Floor Statements

Mr. President, let me say to the Senate it is finally time. It is finally time that we decide to do something about our oil dependency. It is time that we do something for the American people about the rising, escalating price of gasoline at the pump.

As I see it, this is a rare opportunity to produce substantial quantities of crude oil from our own homeland, from one of our States. Not only will it produce oil, it will produce the equivalent of what the State of Texas has in reserves. To say it has very little is to say the full State of Texas has very little reserves.

It will produce jobs, up to 736,000. You see them on this list. America cries out for good jobs. We wonder why we don't have them. Then we ignore our own source of supply which would create them.

Any time I have left I yield to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. President, we had a very critical vote. You all listened to it. This is nothing but an amendment to try to come in the back door and kill ANWR. It is absolutely wrong. We ought not even be considering it. The very same people who wanted to kill it for 30 years are making this last-ditch effort. The amendment should not even be on the floor, and we ought to kill it. If it doesn't take 10 minutes we ought to do it in 8 minutes.

Is the Senator finished? I notice she is still standing.

I don't think there is any agreed-upon order.

Is it correct that the Senator from New Mexico may proceed on the hour in opposition to the amendment at this point?

Mr. President, I have a number of Senators on this side of the aisle who wish to speak, and they certainly are going to have their turn. I thank the occupant of the chair for being here this morning.

Obviously, this is an issue that some people think is very important to the State of Alaska, and there is no question that it is. But this is an issue that is important to the American people. Every day Americans are worried about our future. We just saw hurricanes in the States of Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi shut down oil production in that part of the Nation. All of a sudden, America found out that when we have that much less oil--the amount that the hurricanes took off the market--everything happens for the worst for America.

I want to start with a simple proposition. The minimal amount expected to be received by the U.S. people from ANWR is about equivalent to all of the oil that was shut down by the hurricanes. Just think of that. Everybody was listening to televisions were talking about and, newspapers were printing all of the oil rigs onshore and offshore that produce energy for America that were shut down causing this enormous problem for America. One estimate is that ANWR will yield that much oil or more, which is a pretty good starting point.

I am not going to go into much detail about this ANWR language that was produced by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in response to a budget request made by the full Senate, and I am not going to talk about the $2.5 billion estimate, other than to say I do not believe anybody is going to challenge it successfully before the Senate. It has been arrived at by the Congressional Budget Office, the authenticator of numbers for the Senate. That number is not dreamt up. This is not the White House, this is not the Energy Committee, this is not the Alaskan Senators; this is the Congressional Budget Office, an independent entity that is supposed to do estimates that we assume should be used by us.

They say the legislation, as drafted, will produce at least $2.5 billion over the period of time recommended by the budget instructions.

That makes it relevant to the budget reduction bill that is before us. It will, when it happens, because of the bids that will be made, reduce the deficit by $2.4 billion. That makes it relevant to a big deficit reduction package of all of the actions that exceeds $39 billion.

Having said that, let me then say, since it is important and it is relevant

and it will yield revenues to the Federal Government, the next point I wish to make is how many votes are going to be required to pass this ANWR legislation. This is a majority-vote situation. Some say: Oh, this is not the right way to do it. We should leave it under what they call the normal proceedings. Normal proceedings would, I say to the opposition, require 60 votes, and we have done something that will only require a majority vote.

I ask the American people who are listening and those who are concerned about this, What do you as Americans expect the Senate to do when they are voting on a measure that affects the American people? Since your first and early days of being educated about the American system, did you not assume that a majority of Senators voting would pass a measure in behalf of the American people? Isn't that what we thought was the rule, 51 votes wins? They say: No, you shouldn't let this great reserve of oil that belongs to us, that we ought to use, you shouldn't let 51 votes pass it. You ought to use 60 votes under some filibuster rule.

The rules of this Senate say you do not filibuster this kind of bill. You go back to the old American way of voting, and 51 votes prevail.

I hope, finally, after decades of work, that we are rid of the 60- vote impediment to getting these assets, these reserves, these resources opened up for our people, and we are back to the old- fashioned 51-vote approach, and that finally America will say: These are our resources, they belong to us, and we ought to go up there and, under as strict environmental laws as can ever apply, because they are the American laws, produce oil there.

To put it in perspective as to how much property we are going to affect, if this bill, as propounded by the Committee on Energy, is passed by this Senate, we will use up to 2,000 acres. It will not be in one place. It will be in various places, but it will be 2,000 acres.

Mr. President, that is 2,000 acres out of a refuge that is being talked about regularly as something that we should preserve and keep for posterity, and this Senator--and I believe everyone who favors ANWR--says: Amen, preserve it.

How big is it? It is 19 million acres. And 2,000 acres, I say to the Senator from Illinois, are going to be used. The refuge is 19 million acres. I don't want to draw conclusions from that. People can see themselves, 2,000 acres. Or can they? I guess you can't even see it. Mr. President, 2,000 acres out of 19 million acres is hardly visible.

We can see the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on this chart. The ANWR Coastal Plain is in green. The proposed development is that little tiny red square. I don't know if the TV cameras are good enough to see it, but that is the 2,000 acres, 3.13 square miles. It is on the green piece on the chart. That is the size of a piece of real estate out of that entire area--the green, the yellow, and the orange--that will be used for the production of oil out of ANWR.

I cannot believe the American people--if they understand after this debate is finished that that is what we are talking about--could conceivably believe that this vote should fail today and we should continue to say: Everything is wonderful in America. We can get our oil from Saudi Arabia. We can get it from Mexico. We can get it from around the world. But don't bother to get it from America. It is just not what we ought to do.

This country of ours has become dependent on our own States getting 80 percent of our oil from four States: Texas, 22 percent; Louisiana, 21 percent; California, 18 percent; and Alaska, 20 percent. That is just the way it is.

So, fellow Americans, our future, as far as American production, is tied to those States. We do have some new finds in the West, and they are exciting, but they are not going to be anywhere close to this.

Incidentally, mentioning Texas, some people say this is not very much oil. I heard somebody mention that the 10 billion barrels that are going to be produced there is not very much. Let me tell you how much it is: It is equal to the reserves of Texas. So for those who think it is not very much, maybe we ought to say to the American people the entire production of Texas is not very much. Maybe we could say we don't need the oil from Texas. If we go out there and find we don't like the way it is produced, just shut it down. It isn't important. There would be absolute turmoil in this country if somebody said, Take the oil from Texas and close it down, we don't need it; it is just what Texas produces, and we don't need it.

So the American people understand, when this 2,000 acres is producing, it is estimated by reliable estimators that it will cause the reserves under the ground to be the equivalent of those in the State of Texas. That is a pretty big piece of the oil future of the United States.

Let me talk a minute about a couple of other things that happen when you open ANWR. First, in the United States these days, we are all wondering what is happening to American jobs. How come everything is going overseas? How come the American working man, the American construction worker who used to make good money--how come there is not enough work in that field? How come big construction projects are not being done here anymore? How come it is just reported that out of the over 400 chemical plants that are worth more than $1 billion, each that is being built in the world, one of them is being built in the great United States of America and the rest of them all over the world? We are asking ourselves, What is happening to our country? What is happening is we do not develop our own resources, and thus they are developed elsewhere and there are no jobs in America to produce what we have.

I have another chart here behind me, and then that will be all that I will use. This is one prepared by the Wharton School. Some will say, and I will answer before they do, that this chart was produced a few years ago. It was. But do you know what Wharton School did when they produced it years ago? They used $55 a barrel. People on the floor of the Senate said: Throw it way. At $55 a barrel, they have to be wrong. We just asked them 2 years ago: Would you please bring it current? They said: Now we know we are right. We estimated $55, and I will tell you today it is $59-plus on the market in the United States. So the Wharton study is certainly as good as we can get.

Look what it says. If you develop ANWR, the United States of America, for Americans, will produce 128,000 manufacturing jobs; mining, including oil--all high-paying jobs--84,000; trade, 225,000 in various trade activities; the service industry, 145,000; construction per se, 135,000; and then a combination of finance, real estate, and others, which is that FIRE, 19,500. The total is 736,000 jobs.

Has anybody produced such a bill on the floor of the Senate? We say let's have a jobs bill. We introduce a bill to train people who are unemployed so they can go to another job. We introduce a bill that says when people are laid off, we will train them for another job, and this will produce a big number of jobs. Has anybody ever introduced a bill, had a proposal, made a suggestion, argued in favor of--anything on the floor of the Senate that could produce 736,000 jobs, new jobs for the people of the United States? Of course not, because we do not produce jobs in the Senate. We don't produce them with bills, either, job training bills. We produce them when we do things or eliminate things that cause entrepreneurial investment activity that produces wealth, and with wealth, jobs.

That is what we have here, no doubt about it. At $50 a barrel, which is the Wharton study, that is what it will yield. Anybody who thinks that by the time we get to ANWR it will not be $50 a barrel and it will not yield this I believe is hiding under their Senate desk as they vote no here in the Senate as far as ANWR is concerned.

Having said that, I want to take 3 minutes and tell the Senate about an experience I had. I went to Alaska, after many years. My friend, the occupant of the chair, and our new Senator from Alaska recently pushed me to do it. I went in about March of last year. It was awfully cold. I know that. I have one great picture--I cannot believe I survived.

But what I saw, every Senator who is against this proposal ought to honestly go see what is going on. There is one production pad called Alpine. In its completed stage, it is 60 acres of property. In its completed stage, it is 60

acres. On that 60 acres is the production capacity for 150,000 barrels a day. Got it? That is 150,000 barrels a day. The 60 acres, when we saw it, was solid ice. It had oil wells on it that were drilled, many of them, in less than 1 year, all close together, many of which were vertical and horizontal, meaning you drill a well down and then go out sideways and you go out for 3 or 4 miles, 5 miles. When we get around to ANWR, they are going to be drilling out 10, 15, 20 miles. So from one piece of real estate which we are worried about we will get literally scores of underground wells producing oil that is coming to the surface, unified, and then put in a distribution facility and delivered.

All of that work will be done in the dead of winter--the trucks, the tractors, the moving things, the supplies, all come on winter roads. We were there, so we could see the winter roads.

When the summer comes, the ice melts, the roads disappear, the tundra is right back where it was, and Alpine, the 150,000-barrel production wells are there, covered by whatever covers them from the weather, and out comes a spout from which the oil goes on stakes that hold up the pipeline, and there it is, delivered to a source to go to be used by Americans as they need oil to live, survive, make a living, and keep up their standard of living.

Some say we should not be dependent upon crude oil and carbons in the future. I submit there is nobody suggesting that we know how to get off of the transportation system we are currently using, in the short term. We are going to be on that for some time, even when we engage in the largest program we can, in terms of new ways to get our mobility, whatever it is--maybe hydrogen engines. It is going to take us many years, during which time we are going to import oil from overseas in huge quantities and send American bounty to foreign countries, greatly increasing our foreign trade balance, by the billions of dollars, all because we send our money overseas to acquire oil.

I beg the Senate to once and for all do the right thing regarding our future. Say no to sending more of our resources overseas. Say no to fewer jobs for the American people for the future. Say yes to the unions of the United States that represent these workers who are here en masse, begging us to pass this so they will have jobs. Say yes to American business that is frightened about our competitive future, and say at least we are going to take one step forward, not another step toward complacency, toward not caring about our future and standing on principles that are not applicable today.

We know how to drill for oil without damaging the tundra, without damaging the surface to any significant degree. We ought to say yes, today, to a very good budget reduction bill which in its totality will reduce the budget $39 billion--not a little pittance--of which ANWR will yield $2.5 billion. That is not too shabby a number.

It will require 51 votes for those who want to take this out. In the end, we will need 51 votes to pass the bill. I believe that is fair. It is such a huge resource for America. It should be passed or denied not by 60 votes but by 51 votes, the majority vote in the United States. Argue as you may in opposition to this. This is not the way to do it. Then what do you say the way to do it is? To require 60 votes? Who ever heard of that as an American principle? That is a procedure that does not apply here. The Senate has said it doesn't apply here. The old American way of 51 votes applies, and that is why we are here.

I want to close in one rebuttal. We are going to hear a lot that this oil doesn't do much. Whenever the amount of oil produced is equated to the total American picture, I want to answer it this way: Accepting a mean calculation of 10.4 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, it would supply every drop of oil for the entire State of Florida for 29 years. Hear that, the entire State of Florida for 29 years; the entire State of Arkansas for 146 years; Hawaii, 249 years. We will not be using oil that long, but people should surely get an idea that this is a pretty significant resource for our country.

I thank all those who helped put this bill together in our committee. I hope sometime during the day we will have a vote and it will be a vote where we say, for a change, we believe in America's future and we are going to do something about it.

I yield the floor.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

How much time remains?

Senator, you have 26. We have 3. I would yield the floor, hoping that you all would speak, if you have more opposition. You have plenty of time. We don't have but 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I have only 3 minutes remaining, but I want to yield that 3 minutes to Senator Sununu, and then I will yield the floor for the other side to continue.

We understand it, and there is no objection.

Reserving the right to object, I want to ask a question. With reference to the pending amendment, would you refresh my recollection here, Senator Talent has a right to offer an amendment?

Is that the time in which it would be debated?

We have no additional time. Has that been checked with him?

I am not sure.

I reserve my right to object only because I am not sure that is what he wants.

Is there any way the Senator can fit it in later on for 10 minutes?

Is that the only other amendment in the list that applies to ANWR? On that list?

Even though Senator Cantwell has an extra 5 minutes, is it all right that we go and the Senator accumulate that time?

I yield myself 3 minutes, and then I will yield the management of the time to the senior Senator from Alaska for the remainder of our time.

I want to respond to one of the issues raised by pointing to the map here. I have conferred with the Senator from Alaska and others about this Coastal Plain. If you see, it is in green and you see these words, it says:

Not wilderness. Creation of the coastal plain oil and gas

exploration area.

This little box is within that, 20 acres. It is not within a wilderness area. It is not a wilderness. It was established by President Eisenhower, and contrary to what was said on the floor, it was done that way for the very reason it was thought to have an abundance of natural resources; to wit, oil and gas. Therefore, it was set aside for an exploration area, the future use of which was to be determined by the Congress.

Isn't that interesting? Contrary to what has been said, we are doing exactly what President Eisenhower's set-aside intended. It intended it to be an oil and gas exploration area, for that purpose, to be determined in the future. By whom? Us. The very thing we are doing here.

My last observation: For anybody in the United States who is worried about America and its natural gas future, its natural gas price that is going through the roof, that this particular winter Americans are going to be terribly upset when the price goes up dramatically, with gasoline at the pump so high. It was a month ago that Americans were beginning to worry about their future. It is interesting to note that the State of Alaska, one of ours--not Russia, not some country that we don't know about--actually contains sufficient natural gas that if we would have been on our toes, we would have had sufficient natural gas from our own State to where this crisis would not be occurring.

There are a lot of reasons. But one of them is the constant carping that we can't do it because of environmental reasons, when we can. We know how to do it. We do not have to destroy the wilderness. We don't have to destroy the tundra. But if we keep doing what we are doing, we can destroy our economy. That is the issue.

I am pleased to be part of this. I hope we will vote before the day is out on this issue, and we will finally prevail. I yield the floor.

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

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding energy pricing and profits.

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 the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Lisa Epifani 202-224-5269 or Shannon Ewan at 202-224-7555.

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

The hearing originally scheduled for Thursday, November 3, 2005 at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, will now be held on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 10 a.m. in the same room.

The purpose of the hearing is to evaluate and receive a status report on the Environmental Management programs of the Department of Energy.

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 202-224-7556 or Steve Waskiewicz at 202-228-6195.

Reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I want to say, this debate has everybody on this floor thinking about what is going on with reference to other things being held up by this Senate on holds that we don't even know the name of the person holding them. This is not this issue, but there are many of them. I have the Deputy Secretary of Interior for 7 months waiting to be confirmed, and there is some hold somewhere. I think we ought to all begin to understand that that has to stop. Today reminds me that I am going to be looking at it, and perhaps I will stop every bill until we get some of these that are being held up for no reason to be released. I hope this one succeeds.

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 take place on Thursday, November 3, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington,

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending Transportation, Treasury, Judiciary and HUD Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. I would like to discuss the special needs of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico due to its disproportionately heavy caseload.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Transportation, Treasury, Judiciary and HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Bond, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Murray, for their willingness to address the difficulties faced by courts on the United States-Mexico Border due to lack of resources. This issue is one of great importance to the citizens of New Mexico.

The District Courts along the United States-Mexico border face particularly pressing needs as they must deal with many immigration issues in addition to the typical cases filed in federal court. For example, for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2004, 364 felony cases per judge were filed in the District of New Mexico, compared to the national average of 88 cases per judge. The Las Cruces, NM division, which deals with a significant number of Spanish speakers, currently has only one staff interpreter to support five judges and magistrates. District judges from across the state travel to Las Cruces weekly to help manage the over-crowded docket in the southern part of the State, so they need additional travel funds. Finally, courtroom technology, such as video conferencing equipment, is needed to allow judges to hear motions without traveling across the State.

May I inquire of the distinguished chairman if it is the intention of the subcommittee to encourage the Administrative Office of the Courts, as they prepare their funding formula for the distribution of fiscal year 2006 funds, to take into account the above mentioned special needs of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico?

I thank my colleagues for their concurrence regarding the special circumstances and requirements of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. I also thank the chairman for his willingness to attempt to address this issue in conference.

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 Thursday, October 27, 2005 at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony from the Administration on hurricane recovery efforts related to energy and to discuss energy policy.

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 Lisa Epifani 202-224-5269 or Shannon Ewan at 202-224-7555.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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 Thursday, November 3, 2005 at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to evaluate and receive a status report on the Environmental Management Programs of the Department of Energy.

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 205l0-6150.

For further information, please contact Clint Williamson 202-224-7556 or Steve Waskiewicz at 202-228-6195.

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 beheld on Tuesday, November 8, 2005, at 10 a.m., in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to review the progress made on the development of interim and long-term plans for use of fire retardant aircraft in Federal wildfire suppression operations.

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 Frank Gladics (202-224-2878), Dick Bouts (202-224-7545), or Kristina Rolph (202-224-8276) of the Committee staff.

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 Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the winter fuels outlook and the effect of high prices this coming winter.

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 Lisa Epifani 202-224-5269 or Shannon Ewan at 202-224-7555.

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, this week, Senator Bingaman, Senator Akaka and I returned from Baton Rogue.

We went down to see and learn firsthand about Hurricanes Katrina and Rita damage to the energy infrastructure. There is a great deal of work to be done, and there is a great deal of courage and confidence that it can be done. We need to find ways to make that recovery go right.

Yesterday, my committee held a hearing where we heard from energy industry witnesses who have been impacted by the hurricanes. The main message of that hearing was we are in troubled energy times, particularly on the natural gas front. The CEO of DOW Chemical Company painted a very bleak picture for American industry.

Our industries that rely on natural gas both as a fuel and a feedstock have hard choices before them about how and where they will base their operations. In the U.S., natural gas prices are close to $14. In China, it is less than $5. In Saudi Arabia, it is about $1. If we translated gasoline prices to the level of increases faced by natural gas--we would be seeing $7-a-gallon gasoline at the pump right now.

At DOW's St. Charles petrochemical complex that I saw in Baton Rogue, I learned that every $1 increase in the cost of natural gas means an additional $35 million a year in fuel costs for that single facility. Our manufacturers have to compete in global markets. At those prices, they can't.

The energy bill we just passed took some good steps forward to address these challenges but did not secure more natural gas supply that we have available right here at home.

In the area on the Outer Continental Shelf known as the nonleased portions of Lease Sale 181 which is not under moratorium, but which we are not allowing leasing, there is approximately 7.2 trillion cubic feet of gas. In the areas more than 100 miles from any state coastline, 2 resources are estimated to be approximately 6 trillion cubic feet of gas.

This area can be leased administratively, without any legislative action. At our committee hearing and during yesterday's press conference I urged the administration to reconsider this policy in light of our Nation's natural gas crisis, which has seen a 121-percent price increase in just 1 year.

I will continue to work to cure more domestic energy supplies, but in the short term all the witnesses the committee heard from yesterday said conservation is the most effective tool we can use to deal with the present crisis.

If every American turns down their thermostat just 2 degrees this winter, it could free up 3 billion cubic feet of gas per day.

According to the DOW witness yesterday, that kind of conservation would be equal to having 3 LNG terminals. In addition, we need to focus our efforts on organizing the recovery on the energy infrastructure, our witnesses all stressed the need to give priority to restoration of natural gas processing plants.

The Congress and the administration must provide the leadership to make this recovery move quickly and smartly.

Our witnesses all emphasized that we are in an energy crisis.

Mr. President and fellow Senators, the country is facing an enormous problem. I might even say, without reluctance, that it is a crisis. People might say: Well, Senator, you are talking about Katrina, Rita. No. Katrina and Rita have pointed out to us a crisis well beyond those two hurricanes, and that is that we have a very significant shortfall in the natural gas that is needed to run our businesses and to use for our people during this ensuing winter. If something is not done, it might be for a very long period of time.

Now, it sounds almost impossible, if not incredible, that I would be here on the floor saying this when just 4 or 5 years ago, those who were in the business of producing natural gas and those who knew about America's energy situation were saying: There is plenty of natural gas. Don't worry about that marvelous product.

So what we have done in the last 15 years is to say, since we don't know how to clean up coal sufficient to meet our standards and because we worry about global warming, we will not build any new coal-burning powerplants.

We have not built a nuclear powerplant in over 20 years. So for the last 15 years, at least 13 years, every new powerplant--that is these big monster powerplants that generate electricity, 500 megawatts, 1,000 megawatts--is fueled by natural gas. Then the people of our country have found this is a marvelous fuel for our kitchens, for houses, so more and more people are using natural gas for our way of life, our great standard of living. But what isn't understood is that natural gas is such a great product that when you change its chemical makeup, you use it for a lot of things. The entire fertilizer industry of America is based upon natural gas as one of the components. People don't know the entire chemical and plastic industry is built around and predicated and dependent upon natural gas. That means not only is it imperative that we have it, but I am here today to suggest it is also imperative that it not be so high priced that it puts our businesses out of business.

I had the luxury, as a Senator, to go down and see the aftermath of Katrina and Rita with my colleagues Senator Bingaman and Senator Akaka of Hawaii. We looked at the damage and the energy infrastructure of all types that were destroyed or put out of business. They are going to have an immediate impact because supply has been interrupted, both in the generation of electricity and in putting natural gas into pipelines to deliver it to the United States and to deliver it to our numerous petrochemical plants, plastics plants, and other things. Also the feedstock, you convert things from natural gas, you convert it into the basic things that are used as feedstock for these industries. We are going to be in short supply in the short term because supply has been interrupted and the capacity to deliver has been interrupted. Those are going to get fixed in due course, but in the meantime, we have dramatically used down our reserves, because they are there to pick up when we don't have natural supply coming. The offshore wells aren't producing, so you have reserves to take their place. But the reserves are being depleted, so we are going to have much less reserve capacity which means we may have interim difficulties.

But what has happened is, all of this has pushed the price of natural gas up. Believe it or not, at the beginning of this week, the bid price was $14, where just a few years ago it was $2, and 10 days ago it was $7. Understand that it doesn't sound like much if you are talking about 2 cents or 7 cents. There isn't much difference between that 14 cents. That is just a little change.

Here is the problem: We had a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I must say, as chairman of that committee, it lasted 2\1/2\ hours. It was probably as informative a hearing as I have ever presided over. Eight Senators participated. They stayed there and listened to five people talk about the crisis America has with reference to natural gas, not only because of the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, but because we are using so much natural gas and we don't have enough production to meet the need.

We can't sit around and listen to people who say: We don't need any more supply. That is these old industry companies that want to scare us, and they don't need more supply.

We need more supply. It is imperative that we find more natural gas some way. I will quickly tell you the little bit we can do in that regard. I will acknowledge this hearing was attended by witnesses representing the entire industry of oil and gas, a leading environmentalist, three other people who know the problems of Katrina very well, and they were in harmony that we must conserve. So I don't want anybody to think conservation isn't a very important part of this problem I am telling you about, this pending crisis of the rising cost of natural gas and the shortages that might occur. Every chance I get and by every means available, I am going to try to remind the Senate and anybody who will listen that we must understand this fantastic commodity called natural gas is not abundant in the United States. The price is going to go through the roof if something isn't done.

I don't have an answer right now. I am working at it, but I don't have an answer. I want everybody to know, so they are not surprised, that we understand anything that can be done should be done because the crisis is imminent. If the price stays at $14, the crisis is imminent.

Let me tell you how important it is. One of the largest employers in America of high-paying, skilled, professionally trained jobs is the petrochemical industry, the chemical industry, Dow Chemical, a huge plant down there in the middle of Katrina. We went to see it. I won't talk today about the heroics of trying to bring it back and save it and save their people. That is another story. But yesterday the president and chief operating officer of that great company came to our committee. He is reported in the morning's Washington Post in the business section with a detailed story about this crisis I am talking about. This gentleman, Andrew Liveris, is a terrific executive. He gave us a very simple example which I want everybody to listen to. At this plant are 3,500 professionally trained, skilled Americans with terrific jobs. How good? The average is $70,000 plus great benefits for each and every person there. They produce huge things. They gave us a little box of them. They produce all kinds of plastics, things you could never imagine that they produce and sell. The principal ingredient in making their product is natural gas.

Without natural gas, all those workers can go home. They can go home and say goodbye because they can't operate, not only without natural gas, but if natural gas gets too high, petrochemical plants can be located anywhere. They are not inherent to a piece of geography in the United States. They are being sought after by everyone in the world. That CEO told us on the record: When I leave you, tomorrow I am going to China. You can't tell him: Don't go to China. China wants to build a petrochemical industry. They think the greatest in the world is this one. Do you think he is going over there to have a birthday party? He is going over there to talk business.

This is not a question of cheap labor. It is a question of natural gas prices. You understand, there may be natural gas in China for $1. He is now going to have to pay, if this price stays where it was bid Monday, $14. Do you think he will stay here? He can't stay here, not only because he wants to go somewhere, he will go out of business here. These are the numbers. Already 100,000 American jobs are gone, because 100,000 jobs were for their export business. They can't export because they are totally out of competition. The price is too high because of natural gas. So that part of American employment is gone. But now there are almost 800,000 additional Americans. How many jobs can we lose and say it doesn't matter?

It was suggested by this gentleman, who had a terrific analytical ability--he told us how all this works--if the price of natural gas continues as we are talking about, 800,000-plus jobs will go. They will not be able to stay open.

Add to that the fact that everybody must understand you don't see natural gas on a gasoline pump. You don't see day by day the price going up. When

you see gasoline go from $2 to $2.50, $2.80, $3, you say: Something is going wrong. The increase in natural gas price from where it was a year ago to where it was Monday of this week, if you transfer that into gasoline prices, gasoline would be priced at $7 a gallon. Think of what would happen to the American economy and to everyday people if gasoline were $7. Everybody who uses natural gas, in particular the industries that use it, are suffering from that kind of an increase. Two years ago gasoline was at $1.69. What if it went to 7? That is what has happened to natural gas.

I am going to include in the Record a statement that gives further details about this problem. But I suggest that we must come to grips with the conservation. We are going to put some ideas together.

Let me say, if the American people this winter were to reduce their thermostats by 2 degrees, do you think it would be hard on everybody? I mean just imagine, unless somebody is sick and the doctor prescribes it, it would be an enormous savings of natural gas for the United States and for this pipeline to deliver natural gas. Do you know the pipelines that come out of Louisiana down there in that gulf, these two giant pipelines go all the way from Louisiana up into the United States, with legs off in Ohio, all the way to New York, delivering natural gas from that area so loaded with hydrocarbons? They put them in these pipes and have generating pusher stations all the way up into America and deliver it.

If we conserve the way I have described and other ways, which we are coming to grips with, it will make a big impact on how much those pipelines have to deliver to meet the demand. We have to find a way to do the best we can by American industry or they are going to close. And while we have some natural gas to heat our houses, we will be without jobs for the people who live in those houses.

The one thing they all suggested, when they were sitting around that table talking to us, was: There is one major source of natural gas that is American that we ought to get. I must say to those States who are coastal States, they must understand they are Americans first and coastal States second. The largest supply of American natural gas is off the coasts of our country. No doubt about it. The United States cannot sit by with the technology we have developed--we can go way offshore so that you cannot even see them. So those States that are worried about their visibility, if they are worried about oil spills, there are no oil spills from those platforms that drill.

Do you know that during the time we had this crisis not one major oilspill occurred. Those giant platforms with 20 wells drilled underground, with drilling that goes parallel and with one that was turned upside down, the oil did not come out. So nobody has to worry about that. We can handle that. That is where the natural gas is.

I close by saying that we have been told by the experts that the best way to reduce this crisis would be to have an immediate supply of natural gas. That is not possible. We are going to have to open a substantial number of liquefied natural gas platforms or ports around our country. And where they are being delayed, we have tried to solve that in our Energy bill. We are going to push those local governments to quit the delay for delay sake and get on with letting us put some of those in so natural gas can come from foreign countries, which I hate to say, but at least we can look at it and expect it.

In the meantime, it is said that if we were to say to those who pay for natural gas that we are opening parts of the Outer Continental Shelf, just the section 181 off the coast of Florida and Alabama, which I say now to the President of the United States, Mr. President, you ought to sit down and figure out a way through your Executive order, through your pen, to open section 181, or portions of it, off the coast of Alabama and Florida. Do it, Mr. President. It might take a couple years to produce. It is ready, so it will be very quick.

We are told that the mere fact that the market understands that is ready, that huge entrance of natural gas into the areas for delivery, the pipeline system, that it will reduce the pressure on the cost of natural gas. I think the occupant of the Chair can understand that. The marketplace will say: Oh, it is not going to continue in this crisis state because here comes this huge natural gas that is now released and is ready to come. We must do that. Until it is done, at least this Senator--I have to worry about my State, but I am also a Senator for America, and I am not going to let up until that is done.

Secondly, the States in this country that refuse to recognize that we can drill off their shores on land that is owned by the Federal Government--it is not their land; they only have a few miles, and then it belongs to Americans--you can drill way out there, do no harm, and bring gas into this country to get us through the next 10 or 12 years while other sources of energy that are clean, such as nuclear and very clean coal, come on to keep America alive.

The next thing we are going to do is to find out how we can pass legislation to get those other coastal States in the position where they are either willing to accommodate this in exchange for us giving them substantially more royalties, or we are just going to have to bite the bullet.

It is going to come down here, and the people are going to have to say no, or filibuster, but they are going to have to know what they are doing. They are adding to the crisis status of our country and job market and to one of the few major industries that is left in this country that we are great at. We are not going to be there very long. China is going to catch up, and then it is not going to be cheap labor. It is going to be high technology and national gas. India is doing the same.

I was at an event last night. We used to say how powerful we were. We know where it is; it is in India. Reliance Energy has the largest refinery of crude oil to refine into gasoline-related products. We sit here thinking we are the leaders of the world in everything. We have been sitting somewhere for a long time. I hate to say on what. But we surely have not been doing anything. If anything, we have been going backwards. There have been no new refineries in the United States for more than two decades. That is almost incredible.

I thank the Senate for listening. I will say again, this is probably the most significant event confronting us. I regret to say there are no easy answers. If there were, we would have done it, but we finally have come to the understanding that it is major, it is big, it is serious.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, nearly every form of energy production requires the use of large quantities of water. Electricity production, oil and gas production, and certain renewable energy sources are all dependent on having adequate access to water. Because water availability, particularly for human consumption, is an increasingly important international and domestic issue, it is important for us to ensure that we use our water resources in the most efficient manner in the production of energy. As the world's population grows and stores of fresh water are depleted, finding additional sources of fresh water is vital to meeting our energy needs and ensuring peace and security domestically and abroad. For this reason, developing cost-effective technologies that allow us better access to water for human use and energy production is of great significance.

Electricity production is entirely dependent on the availability of water, regardless of fuel source. Much of our fossil fuel energy production is entirely dependent on having adequate access to water. Sandia National Laboratories estimates that for every barrel of oil produced, ten gallons of water are required. For this reason, ensuring an adequate supply of water, coupled with efficient use of that water supply in our energy processes, is critical to the United States' energy portfolio. Similarly, making water available to our citizens is largely dependent on energy. Transportation, distribution, acquisition and purification of water require large amounts of energy.

Providing water to meet population growth will become increasingly important in the coming years. Nearly 1.2 billion people, roughly one fifth of the world's population, live without reliable access to water. It is estimated that by 2025, roughly one-third of the world will have inadequate access to water. By 2030 there will be an additional 3 billion people. By 2025, it is estimated that the population of the Arab world will reach 600 million, twice the population of 2000. At the World Economic Forum this summer, experts testified that most of the countries in the Arab world had exhausted their water resources and that the only way to provide water is the expensive prospect of desalination. At the forum, former Jordanian water minister told those in attendance ``We are not secure about water supplies. Supplies are simply not enough . . . This is a scary issue.'' He went on to estimate that the water deficit in the Arab world will grow by more than 600 percent by 2025.

The need for renewed Federal investment to develop technologies that will ensure efficient use of scarce water resources in energy production is critically important for domestic growth and prosperity. A study by the Governmental Accountability Office stated that ``water managers in thirty-six States anticipate shortages in localities, regions, or state-wide in the next 10 years.'' In the West, the competing demands of population growth, drought, energy resources development, agricultural needs, environmental needs, and tribal interests have resulted in a paucity of available water. Unbridled population growth in the western U.S. has stretched water resources even thinner. The U.S. Census Bureau recently estimated that by 2030 Nevada will have more than four million residents, twice as many as in 2000. In a region already critically short of water and subject to the unpredictable nature of an already over-allocated Colorado River, even a mild drought could stymie growth and economic development. For this reason, we need to investigate new technologies that allow us to access additional water, and just as importantly, to use water in the most efficient ways, particularly in the production of all forms of energy.

While stories are legion about the deleterious effects of the prolonged drought in the West, including my home State of New Mexico, the availability of water is an increasingly critical issue in the eastern United States. Usable supplies of water in the east coast have been stretched thin. Despite receiving substantially more rainfall than the western U.S., much of the east coast is facing water shortages. For example, Boston, Atlanta and much of Florida are nearing the end of readily available water. Just as with our current oil and natural gas energy crisis, the answer for our looming water crisis is not just to produce more, but to foster new technologies that will both aid in more production, and just as significantly, reduce the amount of water required for energy production and other needs.

I rise today to introduce the Energy-Water Efficiency Technology Research, Development, and Transfer Program Act of 2005. The emphasis of this program is to address the inextricable relationship between energy and water. Large amounts of water are required for electric generation and oil and gas production. Additionally, large amounts of energy are required for reclaiming and transporting water. Water shortages impair our ability to meet our energy needs and conversely, energy shortages impair our ability to provide adequate supplies of water. The bill would establish an ambitious program within the National Laboratories to develop, transfer and demonstrate in real world applications energy and water efficiency technologies to meet the increased demand for water internationally and domestically. The bill establishes a merit-based competitive grant program for research grants, provides that a set percentage of funding received by the program be used to demonstrate promising technologies, and provides for research undertaken by our National Laboratories. Our National Laboratories have shown an ability to push the state of the art forward, furthering technologies such as highspeed computing, nano- technology, and advanced engineering and science. Federal investment in these areas has resulted in thousands of new technologies that benefit humanity. We now have the opportunity to direct a portion of this immense capability to solve our water and related energy issues. I have no doubt that this legislation would help to push the state of the art forward to ensure that the world has access to this life sustaining resource for years to come.

For the reasons I have articulated, renewed Federal investment in this area is of critical importance both domestically and abroad. I thank Senator Bingaman, ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Majority Leader Frist and Senator Alexander for being original co-sponsors of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, nearly every form of energy production requires the use of large quantities of water. Electricity production, oil and gas production, and certain renewable energy sources are all dependent on having adequate access to water. Because water availability, particularly for human consumption, is an increasingly important international and domestic issue, it is important for us to ensure that we use our water resources in the most efficient manner in the production of energy. As the world's population grows and stores of fresh water are depleted, finding additional sources of fresh water is vital to meeting our energy needs and ensuring peace and security domestically and abroad. For this reason, developing cost-effective technologies that allow us better access to water for human use and energy production is of great significance.

Electricity production is entirely dependent on the availability of water, regardless of fuel source. Much of our fossil fuel energy production is entirely dependent on having adequate access to water. Sandia National Laboratories estimates that for every barrel of oil produced, ten gallons of water are required. For this reason, ensuring an adequate supply of water, coupled with efficient use of that water supply in our energy processes, is critical to the United States' energy portfolio. Similarly, making water available to our citizens is largely dependent on energy. Transportation, distribution, acquisition and purification of water require large amounts of energy.

Providing water to meet population growth will become increasingly important in the coming years. Nearly 1.2 billion people, roughly one fifth of the world's population, live without reliable access to water. It is estimated that by 2025, roughly one-third of the world will have inadequate access to water. By 2030 there will be an additional 3 billion people. By 2025, it is estimated that the population of the Arab world will reach 600 million, twice the population of 2000. At the World Economic Forum this summer, experts testified that most of the countries in the Arab world had exhausted their water resources and that the only way to provide water is the expensive prospect of desalination. At the forum, former Jordanian water minister told those in attendance ``We are not secure about water supplies. Supplies are simply not enough . . . This is a scary issue.'' He went on to estimate that the water deficit in the Arab world will grow by more than 600 percent by 2025.

The need for renewed Federal investment to develop technologies that will ensure efficient use of scarce water resources in energy production is critically important for domestic growth and prosperity. A study by the Governmental Accountability Office stated that ``water managers in thirty-six States anticipate shortages in localities, regions, or state-wide in the next 10 years.'' In the West, the competing demands of population growth, drought, energy resources development, agricultural needs, environmental needs, and tribal interests have resulted in a paucity of available water. Unbridled population growth in the western U.S. has stretched water resources even thinner. The U.S. Census Bureau recently estimated that by 2030 Nevada will have more than four million residents, twice as many as in 2000. In a region already critically short of water and subject to the unpredictable nature of an already over-allocated Colorado River, even a mild drought could stymie growth and economic development. For this reason, we need to investigate new technologies that allow us to access additional water, and just as importantly, to use water in the most efficient ways, particularly in the production of all forms of energy.

While stories are legion about the deleterious effects of the prolonged drought in the West, including my home State of New Mexico, the availability of water is an increasingly critical issue in the eastern United States. Usable supplies of water in the east coast have been stretched thin. Despite receiving substantially more rainfall than the western U.S., much of the east coast is facing water shortages. For example, Boston, Atlanta and much of Florida are nearing the end of readily available water. Just as with our current oil and natural gas energy crisis, the answer for our looming water crisis is not just to produce more, but to foster new technologies that will both aid in more production, and just as significantly, reduce the amount of water required for energy production and other needs.

I rise today to introduce the Energy-Water Efficiency Technology Research, Development, and Transfer Program Act of 2005. The emphasis of this program is to address the inextricable relationship between energy and water. Large amounts of water are required for electric generation and oil and gas production. Additionally, large amounts of energy are required for reclaiming and transporting water. Water shortages impair our ability to meet our energy needs and conversely, energy shortages impair our ability to provide adequate supplies of water. The bill would establish an ambitious program within the National Laboratories to develop, transfer and demonstrate in real world applications energy and water efficiency technologies to meet the increased demand for water internationally and domestically. The bill establishes a merit-based competitive grant program for research grants, provides that a set percentage of funding received by the program be used to demonstrate promising technologies, and provides for research undertaken by our National Laboratories. Our National Laboratories have shown an ability to push the state of the art forward, furthering technologies such as highspeed computing, nano- technology, and advanced engineering and science. Federal investment in these areas has resulted in thousands of new technologies that benefit humanity. We now have the opportunity to direct a portion of this immense capability to solve our water and related energy issues. I have no doubt that this legislation would help to push the state of the art forward to ensure that the world has access to this life sustaining resource for years to come.

For the reasons I have articulated, renewed Federal investment in this area is of critical importance both domestically and abroad. I thank Senator Bingaman, ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Majority Leader Frist and Senator Alexander for being original co-sponsors of this legislation.

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