Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006 (H.R. 5970) more commonly known as the Family Prosperity Act.

I believe that the Family Prosperity Act is a good compromise because it raises the inheritance tax exemption to $10 million per couple, increases the minimum wage by $2.10, and extends some personal and business tax cuts. I support this legislation because it represents a fair and reasonable compromise on all three of these important issues.

For some time now, the Senate has debated the death tax, which is the most confiscatory tax of all. It has been a battle to repeal or modify this tax. In my opinion this tax is in need of modification; however, a full repeal of the death tax has been unsuccessful. Congress must act before the current repeal sunsets and the death tax is reinstated in 2011. Inaction on our part will lead to taxation of estates over $1 million at a rate 55 percent. Therefore, we are now attempting to seek agreement on this compromise measure that will benefit Americans. After careful consideration I have concluded that this bill represents a fair and reasonable compromise. Furthermore, passage of this bill will bring relief that is long overdue.

H.R. 5970 is a permanent reduction of the death tax that will exempt $5 million per individual and $10 million per couple. Estates under $25 million would have a maximum tax equal to the capital gain rate of 15 percent. Estates over $25 million would be taxed at 30 percent. The exemptions and $25 million threshold are indexed for inflation and will be fully phased in by January 1, 2015.

This tax relief is substantial to States, like my home State of New Mexico that are filled with small business owners, family farms, and ranches. The assets accumulated by these hard-working people should not be taxed a second time nor at a rate that is too high. I believe that by enacting this relief from the death tax, we will be fostering economic growth, business investment, and entrepreneurship. Moreover, this bill will decrease the number of estates that are liquidated in order to pay taxes and will ultimately decrease the number of estates that are required to file a tax return.

Some have argued that this legislation is not a compromise and that it will preserve wealthy estates. I firmly believe that this argument is unfounded. This bill will continue to tax estates that hold considerable wealth while at the same time exempting small and medium sized estates that are overly burdened, and often times extinguished, by this tax.

I would now like to turn our attention to the minimum wage provisions contained in the Family Prosperity Act. It has been almost 10 years since Congress last voted to raise the minimum wage. In the meantime, our cost-of-living has increased annually and working families have struggled to meet their most basic needs.

The pending legislation before the Senate will increase the minimum wage by $2.10 an hour--phased in over 3 years. I have said many times before that I would support an increase in the minimum wage if it was crafted properly. I believe that this bill is crafted properly because it raises the minimum wage while extending some personal and business tax cuts and reduces the overreaching death tax.

The current Federal minimum wage just isn't sufficient. Now is the time to raise the minimum wage. It's time to give low-wage workers a raise.

There was an editorial published recently in my hometown newspaper, the Albuquerque Journal. The editorial was entitled ``Raise the Minimum Wage: Reduce the Death Tax.'' The editorial hit on some very important points. The focus was that we have tried to address these issues before--and we have failed. It stressed that we need compromise in order to get things done in this Congress.

Mr. President, I will ask that a copy of this Albuquerque Journal editorial be printed in the Record.

This bill is a good compromise. We have before us a chance to work together to accomplish something for the American people. We should embrace this opportunity and work together.

The Family Protection Act contains extensions of several important tax cuts that are currently set to expire. The research and development credit is of significant importance. H.R. 5970 will extend the research and development credit through 2007.

Advanced technologies drive a significant part of our Nation's economic strength. Our economy and our standard of living depend on a constant influx of new technologies, processes, and products from our industries. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan frequently reinforced the critical dependence between advanced technology and our economic strength.

Many countries provide labor at lower costs than the United States. Thus, as any new product matures, competitors using overseas labor frequently find ways to undercut our production costs. We maintain our economic strength only by constantly improving our products through innovation. Maintaining and improving our national ability to innovate is critically important to the Nation.

With this extension, we will significantly strengthen incentives for private companies to undertake research that leads to new processes, new services, and new products. The result will be stronger companies that are better positioned for global competition. Those stronger companies will hire more people at higher salaries with real benefits to our national economy and workforce.

Another important tax credit that should be extended is the deduction for higher education expenses. Higher education expenses are on the minds of many families. Saving to invest in education is important to the future of all young adults and to our society as a whole. We must ensure our Nation's future by helping educate America's young adults. That is why it is important to offer tax breaks for qualified higher education tuition and expenses. The Family Protection Act allows taxpayers to deduct $4,000 in qualified higher education tuition and expenses through 2007.

The last credit that I would like to comment on is the welfare-to- work credit. This bill extends the welfare-to-work credit through 2007. Business plays an important role in transitioning people receiving welfare

into the workforce, and providing incentives for employers to hire welfare recipients strengthens our economy. This is an important provision in the bill and provides one more reason for me to support passage of this compromise.

I support this three-part compromise package because it represents a fair and reasonable compromise on all of these important issues.

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

Mr. President, the Senate passed one of the most important bills it has considered this year. We passed legislation that I believe is the most important thing we can do in the near-term to stabilize our energy prices and expand our energy supply.

This is American can-do legislation. With this bill, we are bringing vast reserves of American energy onshore from the American real estate that we own out in the ocean.

We are doing it safely, cleanly, and responsibly. We are bringing this clean energy onshore so our businesses can prosper, our farmers can prosper, and American families can have much needed relief from high energy costs.

Right now, energy is on all of our minds. Oil prices continue to climb because of instability in oil rich regions. Today, oil hovers at just below $75 a barrel. Natural gas prices are climbing because of the intense heat in many regions of our country. This week, the price jumped 11 percent in 1 day, and right now it is at $8.05 per million Btu--that price is four times higher than it was 6 years ago.

Let me tell you why Americans care so much. Between 1999 and 2005, the price of natural gas in the United States increased by 289 percent. At the same time, we lost over 3 million U.S. jobs in the manufacturing sector.

The heat wave gripping our Nation has made energy supply and energy prices a topic of real concern for all of us. As I speak, the lights in the hallways of the Senate and House office buildings are dimmed to conserve energy during this heat wave.

I think it is fitting that during a time of strong national concern over our soaring energy prices, the Senate will pass by what I expect to be a wide margin a bill to bring 1.2 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to market. Every once in awhile, we get it just right. This is one of those times.

I am particularly pleased that we did this bill in a way that reinvests in our environment. For decades, our coastal States have produced much of the oil and gas this Nation consumes. They will no longer sit back and go along with leasing without the compensation needed to fix the energy infrastructure and coastal environment that is so critical to our domestic energy survival.

Our coastal States provide 27 percent of our oil and 20 percent of the natural gas. MMS estimates that Gulf of Mexico production is expected to rise within the next several years to about 23 percent of our Nation's natural gas production and 40 percent of U.S. oil production.

In addition, our coastal States host nearly 50 percent of our refining infrastructure. The hurricanes last fall and the soaring energy prices afterward reminded all of us how critical the coastal States' production and infrastructure are to our energy supply.

I am pleased that today marks the beginning of the end of the days of turning our backs on our coastal States while we turn our energy dollars over to hostile regimes.

I am pleased that the bill invests a portion of our royalties in the coastal States and the coastal environment instead of forfeiting all royalties and sending that money to hostile governments to buy their energy. I hope the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act marks the beginning of the end of this long cycle of sending our dollars abroad to buy the energy we use here at home.

This bill represents America stepping up to the plate to solve our energy problems. It opens up 8.3 million new acres to development of nearly 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.26 billion barrels of oil. We are talking about enough natural gas to heat and cool nearly 6 million homes for 15 years.

The proof of the substantive merits of this bill lies in is its broad support around the Nation from America's agricultural community, manufacturing community, producers of chemicals and plastics, the textile industry, the utility sector, and small businesses. Literally, thousands of consumer groups representing millions of Americans and millions of American jobs say the same thing--that S. 3711 provides the much needed relief for the American people.

That is why this bill is right for America. It is right for our national security. It is right for our economy, our businesses, our farms, and our families. I am pleased at the strong support for this measure.

I thank the following Energy Committee staff for their hard work on this bill: Frank Macchiarola, Bruce Evans, Marnie Funk, Angela Harper, Kara Gleason, and Kristina Rolph.

Mr. President, since its inception in 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation has constructed numerous facilities which have supplied much of the water and power necessary to populate the Western United States. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences estimates that Reclamation currently owns 673 facilities that are part of 178 major projects. When many of these facilities were constructed, there were few local communities and utilities capable of assuming title to the facilities. However, this is no longer the case. Many project beneficiaries are both willing and able to receive title to Reclamation facilities.

The growth of the environmental movement during the 1970s, explosive population growth in the West, Indian water rights claims, and urbanization transformed Reclamation from an agency that plans, designs, and constructs large projects into one that manages existing Reclamation facilities and allocates water resources in accordance with applicable law. Correspondingly, appropriations for Reclamation have decreased over the past 40 years. As chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, I have become increasingly concerned that Reclamation lacks adequate resources to fulfill its current mission, particularly in light of increasing nonreimbursable expenditures required for operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of Reclamation facilities. For this reason, we need to investigate opportunities, including title transfers, to make more money available to Reclamation.

Reclamation project beneficiaries frequently claim that Reclamation services passed on to customers are far more expensive than comparable services in the private sector and that Reclamation ownership of these facilities imposes an unnecessary administrative burden on project beneficiaries. For these reasons, many project beneficiaries who have fulfilled their construction repayment obligations would like to pursue the transfer of title to Reclamation facilities and land. In addition to benefiting project beneficiaries, transfer of title to Reclamation facilities also divests the Federal Government of the liability, operation, maintenance, management, and regulation associated with these facilities. In its framework for transfer of title to Reclamation facilities, Reclamation acknowledged its commitment to a

Federal Government that ``works better and costs less.'' I believe that pursuing title transfers on a widespread basis is consistent with this policy.

While Reclamation currently has an administrative process for determining which uncomplicated transfers should be pursued by Congress, it is my belief that the process is not as aggressive or comprehensive as it should be. The bill I introduce today would direct the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate criteria for the transfer of title to Reclamation facilities and lands, including multipurpose and multibeneficiary projects. The bill also directs the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a study to identify which Reclamation facilities may be appropriate for transfer. Consistent with current policy, Congress would evaluate which of these facilities should be transferred.

I realize that title transfer may not be appropriate for every Reclamation facility. However, I believe that there are a great number of instances in which title transfer would benefit the United States and Reclamation customers.

I thank Senator Bingaman, ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for being an original cosponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, since its inception in 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation has constructed numerous facilities which have supplied much of the water and power necessary to populate the Western United States. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences estimates that Reclamation currently owns 673 facilities that are part of 178 major projects. When many of these facilities were constructed, there were few local communities and utilities capable of assuming title to the facilities. However, this is no longer the case. Many project beneficiaries are both willing and able to receive title to Reclamation facilities.

The growth of the environmental movement during the 1970s, explosive population growth in the West, Indian water rights claims, and urbanization transformed Reclamation from an agency that plans, designs, and constructs large projects into one that manages existing Reclamation facilities and allocates water resources in accordance with applicable law. Correspondingly, appropriations for Reclamation have decreased over the past 40 years. As chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, I have become increasingly concerned that Reclamation lacks adequate resources to fulfill its current mission, particularly in light of increasing nonreimbursable expenditures required for operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of Reclamation facilities. For this reason, we need to investigate opportunities, including title transfers, to make more money available to Reclamation.

Reclamation project beneficiaries frequently claim that Reclamation services passed on to customers are far more expensive than comparable services in the private sector and that Reclamation ownership of these facilities imposes an unnecessary administrative burden on project beneficiaries. For these reasons, many project beneficiaries who have fulfilled their construction repayment obligations would like to pursue the transfer of title to Reclamation facilities and land. In addition to benefiting project beneficiaries, transfer of title to Reclamation facilities also divests the Federal Government of the liability, operation, maintenance, management, and regulation associated with these facilities. In its framework for transfer of title to Reclamation facilities, Reclamation acknowledged its commitment to a

Federal Government that ``works better and costs less.'' I believe that pursuing title transfers on a widespread basis is consistent with this policy.

While Reclamation currently has an administrative process for determining which uncomplicated transfers should be pursued by Congress, it is my belief that the process is not as aggressive or comprehensive as it should be. The bill I introduce today would direct the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate criteria for the transfer of title to Reclamation facilities and lands, including multipurpose and multibeneficiary projects. The bill also directs the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a study to identify which Reclamation facilities may be appropriate for transfer. Consistent with current policy, Congress would evaluate which of these facilities should be transferred.

I realize that title transfer may not be appropriate for every Reclamation facility. However, I believe that there are a great number of instances in which title transfer would benefit the United States and Reclamation customers.

I thank Senator Bingaman, ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for being an original cosponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Friday, September 1, 2006, at 1 p.m. in the Student Union Ballroom at the Student Union Building of Montana State University Northern located at 1 SUB Drive in Havre, Montana.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 3563, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct studies to determine the feasibility and environmental impact of rehabilitating the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works and the Milk River Project, to authorize the rehabilitation and improvement of the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works, to develop an emergency response plan for use in the case of catastrophic failure of the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Nate Gentry at (202) 224-2179 or Steve Waskiewicz at (202) 228-6195.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kyl and Cornyn to introduce legislation that creates the new Federal judgeships recommended by the 2005 Judicial Conference for our U.S. district courts that have a serious overload of immigration cases.

I believe it is imperative to equip all of our Federal agencies with the assets they need to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws. That includes equipping our U.S. district courts with enough judges to handle the criminal immigration cases that appear on their dockets. The immigration reform bill passed by the Senate in May recognizes that with increased border security and immigration enforcement there will be increased prosecutions, and the bill calls for more immigration judges to handle those prosecutions. But the bill fails to recognize that repeat immigration law violators can be charged with a felony and tried in U.S. district court. We need to increase the number of judges in our district courts that handle such cases, particularly in those districts that are already overwhelmed with immigration cases.

The legislation I am proposing creates eleven new Federal judgeships, as recommended by the Judicial Conference, in the U.S. district courts in which at least 50 percent of their criminal cases are immigration cases. The bill affects four districts, all of which border Mexico. In fiscal year 2004, the Western District of Texas had 5599 criminal case filings, 3,688 of those cases, over 65 percent, dealt with immigration. The District Court of Arizona had 4,007 criminal filings, of which 2,404 cases, or 59 percent, were immigration filings. The Southern District of California has 2,206 immigration filings, 64 percent of their 3,400 total criminal filings. Lastly, the District of New Mexico had 2,497 criminal filings, 60 percent of them, 1,502 cases, were immigration cases.

Based on these caseloads, I think we should already be giving these districts new judgeships. But to increase our border security and immigration enforcement efforts without equipping these courts to handle the even larger immigration caseloads that they are expected to face would be tantamount to willful negligence.

The New Mexico District Chief Judge, Martha Vazquez, wrote me a letter in May about the situation the New Mexico District faces. Judge Vazquez wrote:

As it is, the burden on Article III Judges in this District

is considerable. This District ranks first among all

districts in criminal filings per judgeship: 405 criminal

filings compared to the national average of 87. As in all

federal districts along the southwest border, the majority of

cases filed in this District relate to immigration offenses

under United States Code, Title 8 and drug offenses arising

under Title 21. Immigration and drug cases account for

eighty-five percent of the caseload in the District of New

Mexico. . . In fiscal year 1997, there were 240 immigration

felony filings in the District of New Mexico. By fiscal year

2005, the number of immigration felony filings increased to

1,826, which is an increase of 661 percent . . . Increasing

the number of Immigration Judges will do nothing to reduce

the increasing caseload in the border states' federal courts.

The Albuquerque Tribune has also documented the burden immigration cases put on district courts. An April 17 article entitled ``Judges See Ripple Effect of Policy on Immigration,'' stated:

U.S. District Chief Judge Martha Vazquez of Santa Fe

oversees a court that faces a rising caseload from illegal

border crossings and related crime. And help from Washington

is by no means certain . . . From Sept. 30, 1999 to Sept. 30,

2004 (the end of the fiscal year), the caseload in the New

Mexico federal district court increased 57.5 percent, from

2,804 to 4,416. In the 2004 fiscal year alone, 2,126 felony

cases were heard, almost half of all cases in the entire 10th

Circuit, which includes Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah and

Wyoming. Most typical immigration cases go before an

immigration judge, and the subjects are deported. But people

deported once and caught crossing illegally again can be

charged with a felony. And that brings the defendant into

federal district court. Those are the cases driving up New

Mexico's caseload . . . Some days as many as 90 defendants

crowd the courtroom in Las Cruces . . . The same problems are

afflicting federal border courts in Arizona, California, and

Texas.

Similar problems were documented in a May 23 Reuters article entitled ``Bush Border Patrol Plan to Pressure Courts'' which said:

President George W. Bush's plan to send thousands of

National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border could spark a

surge in immigration cases and U.S. courts are ill prepared

to handle them . . . Even without the stepped-up security at

the border, federal courts in southern California, Arizona,

New Mexico and Texas have been overburdened. Carelli [a

spokesman for U.S. federal courts] said those five judicial

districts, out of 94 nationwide, account for 34 percent of

all criminal cases moving through U.S. courts . . . Most

immigrants caught crossing illegally are ordered out of the

country without prosecution. But that still leaves a growing

pile of cases involving illegals who are being prosecuted

after being caught multiple times or those accused of other

crimes . . . Nationwide, each U.S. judge handles an average

of 87 cases a year. But along the southern border, even

before Bush's plan moves forward, the average is around 300

per judge, Carelli said.

Mr. President, the U.S. Congress needs to address the overwhelming immigration caseload in our southwestern border U.S. district courts. The bill I am filing today with Senators Kyl and Cornyn does just that by authorizing the nine permanent and two temporary judgeships recommended by the 2005 Judicial Conference for the four U.S. districts in which the immigration caseload totals more than fifty percent of those districts' total criminal caseload.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kyl and Cornyn to introduce legislation that creates the new Federal judgeships recommended by the 2005 Judicial Conference for our U.S. district courts that have a serious overload of immigration cases.

I believe it is imperative to equip all of our Federal agencies with the assets they need to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws. That includes equipping our U.S. district courts with enough judges to handle the criminal immigration cases that appear on their dockets. The immigration reform bill passed by the Senate in May recognizes that with increased border security and immigration enforcement there will be increased prosecutions, and the bill calls for more immigration judges to handle those prosecutions. But the bill fails to recognize that repeat immigration law violators can be charged with a felony and tried in U.S. district court. We need to increase the number of judges in our district courts that handle such cases, particularly in those districts that are already overwhelmed with immigration cases.

The legislation I am proposing creates eleven new Federal judgeships, as recommended by the Judicial Conference, in the U.S. district courts in which at least 50 percent of their criminal cases are immigration cases. The bill affects four districts, all of which border Mexico. In fiscal year 2004, the Western District of Texas had 5599 criminal case filings, 3,688 of those cases, over 65 percent, dealt with immigration. The District Court of Arizona had 4,007 criminal filings, of which 2,404 cases, or 59 percent, were immigration filings. The Southern District of California has 2,206 immigration filings, 64 percent of their 3,400 total criminal filings. Lastly, the District of New Mexico had 2,497 criminal filings, 60 percent of them, 1,502 cases, were immigration cases.

Based on these caseloads, I think we should already be giving these districts new judgeships. But to increase our border security and immigration enforcement efforts without equipping these courts to handle the even larger immigration caseloads that they are expected to face would be tantamount to willful negligence.

The New Mexico District Chief Judge, Martha Vazquez, wrote me a letter in May about the situation the New Mexico District faces. Judge Vazquez wrote:

As it is, the burden on Article III Judges in this District

is considerable. This District ranks first among all

districts in criminal filings per judgeship: 405 criminal

filings compared to the national average of 87. As in all

federal districts along the southwest border, the majority of

cases filed in this District relate to immigration offenses

under United States Code, Title 8 and drug offenses arising

under Title 21. Immigration and drug cases account for

eighty-five percent of the caseload in the District of New

Mexico. . . In fiscal year 1997, there were 240 immigration

felony filings in the District of New Mexico. By fiscal year

2005, the number of immigration felony filings increased to

1,826, which is an increase of 661 percent . . . Increasing

the number of Immigration Judges will do nothing to reduce

the increasing caseload in the border states' federal courts.

The Albuquerque Tribune has also documented the burden immigration cases put on district courts. An April 17 article entitled ``Judges See Ripple Effect of Policy on Immigration,'' stated:

U.S. District Chief Judge Martha Vazquez of Santa Fe

oversees a court that faces a rising caseload from illegal

border crossings and related crime. And help from Washington

is by no means certain . . . From Sept. 30, 1999 to Sept. 30,

2004 (the end of the fiscal year), the caseload in the New

Mexico federal district court increased 57.5 percent, from

2,804 to 4,416. In the 2004 fiscal year alone, 2,126 felony

cases were heard, almost half of all cases in the entire 10th

Circuit, which includes Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah and

Wyoming. Most typical immigration cases go before an

immigration judge, and the subjects are deported. But people

deported once and caught crossing illegally again can be

charged with a felony. And that brings the defendant into

federal district court. Those are the cases driving up New

Mexico's caseload . . . Some days as many as 90 defendants

crowd the courtroom in Las Cruces . . . The same problems are

afflicting federal border courts in Arizona, California, and

Texas.

Similar problems were documented in a May 23 Reuters article entitled ``Bush Border Patrol Plan to Pressure Courts'' which said:

President George W. Bush's plan to send thousands of

National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border could spark a

surge in immigration cases and U.S. courts are ill prepared

to handle them . . . Even without the stepped-up security at

the border, federal courts in southern California, Arizona,

New Mexico and Texas have been overburdened. Carelli [a

spokesman for U.S. federal courts] said those five judicial

districts, out of 94 nationwide, account for 34 percent of

all criminal cases moving through U.S. courts . . . Most

immigrants caught crossing illegally are ordered out of the

country without prosecution. But that still leaves a growing

pile of cases involving illegals who are being prosecuted

after being caught multiple times or those accused of other

crimes . . . Nationwide, each U.S. judge handles an average

of 87 cases a year. But along the southern border, even

before Bush's plan moves forward, the average is around 300

per judge, Carelli said.

Mr. President, the U.S. Congress needs to address the overwhelming immigration caseload in our southwestern border U.S. district courts. The bill I am filing today with Senators Kyl and Cornyn does just that by authorizing the nine permanent and two temporary judgeships recommended by the 2005 Judicial Conference for the four U.S. districts in which the immigration caseload totals more than fifty percent of those districts' total criminal caseload.

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

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for her kind remarks and for her great support in this effort.

The junior Senator from Louisiana, who is the Presiding Officer, I thank now for the support and dedicated commitment to what we are doing. It is not only for the State of Louisiana, but for all the coastal States surrounding Louisiana. It is very important for the United States. I commend the Senator for his participation.

I would like to thank a Senator who was vital. He was courageous. He stepped forward, as Senators from Florida have not been used to doing. That was Senator Mel Martinez, who came forward and said: I would like to work with you. And he ended up striking a balance for his people of Florida and for America. And he, along with the others we have mentioned, got us going.

It has been a pleasure taking this job on and to end up tonight, 10 minutes before the vote, with the full appreciation on the part of scores of Senators that we are about to do something very positive, very important. For a change, very few Senators will still have to say no. Most of the time it is hard to get 60 votes for cloture. Many times it is hard to get that 51 needed for a simple majority.

Over the weeks, and finally over the days, the point has come across to the bipartisan Senators in this Senate, this bill is welcome news for the consumers of the United States, for homeowners, families, people who work in all kinds of manufacturing businesses, chemical businesses, plastic businesses, all kinds of activities related to natural gas. Of course, there is oil involved, too, but that is secondary to the natural gas which is also involved.

It has finally dawned on everyone here, we own a piece of property. It has USA stamped all over it. It is off the coast of Florida, off the coast of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, out there in the gulf. There are roughly 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas owned by us, much of which is ready to be drilled, much of which can be drilled during the next decade. There is enough gas for 6 million houses for 15 years, to quantify it. That does not mean that is where it is going. It will be added to the availability of the supply and 1.250 billion barrels of oil. It has finally dawned on everyone. Now we will get their vote. That is all on our property. We have been sitting idly by, year after year, saying no, no, no, because we want a moratorium to protect something that needed no protection, the shoreline of Florida. I don't mean that literally. I mean we can drill on this property as provided in this bill with no damage yet, after we have sat here year after year saying no.

It does not happen very often, I say to my distinguished assistant Republican leader, but at the very time and day that we are voting, the best evidence you can get is right on the streets, in the homes, and on the television news for the American people to hear, see, and, incidentally, feel: We have had these enormous heat waves and the use of natural gas has jumped so much. That creates a scarcity; that creates an increase in price. Yesterday, the day before this vote, the price increased 11 percent in 1 day. Right now, it is $8.05 per million Btus. That price is four times higher than it was 6 years ago. That is incredible, but it is true.

Fellow Senators, when you vote tonight to add 1.2 million barrels, if this went to the President and got signed, we instantly add it to the ready reserves of America for crude oil waiting to be drilled and put into the system. Members would be voting to instantly add to our ready reserves of natural gas which we could start getting on the market in the not too distant future, almost 6 trillion cubic feet.

We have a crisis right in front of our nose and we have a partial cure right in front of our nose, but this time we decided we would go ahead and do it, not continue to say no and to worry ourselves to death over what could happen. This could happen, that could happen, do we need it, should we do it. That is what has happened in the United States recently when we are trying to make energy decisions. We do not want to recognize that there is a bit of a risk, but you have to take a bit of a risk for a big benefit. In this case, it is a very minimum risk and a very big benefit.

I am particularly pleased in this bill we are reinvesting in our environment. For decades, our coastal States have produced much of the oil and gas which the Nation consumes. They no longer sit back and go along with leasing without compensation needed for their infrastructure, the coastal environment. It is so critical to our domestic energy survival. We have changed direction and said ``share it with them.'' That is a good idea, a new precedent which we need not be embarrassed about.

We also have said we want to share some of this wealth with the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a very good national program. We have not done that before. That, too, is good precedent, good ground to break, and sets us on a good path.

For those who worry, again, about that and about sharing with the States, I regret if that concerns them so much they will not vote for this bill. I am very sorry about that. In this case, the benefits so outweigh the risks of changing policy or changing direction

that we should have a stampede, not a vote, when it comes time to count.

I am not going to do justice to all those who helped me by mentioning them all because I will not get to it. That is probably my mistake. I thank my friend and colleague from the State of Louisiana who is here in the Senate. She started working with me early as a member of the committee. Obviously, Senator Vitter, also, from Louisiana, an early participant. I thank him greatly for his efforts, as well as all the coastal State Senators. I also thank the distinguished leaders on our side who encouraged and urged passing. In fact, I would say about my good friend from Kentucky, I think he thought more about my proceeding to get this done than I did a few weeks ago. He kept saying it was a great day, get along with it, Pete, let's do it. So we are doing it.

This is a good bill. It took a little effort. It took a little time. Nonetheless, compared with other bills around here these days, it is not going to go to the graveyard. It is not going to die because Senators were able to talk the Senate into voting again to delay or kill a bill. They have not been able to do that on this bill. We are grateful.

The American people ought to know that even with the hurdle of 60 votes which was required because of filibuster threats on this bill, we prevailed. We have learned also that when we vote tonight, I think we only need 51 votes for a change. That is a very good sign. Finally, we are at a point where a 51-vote majority would win. We thought it was that way all the time, but it wasn't. Finally, after all the hurdles, we will have many more than that, but this is going to pass.

For those who are watching, we are at a point where that old- fashioned majority would be enough. We learned about the majority in school. It has been thrown out the window because there is so much politicking going on. Every vote is 60 votes around here. In the next few years we will have a few more of those, Mr. Leader, with the tax bill, and it will be 60 votes because someone is screaming filibuster.

I used to think filibusters were great when I first came to the Senate. Then I almost changed and said: Throw them away. I don't know where I am now. I do know I am for using part of the Budget Act to get around filibusters.

I am through. It will be a nice evening. I am going to go back and sit down. Thank you, Senator Frist, for helping me. I want you to thank me for letting you have a happy day for a change.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I believe I have 15 minutes at this point.

Mr. President, let me say, before the distinguished Senator from Virginia leaves the floor, here is how I see the situation in terms of coastal waters and the tremendous resources that are along the coast today, including the Senator's State. I see us on the verge of making the first breakthrough in 25 years. If this breakthrough occurs and this bill passes and this bill gets signed, the breakthrough is that your State and your people--openly and bright--might want it, too. In fact, you have been talking about that.

The point I am making is, we are doing this right. Let us get this one done, as you have said, and you certainly have not said we should not. I don't imply that. But the right thing for the country, in fact, of these prolonged moratoria is to pass 181 before us because it is big. It is real. It is right. It is now. It will happen and it will hurt no one. Besides, you will see bids to open with short periods of time saying: We will drill. You will see companies announcing what they are going to do. That will be the stimulus. I am not a football expert, but it is sort of like if the goal is to maximize, eventually, over time, the coastal production of America from a venue of stagnation, if that is the goal--and I am not there yet, but if that is the goal--what you do is you make the first 10 yards right now. This is the first 10 yards. This is the breakthrough.

Now you are going to see it, and you can say: Man, we can make it. Then your State will come, and other States will come. So I am very pleased we chose to limit it to the four States plus Florida and to this big piece called 181, plus 181 south, which you have lauded here today.

I will close by telling you something that you can now tell your people when this bill passes. On the day of the vote, for those who don't think this is a good bill, I want to remind them, and you can remind them, that it was just announced that natural gas had its biggest gain this year. Bloomberg announced that natural gas rallied to its biggest gain this year in the U.S. on a record-breaking heat wave, and the prices went up. So right now we are celebrating something very negative, that the supply is not sufficient. And with the excess heat, the price went up. What we want to tell them is, pass this bill. Start using these resources. Put them in our inventory, right? Get our businesspeople out there investing to drill, and we will have natural gas coming from 181, this big piece of real estate, energy laden, 6 trillion cubic feet on this one piece, enough for 6 million homes for 15 years, 1.2 billion barrels of oil on just this one piece. Get started, right? That is why we are going to do it.

I think we have the votes. But if you know anybody who is not for it, I say to the Senator, you tell them we celebrated the wrong thing today because we have been doing things wrong. It is time to do it right. That is what I think, and that is what this bill is. You are on the right track, and I commend you. This bill will get us started. I hope you understand that.

We can't do it all at once. I am so pleased we picked the right one. And with the help of that man sitting in the chair, the Presiding Officer today--we call him ``President'' today, but he is actually a Senator--with his help, because he had a little guts, he decided to talk to his people instead of echoing. He went out there and talked and said: Let's do something. They agreed to this, after years of dilly-dallying, right? We are doing something for the country. The Presiding Officer, Mel Martinez, the junior Senator, is part of this three or four or five people who led this actual attack on this moratorium. Moratorium has something to do with death. That is what the moratorium was, death for us, this crazy idea that these resources should be locked up when you could drill for them and not hurt anybody. It is finally going out the window, little by little, with this bill. Two windows going out. We will see how it works. The public is going to say: Boy, it works. And then some more windows will go out later. And that is what you are talking about.

Thank you so much.

I yield to the Senator. I have the floor.

Yes.

I thank the Senator.

In response to what the junior Senator from Virginia just said, obviously, this bill sets not only the precedent of getting rid of the moratorium for deep water drilling off the coast of Florida, but it also sets a precedent of revenue sharing with the coastal States that surround the activity. That is what the Senator is talking about. Obviously, the Senator from New Mexico favors that. I don't have to answer his question specifically. I favor that. I took a gamble and said: I am one to do that. I started off saying, I think I can get it done. I think we can get it done without it. That is where I started, right, I ask the Senator from Louisiana? I reported a bill out, found out we probably would get nothing. I am not sure of that, but probably the country would get nothing, the coastal States would get nothing, the Treasury would get nothing, the coastal repair would get nothing. And we would be right back here telling the public: We can't do anything.

So when the coastal States and the Senator from Florida started negotiating with us about the coastal States and about Florida's linear protections, distance protections, I had to move from no coastal revenues. I am very pleased with the way it turned out because I believe over the long run we have by at least 10, maybe 20 years, accelerated the timeframe for coastal exploration. I am not saying forever because I think sooner or later reality had to set in. I think we are just pushing reality here and pushing hard, saying: OK, we are going to share, but we are going to get the resources.

We might be ready soon to have hearings in the committee, have other bills, move in other directions. But for right now, this is the best bill to clear the Senate.

We have this terrible 60-vote threshold in this place. You are aware of that. It is no longer a majoritarian place. There are 60 votes for everything. You ask for a motion for a pin to drop, and somebody says: I am going to filibuster. Right? You have to have 60 votes. Appointment of conferees is filibustered now. Somebody like Senator Byrd will say: Senator Domenici, don't think that is new. That was around forever. Of course, it was. But it wasn't used very much.

But you know that is being used now. A motion to appoint conferees on a bill is now an acceptable measure on which to have a filibuster. The point is, this is no turkey shoot, passing a bill in the Senate. You don't just have to sharpen up and hit one; you have to get 60 votes. That is why it is so important you know how to put it together. That is why we did this. That is why some people, looking down on this bill, wondering how far can you go--you know where that is coming from--how far we can go and still get something passed--have to understand, the 60-vote threshold probably, if we make it tonight, and even if we break it, the point is, it is fragile. You fool around with it and change it and you could go back down to 59, 58, and be dead again.

So if you want some energy for America, not big time, not like a whole new country has been invented, we still have a lot of coast left, a lot of other places left, but this is a big one. If you want this, you have to remember, you have to get 60 votes. We have got to get 60 votes here tonight. We have got to get 60 votes later on. And we better not be thinking too far ahead of our nose or we will find out we don't have the votes.

So I want to close by reminding everybody that the price of natural gas increased by a record amount. The public can note that. They might be thinking: Why didn't you do something about it? We want to tell them we are trying tonight to do something about it. We have a ways to go, right? We have to get it passed, and we have to get it past the House. But we are trying to do something about this report that says the price went up the highest amount. We are trying to do something about it. We don't guarantee anything, but we guarantee you that we are going to help if we add 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to the inventory of natural gas for Americans from this piece of real estate off the coast of Florida, off the coast of Louisiana that belongs to the people, that had a moratorium on it, that had a death wish on it: You can't do anything with it.

We are taking that off, and that is why it is important.

It is also important that everybody knows it is not easy to do because in the Senate you need 60 votes. No, you don't, people told me the other day. What is the matter with you, Senator? Fifty-one votes will do that.

I said: Well, we changed business in the Senate. Almost everything is a filibuster. I just explained that to you. This bill was filibustered. No question. So we have this fancy-named thing called cloture. That means a request that the filibuster be restrained. We are going to vote on that. Do you want to throw out the filibuster tonight? That is what the vote is going to be about. But that is the 60 votes. People should know that, and they should know that about our bill, whomever it is. This is tough sledding. Don't be thinking that we could change it helter-skelter. And if they are wondering why we have been tough on amendments, just remember with us, who knows what amendments would do to this bill.

It is a good bill like it is. Sorry to fellow Senators who want to offer amendments for a week. I am sorry. I wish you could preside, Mr. President, over wonderful debates, about 20 amendments or 30 on this bill. I hope we don't have to because I hope we close it up with the cloture vote, a couple of hours after that, maybe tomorrow, vote on final passage, send this bill to conference, and then take a little while with the House and have this same message to them: 60-vote problem in the Senate. Can't send them any old thing or we will get nothing.

I think my friend from Louisiana knows that. She is here. She knows what I am going through. I mean, she can comment on that. She does. It is not easy to get this through, if you are worrying about adding things to it or changing it.

I see the Senator would like to speak.

Of course.

The Senator is absolutely correct. I have been referring to

the Chair and the Presiding Officer in one way because it was the Senator from Florida, talking to him as the Senator from Florida. He has taken a seat as a Senator. Another Senator from the committee, Senator Lamar Alexander, has taken the Presiding Officer's seat.

(Mr. ALEXANDER assumed the Chair.)

The question fits right in with all four. Lamar Alexander is on the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources, as is the Senator from Florida. A big participant is the Senator from Tennessee. I am looking at the Senator who took on the issue of natural gas, the Senator from Tennessee. We knew we could not do this on that bill, so we put it off. We did 10 or 15 major things that are still having an impact on America--everything from seeing to it that all possibilities for the alternative of shale being turned into oil be given a chance. It might happen. We promoted coal to gas, coal to liquid. The only thing keeping that from happening is the uncertainty of investment because the price of $70 is not certain. If we can address that issue, we will fix that, too. Ethanol came out of that bill. The whole idea of hybrid automobiles came out of that bill. Scores of that are in the area of conservation, which were promoted even before I was chairman; they are on that bill and are done. So this is a followup for some supply. That is why it is important that we get it done.

I thank the Senator for the question. There are many other things we could list. I thank the Senate for yielding me additional time.

I yield the floor.

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

Yes, the Senator from Tennessee is correct. Those who want to make sure our citizens have access to the great American outdoors have long advocated the principle that some of the funds from offshore oil and gas drilling should become a royalty for conservation and outdoor recreation, providing a reliable and permanent stream of funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This basic concept was proposed in 1962 by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission--also known as the Rockefeller Commission--and it was also a primary recommendation of President Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors in 1986. This legislation is an important first step in the right direction, one that has been 40 years in the making.

No, it would not. The LWCF stateside program will continue to be eligible to receive funding in the appropriations process just as it is currently. The mandatory funding stream established under this bill would not replace appropriated funding, and does nothing to disadvantage the program in the appropriations process.

I was pleased that the Senate Committee on Appropriations included $30 million for the stateside program in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill. This was a significant improvement over the President's budget request and the House Interior bill, both of which zeroed out stateside for the second straight year. Still, there is room for improvement. I would share the Senator's interest in adding to the stateside funding in the Senate committee mark if appropriate offsets can be found. In fiscal year 2007, zero revenues will be allocated to stateside LWCF from this conservation royalty because it will take time for the new areas to be brought on line and begin producing. So we will need to appropriate funding in fiscal year 2007 to fill that gap.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 1 minute to ask a question.

Mr. President, I chair the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

First, I thank the Senator for supporting this measure. It is vitally important that we tell the American people that the price of natural gas rose dramatically today again. There is a big demand.

I think it is exciting to see some Senator like yourself, who has a vision for other things besides this, saying let's do this because we can do it now.

That is a point I want to make as chairman. Let's do this because it will break the mold, break the precedent of moratoria of no deepwater mining, deepwater drilling, and get on with great production. But I want to say to the Senator that I am aware of his bill. I am aware of some of the great ideas in it. I heard him mention it. We had a hearing on parts of it, as he probably knows.

I think it is fair to tell him that the truth is, with this short session, in this Senator's opinion--I really worked hard to get energy legislation passed and was able to pass a comprehensive bill that did some terrific things. He knows that--ethanol, even in the area of cars he is speaking of. We made some giant strides with that Energy bill--I don't believe we could start with the Energy bill this late in the session with the Senator's bill or somebody else's bill without doing nothing and just getting bogged down. I thought: Let's take what we can do and do it. But I don't want the Senator to think the great ideas that he has have been forgotten.

Would the Senator yield for a minute without her statement being interrupted?

I ask that following the remarks of the Senator, Senator Hutchinson of Texas be recognized for 5 minutes.

And that I, the Senator from New Mexico, follow her for up to 20 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, fellow Senators.

First, Mr. President, and fellow Americans, for those who have watched the Senate over the last couple days, it must have been a pretty enjoyable time because Senator after Senator came to the floor-- maybe 12 or 15 versus 2 or 3 opposed--12 or 15, all positive and for something, for a change, sending a signal here in the waning days of this session before we go home for a recess when it is hot out there and the price of natural gas is going up. The people know it, and they are hearing rumors that pretty soon we are going to be importing natural gas from all over the world, where we used to be a totally self-reliant country on natural gas.

We have made a mistake. In the last 17 years, every new powerplant we built--because we were frightened to death of nuclear power--we built for natural gas. We took this fantastic ingredient, this beautiful product of nature--natural gas--and we poured it into the powerplants. And we are still doing some. I did not think we were, but we are still building a couple. Rather interesting. I do not want to even insinuate by saying where, but we are building some.

In the meantime, millions of American homes have done what everybody thought was right, and that was to hook on to natural gas. Then across this land we built a manufacturing base, huge in size, made up of, for example, the chemical industry. I assume the occupant of the Chair knows about industries like that. Many Senators do, and they probably have been contacted by their industries--the fertilizer industry, the plastics industry, involving thousands of workers. What raw product do they use for manufacturing so they can employ and sell products? Natural gas.

So what happened? We used it up. All of a sudden, we had a big problem in the gulf and the price went through the roof. And we had some rigging and a few other things occurring that we found out about with that Houston company. But, in any event, what happened is the price of natural gas skyrocketed and the supply produced by Americans for Americans became insufficient to meet our needs, and we began to say: We are going to have to go buy natural gas around the world.

What a frightening thing. We just got through this huge problem of gradual dependence upon foreign crude oil to where we are more than 60 percent dependent, and there is nothing we can do about it. We cannot produce sufficient crude oil to change that equation, the crude oil needed to run America's transportation needs.

And when we complain, remember the old idea of Pogo: ``We have met the enemy and he is us.'' The transportation needs are 70 percent of the oil used. And that is your cars, ladies and gentlemen, your SUVs, the trucks and buses. That is 70 percent of the oil.

Now here we grow dependent for that. And here in America we grow more and more dependent upon natural gas. And here sits--while all of this is happening--along the seaboard of America a giant sea of natural gas and crude oil which has been taken off the market by what have been commonly called moratoria or moratoriums, saying: Do not touch that because it is off the sea coast of California; do not touch that because it is off the coast of New Jersey. In this case, we have a small piece of Federal real estate. I am not going to put the maps up again today, but it is 8.3 million acres. Sounds like a lot, but, believe me, when you look at the coast, it is small.

We are looking in this bill at 8.3 million acres, which we cannot put out to bid for American companies, large and small, to go drill for what is known to be there. What is known to be there? Oil: 1.2 billion barrels. What else? Natural gas, that thing I just talked about that builds an industry, that builds a manufacturing base, that keeps the price down. Right? It makes supply more rational.

There sits 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in that property. Well, that does not sound like anything except it is enough energy to take care of 6 million houses for 15 years. That is pretty good if you look at that as an average American.

So what we decided was: Yes, we surely, last year, passed a great energy bill--which I will talk about in a moment--but we couldn't get this one done, so let's get this one done this year for the American people. I regret to say we were moving forward with, again, locked arms with my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, to get this done when we had to break. We had to break paths because I decided to stand for the past would get us the fruits of the past, which would be nothing, so that if we did not share some of the revenue with the surrounding States, we would still get no oil and gas, we would still be in moratoria, and we would get no revenue for the Treasury and no revenue for the States. But, most importantly, that beautiful product, natural gas, and the crude oil that is there with it would still be there and nobody could touch it.

So with that in mind, we worked and we worked and we worked, with the help of the great Senator, Mel Martinez, from Florida, who was courageous, and we protected his State sufficiently, I think admirably, for him to say yes. Today I understand his co-Senator said yes. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. He came here and said yes. Four coastal States said yes. They had been saying no more, and now we have an opportunity.

We do not need to wait around and say: Let's add 20 other items for the American people. You cannot add 20 more items. They still have to go to the House. They do not have 20 items waiting around. So whatever great ideas are pending, we cannot pass them, first, because if you keep adding them, it means you will not pass this bill, and, secondly, they do not go anywhere.

So let's do this one for the American people. And if this happens, it says, put that land out to the American drilling companies now, and a big portion of it will be available within a year--within a year.

Now, I will respond to Senator Bingaman's points in opposition.

I do believe that every point he made in opposition is refutable, and I will refute them later. But I want to say the simple fact is we had to go our own ways for one simple proposition. Both of us understood we needed to go ahead and deepwater drill this land, although with the passage of negotiations beyond the time that he and I--Senator

Bingaman and I--had reached accord, we added substantial property to this arrangement. But the point of it is, we broke on the proposition of: Shall we bring a bill to the floor with no revenuesharing with the States--which I concluded will never pass; we will not get it done, and we will be right back where we were--or do we do what we have done here and say the abutting surrounding States get a portion?

Now, let's get this straight: The Federal Government still gets the majority. They get 50 percent straight up of the royalty. And 12.5 percent is for the Statewide Land and Water Conservation Fund. And then 37.5 percent over time--which is not much in the beginning, but over time is substantial--is shared with the States that abut so they can say: We are sharing in the burdens while we are joining in sharing in the wealth.

We believe the precedent will flow, once this is done, and we will begin to look to other States, such as the State of Virginia, perhaps the Carolinas, perhaps Georgia, et cetera, and say: What about similar arrangements later? But right now let's give the people a gift of what is theirs now by passing this measure.

Now, there is one very positive thing that is happening that is big on the scene for the American people that is hard to appreciate because it takes time. That is the impact of the Energy Policy Act that is a year old this August. The energy policy bill is beginning to take hold. I regret to say the higher the price of crude oil, the more breakthroughs will occur on the part of innovators and technologists and companies that are making breakthroughs in terms of new kind of cars, new kinds of technology, because the price of crude oil is saying to them it is worth the investment and the risk in something new.

So the high price is bringing on new things. But the act we passed is bringing on huge results. We are in a renaissance period on nuclear power. I wish I could come here and show you the dedication of the next plant, but that takes a while. But 25 applications have taken place since that act, 25 applications for nuclear powerplants. So the Senators who come down here and say: Why do this bill; why don't we do more things; we did more things in this huge bill we passed. We created a nuclear renaissance in the United States.

Second, we have a revolution in biomass which is going to change rural areas into a more vibrant and diverse economic rural America because we are going to use farm products to fill our gasoline tanks with ethanol instead of crude oil. That is all in the Energy bill. The targets are set. The huge mandate is set. And we are rolling with 29 new plants having been built.

One of our Senators implied we should not be so narrow and take just this bill. Just this bill? Just this bill is pretty much--the one we are talking about, right? It is big. It was said: We should not do this. We should do many other things. We did the other things. I am trying to tell you, we did many of them, and we probably should start with a second round next year. But if we start trying to get more instead of this, we will get nothing for the American people, nothing for natural gas supply, nothing for our consumers to rely upon in terms of bringing the price of natural gas down. And that is what I want to do and want to get done.

So the Energy Policy Act did what I have described, and many more things, some of which I will describe later. But I am very proud that in the period of 12 months we will have passed an energy bill that has done all these significant things. They are moving along.

Right now we are wondering about the reliability of electricity on the grid. I can tell you that in the Energy Act the studies are just about completed. Within a month to 2 months they will be ready. And they will tell us how to fix the grid so it will be totally reliable, and the exchanges between the various portions of the electricity distribution system will all be made reliable so you will not have the kind of blackouts we talk about.

That is because of the Energy Act. But you cannot do it immediately. It is in the mill. That is happening, too. So when you look at it, Congress has done some important work in the energy field. Hybrid cars are coming on in large quantities because of the credit, plus the high price of crude oil.

We can continue, but in a nutshell this bill is good for the people who are burdened with the high cost of natural gas, the high cost of oil. It is their property. We ought to develop it and do it now. So it has been my privilege, having served here for quite some time, to be the leader in this particular area. Of that I am very pleased, proud, and grateful.

I remind everyone, while natural gas was taking a little bit of a back seat to the rising costs of energy, it has now joined a parade of increases. Today, my staff informs me that the price of natural gas reached a 5-week high, just in time for us to remind you that you better put this piece of property on the development table so that it can be rendered a productive piece which will, in fact, cause that price to continue to stop rising and to abate over time.

Mr. President, I have said on a number of occasions that passing this bill is the most important thing that we can do in the short term to move toward correcting the supply and demand imbalance of natural gas. I would like to take the time to refute some of the specific criticisms made against this bill by a handful of people.

First, I would tell you that if we do not develop our resources domestically, this revenue sharing question will be moot--because we will not have revenues to share. The capital will be spent overseas for foreign exploration and development and we will continue the cycle of sending our American dollars abroad for our energy sources for use here at home. The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act begins to address this problem.

Now, it is argued by a few that this bill is not worth doing because the Minerals Management Service is proposing to open parts of the 181 area in its recently published 5-year plan. Critics argue that since the administration has announced intentions or plans to open parts of 181 equal to 2 million acres--containing approximately 620 billion barrels of oil and 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas--it is not worth passing this bill which opens over 8 million acres with 1.26 billion barrels of oil and almost 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Even if I were to entertain that logic as being sound, let me tell you the pitfalls of assuming that the administration lease sale will go through as planned.

It starts with the very point that the critics make. In November 1996, the MMS announced and approved a 5-year plan that included an intention to offer 6 million acres known as the original lease sale 181 area for oil and gas leasing. The decision to include this area was the culmination of extensive consultation between the Federal Government and the State of Florida. However, in 2001 when the Department of the Interior went to lease this 6 million-acre area, the administration reduced the lease sale to 1.5 million acres. So recent past tells us that if we hang our hats on the draft plan as critics seek today, we will be disappointed. Critics say--trust the very process that disappointed us a few years earlier in the very same area. I say--in this bill--direct the Secretary to lease the area. I say--make it clear, make it direct and we will get all the resources, and there will be no doubt.

I ask this to those who would rely on a draft plan as a certainty. Since the time you were in school, have you ever written a draft that was the exact same as the final product? A draft is just that--a draft. It represents what could be opened, not necessarily what will be opened. History shows us the peril of assuming that a draft plan will be followed out to completion.

Furthermore, we should not assume that coastal states will sit by and go along with leasing without the compensation needed to fix the energy infrastructure and coastal environment that is so critical to our domestic energy survival. Last week, the State of Louisiana filed suit in Federal district court to block the upcoming lease sale 200 off of Louisiana. They did so because they claim that our flawed policies were inconsistent with their State coastal plans. This should be a warning to all of us. Today marks the beginning of the end of the days of turning our backs on our coastal States while we turn our energy dollars over to hostile regimes.

The critics of this bill will also say that we took too much property off the table in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico to

get the resources in 181 and 181 south. They point to the areas east of the military mission line off the Florida coast and say that we have given up access to 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas off of Florida's coast. But this argument is illusory.

We do not have access to these areas currently. With or without this bill these areas are under executive moratorium--that has been set forth by two Presidents, one Republican and one Democrat--through 2012, and these areas have been under this executive withdrawal since 1990. Furthermore, for each of the past 16 years, Congress has placed an additional moratorium on these areas without a whisper of challenge. To say that this bill locks up these areas is not forthright.

These areas are locked up until 2012 and ultimately, under the authority granted to the President over 50 years ago in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the President can continue this moratorium at any time. The current executive moratorium expires in 2012 in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. This bill extends this time on certain areas to 2022. Does anyone assume that the moratorium will be removed anytime soon? Does anyone see a viable path toward lifting this moratorium in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off Florida in the near term? The answer, for the time being, is unequivocally--no.

Furthermore, Secretary Rumsfeld is on record as saying that, while the Department of Defense is fully supportive of the national goal of exploration and production of oil and gas offshore, the Department of Defense believes that any such activities east of the military mission line would conflict with essential military activities. Critics say that it is my bill that locks up these areas when in fact, these areas are deemed essential to our Nation's military needs. Until the President, Secretary of Defense, and both Houses of Congress render a different decision about this area, it is specious to suggest that this bill is locking up these areas to production.

Unquestionably, this bill opens up 8.3 million new acres to development of nearly 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.26 billion barrels of oil. The proof of the substantive merits of this bill lie in its broad support around the Nation from America's agricultural community, manufacturing community, producers of chemicals and plastics, the textile industry, the utility sector, and small businesses. Literally, thousands of consumer groups representing millions of Americans and millions of American jobs say the same thing--that S. 3711 provides the much needed relief for the American people. I know that I only addressed a few of the criticisms of this bill, but I dismissed them, because they are not real. If I had all day to myself, I would continue to dismiss the criticisms one by one. I will leave that to my many distinguished colleagues who support this measure.

But I will say this--the criticisms are not based in fact, but rather cling to a flawed philosophy of the past. Over the next couple of days, people will trot out quotes, cases, statutes, and general precedent from years gone by. Mind you, all of this data and precedent will come from a time when we did not import 13.5 million barrels of petroleum per day from unstable regions of the world. All of this data and precedent will come from a time when we did not consume 22.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and pay more than 3 times the price for it that nations competing for our jobs pay. All of this data will come pre-Katrina and Rita, when our Nation's energy coast that hosts nearly 50 percent our refining infrastructure was ravaged by natural disaster. I ask the critics to rethink their policy of the past, to reexamine this precedent in light of the facts as they exist today, not as they would wish for them to exist.

This compromise agreement is the best thing that we can do now in the short term, to relieve the cost burden on the American consumer. America is watching.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I understand there are 15 minutes equally divided. I am not sure what equally divided means this morning, but we will do our best. I think Senator Bingaman may be here and might want the opposition's time. We will try to use our time in favor of it as judicially as we can. I start by yielding myself 6 minutes.

Mr. President, today is a very important day. Let me explain why that is to all the Senators and those who are interested.

First, I am going to try to convince our colleagues today that this small lease sale that we are talking about is one of the most important issues spoken of in this Chamber this year. This morning, as the Sun rises over the majestic dome of the Capitol and families wake up across the land, whether it be in Albuquerque, NM, or in New Orleans, LA, or Miami, FL, as they wake up, millions of Americans around the great land find their homes cooled and after breakfast they start their cars, drive their children through their neighborhoods, in carpools or otherwise, to get some needed relief from

the heat. But for these families there is no relief from the high cost of energy.

For too long we have remained unable to provide a remedy for that. In the words of the man in charge of our Nation's monetary policy, ``one likely source of the deceleration [of economic growth] is higher energy prices, which has adversely affected the purchasing power of households and weighed on our consumer attitudes.''

In plain speak, that means if we don't take action, we are in trouble. I assure my colleagues, there is a growing chorus in America and this chorus demands energy relief. It demands our attention to the simple piece of property in the Gulf of Mexico.

We are here to talk about whether to proceed on an item that is critical to American jobs and to our Nation's economy. In the Gulf of Mexico we have a piece of real estate owned by the Government that is the subject matter of what we choose to call the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. We direct the Secretary of Interior to lease the area commonly known as 181 within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this bill. We further remove the moratorium or restriction on the area to the south of 181 and we direct the Secretary to lease that area also.

Taken together, these are 8.3 million acres. I will explain them on the map here in a second, briefly, so I can have my fellow Senators, two of them who want to speak, have an opportunity to do so. They have been vital in getting this done.

But let me summarize. This 8.3 million acres contains 1.26 billion barrels of oil, American oil, and 5.8--or rounded out--6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These resources under the sea are American assets on American lands and the power to unleash these resources lies in the hands of the Senate. Or we can walk away and adopt an alternative and that is to continue to increase our dependence on foreign sources of energy from hostile regions of the world.

As American jobs hang in the balance, I remind my colleagues that between 1999 and 2005, a period of time equal to one term in the Senate, the price of natural gas in the United States increased 289 percent. At the same time we lost over 3 million jobs in the manufacturing sector.

In the words of the Federal Reserve Chairman:

High prices of natural gas reflect strong demand and

diminished supplies.

This vote today is a step toward correcting that imbalance.

Also, in this gulf coast bill we provide protections to the Florida coastline. Thanks to the skills and heart and concern of the distinguished Senator Mel Martinez from the State of Florida, we have protected the Florida coastline in this legislation.

I say to those opposed to this legislation, these provisions are a compromise between those who seek additional access to new areas of development and those who do not want to develop off their shores. We struck a balance. Here in the Senate that balance has the overwhelming support of those who seek additional Outer Continental Shelf deep sea access, and the overwhelming support of those whose priority is coastal protection. I am proud of this balance and I defend it against those who challenge it and seek to undermine it.

Finally, the bill is both fiscally responsible and meets the needs of the coastal States that make the sacrifice of hosting our energy infrastructure. It takes care of them in a fair way.

I do not take my fiscal responsibility lightly and I do not make the fact of fiscal responsibility a light issue. I come at this issue with a vast experience in budget matters in the Senate and I can tell you this: The cost associated with sharing the OCS receipts must be weighed against the cost of inaction. I can tell you for certain, inaction would be devastating. When the destruction of the Hurricanes Rita and Katrina ravaged our Nation's gulf, it was a national tragedy, not simply a regional occurrence. Our response should continue to be national in scope and wide in its vision.

We have all heard the anecdotes of how this region hosts about half of our Nation's refining capacity and infrastructure. We heard statistics from the Mineral Management Service that showed that the Outer Continental Shelf plays a major role in supplying our energy resources.

Let me summarize. The Gulf of Mexico is the most prolific producing offshore region and we cannot leave one giant piece of it--one piece of real estate owned by the people that is probably more energy laden than any other piece of real estate in the lower 48--we can't leave it sit there. We have struck a fair balance in this bill and I can say for certain it deserves the sincere consideration of every Senator.

When we start voting, I believe every Senator should say, in fairness, let us proceed. A few days from now an overwhelming number of Senators should say proceed to permit this property, owned by the people, with supplies of gas for the people--let it be used by the people so we don't have to spend more money overseas, sending our dollars and our hard-earned currency to buy what we own, that we can produce in the next decade.

The production will be astronomical if we put our heads to understanding that it is America's property, it is America's resources. There is no risk. We ought to get on with changing 25 years of what started in California, of a fear that was irrational, and get on with reasonable, rational, safe, deepwater drilling.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Louisana is here and when she is finished, I would yield the remaining time to Senator Martinez.

Mr. President, first, before the distinguished Senator leaves the floor--I see he is still here and I am glad he is--I thank him very much not just for me or for that speech, for that statement, for that set of thoughts, but I thank him for the American people for his thoughtfulness.

If anyone wants to read the text of something that summarizes from beginning to end the problems we are having and why in the areas of high costs of natural gas and crude oil and insecurity and lack of consistency and fluctuation in prices that are frightening and scaring everybody, read the speech that was just delivered by the distinguished Senator from Idaho. It is a tremendous introduction to the problem and then a total summation and wrap-up of what we can do for ourselves and why we should do it and why with the problem of energy supply in the fields of natural gas and crude oil, wherever America can, we must use our resources, especially these days when insecurity in the world causes such a problem. Even if they are supplied, the price is totally out of focus, and everybody should know that if we have our own supplies, that is what we ought to use--it is sitting right off our coast--with no damage, as the Senator from Idaho indicated.

We saw the little piece of property out of acres and acres and miles--this little piece of property, 8.3 million acres. He showed it to us on a map. It is loaded with natural gas. How do they know? They have already proven it. Part of it was ready to be leased; isn't that right, I say to the Senator? Part of it was ready to be leased in the regime of the Governor of the State of Florida, a former Senator, Lawton Chiles. As a Floridian, he, years ago, acknowledged this must happen, that part of this property was prepared. We know it. When we put it to bid, it will be ready to go.

Not only that, as the distinguished Senator indicated, to have an impact on the cost, we don't have to wait until they drill--right?-- because it is such a big supply that the marketplace will take cognizance, will be aware of, will respond to the fact that we are ready to do it.

Once this bill leaves here, even that might have an impact. But I am not sure, until it is signed, as I think of it, that will have an impact because there is always a chance for a slip between the cup and the lip.

We have to get it done, and we have to get it voted on. It is ours. It is ready to go.

I once again thank my good friend and valued member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources--and many others around here--for his terrific speech summarizing the problem we have and the way this American solution to an American problem should be addressed and why.

I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

You bet.

Mr. President, I will yield quickly, but I want to try to get the record straight with Senators so they will know where we are timewise. We are in postcloture where every Senator has a certain amount of time. By consent today, we are taking 6 hours, 3 hours to those in favor and 3 hours to those against. I am in charge of the 3 hours in favor, and Senator Bingaman, so far, has been the only one who has spoken. But he is in charge of the time on the opposition. He might give us some of his 3 hours today if we run out, or we would ask the leader. I have a lot of speakers.

In any event, Senator Bond asked to be next. He is here. Senator Sessions is speaking for our side. We will go back and forth. Senator Sessions asked he be next on our side. And the senior Senator from Alabama who is here, also, would like to speak next.

How much time does Senator Bond want?

Senator Sessions?

Senator Shelby?

I have 1 hour 50 minutes; is that right? And Senator Bingaman has how much?

Senator Landrieu wants to speak 10 or 15 minutes. We will welcome that. If we add that up, we have plenty of time.

I want the Senators to know we have a schedule. It is not me; Members have to follow each other.

I take a minute and say to Senator Bingaman, I am not going to answer now the detailed allegations today. I think two or three are significant, but I am just going to say to the Senate I have the most respect for my colleague. I think everyone knows we work together, shoulder to shoulder. It is good to work with him. I think he must feel the same. We got something great done.

However, I believe there is one flaw in the argument that is imperative. That is, plain and simple, do you want to hang tight with an ideology of the past and get no bill and no new development or do you want to adjust to change and get something significant?

Now, he might not agree, my friend might not agree that I am correct in saying what we are getting, but I truly believe the final product of the path we were going to follow--which was to not share the revenue; and we had not made any arrangement with Florida--was doomed to yield nothing, and we would be back where we were.

Secondly, if we want to wait around for MMS to do their plans and assume that they end up with what they started with, then just look at history. They hardly ever come out anywhere close to what they started with, and they probably would have done it again on this one. We are better off, in my opinion, adjusting a bit to the reality of getting something real than to stand rigid on the philosophy of the past.

Revenues: If you do not drill, you do not get any revenues. We have been in a no-drill posture for the American Treasury for almost 20 years. I do not know how many more years we will be with no revenues and no drilling, so I am not worried about the fiscal policy because I am worried about the effect on the economy and on people of not using the resource.

I can hardly measure that, I say to Senator Bond. It is too big for me to measure as a budgeteer. So I wanted to make that point just in kind of a summary manner, which is part of what my friend and great colleague has been arguing in derogation of this bill on the Senate floor.

Then I had one more observation. As to the big piece of land we are not going to be able to drill in in the future that my friend has alluded to, if you just look at that map, the perpendicular line is a line established in a letter from the military which said they needed, for future use, everything beyond that line. And everybody had been agreeing we would not, without the military's consent, ever drill there. And that is essentially why most of that property is off limits. Now, there is more to the story than that, but that is the biggest portion of the story.

Having said that, I would certainly like to say to my colleague, Senator Bingaman, I trust that we are back together soon to get another great Energy bill; and we will. I would feel much better if you and I were together on this, but I feel just as confident, or more so than I did on the Energy bill, that the way to get Outer Continental Shelf drilling is to start with this new precedent and get it going. And I think the ball will roll. If you get this, you will get offshore drilling in real quantities. You will get more than ever to the Treasury and more than ever to the bounty of production. That is what the real ball game is about. And you either do something like that or you sit around and wish. We have been wishing, and it never happens.

So with that, I yield to Senators. I will be off the floor. You can take time in your sequence. I will come back in an hour and a half or so, and if there is time, I will wrap up this afternoon.

Thank you very much.

Sure.

Sure. Senator Shelby would go right after Senator Bond on the proponents list. And they would be followed by Senator Sessions.

Mr. President, let me say to my colleague, that is fine. I

noted your staff had apparently gone and checked, and there might be somebody. I would like to ask that they let you know as soon as possible so you do not have people with the expectation of being next because they are right here, and all of a sudden somebody drops in and says: I am next because I am in opposition. I think that would be a little unfair. I wish the Senator would work with us on that.

All right, having said that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a legislative hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Thursday, August 3, 2006, at 10 a.m., in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Building.

The purpose of this legislative hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2589, to enhance the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, to ensure protection of public health and safety, to ensure the territorial integrity and security of the repository at Yucca Mountain, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Clint Williamson or Steve Waskiewicz.

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Mr. President, it is without hesitation that I support the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, which ensures that the right of all citizens to vote, including the right to register to vote and cast meaningful votes, is preserved and protected as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may be a foregone conclusion; however, I believe that today's debate and vote are of great consequence because we are protecting each citizen's right to vote and preserving the integrity of our Nation's voting process. Passage of this measure is not merely symbolic; it is an essential reaffirmation that we the people are securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. I firmly believe that the right of citizens of the United States to vote should not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of race.

The right to cast a vote is fundamental in our system of government, and the importance of each person's voting rights is reflected by the fact that they are protected by the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments to the Constitution. President Ronald Reagan described the right to vote as the crown jewel of American liberties. Like President Reagan, I also believe that the right to vote is a great privilege worth protecting.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was initially passed in response to post-Civil War Reconstruction efforts to disenfranchise Black voters. The voting Rights Act of 1965 was amended in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 1992. It remains one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation in American history. This legislation amends and reauthorizes the Voting Rights Act for an additional 25 years, several provisions of which will expire on August 6, 2007, unless Congress acts to renew them. Reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act will ensure many privileges including bilingual election assistance for certain language minority citizens in certain States and subdivisions.

I cast my vote to ensure that no law abridges the privileges or immunities of any citizen of the United States or denies any citizen equal protection of the laws.

I thank my colleague for his efforts on these difficult issues and appreciate his consideration of the importance of hydroelectric generation to the nation's power supply. I also appreciate his working with me to ensure that this has no unintended impact on existing authorities that govern the Corps' ability to reallocate storage. I look forward to working with the senior Senator from Oklahoma on these issues.

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan