Floor Statements

Thank you.

Mr. President, I want to thank my good friend, Senator Salazar, from the State of Colorado. I don't know what brought us together on our Energy Committee. Maybe it was a little bit of common language--we both spoke a little Spanish to each other, and it made us both understand and feel like we were friends. But we became that, we became friends rather quickly in his short 4 years.

I obviously remember your very first 6 months when we became friends and worked on many issues. I compliment you on your constant effort to work in a bipartisan way on issues. It is tough around here. It is going to have to move in that direction or we are going to continue to have trouble getting things done. For that, I hope you will stand your ground and at least keep trying.

I appreciate the kind words you said in my behalf. Let's hope we see each other frequently, if not in your State, in New Mexico, the Land of Enchantment.

Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator, I tell you, I said a little bit in my remarks a while ago about it. I get very excited and anxious because it takes too long. But that is the deliberative body. But we don't have a long time to give the Secretary of the Treasury the kind of authority he needs to fix a broken train.

We have had a wreck--lots of wrecks. All the freeways are clogged. We have to take away the things that are clogging them. We could look at it as a freeway with cracked-up cars, but actually the assets that are piled up there are the toxic assets that have been accumulated by those banks. If you don't get them out of the way, the line continues growing because of the broken-down cars, the toxic assets. The running cars can run no more. They are stopped in place. They contain everything that has given us a decent life in America.

We have to fix that. I am going to be here. Let's hope our negotiators will put something together that the executive branch tells us will work and that the world accepts it with confidence. When we come off this floor, when we vote that in--whatever it is, Monday or whatever--we will join, you and I, with great confidence that we have once again done something important.

Mr. President, with the backdrop of gas prices soaring to new heights this past summer and the specter of sending a half a trillion dollars to overseas to purchase oil from foreign regimes, I am told that the majority leader seeks to reinstate a moratorium on final regulations for the commercialization of oil shale. Ironically he is doing it on a bill that is being called a stimulus. Well, it certainly won't stimulate domestic production of energy. If brought to fruition it will give the majority in the Senate the dubious distinction of being even more antiproduction than the majority in the House.

I have heard my friends on the other side say that they are not standing in the way of oil shale, but at the same time, they are doing exactly that. In the next sentence, they argue that there is nothing about oil shale that will bring relief to the American consumers. I find it difficult to understand these statements, and so do a majority of Americans. Over the summer, the majority did everything it could to obstruct our efforts in increase domestic production. The majority cancelled an appropriations committee markup to avoid the issue of drilling on the OCS

and developing Western oil shale. They prevented a real debate and a real vote on energy. Finally, we saw a breakthrough from the House. After dodging the energy reality for months, they passed a continuing resolution without the moratorium on oil shale regulations and without the moratorium on the OCS. This was a great development and not one we should turn back by reimposing an oil shale ban.

Several recent polls inform us that a strong and growing majority of the American people want to us to produce more of our own American energy resources. The development of Western oil shale will not be upon us today, but an indefensible moratorium on regulations will ensure that the development of oil shale will not be upon us tomorrow, either. And, therefore, relief for the American people will be delayed as well. Let me tell you what I know about oil shale, and the moratorium that the other side supports.

Oil shale is a rock from which oil can be extracted through technologies such as in-situ heating and surface retorting. I have been out to Colorado and I have seen the vast commitments that private industries are making to help make oil shale production a reality in this country. But make no mistake about it--with this moratorium, the other side seeks to stand in the way of that progress.

The USGS estimates that there is a potential total of 2.1 trillion barrels of resource in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The Strategic Unconventional Fuels Task Force and Rand Corporation have estimated that 800 billion barrels of oil equivalent is technically recoverable. This is enough to replace the amount of oil we currently import at today's pace for more than 160 years. With oil prices above the $100 mark for a sustained period of time and with technologies advancing rapidly, the potential development of large quantities of oil shale is a reality. American companies stand ready to continue the necessary work, but a moratorium placed on oil shale casts a large shadow of uncertainty. We must remove that shadow immediately.

In 2005, we passed the Energy Policy Act. Working across party lines in both the Senate and the House, Senator Bingaman and I brought together broad bipartisan support behind a conference report that each and every Senator from the Western oil shale States supported. In that bill we set up an oil shale pilot program with research and development leases. We also set forth a time frame for the development of final regulations for commercial leasing. This does not mean that commercial leasing would begin now, but what it does mean is that companies that need to make long-term planning decisions on where to make significant capital investments have a clear sense of rules of the road for future Western oil shale leasing.

If these regulations were completed, companies could be provided with certainty and stability. Recently, Chevron joined other companies who have publicly called for the lifting of the moratorium on oil shale regulations. The final regulations would provide a road-map on diligence requirements, royalty rates, conversion fees, and operating and environmental requirements such as reclamation requirements. Both private industry and localities would know the terms and conditions necessary for this American energy project. That is why we included this provision in the bipartisan 2005 Energy bill. Two years after that bill passed, along came an appropriations moratorium quietly written into a large omnibus spending bill. In other words, Congress has prevented the Department of the Interior from doing the work necessary to make oil shale a reality. Shell Oil Company recently testified before the Senate Energy Committee that, ``the extension of this moratorium on potential future development of America's vast oil shale resource may be intended to become permanent in nature. The extension of this moratorium may well have a chilling effect on our efforts to develop this resource in the future.'' I could not agree more with this assessment.

Additionally, the Department of the Interior recently testified that finalizing oil shale regulations is a critical component to realize the vast potential of our Western oil shale resource. Assistant Secretary Allred stated that, ``absent the certainty that final regulations would bring, the commercial oil shale industry may not be willing to invest the necessary dollars for research, and this vast domestic resource will remain untapped at a time when our Nation is searching for ways to further its energy security.'' And recently Utah's Governor--a voice from on the ground--requested that Congress remove this moratorium, writing, ``I recommend lifting those restrictions. Utah is home not only to substantial oil shale reserves . . . but also to businesses willing to develop oil shale using new technology that will make extraction cleaner and more efficient. We have State and Federal regulators who are capable of ensuring that this resource is developed in an environmentally responsible manner.'' So, despite this coalition of industry, local support, and a Federal agency eager to do the necessary work, and now even the Speaker and the majority in the House--the majority in the Senate is asking us to stand in the way of this progress.

For all of the above reasons, I introduced a bill in May that lifts this unnecessary and harmful oil shale moratorium. We pushed and proded and pushed some more until the House majority listened to the American people. Now, I am sending the same message to the Senate. Ending this moratorium would send a message to the world that America is serious about Western oil shale development. I urge my colleagues on the other side to reaffirm their bipartisan commitments made during the Energy bill of 2005 and help us join the House in removing the oil shale moratorium. If we do that, we will take a step in the right direction of reducing our great dependence on foreign oil and we will strengthen our Nation's energy security.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senator Kennedy, Senator Leahy, and Senator Specter, to laud the passage of S. 2304, the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2008. This bill reauthorizes and improves several programs intended to provide federal support for collaborations between criminal justice and mental health systems.

I must first show my great admiration and appreciation for Senator Ted Kennedy, with whom I have worked diligently on legislation related to mental illness. His support, knowledge, and friendship have been invaluable in our joint fight for better access and opportunities for the millions of Americans who suffer from some form of mental illness. To him I owe a debt of gratitude and am thankful for the opportunity to have worked so closely with him for so many years.

It is estimated that approximately 16 percent of adult U.S. jail and prison inmates suffer from mental illness and the numbers are even higher in the juvenile justice system. Many of these individuals are not violent or habitual criminals. Most have been charged or convicted of non-violent crimes that are a direct consequence of not having received needed treatment and supportive services for their mental illness.

The presence of defendants with mental illnesses in the criminal justice system imposes substantial costs on that system and can cause significant harm to defendants. In response to this problem, a number of communities around the country are implementing mental health courts, a specialty court model that utilizes a separate docket, coupled with regular judicial supervision, to respond to individuals with mental illnesses who come in contact with the justice system.

Many communities are not prepared to meet the comprehensive treatment and needs of individuals with mental illness when they enter the criminal justice system. The bill passing today is intended to help provide resources to help states and counties design and implement collaborative efforts between criminal justice and mental health structures. The bill reauthorizes the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Grant Program and reauthorizes the Mental Health Courts Program. It creates a new grant program to help law enforcement identify and respond to incidents involving persons with mental illness and it funds a study and report on the prevalence of mentally ill offenders in the criminal justice system. All of these reforms will help to address this problem from both a public safety and a public health point of view. This will help save taxpayers money, improve public safety, and link individuals with the treatment they need to become productive members of their community.

Certainly, not every crime committed by an individual diagnosed with a mental illness is attributable to their illness or to the failure of public mental health. Mental health courts are not a panacea for addressing the needs of the growing number of people with mental illnesses who come in contact with the criminal justice system. But they should be one part of the solution. Evidence has shown that in communities where mental health and criminal justice interests work collaboratively on solutions it can make a significant impact in fostering recovery, improving treatment outcomes and decreasing recidivism.

I thank my good friends for working with me on this very important issue. I appreciate their commitment to advancing these important programs and I am thankful to be here to see the passage of this legislation that we worked so hard on.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

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

Madam President, I need 20, so I ask unanimous consent for 20.

Madam President, I rise today with a heart that is not totally joyful because I am going to be talking about four of my colleagues who are leaving the Senate. Pretty soon, I will be talking about my own leaving the Senate but not today. I will save that for another day. The first one I want to talk about is John Warner of Virginia. I have gotten to know him and his wife Jeanne.

It is with great pride and honor that I pay tribute to my friend and distinguished colleague from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Senator John Warner. He served in this body for 30 years; I have served for 36. So the arithmetic is simple: I have been with him for all of his 30 years in the Senate. He dealt almost exclusively, and with perfection, on military matters. I did the budget for the Senate for a long time, and I have been privileged to work for the last 5 years on energy matters. In between, it was nothing but joy on my part to work on matters of the Senate. I believe the same was true for John Warner, who not only worked in military matters and worried about our troops, but he also from time to time got over into public works.

Early in his Senate career, Senator Warner and I served on the Environment and Public Works Committee. More recently, our work together has centered on defense and national security and, as I indicated, of late homeland security.

He earned the respect of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle because of his unique ability to negotiate and foster positive working relationships with fellow Senators. There was much being said about working across the aisle and being bipartisan. Clearly, when things had to be partisan because it was the nature of things, John Warner was a partisan. But obviously, when it was a matter that pertained to something that could be worked out between Democrats and Republicans, one could bet that he was quick to raise his hand and lift it across the aisle and work with Senators from the other side.

He has been a leader on a broad range of issues. As I indicated, he is someone who makes me proud.

Prior to his five terms in the Senate, John served his country as a United States Marine, was later appointed Under Secretary of the Navy and was eventually appointed and confirmed as the 61st Secretary of the Navy. Early in our Senate career, Senator Warner and I served on the Environment and Public Works Committee together. Over the past several Congresses, our work together has centered on defense, national security and homeland security matters.

During his Senate, tenure John has earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle because of his unique ability to negotiate, accommodate, compromise, and foster positive working relationships with fellow Members. Through this approach, John Warner has been a leader on a broad range of issues such as strengthening our defense and national security, fighting the global war on terrorism and decreasing carbon and other emissions globally. While in the Senate, he dutifully served on the Armed Services Committee, Intelligence Committee, Environment and Public Works Committee, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

John has been a long time colleague of mine, and I will dearly miss him. The Commonwealth of Virginia has been fortunate to have John on their side. He has been an asset not only to his state, but also to our Nation. In the course of working together for so many years, I have developed genuine respect for Senator John Warner. I thank him for years of distinguished service and wish him the very best in all his future endeavors. My wife Nancy and I wish John and his wonderful family all the best during his retirement.

Larry Craig

At this time I would like to take some time to talk about Senator Larry Craig and to thank him for his service here in the Senate and for his service and dedication to his home State of Idaho.

I have been fortunate enough to work with Senator Craig on many of the same issues over the years. More often than not we were on the same side of those issues. We worked for many hours together on energy policy, and more specifically, nuclear energy policy. In addition, the States we represent, New Mexico and Idaho, are similar in that they are both in the west, are largely rural, have vast swaths of Federal land, and are home to Federal research laboratories. These similarities-- between the States we represent--brought us together by way of common interests on many of the same policy subjects.

Senator Craig and I served on the Appropriations Committee together for many years. During that time, we worked together to make sure the Departments of Energy and Interior were taken care of in terms of funding. As many of us know, Senator Craig comes from a strong agriculture background. At times we had to try to fend off, as best we could, efforts to change the Milk Income Loss Contract program. The changes to the program would have compromised dairy producers from each of our home States. Dairy farmers in New Mexico and Idaho knew that Senator Craig was a formidable ally for their cause, and I thank him for his help and support.

As chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I have always admired Senator Craig's command of public lands policy. He has been a great leader on public lands issues throughout his career and without the leadership of Senator Craig, we would have never been able to pass the Healthy Forests bill in December 2003. It was also through his leadership we passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-determination Act which has been so important to both our states. He led the Republican side on public lands and forest issues as chairman or ranking member of the Public Lands and Forest Subcommittee from 1995 until 2007.

Some of our most important work together took place in the nuclear arena. Senator Craig has done a tremendous job of promoting nuclear power as a safe, reliable and clean source of energy. I appreciate his outstanding work on nuclear matters, and I appreciate his support and encouragement along the way for my efforts in this important area.

Many people know that because of where we live and what we do in our States, Senator Craig and I naturally work on similar matters. That is as it turned out. I will talk about some matters that have been very big for our country that are not natural to our States.

First, I served with him on the Committee on Appropriations for a number of years. We worked together on energy policy and, more specifically, nuclear energy policy. The States we represent are home to national research laboratories.

As many of my colleagues know, Senator Craig comes from a strong agricultural background. At times, we had to try to fend off, as best we could, efforts to change the Milk Income Loss Contract Program, called the MILC Program. That sounds like something we should all be for. It turns out that dairy farmers in New Mexico and Idaho knew Senator Craig was a formidable ally when it came to subsidies that would help some and hurt others. We were generally on the hurt end because we were smaller States that had that particular set of facts. We worked hard

on those issues. I learned to respect him greatly.

He led Republicans on public lands issues and forest issues as chairman and ranking member of the Public Lands and Forest Subcommittee from 1995 through 1997. This led to the enactment of the healthy forest bill in December of 2003--I was part of that with him--and the Senate Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act, which was his. I am sure most of the thinking to put it together was his. It was an absolutely stellar bill that got assistance to schools across his State and other Western States that lost some or all of their revenues for their schools because of the curtailment of timber sales in the area. He and the distinguished Senator from Washington worked together to get this done.

Senator Craig and I have spent a great deal of time on matters pertaining to nuclear power. Nuclear power is making a renaissance in America. We will soon have many of them built in the United States. We have more than any other country in the world, but we only get 20 percent of our electricity from nuclear power. Countries such as France have gone way ahead of us and now have 75 to 80 percent. Other countries of the world have as well, since America has made its bid, saying: We are going to change our minds, for which I am very proud. I took the lead in that, with Larry's help, and we have changed America. With it has come a renaissance in nuclear power.

I wish him the greatest success in his retirement. I am sure we will hear from him. He is too young to be quiet. He will be doing something, and we will hear about it.

Chuck Hagel

I also wish to take this time to pay tribute to Chuck Hagel, the senior Senator from Nebraska, who is retiring after serving for two terms in the Senate.

Senator Hagel, a fourth generation Nebraskan, has served his State and his country in many ways. He served as an infantry squad leader with the U.S. Army's 9th Infantry Division and is a decorated Vietnam veteran, having been awarded many honors including two Purple Hearts. As a U.S. Senator, Chuck Hagel has served on four committees: Foreign Relations; Banking; Housing and Urban Affairs; Intelligence and Rules.

During his time in the Senate, coinciding with mine, it has been my pleasure to work with the distinguished Senator on issues affecting our Nation. I can recall a chance meeting between a member of my staff, one of my constituent groups from New Mexico and Senator Hagel, in which he took time out of his busy schedule to speak with my New Mexico constituents to offer his insights and share some very kind words. Such a small genuine instance like this made all the difference in their trip to our Nation's Capital.

As I said, when he came here, for some reason, I think I became one of his very first friends. He must have decided that I was a big chairman, and when I went on a trip with the Budget Committee to Europe, I asked him if he would go, and he jumped to it. So we got to know each other during the first 2 or 3 months of his term on a trip to Europe where we learned about the new monetary system that was about to take place in Europe. We did a number of other things together.

Obviously, he has been an exemplary Senator in all respects. He will return to his State and to America filled with ideas and ready to do other things for this great land. My wife Nancy and I wish Chuck and his family all the best.

Wayne Allard

Now I rise to speak about Senator Wayne Allard from Colorado who announced in January 2007 he would not seek reelection in 2008, keeping his promise of only serving two terms. I would like to thank Wayne for his service here in the Senate and for his service to the State of Colorado.

In the course of working together with Senator Allard for many years on the Senate Budget Committee and more recently on the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have developed genuine respect for Senator Allard. We have a lot in common, fighting for the interests of our predominantly rural, Western States. Although we did not always agree, we worked well together, and I valued his commitment to his home State.

Senator Allard announced in January of 2007 that he would not seek reelection in 2008, keeping his promise to serve only two terms. Some of us were sorry that he did that. I was one. I would like to thank Wayne for his service in the Senate, for his service to the State of Colorado, my neighbor.

We worked together for many years on the Budget Committee. More recently, we worked on appropriations. Colorado is my neighbor to the north, and we have much in common in fighting for the interests of much of our rural way of life that Western States have. At the same time, we have growing metropolises with the problems of transportation and the like, which he has spent much time on. He has supported many things I have worked on. For that, I am grateful and thankful to him today.

He and his wife Joan will return to non-Senate life. I don't know if he is going home. I haven't asked him personally. But wherever he goes, it is obvious he will make an impact.

Madam President, I want to give a little history lesson on banking. It is strange that I only served on the Banking Committee 2 years of my Senate life. That was when I filled in. I served and learned a lot. But when this crisis came about, I decided that somebody was going to teach me about what had happened since the Great Depression. So I am going to try to do that as quickly as I can.

First, it is not time for partisan ideological finger-pointing.

Second, there is no plan that can emerge from any set of honest deliberations that will be painless. We are undergoing a massive deleveraging in the finance markets.

Third, I was chairman of the Senate Budget Committee when the Resolution Trust Corporation was formed in order to curb the savings and loan crisis of the early 1990s. That effort was also controversial. I hope the plan that emerges from Congress and the administration does the same for financial markets now. I recognize the difference between the two. The first was much easier because there were many physical assets we could look at and transfer title to, and people could feel assets. I would say that, as a model, that terrible situation ended with the Federal Government making money instead of losing money.

From everything I know about the proposal, the principal proposal put forth by the executive branch through the two spokesmen who have been working 24 hours a day nonstop, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, an absolute expert in this field--it has been said over and over that he knows much about recessions and he knows much about depressions. He wrote his professorial doctorate thesis on the Great Depression. That is why he talks as if he knows what happens in depressions. He has been telling us what will happen if we go into a depression. Then we have the Secretary of the Treasury, whom we all have gotten to know. He apologizes profusely for not being a great speaker, but he has presented a difficult plan and come a long way.

I, for one, hope we come to a resolution soon between Democrats and Republicans and the White House, speaking through their spokesmen, and send a signal to the American people that we know how to take care of the financial markets--not Wall Street, the financial markets--of America. The financial markets, not Wall Street, are plugged. They don't work right now. They don't run. They are filled with toxic assets. We have to get the toxic assets out or else we will have no liquidity in the financing system.

Some say the basic problem goes back to 1933 and the so-called Glass- Steagall Act that separated investment banking from commercial banking. Some say that, to the contrary, if Glass-Steagall were still the law of the land, we wouldn't have the problems we now confront. Both sides cite great scholars, economic theorists, and market gurus, but both Democrats and Republicans voted for the original Glass-Steagall. In 1999, under the leadership of President Clinton and Treasury Secretary Rubin, Glass-Steagall was repealed. Now many say that repeal of Glass- Steagall has caused the problem.

I should note that Republicans controlled the Congress then and Democrats controlled the executive branch. Both parties played a role.

Some contend that the problem goes back to 1977, when Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act requiring that financial institutions finance home purchases to borrowers who were historically deemed unlikely to pay back the loans. The theorists say that when politicians try to determine who is a good borrower, both the borrower and the lender will suffer. I think we will look back on this effort to save the system and that conclusion will become a reality. Let me repeat. Some say that when we try to determine who is a good borrower and make a determination rather than letting the market make the determination as to who is a good borrower, we both suffer. Those who lend the money don't get paid, and those who buy don't get what they bought. That is sort of what has happened here. Many of those became the toxic assets that we are now talking about. The Reinvestment Act, which both Democrats and Republicans voted for, was an act that attempted to push loans that were questionable in terms of whether the people buying could ever pay them off.

Some say we should have seen this coming. They note that the savings and loan crisis came not too long after the Garn-St. Germain Act of 1982 that loosened regulation of savings and loans in America. The law drew the support of both Democrats and Republicans and was signed into law by a Republican President. This argument says that when regulation of Government-insured money loosens, the odds that extremely risky behavior will occur increases.

During the last 10 years, as regulation of markets decreased, globalization of markets increased. More and more complicated and model-driven financial products were invented, and regulators clearly lost the ability to analyze risk and to step in when necessary. Many believe the Long-Term Capital Management debacle was an early warning that financial mathematicians in the marketplace had gotten ahead of the financial regulators. Warnings about the size and complexity of derivatives of all sorts proliferated. Many policymakers asked aboutthe size and complexity of these derivatives of all sorts and could not get answers and could not understand some of that which they were being told. Many policymakers and regulators assumed that the financial companies themselves would realize that proper risk analysis was in their self-interest and self-regulation would naturally occur. That assumption has proved wrong. Many purchasers of these convoluted products were reassured because rating agencies continued to give so many of them AAA ratings. Instead of going through the extremely difficult process of analyzing each and every component of each and every product, purchasers depended upon the ratings agencies. So some analysts now say it was the rating agencies that failed.

Finally, we all recognize that turmoil plagues all markets worldwide. Many nations and institutions in many countries now own what are called ``toxic assets.'' I have just tried to describe them a minute ago.

Literally trillions of dollars of various complex financial products are held by many banks, investment houses, pension funds, and insurance companies in almost every developed nation. China has had to step in by increasing Government shares of some banks. Russia closed down its markets for 2 days and may spend as much as $120 billion to stabilize its markets. Germany and the United Kingdom have had to devote billions within the last 18 months to try to stem financial contagion. Serious erosion of confidence in financial institutions threatens to freeze credit, with all the disastrous consequences that holds for a financial world built on easy, safe, transparent credit. Now credit is hard, insecure, and opaque.

So, I will not pretend to know if the plan proposed by the administration and some in Congress will solve the problem. Since no one seems to know what shape this plan will take in the end, any predictions seem foolish at this point. I do know that the size of the potential market injury, and the consequences that the working man and woman in this and other nations will suffer, compel serious, strategic sovereign government action. Thus, I believe the warnings of a Federal Reserve Chairman who probably knows as much about the financial consequences of the Great Depression as anyone else in town, and the warnings of a Treasury Secretary who used to head a Wall Street firm that invented many of the instruments that now seem ``toxic.'' If they don't know the severity of this problem, and if they cannot at least give us a plan that will stabilize market behavior until a clearing price for these assets emerges, then I suspect that no one can.

We will pass legislation that I guarantee you will be imperfect. All sorts of objections from various industries and groups have already filled cyberspace, and newspaper space, and air time. Ideological and theoretical objections already fill the atmosphere. It seems to me that the time for such almost theological discussions is long past. As a Senator who has been here a long time, and seen many recessions and market crises come and go, I only know two things: we are all to blame in some form or other; and we need to act now, with a very large, Government-led program, and with all prudent speed.

Madam President, I believe my time is about to expire.

I certainly hope we will pass something like what has been asked of us by the executive branch, with five or six things that clearly are necessary, that we find necessary as representatives of the people, but that we get it done because we must save our own ability to lend money--that is, our system of borrowing and lending--and the rest of the world kind of waits on us also.

So this is truly a big one. As I said to my hometown paper, after 36 years in the Senate, on the last day or next to the last day of my time here, I will vote on the most important issue I have ever voted on, the most complex, and that costs the most--all in one shot. As I leave and walk out, here will be behind me the most difficult issue we have faced as a Nation. It is very hard for our people to understand it, but it is a terrible one.

The Senator is absolutely correct. We enhanced FERC's authority to police and prevent market manipulation and we increased the Commission's authority to levy fines to $1 million per day. It was our thinking that the potential for fines of this magnitude would serve as a meaningful deterrent to market manipulation. While I am a long time supporter of markets, I agreed to the grant of enhanced penalty authority to the FERC as a step to ensure that those markets were conducted fairly, openly, and without the exercise of market power by any of the participants.

I think the Senator's question is well informed, and I can assure him that there was no intent to change the standard of review which would attach to any enforcement proceeding. The longstanding practice has been for the accused party to have rights to a de novo review of the charges in Federal court. Such rights are necessary to ensure that the agency does not act as both prosecutor and judge in any enforcement proceeding. That right is clear, not just in the case law but in other statutes administered by the FERC, including the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Policy Act. There is no suggestion and there can be no inference that we intended to change that standard with our enhanced market oversight provisions in the Natural Gas Act.

Madam President, I say to the Senator, thank you very much, Senator Dole.

Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business.

I ask unanimous consent that I may speak until about 11:45.

Mr. President, I didn't get the entire message of the distinguished Senator from Florida. The part of the speech I heard talked about us getting together and working as American Senators, not Republicans or Democrats, in this time of crisis. I totally congratulate the Senator. I agree with him and I believe it is imperative that we do something before we leave.

Today, I hear talk that we have a continuing resolution we have to pass, and then we are finished. I am not hearing that from anybody officially, but it is chattering around. That is the big thing to do.

I must say, that is a frightening thought. If we are thinking of leaving here without doing something to give the Treasury Department of the United States some authority to stabilize the credit system of the United States--if we don't do that and spend time doing that, we don't deserve to be called Senators.

It is hard to explain, but when you look at it, credit and the American credit system--call it the banking system if you would like, but I am calling it the credit system--is what makes America's prosperity available to millions and millions of people. It is the credit system that we set up that has given us the greatest standard of living that any people have ever had.

Something is going wrong with that financial system. It is not a question of Wall Street; it happens to be that Wall Street is the center for some of these

financial systems that I am talking about. But they are going amiss; they are going awry. Something basic is happening, so that the liquidity of the system, which means the money available for the American financial system that I have just spoken of--something has clogged it up. We are told by the experts--and I don't think they have anything to gain. I think the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is a distinguished American who never would have thought he was taking on this job when he agreed to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Incidentally, for those who don't know, he has a Ph.D. in economics, but guess what his dissertation was on. It was on the Great Depression. I think we are lucky that we have somebody there who understands the worst of times. He is here, joined by the Secretary of the Treasury, who is not a long-term Wall Streeter. It is only about 6 years that he has been involved in the Wall Street activities as a businessman. He is here begging us, pleading with us, and apologizing that he is not a good speaker. I am kind of saying: Who cares. Just listen to what he says. If you can understand it, pick it up and decide there is something for you to do.

If I sound like I am concerned, I would like everybody to know I have a very large stake in the future. My grandchildren haven't stopped arriving on the scene. I have 13 of them. I have 8 children of my own, and America has been great to all of us. There are millions more Americans like myself.

What is going to happen if we leave here without solving this problem or at least giving the executive branch, through the Secretary of the Treasury, the authority to try to do something to make this system liquid so that money will flow again? If we don't do that and we go home and think we are going to have a Christmas, we are apt to have a Christmas that will shock us all.

We are being told we can have a recession. Those are the words of a mild-mannered Federal Reserve Chairman. That is what he says, we could have a recession. I am quite sure when he is in the back room talking with those experts who advise him and with Secretary Paulson, he says worse than that. He probably says the thing can fall apart because it is all tied together and now it is all going to come untied, this great country, with billions of dollars in securities in the hands of all kinds of countries and people, having the dollar fall and the other signals out there that maybe they are right, that we are getting close to things falling apart.

I have a prepared speech. I asked somebody who is an expert to give me the whole history of the banking system of the United States since 1933. I was hoping I would have time to read it and let everybody know what it was and how it happened and how we as legislators in America didn't quite respond to the banking system as fast as we should. Legislation didn't keep pace with the changes.

So many people are to blame for us getting to where we are. There are plenty of people who abused the system. But if we get hung up trying to find out who did something wrong, then we are going to sit here, with our fingers pointed, in chairs trying to conduct hearings, asking the FBI to do things while the America we know goes down the tube.

I believe it is time for clear thinking, for Senators to say: We have to take this one on the chin. If it is going to hurt politically, it might as well hurt politically while you are doing the greatest thing you could do for your country, and that is save it--save it from economic turmoil. If that is not the case and you don't believe it, then obviously you can leave as Senators or Representatives. Once the CR is passed, you can go home and start your Christmas festivities and start running for reelection. I hope if you do that, when you come back, maybe those of us who will stay and work will not let the system fall apart for you. But if you want to take that chance, do it.

I think my colleagues should be here, not home campaigning. And I think the American people are going to hold you responsible if you don't get this thing solved.

I hear some say we will do a little something. No, no, not do a little something. We have the best people advising us that we have to do this, and there is even a chance if we do this right that we won't lose as much money as we will as if we do nothing; that, in fact, we may lose many more billions of dollars if we don't do something to stop the hemorrhage and at the same time loosen up the money.

I haven't said ``Wall Street'' very often in this speech, and I haven't used the word ``bailout'' because I don't think we are bailing out Wall Street and I don't think it is Wall Street that is the beneficiary of what we are trying to do. Stop and think. Who is involved in this thing called money lending in the United States, credit in the United States? There are millions of people and thousands of institutions that lend money. To whom? To people buying a car, buying a house, buying the Christmas presents for their children, improving the house, buying the lawn mower, buying their third car, and on and on. Those are the people who are using this credit system.

One time off the cuff I didn't know what to speak about before a crowd. I decided to have them guess with me: What is the greatest system that is working in the United States that is beneficial to you on an everyday basis? Of course, nobody could guess what I was going to say. I said: the credit system of the United States. And then I proceeded to tell them why the credit system was one of the best things that America had going for us--not for Wall Street, for us. And the credit system is at stake. If it doesn't work, nothing works. If your credit system doesn't work, you don't buy houses, you don't buy cars, you don't buy toys. Maybe you buy groceries. But if it is broken, who knows what will happen to a country such as ours when we have been so used to so much for so long.

Having said that, I have a little bit more time and I wish to talk a little bit about the history. Maybe I will rethink this for a minute and put it this way. I believe it is imperative that we pass legislation, and I believe that if the consensus is, after saying we want to give the executive branch what they think they need to solve this problem, if the consensus is that we need to add something to that legislation--add oversight, add something on executive pay, whatever the other things are--let's get on with it. Let's do that. Let's sit down with the leaders from the White House, from the executive branch, and say: What do we need in addition to their proposal? And let's talk seriously. I don't see why it would take so long. I don't see why we can't do it.

Incidentally, I was chairman of the Budget Committee when the Resolution Trust Corporation was formed in order to curb the savings and loan crisis in the early nineties. That effort was also very controversial. Yet that effort stabilized the markets and eventually made money for the American taxpayers. Of course, it was much more limited in scope. We were talking about the savings and loan institutions. Some were regulated, some were not regulated, and we were in some kind of a real mess. Some had deposit insurance that was adequately covered, some didn't. We had to take over their assets and then dole them out. Some people made a good deal and bought them cheap and made money. People focused on that and said what a dumb thing we did because some people made money on the buyouts from this Resolution Trust Corporation. In the end, when we added it all up, it made more money than it lost, and it saved the system. In the process, a lot of purification occurred, a lot of cleaning out occurred.

The same is going to happen here. I am no expert on the difference between then and now, the Resolution Trust Corporation problem that was being solved and the problems we are going to solve now, but clearly there are many similarities. We were frightened. When we heard the first reports about how much we might lose, there were many who supported it who didn't want to go home, they wanted to hide their heads under the desks because it was so many billions of dollars. This one is going to be worse, and if we don't decide to fix it, there are not going to be any desks to hide under, in my opinion.

The other problem we have is we haven't told the American people that this affects them. They have been told, because of the way it was presented, ``Wall Street,'' ``bailout,'' those famous words--it has been presented as if it

doesn't have anything to do with the people on Main Street and in our shopping centers across America and those who are selling and buying houses anywhere in America or buying cars from their local dealerships. It applies to all of them.

If liquidity, the liquid money flowing, stops for any period of time, all of those are affected. And guess who is at the end of each of those. The American people. They are all going to be affected. In fact, I am quite sure many thousands of Americans are worried today as to what they should do with their money, with their savings. We need to build some confidence back into the system and in them. We need to stabilize the system and build confidence in the American people by us being confident, by speaking out that we intend to do this, and by doing it we are going to save this credit system in the United States which applies daily to each American in a different way, but is their credit system, the credit system of the people of this country.

The history of the banking system in the United States is clearly an interesting one, and I believe rather than give it today, I will reserve it--I know I will have another opportunity to speak--and change the tenor of my remarks today from the history of the banking system to my version of the problem, from the top of my head as I think and look at a few words, what I think the problem is and what I think our responsibility is.

I once again say that before we leave here, we have a responsibility to face up to what could be the greatest economic crisis America has ever seen. If it isn't that big, we don't understand it. We are being told by those who know that it is that big, that it could be the biggest economic crisis we have ever had. I tend to believe these two gentlemen. I have heard them. I don't know them. I listen to them. I have no idea why they would be telling us this if it were not that they truly believed it was the fact as they gathered the facts from this enormous credit system of the United States.

I repeat, we are fortunate that the two experts are truly expert on matters similar to the ones we are facing. I didn't know about the good doctor who is Chairman of the Federal Reserve until I was preparing for this speech and for these hearings, that not only is he an economist but his expertise is in the Great Depression. No wonder he talks so confidently about what might happen if we do this or that.

Who are we going to believe if we don't believe people such as them? Who are we going to believe if we don't believe the Secretary? The Secretary worked so hard yesterday. I was around him late in the afternoon. I thought maybe he ought to go home and rest, he had worked so hard. He truly is trying to tell us with two red flags--if he could hold five of them--he is trying to tell us there is a big problem and we better start solving it. Don't be worrying too long how big the fire is or how big the fire hose has to be. We know how big the problem is. It is either as big as they say, or we have to guess and say we, as Senators, with no expertise in this area, no more than that, we are going to guess. I don't choose to do that. I don't think that is why we are here. This is a complicated system. The credit system of the United States is complicated. They have narrowed it down to five or six major events and now the big one that will wrap it up. We better help them or we better be prepared to face the consequences ourselves as individual American Senators.

I yield the floor and thank the Senate for listening.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wanted to indicate if the minority leader chose to speak I will yield now and wait my turn.

Mr. President, first I want to say how proud I am to see Senators on the floor, and others I have spoken to in meetings, speak up on this issue. I particularly commend the former chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Judd Gregg. Senator Gregg, I was chairman of the committee when the Resolution Trust Corporation--another one of these where a group of banks, called savings and loans, were going broke and the Federal Government had to step in. I recall having gone through what you are going through. What is the real value? How much is the real cost?

I do laud your statesmanship and your ability to tell it to us the way it is. I thank you for it. I recommend you make your expertise available to the Senate because this is not a Republican issue, this is an American issue. The facts as you know them are as important to Democrats as they are to us.

I commend you for that, and our leader, who made a forceful statement today that delays are not the order of the day, that something must be done.

I talk of this issue--I have spoken two times or three times for at least 10 minutes on the issue and never once in those speeches did I mention ``Wall Street'' or ``bailout,'' because I think it is neither. It has nothing to do with either of those. Wall Street is a location. As far as a bailout, this has nothing to do with Wall Street. The credit market of the United States, that which makes money available day by day to the people of our country for any and everything--their car, the new car they bought, the house they added on to that they want to pay for--anything you want to think of that requires the exchange of money or the payment of something by a check, all of this requires liquidity. It requires that money move. When money is stopped, the whole thing stops.

The best that we have in America, the two men representing the executive branch, I think are as good as we could have. They are telling us they have a way to attack that problem and perhaps come out of it without having to spend all the money we put up, that we will let the Treasury Department use to try to buy these assets that are stopping up things and take them to the trust corporation and see what happens over time.

In the meantime, the money for Americans must be loosened. That is the whole issue. I am glad we are talking about it forthrightly and honestly and that each Senator who has spoken has spoken of the fact that we ought to get this done as soon as possible. Time is hurting Americans, and the longer we wait the more difficult it gets for us to get it done.

I also laud the two candidates for President. It is no use running for President of the United States if, when you get there, America has gone bankrupt or is in the middle of a recession so big that it approaches a depression.

From my vantage point, things are not going to get better until we do something rather extraordinary. Two experts have told us what that is. They have a plan. I don't have a plan. I hope other people don't have plans. I hope we build on the plan submitted to us.

With that, I will yield the floor. Once again, I thank Senators who have had the courage and the will to understand that this is a big American problem requiring big actors who are not worried about their reelection but worried about America's future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my thanks to the chairman.

First, I wish to thank a number of individuals and institutions.

First and foremost, I thank Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy is my long-time partner and friend in our work on parity and other mental health issues. Obviously, he cannot be here today, but he is fully aware of what we are doing. I know he is very pleased with what we are doing and thrilled that we have found the offset for our bill, the bill that has been accepted by the House.

The question is whether our bill with the offset or our bill with a different offset becomes law. There should be no doubt that we will now get parity of treatment for a large number of Americans suffering from mental illness.

My further thanks go to Senator Enzi. I could not have asked for a better colleague to help work on this issue of mental health parity.

Senator Dodd, my long-time friend, has done an admirable job standing in for Senator Kennedy, not to mention his own work on mental health issues.

Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley: Simply put, we could not be here without you.

Leaders Reid and McConnell: I cannot say enough about the fantastic assistance the leaders have provided and they should certainly share with us the optimism that comes from this bill.

Members of the House of Representatives Kennedy and Ramstad, the chairmen and members of the committees of jurisdiction and the leadership in the House; our superb coalition outside the Senate and House. Mental health groups, insurance companies, and business organizations banded together and stayed together to ensure a broadly supported bill.

It might shock some, but I read the long list of those who banded together. And yes, you will see that this bill is supported by businesses--by big businesses--by those who pay for the large numbers of people who are covered by insurance and who are going to be guaranteeing parity of treatment under this bill. Finally, my dear friend Paul Wellstone. He was always the one who pushed and prodded me to move quicker and faster. I know he is watching us today and is extremely proud of what we have accomplished.

Let me take a couple of minutes to talk about the historic mental health parity compromise before the Senate.

Twelve years have passed since the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 became law. The compromise is the product of 3-plus years of continuous work and thousands of hours of labor. Rather than say just thousands, I will say a thousand hours at a minimum. For those 3-plus years I would walk into my office from time to time and I would see my conference room occupied by 30 or 40 people. Whenever that conference room was full, I knew that the member of my staff who handles mental health parity, Edward Hild, who is sitting at my right hand today, was among them. He was working with them to see what they could agree on and to see which problems could be solved. Joined with him was Senator Kennedy's aide, Connie Garner. I thank the two of them especially. Without them we could not have completed this bill. They worked and worked in order to get all sides to agree. And now we have what many have waited for a long time. My thanks to Ed Hild, and Connie Garner, who works for Senator Kennedy.

What does this bill do? It provides mental health parity for about 113 million Americans who work for employers with 50 employees or more. It ensures that 98 percent of the businesses that provide a mental health benefit do so in a manner that is no more restrictive than the coverage of medical and surgical benefits.

It ensures that health plans do not place more restrictive conditions on mental health coverage than on medical and surgical coverage; parity for financial requirements, such as deductibles, copayments, and annual and lifetime limits; parity for treatment limitations, and the number of covered hospital days and visits.

It provides an out-of-network parity for mental health coverage if a plan provides out-of-network coverage for medical and surgical benefits.

It provides a small employer exemption for companies with fewer than 50 employers and provides a cost exemption to all covered employers.

Simply put, our legislation will ensure that individuals with a mental illness have parity between mental health coverage and medical and surgical coverage. No longer will people with mental illness have their mental health coverage treated differently than their coverage for other illnesses. That means there will be parity between the coverage of mental illness and other medical conditions such as cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.

No longer will people be treated differently only because they suffer from a mental illness. And that means 113 million people in group health policy plans will benefit from our bill.

We have worked with the mental health community and business and insurance groups to carefully craft a compromise that all members of the coalition support.

I wish to take a minute to talk about what we are doing and what we are not doing. I have done that in all of my remarks, talking about what we are doing and what we are not doing.

Mr. President, I say to everyone here, I do believe that if Senator Kennedy had his way, he would be standing over there where his chair is and he would be speaking as long as I speak or maybe longer. He and I would be discussing how difficult it has been to get this very basic American insurance coverage for the mentally ill.

Parity means fairness. We have been unfair to the mentally ill since we started medical insurance coverage for people with illnesses. Somehow we got off the track. We said, of course, we will treat everything that has to do with the heart, but, for instance, we won't do anything having to do with illnesses that affect the brain. Perhaps, it was because we didn't know that illnesses such as schizophrenia were diseases of the brain. We started talking about them as if they were something else. So we began saying they don't get the kind of coverage that people with heart problems do, or people with cancer do, or people with tuberculosis do.

What we have had is millions of Americans, since health insurance was first started, to this date, millions of Americans have been born and died with mental illnesses. Illnesses never covered by health insurance. However, over time the unfairness has been whittled away, and we have become more and more fair.

Today this bill says all of the group insurance policies in the United States of America, no matter who wrote them, no matter where they were written, no matter which company they were written by or for, will have to provide for the mentally ill who are covered. If they are going to have any mental health coverage, those insurance companies must cover them with the exact same coverage they give to others who suffer from other diseases as I have described in the last 6 or 7 minutes.

This is a red-letter day for fairness, a red-letter day for doing something very positive. This was a tough one, and it should have been easy. But it was tough. It took many years to get it through here. In fact, the last effort we had, believe it or not, we had a Senator who was so concerned about his work that he said he wanted one more weekend. To which I said: What can you do in one more weekend? And his response--and he was sincere--he said: I want to finish reading the bill. Nobody tells us that, but he did. He finished reading the bill. I thank him. I said: You must be a genius to understand what we wrote. I compliment you. That was one of our last hurdles. That was months ago in the Senate. Then it got to the House, this final bill, this bill before us today.

We had a parity bill a number of years ago which was quasi almost parity. That got through here a little easier, although even that bill was resisted in the House. Many of us have warmed to the idea finally that the mentally ill of our country are truly people who are sick, and if they are treated by doctors or in hospitals for that ailment--be it schizophrenia, be it bipolar, be it depression, any of those doctors have to treat--those patients ought to be covered by general health insurance.

I am so pleased we are finally doing this bill. I am so unhappy that my friend Senator Kennedy cannot be here today. He and I spent many hours talking about this legislation, changing it, moving it around. I know he would have loved to have been here. So I say on behalf of Senator Kennedy that he and I thank the Senate for this bill. It will be adopted shortly.

My 10 minutes is up. This is on a bill which is destined to pass. We were glad to put it on the bill. Maybe we helped the bill; maybe the bill helped us. In any event, we are trying to do everything that anybody asks of us. We even had the Congressional Budget Office say this bill costs the Government money, and that was a hard thing to eat and buy, but we did buy it. It took us a long time because we had to have an offset. We did get one.

For those people interested in the bill, I have said everything about the bill and the people with mental illness across our land. I have seen these people by the thousands--the mothers and fathers and relatives of the mentally ill. They are my friends across the land. Today, we have added other things and we are getting close to covering the mentally ill, as we should--as a concerned, considerate country should do.

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

Mr. President, as a Senator that not only represents a leader in renewable energy technology but also helps run the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I am pleased that we have finally reached a compromise which will allow us to extend important tax credits for renewable energy.

History tells us that our most promising technologies frequently need government assistance in order to get off the ground and become economically viable. One of the most effective ways we can do this is through our Tax Code.

Our Nation is facing unprecedented challenges in our financial markets and in energy. I have spent much of my time over the last few months talking about the need to build a bridge toward our energy future. I believe that bridge consists of increased oil and gas production from American lands offshore. I am pleased to note that since the time I first introduced legislation to open up lands offshore in May, there has been a sea change in both public opinion and the opinions of my colleagues on this issue.

But the domestic oil and gas that I am talking about is not the entire solution. In fact, as I said, it is just a bridge to the ultimate solution, and that is the development of new technologies that will allow us to use far less oil. Those technologies include plug-in hybrid cars as well as renewable energy sources like wind, solar, biomass and geothermal.

In 2005, as chairman of the Energy Committee, I was pleased to lead the Senate to pass the largest and longest tax credits for renewable energy in history. We have renewed those tax credits several times since then, but these credits are once again set to expire. Every time they get close to expiring, investments in the industry begin to dry up, and the uncertainty hurts our Nation's ability to deploy these technologies in a timely and cost-effective manner.

We have struggled with the tax extensions during this Congress, because, frankly, the majority has decided to play politics with them. For the first time in history, they have demanded that they be offset through tax increases. Although the Senate voted 88-8 to extend them without those tax increases earlier this year, the House refused to consider our proposal, and the renewable energy industry has suffered as a result.

At last, there appears to be a light at the end of the tunnel if the House of Representatives doesn't seek to politicize this issue once again. A reasonable, commonsense agreement to extend the tax credits for renewable energy, as well as do several other important things like mental health parity and fixing the AMT problem, has been reached. I will address those subjects in greater detail, but it should be noted that the agreement now before us does offset much of the cost of the tax credit extensions, but it does so in a way that will not harm domestic production of energy.

I urge my colleagues to support this agreement in its totality, and I sincerely hope that the House will take up this entire package and pass it so that these essential tax credits will once again not be allowed to expire.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the innocent Americans who were killed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I ask that we commemorate the emergency responders who provided relief in the aftermath of the attacks. I also ask that we salute our brave men and women in uniform who have volunteered to serve their country in this time of need. Not to be forgotten are the families who support our troops and the families who lost loved ones on this tragic day; to them we must also pay tribute.

We should continue to remember the family of Al Marchand from Alamogordo, NM, a flight attendant on United Airlines flight 175 and one of the first casualties on that horrific day. He and his family remain in my thoughts and those of my fellow New Mexicans. Since that day, many New Mexicans have volunteered to serve their country by entering the ranks of our Armed Forces. Some of these brave men and women today live with the injuries and scars they received in this fight. Sadly, some lost their lives in

this war to protect our way of life. I pay tribute to Army SSG Kevin C. Roberts of Farmington, NM, and Army SGT Gary D. Willett of Alamogordo, NM, the two most recent casualties from New Mexico in the ongoing global war on terror.

Seven years have passed since al-Qaida terrorists struck our homeland. Yet even after 7 years, threats against our country still exist. We must continue on with vigilance and remain dedicated to the protection and security of our great Nation. Even now, the images and shock of that day are still with me. And while I am, years later, still saddened by our losses, I am also heartened by all the heroic acts of our citizens in what was the most shocking attack on our homeland. In the months following the attacks, our brave men and women in uniform toppled the regime in Afghanistan that provided a base of operations for the terrorists who carried out the 2001 attacks. We helped that country establish a democratic government and are working with allies in NATO to bring peace and stability to a country that has spent much of its recent history in the mire of civil war. It is a dangerous mission that continues today.

One of the important lessons that political and military leaders learned from the 2001 terrorist attacks was that America cannot stand by idly as threats to its security develop far from our shores. This required our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to work with friends and allies around the world and with each other to gather actionable intelligence that would help us disrupt terrorist plots at home and abroad. To help consolidate our domestic defense system, the Congress created the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security was organized to prevent attacks within the United States, reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and to minimize the damage and assist in the recovery from terrorists' attacks in America. The Congress also followed the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States--the 9/11 Commission--and passed historic legislation that reformed the agencies that make up our intelligence community. While these reforms were important and necessary, the disruption of a recent plot to hijack planes flying from London to the United States, shows us that our enemies are still bent on bringing terror into our cities.

Many of my fellow citizens from the State of New Mexico have contributed to strengthening our defenses in the global war on terror. An urban rescue team traveled from New Mexico to Virginia to help recover survivors from the ruins at the Pentagon. Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories helped identify the strains of anthrax that were found in government and office buildings shortly after the terrorist attacks. They helped develop a biological threat detection system that was deployed at the 2002 Winter Olympics, the 2004 Summer Olympics, and in locations around our Nation's Capital. The National Labs have also been at the forefront in developing tools to detect and dispose of materials that can be made used as a ``dirty bomb'' or other weapon of mass destruction. Finally, the National Infrastructure and Analysis Center, NISAC, is being used to develop response strategies for government officials and first responders for large and complex crises.

Over the past 7 years, we have learned a good deal more about how the attack was planned and executed, and we have spent countless man hours and resources to make our Nation safer. We can be proud of the fact that we have worked to implement most of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We are more prepared as a nation for these types of dangers than we were prior to September 11, 2001, but this is a struggle that will not end with the same clarity and decisiveness of battles past. Therefore, even as we continue to adjust to a post-9/11 world, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to prevent such a tragedy from occurring on American soil again. I hope all Americans take time to reflect on the events of September 11, 2001, honor those that have fallen, and rededicate themselves for the struggle ahead.

Yes. I thank the leader.

Madam President, might I say to the Republican leader, I am here sitting down because you and the Senators on my side are doing such an excellent job of letting the American people know what has been going on. It has been a thrill to listen, because I would hate to be on the other side. It looks as if they are very anxious to make sure you don't finish your statements. They would like to take a little bit of your time. If I were in their shoes, I would too. Because the truth is, their leader changed the course for debate on energy, meaningful energy amendments, when he decided he would put all the amendments that the process would hold, he put them on so there could be none offered. That is why we are here today, because no amendments could be offered and voted on. Anybody who stands up and says we had a chance, what chance? If we would have offered something, the objection would have been: The tree is full. It is out of order. I already asked the Parliamentarian if an amendment would be in order, if I tendered an amendment to such-and-such amendment, and the Parliamentarian said: You couldn't offer it. So that is why none of the amendments you refer to could have been offered.

There has been one area in which we can all stand up and say we legislated in the normal way and got something good, and that is the current set of rules regarding nuclear power. We now have 16 nuclear powerplant applications filed and waiting their turn to start construction. We had zero when we started this process. We need some additions to that which are in the amendment you propose to make sure it works, to make sure this wonderful start of nuclear power for America hits the few things it still needs to be competitive. You have been denied the opportunity to discuss it. We are not talking about that, but to offer a full-fledged amendment that will require a little bit of debate and then vote. That is what we have been denied. That is why I am here saying the public is going to understand this. We should have voted on the Outer Continental Shelf, opening it, with amendment and full debate. We can't do it because they won't let us. It is that simple.

Will the leader yield a moment?

Madam President, I heard the leader's comments about Gregory. I just want to say I am aware of the situation. I feel the same way the majority leader feels. I thank him so much for his graciousness toward Bob and his wife. I know how tough it is on them. We don't know it until something like that happens, but that is a very young, wonderful boy who died. Bob is a wonderful man. Everybody who knows him knows he is a dedicated, devoted father. It is just pathetic that this happened.

I join the majority leader in every way in extending my most sincere regrets and hope and pray that the best will come of this. I know that sounds impossible, but at least we can ask for the best and that the Lord consider them and be merciful to them.

Madam President, as I understand it, time now inures to the Senate Republicans for--is it a half hour?

Madam President, I am here to lead off for the Republicans. There are two others. Senator Brownback is here, and there may be another Senator, Senator Allard. I say to them, I am only going to make a 2-minute or 3-minute statement and then yield to whoever wishes to go first. I would like them to hear what I say.

Yesterday, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, issued what I believe to be a very telling and extraordinary statement. He said:

It became clear that an attempt to add language to the

supplemental----

That is the supplemental appropriations----

repealing the two-decade-old ban on offshore oil and gas

drilling would be successful, resulting in the necessity of

having to produce 60 votes on the Senate floor to strip the

repeal.

And so for that reason, the markup in the Senate

Appropriations Committee on two important bills that fund the

government was canceled.

I will say that not only does this statement contradict claims of the majority about why the markup was canceled, it also crystallizes exactly why the last 9 days in the Senate have resulted in absolutely nothing. The majority is afraid of allowing the Senate to vote on increasing American production. They are afraid to let that happen because a vote just might yield results.

We have spent 9 days debating this bill. During this time, we could have

considered dozens of amendments, just as we did on the energy legislation in 2005 and 2007, and without a doubt, because the majority leader has taken sole control over the process, we have been held to zero votes. So zero votes, I say to my fellow Americans, cannot yield results. When you have no votes, you cannot accomplish anything. That means you cannot add to the offshore reserve that can be made available for oil and gas production. It remains as is, no matter how much is there, no matter how much we could end up drilling for so the American people could look out and say: By producing our own, we don't have to waste all our money sending it overseas, and the price might come down.

My last observation before I yield to my good friends is that I continue to hear comments from the other side that say we should not be drilling because all we say is drill, drill, drill, and that is the only thing, and we don't need to do that; we need alternatives.

We can have all the alternatives we would like--and I am surely in favor--but we are going to be using crude oil or something much like crude oil for at least a generation--that means 20 years minimum-- because we cannot get off crude oil any faster. The oil products we use for our cars, our trucks, and our airplanes we cannot change over fast enough, so we have to use oil. And if we don't produce more of our own, we all know what we are going to do is buy from others and continue to send the money overseas.

It is not just drilling because we want to drill, drill, drill; it is drilling because we don't have enough oil. And if we find more, we import less. That should be good, and the American people sense it is good. That is why so many of them have said let's open the offshore for drilling.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have not seen such a thing. In fact, I have said--not as direct as this, but I have said that in 36 years being a Senator, through thick and thin and bills I have managed, bills I have amended, whatever kinds, I have never seen anything where such a simple proposition--can we open lands that we own so they can be drilled, yes or no--I have never seen where it takes 10 days and they waste 10 days of time and still say no. I have never heard of that. Yet the majority, the leader of the Appropriations Committee says in the Appropriations Committee there are enough votes to end the offshore hindrance that has been there, it says, for two decades or three decades. If the amendments do that, they are awfully scared, right? Maybe that is why we didn't get the vote.

I think it is other things. I don't think Members on that side wanted to vote, win or lose. They didn't want to vote. Now the American people can judge. That is how I see it. They can judge what happened and why.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Colorado, and I will add one supplement to it because he knows this and maybe we will just say it together here. I did devote 10 years, with three or four experts, to seeing if we could bring nuclear power back to life in America, instead of leaving it dead, for others to use it as we sit around having invented it and wondering what is happening. I did work on it for 10 years, and then when we did our big bill, we put in provisions that brought it back to life. That does make you feel good. You don't do that alone.

We never had a single vote, I say to my friend from Colorado, not one vote was taken on any of the bills to try to negate the provisions we put in for nuclear power. One would have thought 5 years ago it would be the most contentious issue we could have brought to the floor. In that big Energy bill, there was a whole chapter on nuclear power. Nobody sought to amend it, change it, anything. That was really a credit to the Senators who worked so hard on nuclear power, and the Senator was one of them. Senator Allard has always said he has been proud of it. I don't know about the Senator from Kansas, but I assume so. He has a good brain, and if you have a good brain and you are a reasonable legislator, you couldn't be against nuclear. You just had to be one of these fringe people against everything, scared because we had an accident once.

If you are scared because you had an accident once, you would not get up in the morning. That is what the doctor told my mother. She didn't want me to get out of bed because I had a bad knee. The doctor said: The best thing to do if you don't want him to get hurt is you be his maid. He can stay in bed, and you can serve him food for 25 years. Of course, he won't amount to anything. And that is true.

I am talking on. It is getting close to the end of the day.

I yield the floor.

There are 16 applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as of the day before yesterday--16--for new nuclear powerplants; in some cases, two plants at one site, both construction and design applications. We had zero the day we adopted the new Energy bill. For once it seems as if we did something right; doesn't it?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Before I leave, I want to say to the Senator from Colorado, who is standing here patiently, that he might recall that the Senator from New Mexico went up and visited Colorado and Utah to see the oil shale before we had the big bill, where we put everything together.

I was prompted to do that by you, to find out why we weren't doing anything with that shale. We found out that we didn't have any leasing laws that permitted it. I recall it was at your instigation that we put the first laws in the energy impact bill, the big bill, allowing leases for research and development. That is what has brought the development they are all worried about. It is a research and development lease.

Now they don't want to have any, as you put it, rules or regulations, so they can stop it dead after we got a good start. We understood that Shell Oil was ready to try a new process. They were going to spend more than a few billion dollars on it, and we found that out and said: Well, we ought to at least give them a chance. And we did, thanks to you. But now they won't let us vote on getting rid of the moratorium, so that is dead in the water too--that great big resource.

So I thank you.

Will the Senator yield?

I note that you just used a word a minute ago-- ``bridge.'' I think you have heard me speak of the bridge. You see, the bridge is how you are going to get from where you are now, with an economy that is using hydrocarbons to move itself, to do all kinds of things; how we are going to get from there to an economy that has no more of that. That is a bridge.

Most interesting, the bridge is going to be crude oil because the only way you can get there is to stay alive, to have an economy, to produce, to get things done. And to get across that bridge you have to have crude oil because there is nothing else to get you there. You cannot put everything in parking lots and in abeyance until you find what is on the other side of the bridge.

The truth is, we have to produce crude oil for perhaps a decade. You said 10, 15, 20 years. That is my guess. Even if all these things work, the automobile where you can turn it on with a switch, everything that we can do, we are still going to be, what I say, stuck in the mud--the oil mud.

Whether people like it or not, Americans have it right. They are saying drill some more, they are not saying drill less. Six months ago, everybody was afraid of the word. Now they are not afraid of it because people understand if you have more of that stuff called oil you might pay less. Costs might come down.

I thank the Senator for his understanding, and I am pleased to be with him.

Mr. President, during the previous session I introduced legislation to address the funding of Indian water rights claims that are of utmost importance in the west, and in particular, within the State of New Mexico. Since that time many parties have met for countless hours in New Mexico and here in Washington to address how these claims could be resolved and finally settled. Rather than spend countless hours in litigation, these groups have sat down and worked through these issues in a very productive manner.

As a result, today I am pleased to come before you to introduce, on behalf of myself and Senator Bingaman, the Aamodt and Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2008. This legislation will resolve these long-standing Indian water rights claims within New Mexico and authorize a source of Federal funding to resolve them.

The Aamodt litigation in New Mexico was filed in 1966 and is the longest-standing litigation in the Federal judiciary system. The hard work that each party put into the settlement process demonstrates that negotiated settlements, with multiple parties working together, can best determine how to allocate scarce water supplies among diverse parties in a way that does not curtail existing uses. This bill will result in additional economic development and improved health benefits within these communities.

The resolution of these claims will not only improve the lives of many within these communities by providing a safe and reliable water supply, but will also improve the ability of New Mexico to effectively undertake water rights planning in the near and long-term future.

As I have stated before, the costs of not settling these claims in New Mexico are dire. The legislation before us will ensure that our obligations to these communities are met and that they will have safe and reliable water systems.

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