Floor Statements

Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from New Mexico have?

Mr. President, it is a privilege this morning to follow after two Republicans who have eloquently expressed their views on this subject. I compliment our conference chairman from Tennessee, Senator Lamar Alexander. He has quickly taken the lead in this area as conference chairman and is doing an excellent job of putting us in a position where we can explain to the American people what this issue really is.

Mr. President, 2\1/2\ months ago, I introduced a bill. The bill was intended to call to the Senate's attention that we ought to be producing oil and gas

from U.S. assets, this oil and gas to be used by the American people to lessen our demand on foreign oil so that as we move across the bridge to the next fuel the world uses, we use less crude oil from foreign sources by using our own. That was the gist of the bill. It had conservation in it. It had production in it. It had addressed the continental offshore exploration.

Indeed, after 2\1/2\ months, nothing has been done except that the President of the United States intervened and said to the American people: Let's just put the blame right where it belongs. I am lifting the Executive moratorium on all of the coastline of America in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans that abuts our country. I am lifting the ones I have control over. And, Congress, you do what is next; you lift yours so we can begin the orderly process of having leases and producing oil and gas from our property for our people.

I cannot tell you how thrilled this Senator was with the President's action because it said: What is next? I can almost envision the minds of those who are in the business of holding us hostage to natural gas and crude oil we have to purchase from overseas, in particular crude oil. I can almost envision them peeking over and peeking down into the Congress of the United States, saying: Now it is your turn; we are wondering what you are going to do. Those who are holding us hostage are wondering: Is the United States going into another deep sleep?

There has been a 27-year deep sleep by America on these very valuable resources that should be explored on our coastlines which we own--we, the people, own--and we should get to work on a program to see how much of that we can use and where is it and how many billions of barrels there are. Make no bones about it, it should have been inventoried in depth, but it has not been. For a long time, people were scared to do that because they did not want to hear the results. Lately, the administration did not want to do it because they didn't know if Congress would ever let us use it. So we have just cursory inventories, but they indicate that 20 billion barrels is a pretty good number to consider as the barrels we will probably get from offshore America. I am somewhat informed, and I say that is a lowest possible number. I would think, if these offshore oil lands should really be opened for exploration, we are talking about anywhere from 20 billion to 100 billion barrels of oil that belong to Americans that ought to be produced.

As those foreign countries peek over, they are doing two things: they are peeking at us to see what we will do, and they are also peeking at us to see whether we are going to let this asset go dormant or are we going to put it into the pool so that the psychology of what is available to the world will work its will and bring the price of oil down.

I rise again today to speak on the most important economic and energy issue of our time. America faces a grave and growing threat from our massive dependence on foreign oil. We are told by lead economists for the International Energy Agency that we face a ``dangerous situation'' and that at today's pace, our global suppliers of oil will fail to meet demand over the next 25 years. We hear our businesses deeply concerned about fuel costs, and we hear the American people clamoring for new energy supplies in the wake of $4-plus gasoline.

Amidst all of this noise, from the majority in Congress we get a deafening silence. In fact, I think some on the other side of the aisle were hoping that this whole thing could disappear until after the election, that they wouldn't have to vote on what they want to do with the American people's assets--to wit, the offshore oil and gas reserves that are theirs, that have been locked up, as I said, for 27 years. I think sometimes the other side of the aisle--at least some of them--and the leadership would think: Let's just wait until after the election, and then we will solve the problem and we won't have the Republicans in the way here. They can't do that because this is the Senate. An energy bill has to come up. We have to have amendments to it, and we have to vote. We will be looking anxiously and waiting anxiously for that to happen.

I have spoken recently about the need to build a bridge to a clean energy future of affordable, reliable alternative energy fuel. The foundations of that bridge for the next three or four decades will be built on our Nation's use of crude oil. I hate to say that, but I have thought it through, and no matter what we do, no matter how successful we are, we are going to have to use crude oil until we find a total substitute for the automobiles and the trucks of today. They are the big users. We cannot just pile them up and throw them away. They are going to be used. As they are used, we must have crude oil. So we are going to be dependent, and we have to find our way to bridge that with as much of it as we can produce at home. I have spoken about this and the fact that may be three or four decades. It is very important that everybody understand that.

A growing majority of the American people are clamoring for us to explore for more homegrown energy. When you consider that an increasing number of Americans across all political ideological spectrum support more oil production at home, the Senate's silence on this issue is rather shocking. It is past time that the majority in the Senate respond to the clarion call of the overwhelming majority of Americans. It is time for leadership. The American people are calling for solutions, and they are getting excuses. They are growing disillusioned by the inactions of Congress.

I have spoken at great length on this Senate floor about the fallacy of the so-called ``use it or lose it'' argument. I want to do that one more time.

I hear many Members of this body accusing others of sitting on leases. But perhaps we should point this bright perspective light back on ourselves. With the Executive moratorium now lifted, Congress is solely responsible for locking up billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. Perhaps it is the American people who will tell us: Use it or lose it.

According to a comprehensive report by the National Petroleum Council called ``Facing the Hard Truth About Energy,'' in the United States an estimated 40 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil resources are completely off limits or are subject to significant lease restrictions. That is more than the equivalent of 8 years of total U.S. imports at current rates. On the Atlantic and Pacific OCS alone, there is estimated to be 15 billion barrels of oil. That is more than the total Persian Gulf imports over the past 15 years and approximately the same amount of the total oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico in the past half century. There are abundant oil reserves there waiting to be drilled, waiting to be explored, waiting for American ingenuity and talent which is now in abundance, and it is best to act on it because it is ours.

These figures are staggering, and in light of the fact that our estimates have historically been very low when we get to actual exploration and production, perhaps we should take the time and resources to pay for a very comprehensive inventory. Then we would know how much there is out there. The American people would be even more excited about the prospects of that vast resource which is theirs.

Staggering as the numbers are, they do not include the 800 billion barrels of oil-equivalent oil shale located in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. By the conservative estimates of the RAND Corporation, our oil shale resources at the base is three times greater than the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia.

The facts are clear: We are spending hundreds of billions of American dollars to purchase something from around the world that we have sitting under our feet. As gasoline exceeds $4 a gallon and oil hovers around $140 per barrel, the American people should be tired of excuses. I believe they are.

Amidst this backdrop, it is stunning that the majority offers a simple speculation bill. Every serious expert--from Daniel Yergin, to Guy Caruso, to Ben Bernanke, and Warren Buffett--recognizes it is a supply-demand problem and not a speculation problem. We are glad to debate the issue, but we better put some other things before the Senate, not just that, if we intend for the American people to believe we care about their plight and the plight of the American economy today.

With all that is going on that is scaring the American people, I personally believe the biggest culprit in the crowd is the growing dependence on crude oil, the amount of money we send overseas

every hour, every day, every week, every month to countries, many of which are our enemies and could care less about us, that we must pay that to get crude oil to be refined so that we can move our automobiles and our trucks and do our work and our business every day.

It sounds incredible that we would not join together, Democrats and Republicans, on this exciting day and say we finally have pulled back the curtain that has had a blackout imposed on offshore drilling in America and join hands and say: What do we do to begin to develop it as quickly as we can? I don't see why we ought to be arguing. We ought to do it together and quickly. That is what the American people would like. I don't think that is what we are going to get. I hope some Democrats will be listening. That is what this Senator would like to do.

We have a bill. We have a proposal. It would probably be better if Democrats and Republicans had one together that both produced and conserved, that produced more oil and conserved more in terms of our automobiles by producing more electric cars. Just combine those--this one, and match it off against another one--and we will be moving in the right direction.

I close by saying I hope that day comes. I hope the other side is not waiting, doing nothing until the election is over, using any excuse they would like. There is no excuse. We can do it, and we ought to do it now. The curtain has now rolled back. The offshore is there to look at, to see, and it contains billions of barrels of oil that are ours. We ought to go get it in an orderly way, and we ought to pass laws in a bipartisan way that permit us to do it. But if not, we ought to put forth ours and have some serious votes in front of the American people to decide our future.

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

Madam President, on rollcall vote 181, I voted ``yea.'' It was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. President, I just caught some of the remarks of the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. I don't know whether I will be able to answer them today, but obviously, in the course of the next few days or weeks, I will answer every single one. Most are covered in what I will talk about today.

In the course of the United States of America and the use of crude oil and natural gas as part of the transportation base of our country for automobiles, trucks, and the like, and at the same time the natural gas that has been produced that is being used by our chemical industry, the heating and cooling of our houses, and all kinds of things, and now some for automobiles also, in the course of that, yesterday was a remarkable day. After 27 years of moratorium on offshore exploration imposed on a year-to-year basis by the Congress and 18 years placed by the President, the executive branch of Government, which is not year to year but as long as the President wants it, we had the President of the United States taking off that Executive order putting a moratorium on 85 percent of the offshore properties in the continental U.S. owned by every single American. We had the President take off the moratorium and challenge the Congress to do likewise because without lifting the moratorium, whether it is the executive branch or the legislative branch, we cannot explore for oil and gas that we own.

I regret to say that we have been so far off base in terms of deciding where we would spend our money to help determine our course, where we are going, that we have not spent the money to go out and find the inventory, to do an inventory of this huge offshore resource, including off the California shores, all the way around the Atlantic and Pacific where there must be billions of barrels of oil that are going to be developed over the years and literally trillions upon trillions of natural gas Btu's that are going to be discovered. We decided there was plenty of oil and gas in the world, so we could put a moratorium on because we were frightened of what would happen if there would be spills. We were scared of what would happen if oil might spill out of one of the pipelines.

I say to everyone, during this 27 years, more or less, of moratoria, there has been a part of the offshore that has been open. The part that has been opened is singularly marked by a huge production of crude oil and natural gas for the people of America, principally off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, and a little bit of Alabama and Mississippi. But it has yielded literally millions upon millions of barrels of crude oil for America and literally scores of natural gas, that little bit that is open.

How much is open, so we will have it straight? Mr. President, 15 percent, 1-5; 85 percent has a moratorium on it. We have not inventoried it because we didn't want to spend the money. It cost a little bit of money to inventory it. So we have a sloppily done estimate that says we have an awful lot of oil and natural gas on that 85 percent. It is estimated that there are somewhere between 17 billion and 18 billion barrels. This Senator thinks that is so low that if we were to do an inventory, I think it would be twice as much or more that the American people own and we are not doing anything with.

So, yes, indeed, it was a remarkable day when President Bush lifted that

moratorium and said to us: You do likewise. Specifically, the President was saying to us: Do something that will tell the world we are going to start producing and get that done in a way that will cause those who are in the fields of buying and selling oil and gas and producing it to understand that there is another new, huge reserve coming onboard in due course, some of it in a few years, some of it over the long haul, but that it is there and America is going to use it.

In response to the President, the majority leader of the Senate, who has been my friend for a long time, announced that he will introduce his own bill. I heard the Senator from New Jersey alluding to parts of it. Probably tomorrow, he said. His bill will focus principally on the idea that speculators are driving up the price of oil, even though speculators are only responding to the same supply-demand concerns that everyone else is. In fact, recently Warren Buffett, the great businessman, explained the spike in gas prices by saying:

It's not speculation, it's supply and demand. We don't have

excess capacity in the world anymore and that's what you are

seeing in oil and gas prices.

Guy Caruso, the Administrator of the Energy Information Agency, said speculation was not driving the increase in prices.

Just today, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said:

If financial speculation were pushing all prices above the

level consistent with the fundamentals of supply and demand,

we would expect inventories of crude oil and petroleum

products to increase as supply rose and demand fell. But, in

fact, available data on oil inventories shows notable

declines over the past year.

These experts say that speculation is not the main reason for this surge.

What really struck me was the majority leader announced he would not allow amendments at all to his bill. Let me make sure we say this on the first day after the President raises the moratorium, and so the moratoria that are left are all dependent on Congress. Whenever Congress is ready, Congress can change them. And if Congress doesn't do something, those moratoria will all expire at the end of this fiscal year. That is the first day of October. They will expire. We will have to act to keep them on.

But here we have the majority leader announcing that he would not allow any amendments to his bill that we haven't seen yet--not a single one, said he. I can't believe the people of this country are going to buy that, that one man, instead of the Senate, one man in his capacity as majority leader can say to the Senate: Take it or leave it. Here is my bill. It hasn't been produced by any committee. It is the bill of the leader of the Senate, and it principally says: We are going after speculators, so it is not going to produce any oil, from what we can see, and he says there will be no amendments.

I really don't believe, I repeat myself, that when the American people understand that out there for use, for development in the world market of oil and gas supply sits all this offshore development potential, and here stands the majority leader of the Senate and he says: So long as you do it my way, there will be some impact, some change, but it will only be what I say and not what anybody else thinks--we have already said on our side--and we are not just a few people; we are 49 out of 100. We have already said we want to produce more oil and gas offshore and we want to share the royalties with the States so that as we go about asking California if they would like to lift the moratorium and put a 50-mile limit, they could assess with experts how many hundreds of millions of dollars that State is going to get from royalties, in exchange for which the American people are going to have oil and gas drilling off that shore. All across the country, down in the South where we have a moratorium, the same thing can happen. There can be an honest, bona fide look by the States under our proposal. But that won't happen.

The occupant of the chair is one of the most reputable and fair Senators around. He wouldn't like to see that happen. He is listening attentively: Is that what I am for as a Democrat? Is that what I am going to do, say we are running this like the U.S. House, except we don't have a committee to police the bills because it was never in our power to do it, but our majority leader is going to be the one who decides what we take up. You can't amend a bill he puts on the floor on this energy crisis, this offshore oil which is in a huge new abundance that we own that sooner or later is going to add substantially to the supply and thus have an impact on the price of oil and gas for the American people.

I don't really think the majority leader is going to be able to prevail on this issue. Understand, he is going to have to have a vote on a continuing resolution because we are not doing any appropriations bills. Come time for that continuing resolution, they have to extend all of these moratoria because those appropriations bills they are having votes on are not going to get to the floor of the Senate. So we are going to have a continuing resolution around here and have to get the votes on it, excepting that I understand right now that the majority leader wants to bring his own bill to the floor, lay it up, and not let anybody amend it.

Yesterday he talked about this: You do it my way. Why? You won't get a chance to vote. Why? Because you lose because you cannot get 51 Senators to vote with you and do nothing to liberate for use these huge, huge billions and billions of barrels of oil and natural gas in abundance.

As all of my colleagues know, I have been around here about 36 years. Some people say that can't be right, but it is, and I am about to make it the last, soon. I have had a hand in passing a lot of bills. For many years, I passed a Budget Act every year. I don't think I missed but once. I was there doing that for about 18, 20, 26 years. You all-- even new Senators have seen what an ordeal that is. If I look stooped and worn out, it is because I did that for so long before I got this wonderful job trying to do something about the energy crisis. And we have done a lot. It is just that the energy crisis is pervasive. You can do a lot, and nobody knows you have done anything.

I have had a hand in passing a lot of bills, and I have seen what happens when one party decides it can dictate to the other. Unfortunately, that is what is happening now. On the most important economic issue of our time, the majority leader has decided that he alone--he and he alone--is the only person here who can make energy policy. The rest of us might as well go home. We can't offer any amendments and we would be lucky if he even let us have a good debate.

Why? The majority leader knows that one of our ideas is to allow each individual State to decide if it wants to explore for oil and gas. Eighty-five percent of the land in the continental United States is currently off limits for oil. The President lifted his 85 percent; the same number remains under moratoria from the legislature.

Republicans want to change that. I am pleased that I think some Democrats want to change that. This area is laden with billions of barrels of American oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, so the majority leader knows if you were to have a vote on this subject on the floor, he may not win. He may not win. And I believe the American people will have a lot to say about who wins when they understand this issue plain and simple. The offshore has always been open to development under certain rules until you put on a moratorium and we now have one on, put on by the legislature, and it ought to be taken off. Republicans want to change it and I am pleased to say that, talking to Democrats, I also believe there are some of them who want to join us.

The majority leader knows if we were to have a vote on this subject, he may not win. I put it the other way, he may lose. And even if he does win, the American people will not like it, since the vast majority of them agree with us that America ought to be producing more oil through deep-water exploration. The American people are clamoring for it. They do it in Norway, Brazil, Great Britain, and many other nations. So Americans are asking, why not here?

I have heard all kinds of excuses as to why we should not open up the new areas. The latest one, according to the majority leader, is----

I ask for 3 additional minutes.

I have heard all the excuses I have ever heard of. I want to close with one. The other side says they are going to put in some language that says to those companies that own leases: Use it or lose it. They don't have to put that in their new law because there is already a ``use it or lose it'' provision. I say to my friend, Senator Kyl, all of those companies that have leases have either a 5- or 8- or 10-year lease. In each of those leases it says: When the lease expires, if you are not producing, you lose the lease. That is: Use it or lose it. So already all the leases say by the time the lease expires--and they are not long leases. They are 5s and 8s and 10s.

If you talk about a lot of property not being used, it is because they are going through different phases of evaluating the property to get it ready for the final decision whether to drill the hole. So we are not worried about that. We contend that there is no ``use it or lose it'' necessary because it is already the law under which they serve today.

There is nobody sitting on it. It is $140-a-barrel oil. If you were to sit on that, as an oil company, you would be held responsible to your board and your stockholders for wrongdoing because you ought to get on with producing it so you don't lose it because it already is a ``use it or lose it,'' and we do not need any new rules.

The President's action yesterday places the ball firmly in our court. It is a decision we have to make soon because the existing moratoria on offshore exploration expire at the end of September. But in order to address any of these problems, the Senate must be able to function as a deliberative body. As long as we are blocked by the majority from offering amendments to virtually every bill that comes before us, we simply can't do that. It is not the right way to govern.

The American people are paying a very high price. We know it. We have to make sure the American people find out--and first, that those who disseminate the news find out that in fact this should be open for debate. Republicans will be reasonable, but we want some amendments and we want to vote on the disposition of this property which belongs to everybody. Some of it may have great quantities of natural gas and crude oil. We have to make some decisions other than: Do it my way. I, the leader, have a bill. It will be that bill or no bill.

I am sorry to say to my good friend, the leader, he was not that way before. He should go back as a leader the way he was before and not think he can do that. He does not own the Senate. He does not run the Senate in that manner. We didn't give anybody that authority and we ought to get on with an understanding and agreement in the normal way that we have always done it and see how this comes out. It will probably come out right for the American people if we do that. It will become an asset for them. It will help bring down the prices, and certainly it will take millions of dollars we would otherwise be throwing away and we will keep it for ourselves as we keep some of these oil and gas revenues.

I yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself and Senators Sessions, Murkowski, and Landrieu, a bill that establishes the foundation for a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle for the U.S. A sustainable nuclear fuel cycle is the key to nuclear energy reaching its full potential to provide the large scale base load electrical generating capacity our country needs, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Today, nuclear energy provides nearly 20 percent of our electricity generation capacity and does so more reliably, and with a lower cost per kilowatt hour than coal, with essentially no greenhouse gas emissions. In the decades to come, we will need nuclear energy to play an even greater role, not only in electrical generation, but also in the transportation and industrial sectors, if we are to achieve the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed to address the challenge of global climate change. The Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies Act, or SMART Act, represents the first important step in building the bridge to that future.

The SMART Act promotes the establishment of privately owned and operated used nuclear fuel storage and recycling facilities. These facilities will help resolve the current deadlock in spent nuclear fuel management while providing a means to extract additional energy from used nuclear fuel. I believe that a commercially viable used fuel recycling strategy, combined with a responsible waste disposition strategy, will enable the expansion of nuclear energy necessary to meet all our goals for the future of nuclear energy. The SMART Act advances this vision through incentives--rather than mandates--for both industry and local communities.

The SMART Act establishes a competitive 50-50 cost share program between the Department of Energy and private industry to finance engineering and design work and the development of license applications for up to 2 spent fuel recycling facilities. The SMART Act restricts facility designs to commercial scale facilities that do not separate pure plutonium. The recycling technology must also reduce the burden on geologic repositories used for ultimate disposal of waste and promote extraction of additional energy from used fuel stocks. Beyond these restrictions, the choice of recycling technology is left up to industry.

The resulting reference licenses for recycling facilities may then be used by industry to construct domestic used nuclear fuel recycling capacity. To assist industry in securing the necessary financing for these facilities, the SMART Act authorizes DOE to offer long term contracts for spent fuel recycling services. All construction and financing costs, however, would be born by industry.

Although ultimate geologic disposition of waste will always be needed, interim storage of used nuclear fuel is a

necessary component of the nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure. To encourage development of interim storage facilities the SMART Act establishes an economic incentive program for communities and states that wish to host a facility within their jurisdiction. All interim storage facilities would be privately owned and operated and licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The SMART Act incentives are designed to encourage the development of two large scale facilities with enough capacity to accommodate our annual domestic used nuclear fuel generation.

As with the used fuel recycling facilities, the SMART act authorizes the Department of Energy to enter into long term contracts with storage facility operators. In addition, the SMART Act allows the Department of Energy to enter into agreements with utilities for the settlement of all future claims against the department for failure to take title to spent nuclear fuel by 1998.

Currently, the Nuclear Waste Fund established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 has a balance of approximately $20 billion and is growing by nearly $1.8 billion annually from fees paid by the utilities and interest on the fund. Unfortunately, this fund is currently ``on budget'' and amounts to little more than an IOU to the U.S. ratepayers. The SMART Act will allow access to a small portion of this fund so that it can begin working to resolve the nuclear waste issue as it was intended.

The SMART Act establishes a revolving fund from $1 billion of the current waste fund as well as the annual interest on the fund. The remaining 95 percent of the current waste fund, as well as all future fees, would be placed in a legacy fund for the purposes of constructing a geologic repository. Expenditures from the revolving fund for the provisions of the act could be made without further appropriations but would be subject to limitations in appropriations acts. In this way the revolving fund could be put to use without being subject to the uncertainty of the annual appropriations process while still retaining the authority of Congress to oversee the fund.

The resolution of the used nuclear fuel issue has been deadlocked for decades. Fortunately time has been on our side since nuclear energy produces so little waste. For example the nuclear waste generated by a family of four during their entire lives is only a couple of pounds. Some have even said that we do not need to begin recycling used nuclear fuel for 30 or 40 years. I do not believe we can wait that long before we resolve the used nuclear fuel issue, however. We must begin taking steps today that will place us on the path to a secure and sustainable nuclear energy industry in the future. We must demonstrate to industry and financial institutions the Government's commitment to resolving the used nuclear fuel issue. The SMART bill will place us on that path to the future.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself and Senators Sessions, Murkowski, and Landrieu, a bill that establishes the foundation for a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle for the U.S. A sustainable nuclear fuel cycle is the key to nuclear energy reaching its full potential to provide the large scale base load electrical generating capacity our country needs, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Today, nuclear energy provides nearly 20 percent of our electricity generation capacity and does so more reliably, and with a lower cost per kilowatt hour than coal, with essentially no greenhouse gas emissions. In the decades to come, we will need nuclear energy to play an even greater role, not only in electrical generation, but also in the transportation and industrial sectors, if we are to achieve the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed to address the challenge of global climate change. The Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies Act, or SMART Act, represents the first important step in building the bridge to that future.

The SMART Act promotes the establishment of privately owned and operated used nuclear fuel storage and recycling facilities. These facilities will help resolve the current deadlock in spent nuclear fuel management while providing a means to extract additional energy from used nuclear fuel. I believe that a commercially viable used fuel recycling strategy, combined with a responsible waste disposition strategy, will enable the expansion of nuclear energy necessary to meet all our goals for the future of nuclear energy. The SMART Act advances this vision through incentives--rather than mandates--for both industry and local communities.

The SMART Act establishes a competitive 50-50 cost share program between the Department of Energy and private industry to finance engineering and design work and the development of license applications for up to 2 spent fuel recycling facilities. The SMART Act restricts facility designs to commercial scale facilities that do not separate pure plutonium. The recycling technology must also reduce the burden on geologic repositories used for ultimate disposal of waste and promote extraction of additional energy from used fuel stocks. Beyond these restrictions, the choice of recycling technology is left up to industry.

The resulting reference licenses for recycling facilities may then be used by industry to construct domestic used nuclear fuel recycling capacity. To assist industry in securing the necessary financing for these facilities, the SMART Act authorizes DOE to offer long term contracts for spent fuel recycling services. All construction and financing costs, however, would be born by industry.

Although ultimate geologic disposition of waste will always be needed, interim storage of used nuclear fuel is a

necessary component of the nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure. To encourage development of interim storage facilities the SMART Act establishes an economic incentive program for communities and states that wish to host a facility within their jurisdiction. All interim storage facilities would be privately owned and operated and licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The SMART Act incentives are designed to encourage the development of two large scale facilities with enough capacity to accommodate our annual domestic used nuclear fuel generation.

As with the used fuel recycling facilities, the SMART act authorizes the Department of Energy to enter into long term contracts with storage facility operators. In addition, the SMART Act allows the Department of Energy to enter into agreements with utilities for the settlement of all future claims against the department for failure to take title to spent nuclear fuel by 1998.

Currently, the Nuclear Waste Fund established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 has a balance of approximately $20 billion and is growing by nearly $1.8 billion annually from fees paid by the utilities and interest on the fund. Unfortunately, this fund is currently ``on budget'' and amounts to little more than an IOU to the U.S. ratepayers. The SMART Act will allow access to a small portion of this fund so that it can begin working to resolve the nuclear waste issue as it was intended.

The SMART Act establishes a revolving fund from $1 billion of the current waste fund as well as the annual interest on the fund. The remaining 95 percent of the current waste fund, as well as all future fees, would be placed in a legacy fund for the purposes of constructing a geologic repository. Expenditures from the revolving fund for the provisions of the act could be made without further appropriations but would be subject to limitations in appropriations acts. In this way the revolving fund could be put to use without being subject to the uncertainty of the annual appropriations process while still retaining the authority of Congress to oversee the fund.

The resolution of the used nuclear fuel issue has been deadlocked for decades. Fortunately time has been on our side since nuclear energy produces so little waste. For example the nuclear waste generated by a family of four during their entire lives is only a couple of pounds. Some have even said that we do not need to begin recycling used nuclear fuel for 30 or 40 years. I do not believe we can wait that long before we resolve the used nuclear fuel issue, however. We must begin taking steps today that will place us on the path to a secure and sustainable nuclear energy industry in the future. We must demonstrate to industry and financial institutions the Government's commitment to resolving the used nuclear fuel issue. The SMART bill will place us on that path to the future.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, fellow Senators, I have spoken extensively over the past several months about the growing threat of our dependence on foreign oil. Two weeks ago, we were reminded of the threat by new trade deficit numbers showing a $4.4 billion deficit increase in just 1 month as a result of growing oil prices and growing oil imports. Last week, the Wall Street

Journal reported that six Arab economies took in $400 billion in oil and gas revenues last year alone. The Journal also reported that petroleum-producing states are investing more of their oil wealth at home, triggering an investment and spending boom in the Middle East.

But as our reliance on foreign oil grows, 85 percent of our offshore acreage in the continental United States is still off limits for leasing, as are 62 percent of onshore oil reserves. Let no one tell you that we have plenty of American acreage leased for energy development because compared to the rest of the world, we are falling behind, and it is making us poor and poorer and poorer. Since the Senate last voted on my proposal to increase production, it was estimated that America likely sent about $50 billion overseas to import oil.

What is particularly troubling to me is that after rejecting a proposal I submitted on behalf of myself and 20 other Senators to open new areas for production, the majority has come up with excuse after excuse for not taking any action.

First, without any evidence to back them up, they claimed that price gouging was the reason for high prices. At the same time, they said high prices were not caused by supply-and-demand issues, they told America that we must stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because the 70,000 barrels a day that went into it were raising the price of gas. Suspending the SPR fill is something I have supported, but I also said we need to do much more. It alone is practically nothing. Unfortunately, advocates of this SPR suspension in the majority rejected a proposal to open areas of production that would bring online more than 2 million barrels of oil a day.

Now the other side has apparently settled on an argument that first originated with the Wilderness Society. They claim oil companies are sitting on their leases and that if those companies just developed in those areas, we would not need to open new areas. If only that were true, Mr. President. The other side is now saying the oil companies must use it or lose it when it comes to their leases. They propose adding a tax on companies to punish them for not producing fast enough.

This Wilderness Society argument demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how we explore for oil and gas in this country, and the fact that this argument originates with a group that has led four major lawsuits in the last 4 years to prevent development in the very same area speaks to how disingenuous it really is. Part of the reason it takes so long for companies to produce is because groups such as the Wilderness Society keep throwing up roadblocks. They know it; we know it.

Today, I am going to tackle this idea that companies are choosing to sit on their leases, and I will debunk that once and for all.

First, let's consider the logic. Companies are paying a lot of money for the right to explore on a lease and are given a short period of time to produce oil. With the cost of oil now at $135 a barrel, why on Earth would a lessee intentionally sit on a lease and choose not to make money on it? Why would a company pay money essentially to rent a tract of land and then not use it?

I have heard the claim that 41 million acres are leased on the Outer Continental Shelf and of that acreage, 33 million acres are not being produced. The use of this statistic shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the long, risky procedure and process that begins even before bidding on a lease and hopefully ends with production. The other side is saying that unless oil is literally coming out of the ground on an acre, it doesn't count, even if that acre is being explored or is in the process of getting environmental permits or in any other part of a process that is very long and tedious. Additionally, the use of this argument by groups who consistently go to court to prevent developing on existing lease areas speaks volumes about the intent here.

Congress currently restricts access to 574.2 million acres of OCS. In actuality, it is clear by any measurable assessment that the majority in Congress is sitting on far more oil than the oil companies themselves. Let me repeat that. It is clear by any measurable assessment that the majority in Congress is sitting on far more oil than the oil companies themselves.

Let's focus on offshore Federal leases for a moment. Simply examining the number of acres leased and the number of acres producing during a snapshot of time is deceptive. There are many different steps for producing oil and gas. At any given moment, a lease may not be producing, but it is active and under development. In the 5, 8, or 10 years that a company holds a lease--and they are given a specific period of time--environmental assessments could be underway, lessees could be trying to secure permits, the leasing agency could be challenged in litigation, and the lessee could be reviewing seismic data. In fact, any number of preproduction processes could be underway. These take time. These require experts. These cost money.

I do not hear critics suggest that we speed this up or that we waive or shorten environmental requirements--and I am not suggesting that either. But critics do want to impose new costs on U.S. producers under the guise of ``speeding up leases.'' This tax and spend solution to a supply and demand problem makes no sense. And, once again, the other side proposes a solution that threatens our competitiveness with nationalized oil companies who are after the same commodity around the world. My friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying that we can't drill our way out of the problem--and they are right. But my message back to them is that we can't tax our way out of the problem either, and that is exactly what they keep proposing to do.

Second, there are many up-front costs that leaseholders take on to acquire an oil and gas lease. Bonus payments and pre-production rental payments often cost millions of dollars and these capital investments are only being made for the ultimate development and production of oil to return a profit on investment. Simply put, if oil is not produced from a lease, companies lose money on it.

Third, using these acreage numbers to claim that companies are ``sitting on'' $135 oil simply ignores the historical fact that simply because you lease lands does of necessarily mean that you are able technically or economically to produce on them--or even that there is oil under your lease. Hence the term: ``exploratory well.''

Ironically, some of the very same people who are arguing that these leases are not being developed also opposed an inventory of new areas that would clearly speed the development process when they are opened.

To suggest that companies are not diligently developing their leases on the American deep sea is to simply ignore the facts. Over the past decade, more than 100 new discoveries have been announced and since the passage of the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act 13 years ago, offshore oil production has increased by 535 percent. Over the past months, three major sales for OCS oil and gas leases have taken place and together raised more than $9 billion in federal revenues. Under the oppositions argument--that is a lot of money companies are paying to sit on leases.

I have had the opportunity to review the data provided by one company that holds leases--BP. BP has 124 leases that are actively producing. Those are the only ones that the majority is counting when they give you their statistics of producing leases. But BP also has 459 leases that are in the exploration phase, So 65 percent of BP's leases are under exploration so that BP can produce from them in the future, yet the majority would have you believe that BP is ``sitting on'' those leases instead of actively working toward producing on them. This is about as deceptive an argument as I have ever heard. It is either totally deceptive or it is absent knowledge and information--which is impossible. This information is readily available.

We have severely limited our access to the American deepwater, and the situation is only getting worse. In 1982, nearly 160 million acres of land were being leased for exploration. Today, its less than 40 million. Why? Because we are running out of available land and we are restricting access to our own resources in favor of foreign oil. According to the MMS, only 2.4 percent of the total offshore acreage is currently being leased and about 85 percent of our continental offshore is under moratorium. As we debate about the use of

43 million acres available for development, we must recognize that Congress has placed 574.2 million acres under moratorium--and the majority has supported continuing to do so. Only 6 percent of total lower--48 OCS is currently leased. This does not demonstrate a lack of progress in the deepwater, it demonstrates a lack of progress on energy policy in Congress.

The American people have had enough with excuses and they are looking for leadership. Two-third of Americans are asking us to produce American oil, but the majority in the Senate is blocking it. I urge my colleagues to look at the facts and take action.

There is no question in my mind that the excuse that is being used is that we cannot drill our way out of the crisis. I submit that is not the issue, whether we can drill our way out of the crisis. The issue is whether we can produce more American oil or oil alternatives so we spend less overseas and keep more of our money at home. We are spending ourselves broke. We are spending ourselves into economic oblivion by sending so much of our resources overseas every day, every month, every year, for the acquisition of crude oil from foreign countries.

I have an editorial from the Albuquerque Journal of Sunday past called ``It Takes Black Gold To Get to Green Future.'' It states:

With all due respect to Al Gore, there is an urgent, new

``inconvenient truth.'' Unless Congress acts quickly to

expand domestic oil supplies, the nation could face economic

destruction long before it sees the environmental fallout of

global warming.

For decades it has been easy for most Americans to dodge

the truth about our foreign oil dependence and to just keep

driving--but $4-a-gallon gas has finally snapped the trance.

Reality is sobering. The United States has put its economic

survival in the hands of unstable foreign powers and volatile

commodities markets. At any time, a major disruption in

foreign supply could bring the enormous, transportation based

U.S. economy to a standstill.

I ask unanimous consent the editorial and a Washington Post editorial called ``Drill Deeper'' be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Is it appropriate to speak now as in morning business?

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes, and I ask the Chair to advise me when I have 2 minutes remaining. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd be recognized following my remarks.

Madam President, over the last several weeks, I have come to the Senate floor to discuss my ideas on how to address the high price of gasoline in this country. I understand the toll these high prices are taking on the American people, and I understand the grave consequences of continuing our cycle of dependence upon foreign oil.

Americans are looking to us for some solutions and leadership. But, so far, all they are getting is gridlock and fighting. However, I think there are some things that we ought to be able to come together on that would truly address the fundamental global supply and demand imbalance. Today, I would like to talk about them with the Senate and anybody who is interested out in the hinterland of America.

This morning, my friend, the senior Senator from New York, said the Republican leader was incorrect in his assertion that the Democrats do not want to increase American oil and gas production. I was glad to hear him say that because given the votes that the other side has taken, I had my doubts. Just in the last month alone, they have opposed exploring in Alaska, opposed deep sea exploration, opposed lifting the moratorium on final regulations for commercial leasing of oil shale, and they have opposed converting coal to liquid fuel. That liquid fuel could be used by the U.S. military, as an example. They will be using it in one way or another. They could use the liquid that comes from conversion from coal.

In fact, in the past, a large majority of the other side of the aisle has opposed taking inventories on our U.S. lands to simply find out how much oil and gas we actually have. Why would that proposition be objectionable? Wouldn't it seem appropriate, with such large resources offshore, that we would inventory them, even if it costs some money? The amount we could find out there may be terrific and tremendous in size. Yet we have had objection to even doing that.

If the United States were to explore in our deep sea and move to develop our vast quantities of oil shale--just those two things--we could completely shift our dependence upon foreign oil in ways I suspect my friends on the other side of the aisle don't even realize. The amount of oil shale potential alone in our Nation is massive. This morning, I met with officials from the Department of the Interior who told me that in the coming decades, American companies are predicting production of up to 3 million barrels per day from our American oil shale. That gives us a good idea of just how much our Nation has at its disposal that we are not taking advantage of.

Nevertheless, my friend from New York pointed out that he supported my effort in 2006 to open a portion of the Gulf of Mexico to exploration. In fact, he even said he ``helped lead the charge.'' Well, if that was the case, then I invite him to help me once again lead the charge to increase domestic production. Everything I have tried so far, his side has said no to. Tell me, what proposal will get them to say ``yes''? The Senator knows that I have been here a long time, and I have had a hand in passing many pieces of legislation. I understand it usually takes some bipartisan compromise to get something done. So I say to my friend, on the production side, how can we compromise?

One reason I have been so discouraged about our ability to get something done is because even a limited, reasonable proposal to allow one single State to explore natural gas was rejected by the other side last year. My good friend from Virginia, Senator Warner--who you all know is respected for his bipartisanship--introduced an amendment a year ago this week, with Senator Webb's support, that would have allowed his home State to conduct natural gas exploration in the deep sea over 50 miles off the coast. He did this because the Democratic Governor of Virginia, and Republicans in the legislature expressed interest in possibly developing Virginia's coastal resources.

It all sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it? What is the harm in letting Virginia explore for natural gas if Virginia is interested in it? And yet Senator Warner's amendment was defeated by the Senate. Six Members from the other side of the aisle voted for it, and 39 voted against it--including my friend from New York.

America has enormous oil and gas resources. Total offshore oil reserves are around 85.9 billion barrels of oil. Over 19 billion of that is completely off-limits for exploration. On shore, we have 30.5 billion barrels of oil, and over 60 percent of it is considered off- limits. We have over 1.6 trillion barrels of oil equivalent in oil shale, which is the equivalent of more than three times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

This policy of taking our own resources off the table simply makes no sense, especially when we face a price of $135 per barrel of oil and $4 per gallon of gasoline. No other nation in the world deliberately prevents itself from using its own resources. Look around the world-- Brazil, Norway, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Russia and many others. They are producing their own oil and gas off of their own shorelines. So I sincerely hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle will join with me to try to find a way to allow States that wish to explore 50 miles off their coasts to be able to do so.

The other side of the aisle frequently tells us that we can't drill our way out of this problem. This morning, the majority leader said that the ``answer to this is not drill, drill, drill.'' I agree with him. He is right. The answer to this problem is not just ``drill, drill, drill.'' There is no question that our long term future requires us to find solutions other than drilling. We need to reduce our dependence on oil from all sources. But we need to build a bridge to help get us there. On the far side of the bridge is a world in which cellulosic ethanol and plug-in hybrid vehicles are available and deployed on a wide scale basis. But in the near term our experts tell us we need oil to fuel our economy and our lives. So the question remains: is Congress going to choose to create jobs and revenues in America by exploring for our own oil and gas, or are we going to continue to increase our deficit by purchasing foreign oil in greater quantities?

In order to get across this bridge I just described to secure an energy future, we need to develop our own natural resources. So let's build this bridge to a cleaner, more independent energy future by increasing domestic production here at home. It will take time and investments. Congress has already made great progress developing these resources for the long term and for the future of this country, but we are falling short in the near term. So let's come together in a bipartisan fashion to build a bridge to the future and begin to reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

I truly believe that if we decided we could do this, the independence that would be shown to the world because of the great quantities we could say we would produce for ourselves, for the world inventory, would have an immediate impact on those who are speculating and those who are counting on a future of shortage. When they see the United States is going to do something about it, it can do something rather significant, I am convinced.

We don't need to look at those other countries in awe when we have at home great resources that we are refusing to explore just because we refuse to do it. There should be no higher priority than the exploration of these resources, unless it is some great national interest that takes over and takes place and displaces this enormous interest we have to stop sending $125 a barrel to a foreign country for every barrel of oil we use.

I repeat what I have said before: We are growing poor--p-o-o-r. Our economy is not flourishing, and we are asking why. We are being given all kinds of reasons. This Senator says one of the big reasons is that we are approaching the time when we will have sent $600 billion a year to foreign countries just for the crude oil we consume at home. If we have some of that locked up offshore of our country, we should say: Where is it, and what damage will it do if we use it? The answer will probably be that we have plenty and there will be no damage to use it. And if we move it out 25 or 50 miles from the shoreline into deep waters, there will be no damage to anyone.

This technology has been perfected. Hurricane Katrina hit a part of the offshore where we had many of these rigs. Some were old and some were brandnew technology. It didn't matter, the technology was strong enough to where there was no leakage, no oil was spilled.

I believe my friend has been waiting; therefore, I will not use my last 2 minutes. I will certainly yield to my good friend from Connecticut. I told the Senator that if he lets me go first, good things would follow.

I yield the floor.

I wonder if the Senator from Wyoming would answer a question on my time, before he sits down.

I listened to the Senator's speech and I was very impressed. I think it would be helpful to those who are listening if you could define one word, because you use it and I use it and everybody uses it around here. What does ``cloture'' mean?

So cloture is an instrument whereby you stop debate, if you impose cloture?

If anybody was listening, the Senator talked about that. At the time the cloture motion is filed, there are certain requirements, a certain number of Senators have to sign it. It is a request to the Senate that you vote on whether you are going to continue debate. When that vote occurs, you are voting on cloture, on a cloture motion regarding the pending motion or pending legislation.

Last night I spoke to a group of energy experts and gave them the same warning I have been giving since the start of this year in a series of speeches on the Senate floor. That is that the United States faces a grave and growing threat to its well-being. Our economic strength and our energy security is being threatened by our vast dependence on foreign oil. I have said it before and I will say it again: If we do not address this problem in a serious way, America will become poor.

I could have added a whole lot to that, but let me repeat: If we don't do something about this vast dependence upon foreign oil, America will become poor, p-o-o-r. Mr. President, $600 billion a year--it looks like is where we are headed--will be sent from this country to other countries to buy crude oil that we are going to turn into gasoline or diesel fuel to use here in America in our transportation system, essentially.

We have seen the warnings for years now. I remember when President Nixon launched the Project Independence more than three decades ago. The goal of that project was to eliminate our dependence upon foreign oil within a decade. Since then, our dependence on foreign oil has more than doubled and we have literally put trillions of American dollars into the hands of others who often do not share our interests. The problem has gotten worse under both parties for decade upon decade.

Yesterday, another warning was brought up to us in the form of trade numbers, international trade numbers for April. Our deficit in the international trade of goods and services rose by 7.8 percent to nearly $61 billion in the month of April. We were also told that this $4.4 billion increase in trade deficit in April was nearly entirely attributable to imports of crude oil and petroleum products. The average price of imported petroleum and the total amount of fuel bought were both the highest ever. It is obvious it is because the price of crude oil was the highest ever for that particular month versus any other month.

It is time we begin to do something about this. Family budgets are being strained by the price of gasoline. America's small businesses are being hurt by the cost of energy. America's trade deficit is swelling out of control by the importation of foreign crude oil and the money we pay to buy it. It is the time to act, to do something. Over the past 2 months, Republicans have offered a new direction on energy policy. We have recognized we must open additional areas to American exploration and that we must put the decision of locking up our own areas to a test of whether closing the land to development meets a greater national interest than opening the land for exploration and production of oil and gas. In making such an assessment, we must listen carefully to the American people, who are hurting and who are asking us for some relief at the pump. A clear majority of Americans wants us to open more lands for oil and gas production. They want to understand what lands are open from which we could develop our own energy.

We have sought to open ANWR. That would not work. We didn't have enough votes. We have sought new deep sea exploration. We have sought to develop oil shale, or at least to take off the moratorium which was imposed last year that will make it more difficult to develop oil shale, which we own in large quantities and in great abundance.

We also have sought to turn coal into a liquid fuel. We could do that in any number of ways. The technique is available; it just costs a lot of money. But it is costing us a lot of money to pay for this dependence. So we could initiate a major program for coal to liquid and say we are going to contract to sell that to the military. Their needs are enormous. They buy a lot of it from overseas because we do not produce enough of our own. So why not take that huge resource called coal, use one of the existing ways of converting it, and arrive at an agreement

where we could use the diesel fuel so produced to fuel our military and we would be using our coal, we would buy less overseas, our military would get the diesel produced here in America, and at the same time the other one we could do is commit ourselves to develop oil shale into oil.

If those who have us by the throat can strangle us with the price of oil only believed we were going to develop ANWR in Alaska, that we were truly going to develop liquid from coal and use it for whatever specialized purpose we wished, know we could do it in large quantities, and then if we would commit to oil shale conversion and get started, even if it were only to produce a small quantity, the world would respond. They would say America is serious about minimizing rather than maximizing her dependence upon foreign oil. No doubt about it. Any of those three--and the offshore I talked about, the exploration of our offshore which is subject to moratoria that have been imposed by Congress. There are a number of States that would do it, that could do it, and we would share the royalties as we are with Louisiana and Texas, that many of us voted for when we produced an energy bill, the second Energy bill the year before last. We did it, we knew how to do it, and we could do it elsewhere.

It appears to me now is the time to move on. Each and every one of these American energy policies has been turned back by our Democratic friends on the other side of the aisle and they have sought to raise taxes, increase regulation, and ask Saudi Arabia for more oil.

I ask unanimous consent I be given an additional 2 minutes.

Let's look at what we voted on yesterday. The Democrats sought to increase taxes on American business competing with foreign nations for a global commodity. They tell us this tax is the solution because the oil companies are making too much money. These new taxes will not lower prices, and they know it. What raising taxes on American companies would do is to ship the competitive business advantage to foreign oil companies. Raising taxes on American companies and not on their competitors costs American jobs. Raising taxes on American companies increases imports and lowers American energy production. This is not only my analysis, it is the analysis of the independent Congressional Research Service. It is the analysis of the Wall Street Journal and the analysis of officials from the Carter and Clinton administrations, who had experience with the windfall profits tax, which had a pretty-sounding name and a terrible-sounding effect, for it rumbled through the country causing oil companies to pay higher taxes, thus raising costs of oil and lowering the amount that was produced. So we are told by a consensus of our greatest experts that such a time is decades off.

I have spoken with those who know about our needs. They say we need a bridge to secure our energy future--a bridge. On the far side of the bridge is America, where we are no longer dependent on these vast amounts of crude oil. On the far side of the bridge is cellulosic ethanol used widely around the Nation and in our plug-in hybrid cars that will influence the use of oil.

However, we are told by a consensus of our greatest experts that bridge and that such a time when we will not be using oil could be as many as four decades from now. In the meantime, if we do not move to solve it, that bridge will be built of crude oil, if it is imported, and we will just pay more for longer periods of time to countries around the world that may not agree with our idea or our philosophy of life.

We are also told from the IEA that our world oil production estimates for the year 2030 are well below what we previously thought. The question then becomes will this Nation get about the business today of producing our own American energy for tomorrow or will we continue to rely to a greater degree on foreign oil. The question is that simple. I ask my colleagues to seriously reconsider the Domenici American Energy Production Act.

I ask them to reconsider the views that they held when oil was at $19 in an era of $135 oil. I ask them to reconsider their views as many have done on nuclear power since I begin advocating for it more than a decade ago. Since then, we have seen a nuclear renaissance in America and we are seeing a growing number of people come over to our side on that issue. I ask my colleagues to listen to the 57 percent of Americans who are telling us to produce more here at home. And I ask my colleagues to consider whether the foundation of the bridge to our energy future should be built with American energy or foreign energy. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hutchison be the leadoff speaker and she be allowed 7 minutes, and that I follow her with 15 minutes, and then we will see where it goes from there.

Mr. President, Parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains and who has time before the vote?

So that means I would use the remaining time, and there would be no time for anyone else before the first vote?

That was my question. I didn't pose it right.

Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes and see how it works out. The Senator from Pennsylvania wanted some of my time. I don't know if I have enough to give him, but I will try, and I thank him for coming down so early in the morning.

First of all, let me say to my fellow Senators but most of all to the American people that the Senate has a bill before us today we will call the Reid bill, named after the majority leader, and I think it deserves a simple little nickname. It should be the Democratic Party's ``No Energy Energy bill.'' It doesn't produce one ounce of energy. Clearly, the American people are looking to us to see how we can suggest that the price of oil might be stabilized or brought down.

We are told by most experts we are going to be using crude oil for 30 or 40 years to come, and we call that the bridge, the bridge between now and the future, where we are going to have to use crude oil. If we are going to have to use crude oil, then America should look to itself and see where and how can we produce oil that belongs to us so this bridge, this 30 or 40 years when we are going to have to use crude oil to get by, that we will have as much of ours as possible.

It is a shame the majority party in the Senate is not looking to American resources, does not have a bill, will not let us vote on a bill, will not let us amend a bill that would produce more energy from the coastal waters off the shores of the United States, upon which we have put a moratorium. That moratorium says we cannot drill. Everybody knows there are literally billions of barrels of oil that belong to us. We could do whatever we would like. We could say 50 miles out is where we start, so it will harm no one, but let's open it and explore for American oil where there is an abundance.

In addition, let's go ahead and convert coal to crude oil, coal to diesel. We know how to do that. Let's get on with it so we can send the right signal to the world.

Let's take the moratorium off oil shale and get on with a 5- or 10- year program to produce oil from those properties that belong to Americans that are laden with oil and are in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

That is what we are looking for, not a bill that attempts to levy a windfall profits tax which everybody associated with that tax-- including those who helped put it on during the regime of President Carter--now comes over and joins us, saying: Don't do that. It will do nothing but raise the price of crude oil.

Why do we want to pass a tax increasing the cost of crude oil when the American people are asking us to do the opposite? The majority here in the Senate believes the major oil companies--there are not very many left that are American oil companies. There are just a few of them left, and all the rest of the oil is owned by countries--not companies, by countries. They own it. We have five or six American companies. We ought to be grateful we have them. They are the only ones out there capable of competing with these countries to get oil and produce more. Yet the Democrats would like to make life onerous for those companies, would like to make it harder for them to produce oil, and try to let the American people think that if we tax them enough, somehow or another that will produce more oil.

From my standpoint, this is a very simple debate. The Democrats have no

energy bill before us, in terms of producing energy. So they have a ``no energy'' bill. We ought to say we don't want to debate that because it doesn't amount to anything. Then the House sent us a bill that imposes taxes. That is all it is. They impose taxes in order to put on a kind of energy stimulus for wind and the like. They want to tax in order to pay for it. We have never paid for it before. We have imposed those various incentives. They are good. We passed them 88 to 8 one time. We are for doing that again, but we are not for doing that in the manner suggested by the legislation from the House which came over here. It is our second vote. We ought to just say no to that and say we are ready to extend those tax credits and we are ready to do that in exactly the way we have done it before, with no taxes added to the American people or to anyone--just go ahead and do those tax extenders, which we desperately need.

Let me repeat. One of the most important things we need is an extension of those tax extenders. We do not need a tax bill that will pay for those extenders because we have already done it without taxes. We ought to do that again, nice and clean and quick. That would be a very good start toward an alternative energy policy or a continuation of one.

Mr. President, I wish to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania at this point.

Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. President, am I correct in assuming that I have 2 minutes, plus the leader's time?

I yield myself 5 minutes and will reserve the remainder.

Mr. President, the American people are clamoring for relief at the pump. In 1 year we have seen a 16-point increase in the percentage of Americans who seek more exploration and production of oil and gas in this country.

Today, according to a recent Gallup poll, 57 percent of Americans are seeking more exploration and production of oil and gas here at home. I do not know what percentage of Americans would like to see higher taxes, increased prices, and greater imports, but I suspect it would be very low. But according to the independent Congressional Research Service, that is what the people will get if the Reid tax increase is enacted into law. They will get exactly what they do not want, because the bill will raise taxes, increase imports, and contribute to a pattern of sending more than half a trillion dollars overseas to hostile regions.

I will oppose the motion to proceed this morning. I wish to start by looking at the windfall profits tax contained in this bill. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found a windfall profits tax could have several adverse effects and could be expected to reduce domestic oil production and increase the level of imports. This group is not alone in their estimate. The Wall Street Journal predicts a windfall profit tax is a sure formula ``to keep the future price of gas higher.''

It is not simply these two views that warn against a windfall profits tax. Former officials from both the Carter and Clinton administrations have spoken. The Under Secretary of Commerce in the Clinton administration recently said:

A new windfall profits tax, however emotionally satisfying

it may seem, also harms most people saving for their

retirement or living on retirement savings. More than 40

percent of that cost would fall on tens of millions of

seniors and retirees who own oil stock directly or indirectly

through their pension plans and retirement accounts.

An individual named Phil Verleger, the individual responsible for implementing the tax during the Carter years, recently called a windfall profits tax ``a terrible idea today.''

There seems to be a consensus everywhere that the windfall profits tax is a bad idea, except in the halls of Congress and within the Chavez administration in Venezuela. It is not only conjecture that leads us to the conclusion that this is a bad idea but, rather, an understanding of history. Between 1980 and 1986 when the last windfall profits tax was in place, domestic oil production was reduced by as much as 8 percent and our imports rose from 32 percent to 38 percent. Revenues for the tax came in well below what was originally estimated, and the tax came to be called an administrative nightmare that stunted economic growth. It was a bad idea then and it is a bad idea now, and it should be rejected. About that I am certain.

How much time remains?

On the time I yielded to myself?

I want to try to raise a concept and see if we can get this where more people would begin to discuss this idea. In a hearing about 8 days ago, a crude oil expert made the statement that we would be using oil as a bridge to the future for more than 30 years. Let me repeat. We will be using crude oil as a bridge to the future for more than 30 years, this expert said, perhaps 40 years or more.

That is kind of common sense. Crude oil is used to make gasoline and things such as gasoline, and those are used in the importation industry. We cannot get rid of that quickly.

I will use 1 minute and then I will sit down. Let me repeat so everybody will get this. For something like 40 years, we will be using crude oil, our own or others, because we cannot get rid of the current mode of transportation any quicker. Cars will be cars, and we will be using them because we cannot wean them off the scene. As we move to a better era of a better life where we do not have to use crude oil in our daily lives so much, we will have to use the bridge which will be crude oil.

Now, why do I talk about this? I do because it is important we understand that if we have any cards, playing poker, if we have any aces in our hands, we better go ahead and play them, and the aces are crude oil we might produce some way that is ours. We ought to go ahead and play the card. I submit that we do have a lot of aces. We have got a huge amount of crude oil that is in the Outer Continental Shelf that we ought to be exploring for forthwith. We ought to take the moratoria off and start at 50 miles out across this land. If we did that and sent that message for starters, it would be received in a terrific way. Take the moratoria that were put in the bill that has been referred to as the Domenici bill for production, and believe it or not, we would send a signal that America is coming back to life, and during that bridge time we are going to produce more oil on our own.

Nothing will help us more in reducing the price and cost to our consumers than that idea we implemented. We must try to do it even if the Democrats do not want us to. We have got to try to force a vote so that people understand what we are trying to do.

I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.

Yes.

Mr. President, I assume the Chair is telling me that I cannot reserve any of the leader's time, so

I can sit down and take it at a later time?

All right. I will use it now.

Now, Senators today should have been--under anyone's understanding of the dilemma we are in with the price of oil scaring the American people to death, the amount of money we are sending out of our country to meet our energy needs, it is going to reach $600 billion a year. With the escalating price of crude oil, that is what it looks like next year. It will be what a full year will cost us, $600 billion. I would think with that in mind, there would be on the floor of the Senate some real proposals by the Democratic leadership and the majority party.

Instead, what do we get? We get what I call a ``no-energy energy bill.'' It is a no-energy energy bill because it does not produce an ounce of energy; it raises the cost instead of lowering the cost of crude oil; it produces less rather than more crude oil. That is why there is nothing going on on the floor, because there is nothing exciting. The Democrats have offered nothing.

We are begging them to try something. We are begging them to try something that would produce more American oil or oil substitutes. We know what they are. The distinguished Senator from Colorado knows what they are. We know that offshore, deepwater exploration around the shores of America could be put in effect by raising the moratorium, and we would have literally billions of reserves of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas readily made available.

We need to take off the moratorium that we put on ourselves, take it off and say to the people: Let's produce it. It would take a few years. But the signal would be positive. We would have the oil shale in your State and Utah, your sister State, if we said we are ready to set the final guidelines so the oil companies can invest. Someone down here prior to my speech said the oil companies will not do anything to help. Yes, indeed they will. One of them is investing $8.5 billion in oil shale and tar sands up in our neighboring country of Canada. Some people think that is terrible, because they did not want them to produce that kind of oil. But I do not think it is terrible, because it eliminates the potential for gouging, for prices being too high. Because if you have these great inventories of resources and they are yours and you can use them, you ameliorate the increasing price of oil, and we ought to be doing that.

Instead of that, we are down here talking about a second bill. The second bill is a bill passed by the House, sent over here to us that is full of tax increases to pay for a series of tax incentives that we should pass without the tax increases. We have done it before, we ought to do it.

That bill ought to be defeated, no question about it, because we ought to pass it. We need the incentives, but we do not need the tax increases. We have done it without tax increases twice before, and somehow or other the House keeps getting it put in their head if they send it over here with other tax increases, different ones, we will go for it. I think it is pretty clear we will not.

So it is an interesting day. Instead of being here with some positive things we are going to do, we will be here defending some old ideas that are not going to help one bit, and we are saying, let's try them anyway.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask that you advise me when I have 3 minutes remaining.

I am sorry, but it gets difficult to keep track of the time. I thank the Senate for permitting me to speak a few moments today.

We are just 3 full days into the Boxer bill, and several important questions have arisen. Unfortunately, the majority leader has filled the tree. That sounds like something you do around Christmastime, but that is not what it is. It means last night the majority leader decided this bill, when we return to it--if we do, which I don't think we will--would not be amendable. He has put amendments in every place you could amend so you cannot amend any further. So we would not have a chance to fix this.

So everybody will understand, 3 days for a bill such as this in the Senate is unheard of. This Senator is serving his 36th year and happens to be fortunate that I was here when the Clean Air Act of America was passed. It was a new regime for trying to clean our air. We were on the floor of the Senate, with Ed Muskie as chairman, for 5 weeks. Over 160 amendments were brought up, and over 100 were approved, or voted on. That is debating a bill--not 3 days.

As we consider this bill, we have to ask ourselves if a cap-and-trade regime is our only option, or even our best option, for reaching the bipartisan goal of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. The Congressional Budget Director recently testified before the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Energy that a carbon tax would be five times more efficient, that a rigid cap-and-trade regime would, conversely, be only one-fifth as effective as a carbon tax. So, obviously, we have set about to do something far more difficult than directly attacking the problem with a carbon tax because we fear it. But the American people should know what we are doing to them, in this roundabout way, is far worse on them, their families, and their future than a carbon tax, which everybody says we should leave alone and forget about.

It is also appropriate to ask how this bill was written and why it has been written several times. The bill leaves us with more questions than answers. One that immediately comes to mind is, why allowances under this bill are not considered property. This bill mandates that entities pay for the allowances. Then it refuses to extend the rights of ownership to those allowances.

The distinguished junior Senator from Tennessee has spoken eloquently about this whole business of allowances and what is wrong with the way we are treating it. He has mentioned, but I mention again, the bill specifically says they are not property rights. Why do you pay for them? If you pay for them, you think you own them. If you don't own them, they are worth nothing because anybody can do what they like with them if they are in a position of authority and you receive nothing. If you try to sell them and an administrator decides you cannot, you have no rights because you don't own anything.

This bill mandates the entities pay for them and, I repeat, refuses to extend the ownership rights. I don't know why this is written this way, but I hope we will have a chance to consider an amendment. Perhaps the Senator from Tennessee would have joined me in an amendment to strike that provision, but we will not have a chance to do that because the leader has filled the tree.

I repeatedly heard false claims that this bill will create a market- basket approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For a marketplace to operate, its participants must own the products they seek to trade. Property is a fundamental right in a well-functioning market. The right of ownership should not rest with the bureaucrats at EPA. It should rest with the purchasers of the allowances.

Additionally, it is not credibly explained how Americans will comply with this bill. There are a number of resources and technologies that can significantly reduce carbon emissions, but often they are not commercially viable or, worse, are blocked from being licensed.

Our Nation currently has 104 nuclear powerplants. According to the EIA, Energy Information Agency, we need to build an additional 264 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2050 to comply with this bill. Another Federal agency found that only 44 gigawatts of nuclear would be built and that our needs would, instead, be largely met by 81 gigawatts of coal with sequestration and 61 gigawatts of renewable power. An MIT study found that we would meet our obligations with 236 gigawatts of coal with sequestration. This technology has potential, but it has not yet been commercially demonstrated.

The point I am making is, some of the assumptions as to how we will reach this goal under this bill are stated by the experts in our country that they cannot be achieved because some of the things they expect to use cannot be used or cannot be done.

In the years ahead, will those who now support this bill strongly advocate the construction of the infrastructure and facilities necessary to comply with it?

More than 20 organizations went on record last November in opposition to the National Interest Electric Transition Corridor. These corridors, established in the Energy Policy Act, which we together wrote and passed on the floor of the Senate, are essential to addressing electric transmission constraints or congestion across the country. But an attitude of ``not in my

backyard'' has resulted in vocal opposition in many localities. Yet that would be absolutely necessary for this bill to work.

According to Greenpeace's Web site, carbon capture and sequestration is ``an unproven, expensive, and inefficient technology'' that taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize. But according to EIA, it is not available. The result is almost a doubling of the negative impacts of economic growth.

As recently as 2005, a leading proponent of this bill said in the Senate:

Nuclear power is not the solution to climate change, and it

is not clean.

Friends of the Earth, a large environmental group active in 70 countries around the world, describes nuclear power as a ``false solution'' that ``is simply a diversion'' from the progress of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The fact is, nuclear power is our only carbon-free source of baseload generation, and the 104 nuclear reactors now in our country around the Nation displace as much carbon dioxide-- just this one source of energy--as nearly all the passenger vehicles on the roads of America. That is a pretty good exchange for 104 nuclear powerplants that are old and doing the job.

The opposition to energy infrastructure that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions overlooks a fundamental truth that is underscored by nearly every study in this bill. Without these resources and technologies, it will be impossible to meet the targets outlined by this bill. So supporting a cap-and-trade regime is insufficient. The bill's advocates must also pledge to support and work hard for energy infrastructure, which we have just discussed, for years to come.

Perhaps the most important question in considering this bill is whether it will accomplish its stated purpose. Listen carefully. The first stated purpose of this bill is ``to establish the core of a Federal program that will reduce the United States greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough to avert the catastrophic impacts of global climate change.'' First purpose.

The United Nations IPCC--that is the technical hierarchical leader-- projects that if the global concentration of greenhouse gas increases by 90 parts per million, global air temperature will rise by roughly 1 degree. These are the projections cited by the advocates of this bill. According to the EPA, however, this legislation would only decrease global concentrations by 7 to 10 parts per million by the year 2050, enough to reduce temperatures by only one-tenth of 1 degree Celsius.

As I stated earlier in this debate, such an increase will fail the test outlined in this bill. Its impact will not be substantial enough to avert a catastrophic impact of global climate change as stated by the proponents of this bill, cited by the advocates of cap and trade, to say it another way.

Their own rhetoric does not match the reality of what this bill would accomplish. The biggest purpose would not even come close to being accomplished. If we did it, it wouldn't come close to what is necessary. I just gave the numbers.

The second stated purpose of this bill is divided into seven subsections. First, it is intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while ``preserving robust growth in the United States economy.'' Economic studies across the board have found that this bill fails in this regard. The studies find that this bill will have a negative impact on gross domestic product, our basic test of collective productivity, in the range of trillions of dollars.

Next, the bill is intended to create new jobs in the United States. Why then is so much attention given to retraining assistance for workers in this bill? A study by the SAIC estimated that 3.5 million jobs would be lost by 2030 as a result of this legislation. And there is no credible study that says this bill, on a net basis, will create jobs in America.

Third, this bill seeks to ``avoid the imposition of hardship on U.S. residents.'' Given the projections of lower economic growth and job losses, this is simply not possible.

I thank the Chair.

The fourth subsection states that this act is intended to ``reduce dependence of the United States on petroleum produced in other countries.'' Last year, I introduced the American Energy Production Act. I plan to offer this as a complete substitute for this bill. There is no one who could doubt that it would do more to reduce our dependence on foreign oil than this bill.

The fifth states that the act will ``impose no net cost on the Federal Government.'' This stated purpose omits the massive cost that consumers and businesses will incur. The number has been placed at $6.7 trillion, which represents an unprecedented transfer of wealth to be carried out at the discretion of the Federal Government. This is the most expensive authorization bill in my 36 years in the Senate.

Sixth, the bill states that it seeks to ``ensure the financial resources provided by the program established by this act for technology deployment are predominantly invested in development, production, and construction of that technology in the United States.'' Why then does the bill include an entire title for international offsets and allowances? That has been stated by the distinguished Senator from Tennessee eloquently.

Further, uncertainties of numerous kinds remain that I am unsure this act is capable of being administered, but I am not sure exactly how that can be done. CBO estimates an increase of $3.7 billion in discretionary spending at EPA between 2009 and 2018 just to administer this bill--$3.7 billion. That is nearly a 50-percent increase compared to their entire current budget.

This bill would require more than 50 new reports and studies, many of which recur on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis. It includes directions for 39 new regulations and rulemakings and would establish 56 new program initiatives, funds, and similar Federal entities. This chart behind me shows just how complex this bill would be. I ask that my colleagues look at it because it is accurate.

It should be clear that any reasonable amount of time studying this cap-and-trade proposal leads to more questions than answers. While that may be acceptable for scientific endeavors, it is not a very sound footing for making law.

On a global scale, this bill would provide minimal, if any, environmental benefit by the end of this century. But even to achieve a small reduction here at home, we may subject America's economy, prosperity, and global competitiveness to irreparable harm, while creating greater emissions abroad. The capp-and-trade system envisioned by this bill is simply not the answer we seek for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. I hope in the future we can move this debate in a direction toward solutions.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Does the Senator from New Mexico have time under the regular order?

Mr. President, on Monday, I came to the Senate floor and discussed the rising price of gasoline and the additional increases that will result from the Boxer bill. These are not talking points. They are facts from several economic studies done by the EIA, the EPA, and many other groups.

Later today I will speak on the accomplishments we have already had in working together to advance policies that will strengthen our energy security and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We have not been asleep. We

have done quite a bit. I will also speak about the bill before us and the many concerns I have about its effectiveness, or lack thereof.

Right now, I want to speak on the impact this bill will have on the American economy. Like many Senators, I believe global climate change is a great challenge that our Nation should address. I joined Senator Bingaman in expressing that sentiment in a bipartisan Senate resolution 3 years ago. That does not mean anybody has produced a bill or legislation that matched up, in my opinion, with the concerns. The way we are doing it in this bill is one way. It has never worked any place it has been tried. I do not know why it should be expected to work in America.

I have great respect for the Senators who have drafted cap-and-trade legislation, but I remain deeply concerned about the steep costs and dire consequences this bill will have on our Nation's economy. I am troubled it will have very little, if any, environmental benefit.

To those who are continuing to say this is an absolute environmental necessity, I hope they will try to gather from the experts who have looked at it just how much environmental benefit we will get from this bill.

The EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, has concluded this bill would reduce global greenhouse gas by just over 1 percent by 2050. According to the IPCC's own benchmark, such a reduction would reduce average temperatures by one-tenth of 1 degree Celsius in 2050. These rates of reduction are far below the levels needed to mitigate the most serious effects of global climate change.

Now, again, Mr. President, fellow Senators, I am not here just giving a speech. I am trying to give you facts. If facts are the things that come from studies by experts, we have facts on this bill. I repeat, the rates of reduction are far below the levels needed to mitigate the most serious effects of global climate change.

I am troubled by the various studies on this bill. Everyone has concluded it will increase energy prices and decrease economic growth. Especially in a time of record energy prices and economic slowdown, our Nation simply cannot afford this bill. That is not just speculation or clamor. It is a true probability that we cannot afford it.

While these studies confirm that the bill will have a negative impact on our economy, they also reveal significant uncertainty as to what that impact will be. According to CRA International, the only group that included the low carbon fuel standard in its study, motor fuel prices could increase by more than 140 percent by 2015. The EIA projects that the bill could reduce industrial activity by up to 7.4 percent by 2030. The Heritage Foundation estimates that 600,000 jobs could be lost by 2026.

Another cause for concern on the economic side is the estimate of the impact on gross domestic product. While all studies project a negative impact on GDP, estimates vary from a low of $444 billion, I say to my friend, the occupant of the chair, to a high of $4.8 trillion. That range of $4.5 trillion is as massive as it is inconclusive. It is equivalent to $15,000 for every American. A careful review of these studies should shake everyone inside of this Chamber.

We must realize that cap and trade is neither our best option nor the only option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office Director recently testified that a rigid cap-and-trade program is up to five times less efficient than a carbon tax.

The experience of the European Union, which instituted an emissions trading scheme in 2005, should be highly instructive in this debate.

The EU's emissions have continued to rise under cap and trade, by about 1 percent per year. While the EU's system has failed to reduce emissions, it is having an adverse economic impact with energy prices rising and other carbon intensive businesses fleeing to the developing world.

Europe's difficulties are not the only example of the shortcomings of cap and trade. Last December, it caught my attention when, during an interview on the Charlie Rose Show, former President Clinton lamented the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, saying: 170 countries signed that treaty and only 6--6 of 170--reduced their greenhouse gases to the 1990 level, and only 6 will do so by 2012 at the deadline.

Our best projections, combined with the precedent of failing cap and trade regimes already in place, show that America should take a different path. We have been told that this bill is a market-based approach, but then we read a section that says, ``an emission allowance shall not be a property right'' and, ``nothing in this Act or any other provision of law shall limit the authority of the Administrator to terminate or limit an emission allowance.''

Let me explain. These are allowances that are being paid for, in most cases, and the CBO treats them as revenues and outlays. And, the proponents of the bill expect these allowances to be traded like stock and other securities. However, the bill fails to even provide a property right for allowances and permits the EPA Administrator to take allowances or limit them at any time, and in any way. This is the very opposite of a market-based approach, and I will have an amendment in the coming days to remedy this problem.

Furthermore, this bill allows nonemitters to hold possession and trade these allowances. Presumably they will enter into contracts, derivatives, swaps, and other complicated arrangements that may undermine the oversight, transparency, and integrity of the market. This is precisely one of the factors that led us to today's mortgage crisis, and maybe this bill creates that blueprint for carbon.

My concerns with this bill are no different today than those that were shared by the full Senate in 1997, when we passed a resolution expressing our opposition to the Kyoto Protocol if brought to the Senate for ratification. Our economy expanded by 5 percent in the quarter before that vote. In the midst of robust growth, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected the idea of a treaty that did not include developing nations or ``could result in serious harm to the United States economy.''

With many factors now limiting our economy, and with China's emissions today much greater than in 1997, our resolve should be stronger. High energy prices, a housing crisis, and a credit crunch limited our growth to 0.9 percent last quarter. Clearly, we have plenty of challenges to overcome. Our dependence on foreign energy is great, our trade deficit is high, our national debt continues to rise, and our dollar is weak.

As we debate this Boxer bill, we should ask ourselves two questions: What will it achieve, and at what cost? I believe the answer to the first question is very little--even by 2050, this bill will not provide meaningful global environmental benefit. The answer to the second question, however, is too much--this bill will disrupt our economy, add to consumers' pain at the pump, and weaken our Nation's ability to compete in the global marketplace.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on this vote, I have a pair with the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. If he were present and voting, he would vote ``yea''. If I were permitted to vote, I would vote ``nay''. I, therefore, withhold my vote.

Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman Conrad and the other members of the Budget Committee for their kind words and

well wishes that have been directed toward me during our work on this the final budget resolution during my tenure in the Senate.

As most of you know, I have worked on many budgets and numerous other initiatives during my 36 year career. However, important work still remains for the Budget Committee. If I had more time I would without a doubt seek to address entitlement spending. I had pledged to work with Chairman Conrad on his bipartisan bill and I am disappointed that we may not have time to take it up this year.

This budget, like many before it, fails to address the 800 pound gorilla in the room, otherwise known as entitlement spending. After 2010, spending related to the aging of the baby-boom generation will begin to raise the growth rate of total outlays. The annual growth rate of Social Security spending is expected to increase from about 4.5 percent this year to 6.5 percent by 2017. In addition, because the cost of health care is likely to continue rising rapidly, spending for Medicare and Medicaid is projected to grow even faster--in the range of 7 or 8 percent annually. Total outlays for Medicare and Medicaid are projected to more than double by 2017, increasing by 124 percent, while nominal GDP is projected to grow only 63 percent. The budget currently under consideration does not offer solutions, much less even address, entitlement spending or reform. I do not support this budget in its current form because it does not offer any meaningful solution for entitlement spending.

I offer this piece of advice to my colleagues serving on the Budget Committee: tackle entitlement spending. The Budget Committee should propel itself to the forefront of this debate and use the tools that only this committee has at its disposal to address the number one issue on the minds of the American public. With true leadership, this committee has the potential to turn mere Senators into heroes if they choose to address the entitlement programs. I urge Senators to come together and find a solution in the near future before it is too late to resolve this crisis.