears; their families paid with sleepless nights and constant fear for the safety of their loved ones; and many of their fellow fighters paid with their lives.

We should remember the bravery of the men and women who served, and the World War II Memorial is a fitting tribute for all those who sacrificed in defense of our Nation and our way of life.

Mr. President, it is really a moving experience to be in the company of some of the men and women of the ``Greatest Generation,'' and I ask unanimous consent that the names of the World War II veterans from Kentucky who were here yesterday be printed in the Record.

There being no objection the names were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Kentucky World War II Veterans

Elmer Morgan, William Coffey, Curtis Lesmeister, Lewis

Grahm, Morgan Bradford, Leslie Spillman, Ralph Holman,

Richard Thompson, William Richmond, Frank Parks, Vaiden Cox,

James Wells, Daniel Rateau, Kenneth Becker, Morris Alford,

James Hartman, Richard Doty, Melvin Campbell, Sr., Salvador

Miceli, Veachel Lile.

Alexander Fehr, Kenneth Fehr, Charles Nichter, George

Johnides, Jarl Harris, J.B. Price, Bernard O'Bryan, Robert

Emerson, Harold Mauck, Gordon Mauck, Kelvin Keath, Asa Elam,

Harold Staton, Benjamin Rau, Robert Blakeman, Edward Wilson,

Jean Pogue, John Pogue.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. This legislation continues the sanctions that are already in place against the illegitimate

ruling Burmese regime, the State Peace and Development Council, or

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. This legislation continues the sanctions that are already in place against the illegitimate

ruling Burmese regime, the State Peace and Development Council, or

Mr. President, yesterday, we heard, believe it or not, the Democratic nominee for President of the United States suggesting that rising gas prices aren't the problem. I will say that again. Yesterday, the Democratic nominee for President of the United States said rising gas prices are not the problem. The problem, he suggested, is that they have gone up too fast. He said he would prefer a gradual adjustment. The Democratic nominee for President said the problem is not that gas prices are too high, it is that they have gone up too fast. He would have preferred a gradual adjustment.

Now, the position outlined by the Democratic nominee should not be a surprise to most Americans, given that Washington Democrats have repeatedly refused to allow increased energy production at home even though, as we all know, increased supply leads to lower prices. It is as if they are doing everything in their power to keep gas prices from going down. In fact, the Republicans in the Senate offered a proposal a few weeks ago, which would have dealt with the inadequate amount of domestic supply, and we were blocked by the majority. They simply refused to have a debate on the possibility of opening domestic supplies.

Whether it is shutting down domestic exploration in large areas, both onshore and offshore, or instituting a moratorium on oil shale development, which this new Washington Democratic majority in Congress did, increasing the gas tax or refusing to pursue coal to liquid, Democrats long ago implemented a gradual adjustment, as the Democratic nominee for President suggested yesterday, a gradual adjustment on gas prices that is reflected today in the $4.05 Americans are paying for a gallon of gas. Kentucky families do not need a gradual adjustment to their pocketbooks. They need a solution for their pain at the pump.

We have seen a lot of recent converts over the last few months suddenly advocating for lower gas prices, but their long-time advocacy for limiting domestic supply and increasing the gas tax has brought us to where we are today. Recycling the same failed ideas from the 1970s and increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern oil only makes the problem worse. I wish to be perfectly clear, at a time of record gas prices, we do not need to tax them even higher or make American consumers be even more reliant on Middle Eastern oil.

The American people want us to address high gas prices, and we should do so the only way that will have a lasting impact: by increasing domestic supply in an environmentally responsible way and increasing American jobs in the process.

When our friends on the other side agree to do the same, we will believe they are serious about lowering gas prices. Until then, we will be left to conclude that all they support is a gradual adjustment advocated yesterday by their nominee.

What we have had is a situation where one side does not want to do anything to address the supply problem and suggest things that will only make gas prices higher. The other side has said: We are willing to do a balanced energy approach. Last year, we joined with the majority to increase the corporate average fuel economy for automobiles. That is an important step in the right direction on the conservation side. We are anxious to see us move as rapidly as possible to the kinds of automobiles that are more efficient and less reliant on gasoline.

But it is absurd, it is nonsense to suggest that you can rule out of bounds, for example, roughly 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf, even when we have States that want to go offshore. Take Virginia. Last year, Virginia, represented by one Democratic Senator and one Republican Senator, wanted to open their Outer Continental Shelf. The Senate would not give them permission to do it. Why in the world would we want to deny a State which is willing to explore offshore the opportunity to do it, particularly in a time when gasoline prices are so high?

We welcome this debate. It is a most important issue in the country today. Republicans are comforted by the fact that a growing number of opinion polls in the country indicate that a greater percentage of Americans get it. One of the most interesting surveys is the one by the respected independent polling organization Gallup a little over a week ago that indicated, on the issue of going into wilderness areas in a limited way and the Outer Continental Shelf where States are willing to do it, the American public now favored that 57 to 41. That is a total change from a year ago when the numbers were roughly equal.

The American people understand this is a problem we can do something about ourselves. We are the No. 3 oil producer in the world. The Saudis are No. 1. The Russians are No. 2. They do not think it makes sense for us to continue to beg foreigners, particularly those with unstable regimes, to solve this problem for us when we could take it in our own hands and, in an environmentally sensitive way, dramatically increase our production at home.

So this is a great debate about the most important issue in the country, and Republicans are certainly anxious to engage in this debate. We will be discussing this issue all day today and, in all likelihood, every day for the foreseeable future.

Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 3098

Mr. President, on another matter--and I have alerted my friend, the majority leader, because I think he may well wish to object--I wish to shortly propound a consent request. Let me say the consent request I will be asking for will basically, if agreed to, allow the callup of the bill S. 3098, which is the McConnell-Kyl-Grassley bill, which includes a 1-year AMT patch which was omitted in the House bill that the Senate did not agree to go forward with yesterday and extends the provisions that expired in 2007 for 2 years. This is a 1-year longer extension than was in the House bill we voted on yesterday.

S. 3098 does not include any tax hikes, reflecting the position of 41 Senators taken in a letter to Senator Baucus on April 23 of this year. However, the Republican alternative also includes the Ensign-Cantwell energy tax incentives which was approved by the Senate by a vote of 88 to 8.

In addition, S. 3098 does not contain the New York City earmark which was in the bill yesterday, the tax break for trial lawyers which was in the bill yesterday or the Davis-Bacon expansion which was in the bill yesterday. Any or all of those, of course, would draw a veto from the President and would make it impossible for us to get this extender package into law.

On balance, this is a bill that could pass the Senate and be signed by the President. I would hope we would pass it as soon as possible.

Having explained what is in the measure, I now ask unanimous consent that the pending motion be temporarily set aside and that I be recognized in order to move to proceed to S. 3098, the Alternative Minimum Tax and Extenders Tax Relief Act, and to file cloture on that motion. I further ask that if the motion to proceed to S. 3098 is adopted, no other pending business be displaced, with the vote occurring today after morning business.

Mr. President, the problem, I say to my good friend, the majority leader, is he wants to dictate the terms of the debate in the Senate, as if we were in the House. What he has done repeatedly, of course, is filed needless cloture motions and then filled the tree. All this parliamentary gobbledygook, I guess, is confusing to the American public. But the Senate has historically been a freewheeling place, where both sides had to cast difficult votes.

I remember when my party was in the majority. Senator Lott and Senator Frist used to say to all of us: The price of being in the majority is you have to cast a significant number of bad votes in order to get a bill through. My good friend, the Democratic leader, has decided he wants to protect his Members from having to cast votes they don't like. So what he does,

through a parliamentary procedure that is permissible in the Senate, is make it impossible for the minority to offer amendments that they want and, of course, the minority's reaction to that is to not let a bill without any of their imprint succeed.

With regard to the substantive issue that is before us, the Los Angeles Times, certainly not anywhere near a conservative newspaper, in criticizing both sides on the gas price issue, this morning had this to say about the proposals my good friend and most in his party are advocating--windfall profits tax and the effort to sue OPEC. This is what the L.A. Times had to say this morning:

Exhibit A in the case against congressional Democrats as

wise stewards of the energy economy is which failed to

advance Tuesday after it got too few votes to head off a

filibuster. It would have imposed a windfall-profits tax on

oil companies and allowed the U.S. attorney general to sue

OPEC on antitrust grounds, among other things.

They are describing the central provisions of the bill we decided not to go forward with yesterday. And this is what they had to say about those two proposals:

Trying to find an economist who thinks a windfall profits

tax is a good idea is like searching for a climatologist who

thinks global warming is caused by trees.

This is one of the most liberal editorial pages in America. Let me say it again. This is what they said about the windfall profits tax:

Trying to find an economist who thinks a windfall profits

tax is a good idea is like searching for a climatologist who

thinks global warming is caused by trees. Such a tax unfairly

targets the oil industry, which is already amply taxed and

whose profits aren't far out of line with other U.S.

industries when considered as a percentage of sales. It also

would discourage oil companies from investing in new supply,

which is precisely what happened when Congress imposed a

similar tax in 1980. The result might be even higher oil

prices.

We have been there and we have done this. We know what happens.

That's nothing compared with the lunacy of taking the

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to court,

though. That would invite retaliation by OPEC members, which

could seize the assets of U.S. companies doing business

overseas. More likely, there would be a subtler response,

such as production slowdowns that would cause oil prices to

skyrocket.

One of the most liberal editorial pages in America about what my good friend the majority leader is suggesting is somehow, some way, the solution to higher oil prices at the pump.

This is a debate we welcome. We intend to participate vigorously today. There is no way--I repeat, no way--to get a handle on this issue without taking greater advantage of the oil production we have within our shores that we can explore for and develop in environmentally sensitive ways. I think it is noteworthy, for example, that there was not a single reported example of spillage in the gulf during the Katrina hurricane. I mean, that had to be, quite possibly, the most devastating hurricane to ever hit the United States of America. I am unaware of a single reported example of any spillage in the offshore drilling that is going on in the gulf.

We know how to do this, Mr. President. We know how to exploit our resources in an environmentally sensitive way. So I welcome the debate. We are happy to be on the subject, and many of my Members, of course, will be looking forward to discussing it during the course of the day.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, of course the editorial was critical of both sides, which illustrates the point. In order to function in the Senate, the majority leader is not going to be allowed to say: Oh, I will allow you amendments, but I get to pick them. Every time we have had a serious issue come before the Senate, the best offer we have had in recent months has been: Oh, sure, we will have amendments, but I want to see them first and there are going to be a limited number. I can't think of much major legislation that has been able to go forward that way unless it enjoys overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle--for example, the supplemental to provide funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we have such broad support that there is widespread cooperation going forward. Normally, the way the Senate legislates is to let the Senate legislate.

I mean, my goodness, I mentioned this last week, and I will mention it again. The last sort of major, huge piece of legislation related to the environment was the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. We had 180 amendments in the Senate, and it was a 5-week debate. It was a big, major, significant proposal in which both sides participated. It was a time in which Senator Mitchell was the Democratic leader and there was a Republican named Bush in the White House. That is the way we used to do business around here on major environmental legislation.

And I would say to my good friend that I understand the demands he has within his conference to protect his members from bad votes and the great desire to try to shut down the minority, but it just doesn't work that way in the Senate. And I think we ought to, on these big issues where there is a broad difference of opinion, go to these bills in a freewheeling and open way and explain to Members on both sides--I will explain to mine and he can explain to his--that the price for moving legislation in the Senate is that once in a while you have to cast a vote on something you wish you didn't. That is the price for doing major important legislation. I wish we could get back to that. It is obviously not going to happen today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, over the weekend, as we all know, the average U.S. gas prices hit an alltime high of more than $4 a gallon. I only point this out because it seems our friends on the other side aren't aware of it. In the middle of what some are calling the biggest energy shock in a generation, they seem baffled. Faced with a national outrage over gas prices, they propose as a solution, of all things, a windfall profits tax. If the idea had any merit at all, Republicans would consider it. But, of course, it doesn't.

We know from experience that Jimmy Carter tried a tax hike in 1980, and it was a miserable failure.

The Congressional Research Service says its only effect--its only effect--was to depress domestic production, thus significantly increasing our reliance on foreign oil and, in the end, less domestic production led to significantly less revenue from the tax that was expected. The same thing, of course, would happen again.

The biggest hit would not be to the energy companies, it would be to the American consumer who now dreads pulling his or her car into the gas station. Hitting the gas companies might make for good campaign literature or evening news clips, but it will not address the problem. This bill is not a serious response to high gas prices. It is just a gimmick. Don't take my word for it. The Democrats themselves said as much when their leadership proposed this sham solution last month.

Americans have lost patience with Democratic inaction on gas prices. Americans understand supply and demand. They know the only way to drive prices down is to drive production up at home by reducing demand through the kind of sensible action we took last year on fuel efficiency and renewable fuels. With gas now at $4 a gallon, recent polls show that an increasing number of Americans are calling on us to exercise the option of exploring for energy at home.

What is the Democratic response to all this? Last week, the majority proposed a climate change tax that would have raised gas prices $1.40 a gallon higher than they already are. They are hoping the idea of going after energy

companies will create the illusion of action, after a week in which they themselves fought for a bill that would make the problem worse. What a political charade.

This bill is not a serious approach to lowering gas prices. Our friends proposed the same one last month. It went nowhere. They didn't even bring it up because their own committee chairman opposed it. The Democratic chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the junior Senator from New Mexico, called the windfall profits tax ``arbitrary.'' The senior Senator from New York cautioned that another key provision of the bill would drive jobs overseas.

If the Democrats themselves don't like the bill and oppose its provisions, why are they reviving it?

Democrats will claim this bill will bring gas prices down, but in doing so they are counting on Americans to forget a basic law of economics: raising taxes on those who produce something leads to an increase in the price of products they sell. This was true in Adam Smith's pin factory. It is true for energy companies today. More taxes mean higher prices.

The rational response to high gas prices is to propose a policy that would actually lower them, and that is what Republicans have done. Last month, we proposed a bill that would allow us to access the 14 billion barrels of known recoverable oil on the Outer Continental Shelf in an environmentally sensitive way. We have also tried to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for very limited and safe exploration. We have been blocked by our friends on the other side at every turn.

When Bill Clinton first vetoed the idea in 1995, the price at the pump was $1.06 a gallon. Gas costs nearly four times as much as it did then. How high does it have to go before our friends on the other side allow limited and environmentally sensitive exploration of these giant U.S. reserves? Evidently, $4 a gallon isn't high enough for them.

So, Mr. President, we have a better plan for addressing gas prices, one that respects the laws of supply and demand. In addition to the two provisions I already mentioned, our bill mandates that billions of coal-derived fuels be produced through clean coal technologies as a way of further reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

Our bill repeals the 1-year moratorium on oil shale production in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, and it would accelerate the construction of refineries in the United States, as well as development of advanced batteries for plug-in hybrid vehicles.

Republicans are determined to lower gas prices the only way we can and strengthen our energy security for the long term--by increasing supply. We have tried to do so repeatedly, and every time we have tried we have been blocked by our friends on the other side.

Just last month, 48 Democrats blocked consideration of our energy supply bill. Last week, they blocked consideration of an amendment I sponsored that would have prevented the increase in gas taxes that the Boxer climate tax bill would have caused. Now, 2 days after we have seen the highest recorded gas price in history, they are proposing an idea that has already failed once and which will do nothing to ease the pain Americans are feeling at the pump.

Our friends on the other side have no serious plan to address gas prices. They have demonstrated this in the past, and they are demonstrating it today.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal highlighted the kind of situation that has become typical over the past several months. In a story about high gas prices, the Journal quoted a self-employed handy man in Dallas who is paying twice as much money to fill his tank than he did a few years ago. This is what he had to say:

I feel like I am being held at knifepoint. If they charge

$10 a gallon, I'm going to pay it.

It is time we got serious about helping guys such as this. It is time we did something about supply to go along with our previous efforts to affect demand. But as long as our friends on the other side refuse, we will get nowhere in this debate, and that is why gas prices have gone up $1.71 since the Democrats took over Congress.

I will vote against proceeding to this totally irresponsible bill and advise my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, since the substitute amendment by Senator Boxer was just given to us at 11 o'clock in the morning, you could argue--almost with a straight face--that reading the proposal was a good idea, but, of course, that was not what it was about. It was somewhat similar to when Senator Reid, the now-majority leader, used 9 hours reading chapters from his book back in 2003. In a 9-hour filibuster over judicial nominations, on November 19, 2003, Democratic leader Harry Reid discoursed on the virtues of wooden matches and read chapters from his book about his hometown: ``Searchlight: The Camp That Didn't Fail.'' That was a 9-hour recitation from a book that our good friend the majority leader engaged in on the very subject of judicial confirmations.

Yesterday's tactic of slowing down the Senate obviously is not unique. It was not, however, about trying to confirm a few district court nominations which the majority begrudgingly agreed to last night around 12:00 or 12:30. Rather, it was about the importance of keeping one's word in this body, whether it be a commitment to meet the total number of circuit court confirmations that have occurred in prior Congresses--and we are familiar with what that commitment was; it was to do 17 during this Congress, which has been repeated time and time again; everybody knows what the commitment was--or a commitment to confirm a specific number of circuit court nominations by a specific time; and that was the commitment made back in May by my good friend the majority leader, that we would do three circuit court nominations before the Memorial Day recess. In fact, we did one. Keeping one's word in this body is important.

We are far behind the pace that is necessary for us to reach the goal the majority leader and I set for this Congress. If that weren't troubling enough, what we heard recently by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee are threats to shut down the confirmation process completely. Stop it already. Surely, that is not his plan. So be assured the Republican Conference will continue to make the point that judicial nominations need to be treated fairly and that commitments need to be kept, and we will use the tools available to the minority to do so until that proves to be the case. This is not over, I assure you.

Mr. President, the majority leader said recently that global warming was ``the most important issue facing the world today.'' Let me repeat that: the most important issue affecting the world today. And nearly three-fourths of the Senate thought it was important enough to have a debate on the Senate floor. Seventy-four Senators voted to bring this measure to the floor for debate because they recognized the significance of this issue. Yet the majority is blocking fair consideration.

Instead of allowing a full debate with an open amendment process designed to improve the bill, the majority last night filled the tree. What are they afraid of? Why don't they want to consider amendments to a bill addressing what they call ``the most important issue facing the world today''? If it is the most important issue facing the world today, it certainly deserves a lot longer debate than a few days.

At $6.7 trillion, the climate tax bill--which is what we have before us--the climate tax bill is the largest bill we will consider this Congress. As the Wall Street Journal noted, this legislation represents the most extensive--the most extensive--reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s, which is why, of course, I am mystified as to why the Democrats decided to block the consideration of any and all amendments designed to improve this bill: no consideration of gas prices, no consideration of clean energy technology. A bill with such widespread ramifications merits serious, thoughtful consideration and a thorough debate.

A good example of how to handle a bill like this properly, another time when our good friends on the other side were in the majority--and there was a Republican in the White House--when the Senate considered the Clean Air Act amendments in 1990, the process took 5 weeks on the floor. There were about 180 amendments offered. I was here then, and nobody was telling one side or the other what they had to offer. Nobody said you have to show me your amendment first or I will not let you offer it. And 131 of those amendments were ultimately acted upon by the full Senate.

As it currently stands, we would not even spend 5 days on this bill. But we would like to spend more time on the bill and would encourage the majority to open the process. I don't know what they are afraid of. Since when did we descend to the point in this body that we would not let somebody offer an amendment unless they get to read it first? That isn't the way the Senate used to operate. Yet the majority blocked us from offering even one amendment regarding this massive restructuring.

That makes me wonder, why doesn't the majority want a fair debate on this bill? What are we afraid of? If this bill alone will ``save the planet,'' as has been suggested, why are they refusing to allow an open debate or more than 2 days on the bill?

Perhaps they don't want to expose this bill for what it really is: a climate tax. It is a climate tax. This legislation will raise gas prices, electricity prices, diesel prices, natural gas prices, and fertilizer prices. It will also put America at a significant economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world.

Given that families are already struggling to pay record gas prices-- it is nearly $4 a gallon now--Congress should be working to lower gas prices, not increase them.

Republicans are eager to offer amendments to the Boxer climate tax bill to develop clean energy solutions and promote economic growth. In America, we tackle problems like this with technology, not by clamping down on our own economy. If this is a problem--and many of us believe it is--the way to get at it is with technology and then sell it to the Indians and Chinese, who, I assure you, are not going to do this to their own economies. They are going to take advantage of our foolish decision to clamp down our own economy and have jobs exported to China and India.

If the majority is serious about debating this issue, then let's have a real debate, complete with an open amendment process. Don't shut it down after only 1 day.

This is entirely too important to consumers, to our economy, and to the climate to block a thorough consideration.

Mr. President, a year ago yesterday marked the occasion of the loss of our good friend and colleague, Craig Thomas, who was the senior Senator from Wyoming at the time. He lost his battle with leukemia at the age of 74.

Born and raised in Cody, WY, a town named after Buffalo Bill, Craig was brought up on a ranch. He brought those values of America's western small towns to our Nation's Capital.

So the Senator from America's smallest State by population, home to a rugged and independent-minded people, was one of the Senate's leading advocates for a smaller, more efficient, and more responsive government.

Other Senators who got to know Craig found him to be always polite and courteous. Yet that did not make him a pushover. A Marine captain, who rose to that rank from the rank of private, Craig was a man of discipline and a man of principle. He was a perfect fit for the people and the values of his great State.

As accomplished as he was, Senator Thomas was also not afraid to poke a little fun at himself as well. I know he once displayed a series of pictures in his Senate office of himself trying his hand at roping a horse. The pictures depict, one by one, his less than successful attempts, and then his unceremonious fall off his steed and onto the dirt.

Many of my colleagues will remember his subtle sense of humor, his skill at working with others to advance legislation, and his passion for promoting the best interests of Wyoming.

I know my colleagues continue to hold his dear wife Susan, a great friend of all of us, and their four children, Peter, Patrick, Greg, and Lexie, in our thoughts. We still consider them members of our Senate family.

I also know how much Craig would be pleased that Senators Mike Enzi and John Barrasso are holding to the high standards he set and making Wyoming proud.

A man of grit and courage, Craig never backed down from a challenge, not even his final struggle with leukemia. Through the end of his life, he represented Wyoming with honor and dignity. Admired by all who knew him, he leaves behind a legacy of legislative accomplishment, as well as a Chamber full of very dear friends in the Senate. We still miss him a lot.

I yield the floor.