Floor Statements

Mr. President, I could give these remarks now or I could have given them when we were on the bill because they address something that is disturbing a number of Senators. That concern is that the majority leader may be thinking of filling the tree, which means he is not going to allow us to offer a significant number of amendments to this bill. That is, from what I can tell, something that we should not do, and he should not do. As someone who knows him well and works with him well, I think it would be a mistake to fill the tree on a bill like this, and let me give a few examples from my own experience.

When we used to do business the way the Senate does business, not filling trees but filling many days with legislation of importance, we had a Clean Air Act, Mr. President. The manager of the bill was Ed Muskie. The Clean Air Act; Ed Muskie. The first bill of that sort that came to the floor. I was a brand new Senator. I was on the committee. Very interesting. I spent a great deal of time on the Senate floor just listening and watching. That bill was on the floor of the Senate 5 weeks--5 weeks not 5 days--with 168 amendments considered and 162 acted upon. Of those, 60 were Democratic.

Now, imagine this bill before us, which is far more important in terms of the ramifications to the American economy, to the costs that will be added to energy, to the trial run that we are taking upon ourselves to try to curtail carbon, which we don't even know will work, yet it will put into the marketplace trillions of new dollars that are allocations. There are certificates, not issued by the Treasury of the United States but, rather, issued under the mandate of this program. All of the language in this bill as to who gets those allocations, as though we walked around and walked the streets and tried to see who might need them and

who might support the bill and provide these allocations, that deserves as much time as the Senate wants to spend offering amendments. It is probably the biggest, most complicated bill we have had, certainly in the 36 years that I have been a Senator.

Secondly, we tried an energy bill. We finally passed it after the third try, but we didn't try to fill the tree. That is language for saying we are making it so that it can't be amended, so that it will move rapidly because all avenues for amendment are filled, and thus the tree is filled. That is where the language comes from. The leader has the authority to do it, or whoever can be recognized ahead of him, if they want to do that.

I will cite another example. We finally passed a very good comprehensive energy act 3 years ago. That bill was on the floor of the Senate for 3 weeks--3 weeks not 3 days. This bill that we are talking about has been on the Senate floor only 3 days, 4 days, and already we are considering closing off debate. I have been here 35 years, and I have never seen anything like this--thinking of filling the tree on a bill of this magnitude, this complexity, and, I might say, with the certainty of having mistakes. It is just as certain as we are standing here and you are sitting there presiding that this bill has to have many errors in it, many things we will regret passing if we don't amend it, talk about it, and analyze it.

Having said that, and having examples of precedent here, when we behave like a Senate, where we were not unwilling to take 100 amendments on a bill when you considered that, and you didn't say: Oh, the Senate is closing its doors, we are dead, we used to say: We are live. We are going to get it done. Senator Muskie made his name on that one bill because it was here 5 weeks. Nobody ever questioned his capacity, after that, to handle legislation. I use that as an example when I tell people how do you become a Senator. You have an opportunity to come to the floor to manage something for anywhere from 3 days to 3 or 4 weeks. I had that chance three times on budgets. Before anybody ever knew me, I had the opportunity to come down here and do that. People found out I could manage a bill. That is part of the Senate. That happened to Senator Muskie--5 solid weeks and 100 amendments to get a Clean Air Act through here.

This bill is bigger, more important, more comprehensive, and maybe more difficult for the American economy and American people than the Clean Air Act. It needs time, not tree building, not trunk building, not closing off opportunities to amend.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want time.

I object.

Let me say, I am going to ask the Senator from Tennessee to yield to me a minute of his time to answer a question, or ask a question on his time.

Parliamentary inquiry: How did his time expire?

This conversation is automatically charged to him?

Mr. President, I want to say to everyone in the Senate, in all honesty, they ought to have a chance to hear the Senator from Tennessee. If they haven't, they ought to read what he said because there is no question that I, as a rather informed Senator, had no idea what this bill does until I listened to him and then looked at it.

It is absolutely incredible that we are thinking of a bill such as this to solve climate change when, as a matter of fact, it is going to be the biggest redistribution of wealth we have ever adopted in this Senate, and we are not even sure it will accomplish anything very significant toward the reduction of carbon dioxide as an impediment to climate change.

I cannot understand why we would be doing this. One little piece is a commission of five men who will distribute allocations pursuant to this legislation, totally at their discretion, a trillion dollars or more. Who on God's Earth would think that is in this bill?

But it is. I commend him. I hope he comes here two or three times and explains again in more detail what this bill does.

I am not against legislation for climate change, but I am convinced that we better do something for the American people on bridging crude oil use, crude oil development, putting some of the things we need in place for energy before we put this legislation in place. I think the American people will soon understand that.

Madam President, has time been yielded to the Senator from New Mexico?

Let me comment on your observation. First, I thank you for indicating that I had something to do with the rise of nuclear power, which we are all glad to call a nuclear renaissance. I did have a lot to do with it, and I am very proud of that.

I think the Senator knows I will not be here very long because I have decided to retire after 36 years, and that means this January. But I am very confident that even leaving in that short time from now we have set the seeds for the nuclear renaissance. It will be in the world, not just in America. But it would always have been short of what it could be and should be if America was not part of this renaissance. If America wasn't a part, the world somehow would not feel right about nuclear. And since we started it, and then we unpropitiously stopped producing it and stopped all the leadership we had, we are starting anew. So there is great excitement in the American nuclear community, which is expanding dramatically.

Universities are establishing new nuclear physics courses. I think the Senator from Oklahoma knows that. We have put money in the energy and water bill, $10 million to $15 million a year, for universities to get started and bring them up where they were, and that is going to be very exciting. But have no doubt, since the United States knows how to produce the very best nuclear powerplants--the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is of the highest quality--they are not going to approve licenses unless they are absolutely certain of plant designs and that locations are absolutely the best. And that is going to take a little while.

We had, I think 33 or 34 is the number that are in the process of applying, with about 7 or 8 firmed up, completed, and all the process they need to submit being done. That is so exciting when you consider that in 20-plus years we had zero, not a single one, until we passed the Energy Policy Act. And the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma was not on the Energy Committee, but he was very helpful at every step as we produced this Energy Policy Act, which included, as everyone agrees, all of the ingredients to cause American nuclear power to have a renaissance, and it is doing that.

Now, there is no way we are going to effectively clean the CO2 we produce in the use of power without nuclear power. It is the one big source of power that has no CO2 emissions attached to it, so it is good we are moving there. But today we have a bill before us that has to be discussed, debated, and amended, as I see it, for such a long period of time for the American people and the Senators to understand its implications, that today I choose to just speak about one little part--the impact of this bill on oil and gas prices.

This is a bill that purports to put America on a path of producing less and less CO2, but it has some real difficult hurdles to cross as we move there. In the meantime, there is no question that it has an impact on a lot of things, and we have to consider whether it is worth all the ramifications, considering what the bill will or will not do.

So, Madam President, let me remind Senators that we are all coming back from our home States. I am returning from my home State of New Mexico, where I visited constituents and listened to their concerns. In every town I visited, at every event I attended, and during every meeting, I took the same issue and put it before the people and discussed it with them. They asked the same questions over and over: How will Congress deal with the rising gas prices? I expect that most every Senator had similar experiences during his or her recent recess travels.

This morning, the price of gasoline was, on average, a record of $3.98. Now, I used an average, and I got that from an appropriate official. In many places it has already passed the $4 mark, but it averages $3.98. At the start of this Congress, the average was just $2.33, meaning the cost of gasoline has jumped by 70 percent in just 18 months.

Record gas prices are causing tremendous pain for Americans. In one recent survey, 40 percent of workers said the high price forced them to change the way they get to and from work. Many have stopped driving altogether. Public transit ridership is at an all-time high. Others have traded their vehicles in for smaller ones. But most importantly, many are feeling the impact on the family budget. They are just feeling like they can't make it because they only have one way to go to work. They have to work, and if there are two workers in the family, when you add the price of gasoline to that, it becomes an expense they can hardly bear.

The impact is not limited to transportation. It affects nearly every aspect of American life and ripples throughout our economy. As fuel costs rise, as I indicated, family budgets are stretched. Millions have canceled vacation plans and cut down on shopping trips. For those living paycheck to paycheck, the price at the pump is the difference between being able to pay their bills on time and going into debt. Runaway energy costs also hurt our businesses, as evidenced by recent announcements from Ford Motors and American Airlines.

High gas prices even impact the quality of education that our children receive. A school district in Minnesota has already announced that schools will move to 4 days a week to avoid budget shortfalls. Schools in North Carolina are planning fewer field trips for their students, which are often among the most memorable experiences that our children can have.

As these examples illustrate, the consequences of high energy prices are widely felt, far-reaching, and difficult to overcome. We must take real steps to ensure that these are properly addressed and that we are not telling these same types of stories in the future.

After hearing our constituents plead for relief from high gas prices, it was my hope that Senators would rededicate themselves to reducing the cost of oil and gas. Instead, by bringing up a bill to establish a cap-and-trade regime, which we will hear much about in the ensuing days, the majority has chosen to go in the opposite direction from reducing gas prices or holding them steady for our constituents.

As the summer driving season begins, and oil prices remain at near all-time record highs, it is simply incredible that the first measure debated in this session will not be a bill to lower energy prices by producing more of our own energy but a bill that will, in fact, substantially increase energy costs.

By assigning a cost to the carbon content of traditional fuels, there is no question this bill will increase the cost of gasoline. According to EIA, gas prices could rise by 41 percent in the year 2030. The EPA places this figure as high as a $1.01 per gallon by the year 2030.

Every policy has a price, but as we continue to face record energy prices, the costs of this bill are simply unacceptable, no matter which version is up for debate. An economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas recently told the New York Times that:

Every one-cent increase in gasoline means Americans pay

$1.42 billion more a year for gas.

An absolutely incredible number. You wonder why the economy is being affected by these enormous price increases of gasoline and diesel fuel. At a time when they can least afford it, this will translate to even greater pain at the pump for consumers. At a time when the strength of our economy is already a serious concern, it will lower the bottom line of American business and jeopardize their global competitiveness.

When recesses end and we make our way back to Washington, it is our obligation to do our best to resolve the

concerns of our constituents. Right now we should be working to find a way to reduce energy prices. Instead, as we begin to debate a cap-and- trade regime which may not work, it is clear there is a fundamental disconnect between many in this Chamber and the American people who simply cannot afford to pay more for energy. As the Boxer bill proves, there is much Congress can do to raise these prices and we are setting about to do that.

I commend my colleagues for trying to tackle the task of reducing carbon emissions to address global climate change. However, the American people are facing higher costs and tough economic concerns. They are worried about their family budgets and about their jobs. This bill will make these worries greater and increase those costs even more.

I will be speaking at great length as we consider this bill in the coming days and I will speak of many other issues besides the one today, for there are many more. I speak of only one today which I think we should start with, and know what we are dealing with in terms of the side effects of legislation that is controversial. It is not only controversial but many are quite certain it will not do the job.

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

Mr. President, I do not wish to use much of the Senate's time--just a few moments--but I came to the floor to say some words to my good friend, Senator Kennedy, and his family.

We heard the early news, and then we heard the late news, in which you have been described as being a little bit more ill than we thought. I wish to say to you and your family, as a fellow Senator from the other side of the aisle: I wish for you the best and hope the Good Lord intends for you to get well so you can come back and accomplish some more things and so you and I can have some more arguments and so you and I can have red faces when you argue and I argue and my wife calls up and says: You both are arguing so much that your faces are so red nobody will listen to you.

That happened once, and I did communicate to Senator Kennedy that my wife had told me I was getting too red in the face because I was yelling. I asked her: What about Senator Kennedy? And she said: Well, that is not your business, but he is yelling too much too. So I told him that, and he had a big laugh.

I wish to say to him that this great big bill we are working on-- parity for the mentally ill by the insurance companies of America; about a 6-year project of his and mine--the House sent us back the bill today, Senator Kennedy, believe it or not. After all these days we have been wishing we could get something, they sent us that bill today. They did not send us exactly our bill, so who knows how much longer we will have to work at it. But this one, big bipartisan bill you started helping me with when I was in the majority, we have not got it there yet, but we will. It has been a pleasure working with you on that and many other things.

But most of all, I came to the floor knowing it is not easy to get a hold of you, and I do not intend to try to bother anybody, but at least in the Senate, we are free to speak, so I am speaking how I feel: that I hope you get well, and I hope the Dear Lord blesses you and your wonderful wife, whom I have known, not as well as I know you, but what a nice lady she is. On behalf of Nancy and myself, we say to her, we hope everything goes the very best it can. You are in the best of care--and that is what you should have--and we hope you get well.

Thank you. I thank the Senate for the few moments yielded to me.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, every morning thousands of Americans wake up to a bowl of Wheaties, the vast majority of whom have never asked where their Wheaties come from. I submit to you that the farm bill is the primary factor responsible for providing America with safe, healthy, and affordable food and fiber, including Wheaties. What we are debating today is of paramount importance to each and every American.

If you look at the title of this bill, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, you will not see the word agriculture. This begs the question, What does this bill really mean to agriculture and the American farmer and rancher?

By way of example, I have been contacted by the Dairy Producers of New Mexico which told me that the farm bill does not, on the whole, help rural New Mexico. Rather its policies have short-term and long- term implications that can harm my State. The primary source of economic activity in rural New Mexico today is dairy farming. There are approximately 172 dairy farms with approximately 4,221 direct employees and 17,150 indirect employees. These local operations contribute $1.02 billion direct dollars to the economy and $2.6 billion indirect dollars to the economy. The farm bill undermines the economic stability that the dairy industry plays a large role in creating.

The dairy title subsidizes dairy farmers who compete with New Mexico dairymen. Under the farm bill, the ``MILC'' program not only funds milk produced in other regions of the country, at rates higher than New Mexico, it increases those payments. The new bill ensures that the amount of those payments will rise when feed prices go up. This is despite the fact that virtually all of the grain used by producers outside New Mexico is raised by them and they are insulated from much of that price inflation. New Mexico's farmers purchase their feed but receive only partial payments. In short, the Dairy Price Support Program provides no support at all.

I applaud the efforts that were made in this bill to address nutrition concerns, provide for broader flexibility for specialty crop growers, and assist rural communities. However, it does not appear to me that enough progress has been made toward conservation programs and other reform initiatives. Moreover, while the bill does continue the peanut handling benefits it does not continue the peanut storage provisions contained in the 2002 farm bill. This alone will cost New Mexico peanut growers up to an additional $50 to $60 per ton, which represents at least $74 million to peanut producers in my State. I am not convinced that this is the best we can do for the people who feed our Nation and I am left wondering if this farm bill is already out of date before it is even law.

The Congressional Budget Office tells us that this bill will cost $307 billion over the next 5 years and almost double that figure over 10 years, which is cause for concern in and of itself.

Ultimately, I am unwilling to support a measure that is counterproductive to the most important agriculture component in New Mexico, our dairy industry. Instead of enacting policies that will encourage stability and continued growth of dairies in States like New Mexico, the conference report before us today says our farm policy should be to erect unreasonable hurdles and obstacles for many dairies. I intend to vote against this bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, just a minute. Do you have time on each one of them?

I understand.

I did not hear the ``5 minutes each.'' I am sorry. I have no objection.

Mr. President, following mine, we would like Senators Hutchison, Enzi, Vitter, and Cornyn to be recognized for 5 minutes each, and 5 minutes for wrap-up for the Senator from New Mexico, with 10 minutes right now for the Senator from New Mexico, and alternating back and forth.

Mr. President, I just have so much to talk about. I wanted to follow my text I had prepared, but having heard the Democratic Senator discuss this issue, I have to tell the American people, one, their energy policy, if they are talking about today, is a policy that has to do with the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The leader of that policy is the distinguished Senator Dorgan. He has led that cause, and he is going to win. But literally that cannot be an energy policy. It is 70,000 barrels a day that we are not going to buy and put in the reserve--70,000--and that is for the rest of this year.

Now, we use 21 million barrels of oil a day. So let's face up to it. If you do not think 1 million barrels a day from the Alaskan arctic wilderness--which would be American, and we could get that coming to America for maybe 50 years--if that is not better than 70,000 barrels for 7 or 8 months to not put in the Reserve but leave in the world market--I will leave that to anybody who is listening.

Price gouging is in their portfolio again. They talk about it. Last year, we gave authority to the Federal Trade Commission. They have not yet found any gouging. We hope they do.

Now, I would like to go on and talk about what we are trying to do.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 4737. It is now known as the Reid amendment, but it is actually Senator Dorgan's amendment.

Mr. President, earlier this year, I gave a detailed speech on the Senate floor about the perils of our Nation's growing dependence on foreign oil. At that time, I noted the Nation was ignoring policies that would increase our energy supply while the stranglehold of foreign oil was tightening. I spoke bluntly and warned of dark days ahead for our Nation's economy and foreign policy if we continued to send our money abroad to buy oil from unstable and hostile regions around the globe.

I stated that at the current price of oil, we are at a pace to send nearly a half trillion dollars overseas annually to purchase oil--a half trillion. When the driving season ends, and the price at the pump subsides a bit, naturally the volume of constituent letters and phone calls will decrease a bit. When the cameras fade and the focus of the day begins to turn elsewhere, we should stop and reflect on the debate we are having today.

Make no mistake, a growing and gathering storm is swirling around this Nation. It is threatening our economic strength, our national security, and our place in the world. That storm comes in the form of dependence upon foreign oil.

Last year, Congress passed a strong energy bill, built on advancing cellulosic ethanol and strengthening our fuel efficiency standards. We made great steps in setting up policies that will reduce our gasoline consumption. However, I said at the time, and say again today, last year's legislation had a glaring weakness, which is highlighted today. Last year's bill failed to include measures for domestic energy production.

When we tried to open the Virginia Outer Continental Shelf to natural gas leasing, the other side blocked that. When we tried to improve our Nation's refining capacity, the other side blocked that. And when we tried to advance domestic coal-derived fuels--a very major way for America to diminish its dependence on foreign oil--the other side blocked that. On conservation and efficiency and the pursuit of clean energy, this Chamber is in wide bipartisan agreement. But on producing more American oil and gas to reduce the price of gasoline at the pump, it will become clear from today's debate and vote that the vast majority on the other side opposes action.

When today's vote is over, regardless of the outcome, I will continue to return to the Senate floor and speak on this important issue of our growing dependence on foreign oil. I will continue to speak out against policies that increase the cost of energy, when the American people so clearly want us to provide relief from high gas prices.

I have listened intently to the increased debate over the past few weeks about our energy challenges. I have heard some on the other side plead with OPEC nations to increase production by one-quarter of the amount we provide for in America with this amendment--one-quarter the amount. I have heard ANWR opponents from a decade ago repeat their claim from a decade ago that ANWR oil will take a decade to produce. I never heard this argument when we were supporting increasing vehicle fuel economy standards that we know will take a decade to come to fruition. We passed a bill that everybody takes credit for. It will take 10 years for it to have an impact. Yet we praise ourselves for producing it.

Of course, all of this would be assuming the price of oil did not increase over $100 per barrel during the time that ANWR was being blocked. If President Clinton had not vetoed ANWR over 12 years ago, we would have this oil from Alaska on the market today. I have also heard my colleagues argue that 70,000 barrels of oil per day would make a significant difference in the price of oil--that is the SPR bill--while denying access to over 1 million barrels of oil per day from ANWR alone.

It is time to act, and what the other side has offered at this critical moment is talk of energy independence supported by more Government investigations and empty threats to OPEC combined with pleas for more OPEC production. If that were not enough, we are faced with the prospects of a windfall profits tax like the one that passed in April by the Chavez administration in Venezuela. We tried to implement such a tax in the 1980s. It did not work then, and it will not work now. We cannot produce more energy by taxing oil companies or taxing anyone.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the imposition of a windfall profits tax could have ``several adverse economic effects.'' And such a tax could be expected to ``reduce domestic oil production and increase the level of oil imports.'' The architect of this tax during the Carter administration recently called the windfall profits tax ``a terrible idea today.''

Today, we consider real solutions to our national problem. On May 1, I introduced the American Energy Production Act of 2008. Obviously, if we had Democratic support and help we could make it even better, but we had to do this with Republicans, to lay before the American people a fact: that there are ways to produce more American oil and natural gas without doing any real harm to the American environment. I am pleased to have 21 cosponsors on that bill, and I am pleased Senator McConnell has offered this legislation as an amendment to the bill currently before us. Unfortunately, the other side has not allowed us to consider this proposal to address record-high gas prices.

Speaking of filibusters, on our bill they have insisted there be 60 votes. That is the equivalent of a filibuster. So you can chalk one up for us. They are filibustering the only Energy bill we have seen in a while that would produce energy for America.

I support the bipartisan amendment on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and I have already indicated to you that I do, and it needs no further explanation. I am confident, if enacted, the American Energy Production Act--the one we are talking about--will strengthen our Nation's security for decades to come. In this legislation, we open 2,000 of the 19 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And I defy anyone with common sense to seriously contend that 2,000 acres out of 2 million will harm that wilderness. It can be done with a small footprint, and everyone knows it. We have just chosen sides, regardless of the real facts. Therefore, I assume the Democrats will defeat it again.

Taken together, these policies enable the production of 24 billion barrels of American oil, which would increase our domestic production by nearly 40 percent over the next three decades. Opening ANWR alone would create thousands of American jobs, provide $3 billion in revenues in the next 10 years to the Federal Treasury, and bring on line over 1 million barrels of oil per day. This amendment also spurs the commercialization of coal-derived fuels and oil shale resources. Advancement of these policies will be spoken of in more detail by other Senators but, clearly, they are things to look at. The American people ought to know about them. They are sources--huge sources--of energy that can be made in America by Americans for America. With emerging economies around the world increasing their thirst for oil, we face a new energy challenge in America.

The world demand for oil continues to grow. America's production of oil has fallen to its lowest levels in 60 years. That is because we haven't done anything new or significant to add to what we have produced for years. If we do not start producing more of our own energy resources, we will continue to rely on unstable foreign oil and continue to pay a high price. That is what is at stake with today's vote. We probably will not win, but we feel very comfortable giving the other side an opportunity to vote no again for the production of oil and gas that is American, by Americans, for America.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I say to my friend, Senator Dorgan, I have changed my mind about the SPR bill. I think he knows that. People wonder about changing your mind. A lot of people change their mind. I changed mine because of the real price of oil and because I do believe we are not going to harm our strategic reserve by

this one event. I wish to make the record clear. America needs the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We must have it, and we should not grow accustomed to thinking the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is going to solve our energy supply problem. Senator Dorgan has never said that. But it would not. I will answer some of the remaining questions when I wrap up.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as I understand it, the other side is going to have only one speaker to use their

time. I am trying to find the Senator from Texas. He wanted to speak. Let me take a couple of minutes. If he gets here, I will yield the floor as soon as he arrives.

Mr. President, first, I wish to say that my good friend, my fellow Senator from New Mexico spoke about speculation in this oil market. There may be some. We heard testimony there may be. So everybody knows, there is nothing before the Senate that the Democrats propose regarding speculation. They just have a one-shot bill, and it is pretty good, but it is not an energy policy. Probably most of us are going to vote for it. That is what Senator Dorgan proposed.

As I indicated, I changed my mind. If people are wondering about that, I was reading about economic history, and I read where John Maynard Keynes, the great economist, was asked: Why did you change your mind? He said: When the facts change, I change my mind. That is what happened here with reference to SPR. The facts changed, and I changed my mind.

The good Senator from New Mexico, my colleague, also said we have a big problem with the weakening of the dollar. I hope he doesn't intend to imply by that, when we find we can strengthen the dollar, then we will solve the energy problem. I don't know that we know how to do that one any quicker than we do the energy crisis. I don't think that would accomplish anything.

We have a lot going on in the gulf, so we said let's let those continue. That is what the Domenici bill says. But we say the rest of the offshore around America--and incidentally, there is probably more than any of us know in offshore America. We probably would send such a big signal to the world if we decided to move on that. That alone would have a positive impact.

In addition, the bill before the Senate does a lot in a number of areas that have not been talked about very much. It would cause the world to take another look and to say: America is serious, they are really going to do something about their energy problems.

Mr. President, I now yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Texas.

Do we not have 1 minute left on each side? The amendment is not in order while time remains.

That means 1 minute each?

On behalf of the amendment, I wish to say whoever is interested in what is going on today should know that Democrats speak of doing other things to bring the price down, but the only thing we are really doing is the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota on SPR. We all agree with that.

That is a temporary 7-month deferral of purchases. Clearly, if it does anything, it will be extremely temporary. All of the other things that are spoken about, none of them are in this bill, whether it has to do with fraud, speculation, or whatever.

On our side we have at least said: Let's start coal to liquid, a great American resource. Let's start offshore around America. Let's start on ANWR. Let's start moving on oil shale. Let's accelerate battery research, which will move us toward automobiles that can plug in, which will be a big American boon.

So there are lots of pluses. There is a lot of rhetoric. And there is one amendment that the Democrats offer that we agree upon. I believe those people interested in production should vote for the Domenici amendment and tell the American people the truth: We can produce in America and put pressure on the world markets and reduce the price of oil.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want the Republicans to know I have changed my mind over the past 3 or 4 weeks, and it is simply because the price of oil is now up to $125 a barrel--perhaps in real dollars $110. I think for 7 months to stop filling SPR could have a chance of reducing the price by a small amount.

Make no bones about it now, this is no big energy policy. This is one little thing we can do, and I think we ought to go ahead and do it. I know there are some who take the fact that we need a big reserve very seriously, and they think we ought to continue to fill it even more than we are, and I respect those views. But with reference to this amendment, by Senator Dorgan, I think we ought to support it and at least do one positive thing. It was in our bill, incidentally, as one of a number of positive things we would do, including Alaska, which is complained so much about. It would produce a million barrels permanently, more or less. This is 70,000 barrels one time--so we understand.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I object.

Mr. President, I did object, and I object now.

Mr. President, I wish today to commemorate the hard work and sacrifices made daily by law enforcement officers all across our great land. Many officers have lost their lives in the line of duty so that our families and communities may remain safe. We must never forget those who have given their lives to protect us all.

In 1962 President John F. Kennedy first declared the annual celebration of Peace Officers Memorial Day and National Police Week in ``recognition of the service given by the men and women who, night and day, stand guard in our midst to protect us through enforcement of our laws.''

Since then, many men and women have paid the ultimate price for our security, including many brave New Mexicans. This year, two New Mexico police officers will be honored and remembered by having their names added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington,

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to continue the restoration and preservation of the unique cultural resources along the famous Route 66. Passage of the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Reauthorization Act would carry on the wonderful work of the Park Service's Route 66 program over the past decade. As in the past, I am joined in this effort by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman.

In 1990, I introduced the Route 66 Study Act, which directed the National Park Service to determine the best ways to preserve, commemorate and interpret Route 66. As a result of that study, I later introduced legislation authorizing the National Park Service to join with Federal, State and private efforts to preserve various aspects of historic Route 66, the Nation's most important thoroughfare for east- west migration during the 20th century.

The Route 66 program is a collective effort by private property owners; non-profit organizations; and local, State, Federal, and tribal governments to identify and address preservation needs along the historic route. The program offers grants for the restoration of significant properties dating all the way back to the mid 1920s.

The bill authorizes funding over 10 years and supports grassroots efforts to preserve aspects of this historic highway. Designated in 1926, the 2,200-mile stretch from Chicago to Santa Monica, California, the Mother Road, as it was called, rolled through eight American states, and in New Mexico, it passed through the communities of Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Albuquerque, Grants and Gallup. New Mexico added to the aura of Route 66, giving new generations of Americans their first experience of our colorful culture and rich heritage. Route 66 allowed travelers to see firsthand previously remote areas and experience the traditions and natural beauty of the Southwest and West.

The bill authorizes the National Park Service to support State, local and private efforts to preserve the Route 66 corridor by providing technical assistance, participating in cost-sharing programs, and making grants. Since 1990, the Park Service has acted as a clearinghouse for communication among Federal, State, local, private and American Indian entities interested in the preservation of America's Main Street. Congresswoman Heather Wilson of Albuquerque, New Mexico, has introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives, and I hope Congress will act promptly in passing this important legislation.

I thank my colleagues for considering the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Reauthorization Act.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to continue the restoration and preservation of the unique cultural resources along the famous Route 66. Passage of the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Reauthorization Act would carry on the wonderful work of the Park Service's Route 66 program over the past decade. As in the past, I am joined in this effort by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman.

In 1990, I introduced the Route 66 Study Act, which directed the National Park Service to determine the best ways to preserve, commemorate and interpret Route 66. As a result of that study, I later introduced legislation authorizing the National Park Service to join with Federal, State and private efforts to preserve various aspects of historic Route 66, the Nation's most important thoroughfare for east- west migration during the 20th century.

The Route 66 program is a collective effort by private property owners; non-profit organizations; and local, State, Federal, and tribal governments to identify and address preservation needs along the historic route. The program offers grants for the restoration of significant properties dating all the way back to the mid 1920s.

The bill authorizes funding over 10 years and supports grassroots efforts to preserve aspects of this historic highway. Designated in 1926, the 2,200-mile stretch from Chicago to Santa Monica, California, the Mother Road, as it was called, rolled through eight American states, and in New Mexico, it passed through the communities of Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Albuquerque, Grants and Gallup. New Mexico added to the aura of Route 66, giving new generations of Americans their first experience of our colorful culture and rich heritage. Route 66 allowed travelers to see firsthand previously remote areas and experience the traditions and natural beauty of the Southwest and West.

The bill authorizes the National Park Service to support State, local and private efforts to preserve the Route 66 corridor by providing technical assistance, participating in cost-sharing programs, and making grants. Since 1990, the Park Service has acted as a clearinghouse for communication among Federal, State, local, private and American Indian entities interested in the preservation of America's Main Street. Congresswoman Heather Wilson of Albuquerque, New Mexico, has introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives, and I hope Congress will act promptly in passing this important legislation.

I thank my colleagues for considering the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Reauthorization Act.

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

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: What is the business before the Senate?

Mr. President, that is because we had unanimous consent to set aside the Domenici amendment, or the Allard amendment?

Mr. President, I am going to speak on the underlying Domenici amendment for about 15 minutes, and then time will be arranged for that between the leaders for later in the day, so we will not have to have any further interruptions, as I understand it. I do not seek to interrupt your bill. I say to Senator Dodd, there will not be any further interruptions until some agreement is reached, perhaps between the leadership.

Sure.

Mr. President, 3:30 would be early enough. You would be making good time at 3:30 and let me have a little time. This is a big amendment and we have to have some understanding of it before you get your bill finished. You are going to have a vote on it--I won't use more than 15 minutes at this point--on a very big proposition on behalf of almost all of the Republicans. I don't know about your bill in detail, but I think you are doing a terrific job.

If you get that agreed to, can I have consent to be recognized after those votes for 15 minutes?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if votes are called for on the three amendments alluded to by Senator Dodd, the Senator from New Mexico would be recognized after those votes for 15 minutes to speak on the energy amendment which is attached to this bill.

If we don't get agreement on that, then I ask that I be recognized at 3:30 for my 15 minutes.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What are we on now?

We have been setting aside the pending amendments?

I plan to speak for about 15 or 20 minutes here, for those who might be interested.

I rise not to talk about the work that has been done by the committee on

flood insurance, although it is obvious that is important, and they have done a great job and we ought to be finding our way through that thicket before too long. But attached to that bill, for the purpose of making an issue and seeing to it that we give everybody in this body an opportunity to vote for the production of more American energy for the American people, for the automobiles that drive on our streets, the trucks that drive on our streets, the airplanes, both domestic and military, that fly, and all other sources of energy, we are going to have a chance to vote on whether we want to produce more energy which we now import, either crude oil or crude oil products or substitute products that can be produced in the United States. Do we want to do that?

The Democrats today had a press conference after we have been talking about this bill that we call the American Energy Production Act, and they are talking about what they might want to do. I regret I cannot talk in detail about what they propose, but I will say I will be very surprised if the sum total of their suggestions produces one new barrel of oil or one cubic foot of natural gas, one cubic foot of American- produced natural gas, because it seems to me they are too busy trying to find out what they can do to the oil companies of the United States and windfall profits and those kinds of things.

But we are going to give everyone this opportunity, an opportunity to take a look at some very simple propositions that could yield large quantities of crude oil, natural gas, derivatives of coal that can be used in trucks, diesel fuel in airplanes, for military and the domestic airplanes.

I want to suggest the following: Last week I introduced a bill which would fundamentally change America's reliance upon foreign oil in a shorter time period than I have seen of any proposal thus far.

The American Energy Production Act is cosponsored by 19 of my colleagues and would produce a minimum of 24 billion barrels of American oil. Americans, in my opinion, are sick and tired of such high prices for gasoline, and unless we take action, the situation is going to only get worse. One can talk all one wants about why it is, but the biggest reason the price is going up and continues up--and we do not even know where it will stop--is because the demand for crude oil in the world is getting bigger than the production of crude oil in the world. So supply and demand is principally the reason for the increasing cost of crude oil.

There may be other things we have to do, but essentially the only way to alter that rising price and cause it to come down and, thus, give the American people some relief is to produce more crude oil and derivatives of coal and otherwise that we can use to take the place of crude oil products. So if the American people are sick and tired of paying high prices and want to know what can be done, we are telling them we think it is time we face up to the fact that we can produce much more in America. But for some reason, we have decided to vote no on some very imposing and powerful supply sources. It is time we take another look at those, especially with crude oil at $120 a barrel and rising.

What we have done is looked around at what we have refused to do in the past, new things we could do that would accomplish what I have suggested. Congress has made a great deal of progress already in promoting conservation and developing renewable energy technology such as wind and solar. I am for doing more of those, if we can and when we are ready. I stand ready to work on those. I have been leading the charge on those fronts as either chairman of the Energy Committee or ranking member. I believe we should develop all our energy sources as soon as we can.

The bottom line is that America is not going to stop using oil in the near term, so we need to take action to make sure the oil we do use is produced domestically, all of it we can, rather than coming from unstable regions. Congress has not done such a good job in this area. In fact, almost every time we have tried to boost domestic production, Democrats--mostly Democrats--have blocked our efforts. But with oil now at $122 a barrel and rising, I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to rethink their position. Times have changed. Now America's response needs to change as well.

The American Energy Production Act, which is an amendment on this bill, which I indicated we will vote on one way or another before this bill is finished, is an excellent place to start. The bill allows for States on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to petition the Federal Government to opt out of a broad moratorium that for two decades has locked up America's assets and forced us to turn to unstable foreign nations to power our lives.

Together, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans contain oil reserves of up to 14 billion barrels, and that is a minimum. We know it is a minimum, and we have not been allowed to spend the money to do an in-depth evaluation which I believe would show much more. The reserves of natural gas are thought to be 55 trillion cubic feet. These regions contain substantially more oil and gas than the areas we opened in 2006 in the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. The area that is left, that we had this moratorium on for more than 20 years, is much bigger than the area we opened as part of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, much bigger, much larger space, and much more in reserves.

This legislation also opens 2,000 of the 19 million acres of the Arctic Plain of ANWR for oil and gas leasing.

Over the past week, I have heard Members from the other side of the aisle say that ANWR won't help because it will take 8 to 10 years to bring it on line. That is the same thing they have been saying for two decades. Had we acted when we had a chance, we would have 1 million barrels of oil a day available to us, oil that we are now forced to buy overseas.

I heard a Member of the Senate from the other side of the aisle, the Senator from New York--the Senator from New York who is not running for President--say that if we could get the OPEC cartel to just add 500,000 barrels of production, it would have a big impact on bringing down the price of oil. If that is the case, if we had a million barrels of oil a day coming from ANWR, that surely would do as much or more. It would bring down the price just as well, if not more than the Senator was speaking of from oil the cartel would produce. That is because it is a supply-demand situation he is talking about. ANWR would yield more than the 500,000 barrels to which he alluded.

Additionally, even after revenue sharing, ANWR oil could bring over $2 billion to our Federal Treasury annually. It is past time that we started producing our own oil and generating revenues for our own Government instead of buying foreign oil and sending billions of dollars to unstable, unfriendly regimes.

The Republican bill I have talked about also makes it easier to build refineries. We haven't built a new refinery for 30 years, and our Nation cannot afford to go 30 more years without doing so. We provide some incentives and some very natural ways to cause that to happen.

While I have resisted calls to suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the past, I have indicated to the chairman of the subcommittee on which I serve, the Energy and Water Committee, I have told the Senator who is promoting discontinuing filling of the SPR for 6 months to a year, providing 70,000 additional barrels of light sweet crude a day to the marketplace, that I would support him on that at this time because the price of oil is so high that it is worth doing. That is in this bill. By its very nature, this 70,000 barrels from SPR is just a fraction of the oil that would be gained through the OCS production and ANWR production, but in today's environment every small amount helps.

In the area of alternative resources, this bill requires studies on ethanol to help ensure that smart decisions are made as we move toward cellulosic and other advanced biofuels. This bill also provides incentives for the advancement of breakthrough energy technologies such as battery-powered vehicles. That is necessary and something we could do. It is ready and right.

It is also important to mention that this bill will promote the use of coal-to-liquids technologies, as long as it results in no more greenhouse gases than the fuels we are already using. Bringing 6 billion gallons of this fuel to market, if we started immediately working

on it, could be done quickly. They are already doing it in South Africa. It would reduce our projected imports by 4 percent by the year 2022. The coal-to-liquids mandate is just one-sixth the size of the ethanol mandate placed into law last year. To push the coal-to-liquids technology, we must send a signal to the marketplace that America is serious about using some of its abundant, reliable American energy resource--coal.

In addition, this bill repeals the moratorium on oil shale regulations that was put into an omnibus appropriations bill in the dark of night, when those of us who had been involved were not around and could not object. The shale beneath our Western States amounts to three times the conventional oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. We need to accelerate this project's resources and repeal the $4,000 fee for drilling permits which hit America's smallest family-owned oil and gas companies the hardest. This, too, was done in an appropriations rider. It is time to take it off, while we talk about producing more rather than less. We don't need more taxes and fees on American producers if we want to produce more.

It is my sincere hope that we can act soon on this measure. I have not talked about every provision, but they all are directed at producing more energy rather than directed at more attacks against energy companies and those things included in today's proposal by the Democratic leadership.

The United States needs to send a message to the marketplace, to OPEC, and to consumers that we will no longer continue to let billions of barrels of oil sit underground within our own domain while the price at the pump goes up and up. We must end the cycle of dependence and the flow of money overseas for foreign oil. We must do it as quickly as possible. If we can do it now, we should do it now.

I thank the Republican leader for bringing up this important issue. I urge my colleagues to think about it and ultimately to support it. What a message it would send.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, will he answer a question?

I ask the Senator, do you know what the price of a barrel of oil was when we sent the ANWR bill to the President of the United States, which was vetoed? Do you know how much it was per barrel?

Nineteen dollars a barrel.

So for those who do not think it is worth another try-- that is, to have a vote and seriously consider ANWR--just think of the difference in economic impact on the United States of tying up that resource when we did it compared to now.

Also, we were estimating only 1 million barrels of oil as the production per day. We have not upped that, brought that current for $120-a-barrel oil. It might very well be that it is more than a million barrels a day just based upon price because it would justify far more investment in that little 2,000-acre footprint. Clearly, with such an increase in price, you probably will get more.

But I think some of the American people may have favored holding that 2,000 acres hostage and saying you cannot use it--they might have said, well, that is all right when it is $19 a barrel--but when we are suffering with $120-a-barrel oil, it may be a very close call even for those who have exaggerated in their dilemma and fear about ANWR. To say we can afford $19-a-barrel oil--lock it up--but should we lock it up for $120 a barrel is a very good question.

Right.

So a million barrels a day becomes a different thing. A million barrels a day was $19 million. But now a million barrels is 120 times that. That is what you are losing to foreign countries.

You have alluded to the fact that maybe the American economy is suffering irreparable harm. You said it a different way than I. But I happen to believe--and have spoken to it two or three times on the floor--I think we are experiencing irreparable damage to the American economy because of the enormous price of crude oil and our inability to find a way to get along without it. We are just depleting our vitality, and we do not know quite how to figure it out. We do not know why the economy is having trouble. There are just all kinds of things we do not know. But I have an answer for most of them: It is too many dollars going overseas to get crude oil. That is an enormous drain on this economy, as strong as it is. That, plus the big debt we have accrued is hanging out there to be bought by the Chinese and others. You add them up, and it is frightening. If we can do something about it, we should. Isn't that why we are here?

I yield floor and thank the Senator.

That is correct.

There is no question. One of the major oil companies has invested a huge amount of money. I think the initial investment allowed was $4 billion to experiment with a project that would in situ, on sight--rather than picking mines, they would boil the oil in the ground and siphon it out. That price was put around $50, $50 to $60 before they would consider it feasible to invest money. We are long past that, for that kind of an experiment. If it works, then the next steps have to be taken. It will be expensive, but $50 a barrel versus $120, there is a lot of room for play.

Yes. And this bill we are talking about here tonight has a provision in it about it. Because in the dead of night, in an appropriations bill in the Department of the Interior, somebody in the House--we think we know who--decided to put a moratorium on the final regulations for shale development, even though in the Energy bill you helped us write, the comprehensive bill, we provided for oil shale leases of the right size to permit activity, permit this research, this experimentation. Well, they put a moratorium on it and that thwarts the company that is putting the investment in it. This bill says no, that has to come off. So I don't know whether we will have a chance to vote on it another way, but maybe since it is one year at a time, we may take it off of appropriations. I don't know.

Well, I choose to take one step back on that and say, there is no question but that South African technology is available to convert clean coal into liquid diesel. Its principal use at that point would be American airplanes, both commercial and military, American military equipment, and that would be a huge amount. This bill limits it to 9 million, the equivalent of 9 million barrels a day is what we would produce. That would be so we could be sure we weren't having a negative impact on the environment. How do we do that? Well, the energy produced by the conversion would not contribute any more than the crude oil we would buy would contribute and we would use it anyway, so we don't think we are harming the environment. But we are not going to go all out and produce the whole amount that coal can produce but, rather, learn how to do it, do it well, and send a signal that the great American ingenuity is ready to do something, and do something big. That is what that one would be, a big one that would frighten those who have us captive, because they would say they are finally going to do something and something that is important.

The same thing would happen if we had a breakthrough on oil shale. There is no question, that would be an enormous signal. Now I am not saying that is as ready as coal to liquid. One is ready rather quickly, the other one would take a little while. But we only put things in that are doable and that are important, and if they are not doable immediately, they are doable in the sense of sending a signal that the country is doing something.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, can the leader explain how he is going to handle the two Energy bills? It seemed he was saying we would be finished with this bill before that. That is not the case, is it? These two amendments will be voted on as part of this bill.

It is going to be freestanding.

As long as there is ample time to discuss it.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Murray, to introduce the National Neurotechnology Initiative Act of 2008. Our bill will coordinate and accelerate federal brain and nervous system research, and will help move that research from the laboratory into the hands of patients.

It is estimated that approximately 100 million Americans--one in three--suffer from some kind of neurological illness, disorder, or injury. These include some of the most debilitating illnesses, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, autism, schizophrenia, and stroke. They include issues with a neurological basis that often goes unnoticed, such as obesity and hearing loss. They also include issues of particular importance to Senator Murray and me: traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other neurological effects suffered by the brave men and women of our armed forces as they execute their missions throughout the world.

The total economic burden of these neurological illnesses, disorders, and injuries is estimated to be more than one trillion dollars every year. These costs include direct medical treatment, long-term care for senior citizens who have been incapacitated by a neurological disease, addiction-related costs, secondary medical costs related to obesity, and so on.

As the baby boom generation ages, the cost associated with these illnesses will increase rapidly, straining our healthcare resources even further than they already are. Now is the time to act to promote the development of diagnostics, treatments, and cures that will restore health and reduce costs.

Our armed forces too often suffer from a traumatic brain injury, which is among the primary types of casualty that disables our service members. Some soldiers also suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder as well. We owe it to these heroic warriors to help them heal as quickly and as completely as possible.

The National Neurotechnology Initiative Act is designed to address four key issues currently slowing the development of neurological treatments, and to rapidly accelerate R&D for only three percent of the annual NIH brain research budget. The first is a lack of coordination between the many agencies that conduct brain research. The bill creates a coordinating office that will help ensure that the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and other agencies know what every other agency is doing, and that they work together toward common goals.

The second issue is insufficient coordination within the National Institutes of Health. Sixteen different Institutes, Centers, and offices within NIH conduct research on the brain and nervous system, and they have begun to work together through a program called the Blueprint for Neuroscience Research. This bill authorizes and fully funds that program.

The third issue is the need to translate basic research into treatments. Advances in neurotechnology are useless if they merely sit in the lab. This bill boosts neuroscience-related technology transfer through the SBIR and STTR programs.

The fourth issue is regulatory approval of new neurotechnology drugs, diagnostics, and devices. Brain-related treatments take much longer and cost much more to approve than other treatments. This bill will increase the timeliness and safety of the neurotechnology review process by allowing the FDA to hire and train neuroscience experts and to work with industry to develop neurotechnology standards.

The bill also supports the analysis of societal implications of neuroscience and neurotechnology, so that we know we are proceeding thoughtfully and carefully in our research.

Brain and nervous system research is an issue that has been extremely important to me throughout my time in the Senate. I have long been a supporter of the MIND Research Network, which does amazing work on these issues in New Mexico; and I have worked hard to advance our ability to treat and cure brain and nervous system diseases and disorders. I hope that this legislation will be part of my legacy in this area.

I want to thank my good friend Senator Murray for asking me to join her on this very important issue. I appreciate her commitment to advancing this important research and I look forward to working with her to pass this legislation this Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Murray, to introduce the National Neurotechnology Initiative Act of 2008. Our bill will coordinate and accelerate federal brain and nervous system research, and will help move that research from the laboratory into the hands of patients.

It is estimated that approximately 100 million Americans--one in three--suffer from some kind of neurological illness, disorder, or injury. These include some of the most debilitating illnesses, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, autism, schizophrenia, and stroke. They include issues with a neurological basis that often goes unnoticed, such as obesity and hearing loss. They also include issues of particular importance to Senator Murray and me: traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other neurological effects suffered by the brave men and women of our armed forces as they execute their missions throughout the world.

The total economic burden of these neurological illnesses, disorders, and injuries is estimated to be more than one trillion dollars every year. These costs include direct medical treatment, long-term care for senior citizens who have been incapacitated by a neurological disease, addiction-related costs, secondary medical costs related to obesity, and so on.

As the baby boom generation ages, the cost associated with these illnesses will increase rapidly, straining our healthcare resources even further than they already are. Now is the time to act to promote the development of diagnostics, treatments, and cures that will restore health and reduce costs.

Our armed forces too often suffer from a traumatic brain injury, which is among the primary types of casualty that disables our service members. Some soldiers also suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder as well. We owe it to these heroic warriors to help them heal as quickly and as completely as possible.

The National Neurotechnology Initiative Act is designed to address four key issues currently slowing the development of neurological treatments, and to rapidly accelerate R&D for only three percent of the annual NIH brain research budget. The first is a lack of coordination between the many agencies that conduct brain research. The bill creates a coordinating office that will help ensure that the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and other agencies know what every other agency is doing, and that they work together toward common goals.

The second issue is insufficient coordination within the National Institutes of Health. Sixteen different Institutes, Centers, and offices within NIH conduct research on the brain and nervous system, and they have begun to work together through a program called the Blueprint for Neuroscience Research. This bill authorizes and fully funds that program.

The third issue is the need to translate basic research into treatments. Advances in neurotechnology are useless if they merely sit in the lab. This bill boosts neuroscience-related technology transfer through the SBIR and STTR programs.

The fourth issue is regulatory approval of new neurotechnology drugs, diagnostics, and devices. Brain-related treatments take much longer and cost much more to approve than other treatments. This bill will increase the timeliness and safety of the neurotechnology review process by allowing the FDA to hire and train neuroscience experts and to work with industry to develop neurotechnology standards.

The bill also supports the analysis of societal implications of neuroscience and neurotechnology, so that we know we are proceeding thoughtfully and carefully in our research.

Brain and nervous system research is an issue that has been extremely important to me throughout my time in the Senate. I have long been a supporter of the MIND Research Network, which does amazing work on these issues in New Mexico; and I have worked hard to advance our ability to treat and cure brain and nervous system diseases and disorders. I hope that this legislation will be part of my legacy in this area.

I want to thank my good friend Senator Murray for asking me to join her on this very important issue. I appreciate her commitment to advancing this important research and I look forward to working with her to pass this legislation this Congress.

I didn't hear the Senator from Texas say he was finished.

(The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 2958 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the floor time now be given to Senator Kennedy, who has been patiently waiting, for which I am grateful.

Mr. President, I have a few remarks about the energy situation I would like to share with the Senate. Two months ago, I came to the floor to deliver a series of speeches on the State of our Nation's energy security. I said then, unequivocally, that our Nation's economic strength had been put in great peril by our growing dependence on foreign oil.

I have been a member of the Energy Committee for 30 years and have served as chairman of that committee, as well as the Budget Committee, for a long period during that time. I have seen my share of serious debate on energy and the economy, and I recognize how vital these issues are to our Nation's well-being.

Unfortunately, in these times of high gas prices and an approaching election, I have also seen my share of not-so-serious debate. The American people deserve better than false promises of short-term fixes, driving season gimmicks, and empty threats to the Middle East.

I said in February--and I say it again today--the American people deserve serious, thoughtful, long-term solutions to our ever-growing energy crisis. If there are short-term solutions, or short-term aids, we ought to share those, too, and get on with adopting them.

Investigating, taxing, and threatening our American oil and gas companies will do nothing to reduce the stranglehold foreign oil dependence has put on our economic strength, national security, and foreign policy agenda.

To blame either side of the aisle for the trouble this Nation is in misses the point. The American people did not send us here to cast blame on one side or the other, and they certainly didn't send us here to put bandaids on serious illnesses that threaten our Nation.

My first year in the Senate was during a Republican administration, when a President set out an aggressive agenda to reduce our Nation's oil imports.

At that time, we were importing 6 million barrels of oil a day, which represented 35 percent of our total oil consumption.

Fast forward 36 years to today. The aggressive agenda through several administrations and Congresses under the control of both parties has failed time and again. Today, we are more than 60 percent dependent on foreign oil which comes from some of the most hostile regimes in the world. Over time, our consumption has grown at a moderate rate, but our imports have more than doubled to 13.4 million barrels per day. The result is a rising cost of energy, a rising threat of disruption in our energy supply, and a rising anger among our already burdened constituents.

As I said today, the average price of gasoline is $3.62 a gallon, an alltime high for the 17th straight day. Crude oil closed above $113 per barrel last night. The average approval rating of Congress has plummeted to 22 percent, and yet we continue to point fingers back and forth.

In the past few years, Congress has achieved significant success in addressing long-term energy security. We passed a 2005 bill that will bring us a nuclear renaissance, a 2006 bill that will bring us greater domestic oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, and a 2007 bill that will bring us increased fuel efficiency. That is a dramatic change in the CAFE standards.

These were not little things, and they were hard to do. They were done without finger-pointing and with bipartisan support.

To face this new challenge, however, we must do even more. Debate about energy, oil, and the environment has reached a fever pitch. The challenge of our time will be how we meet a rising demand for energy from the literally billions of new consumers who wish to share in the benefits of a global economy. I think we all know what that means. That means India, China, and other countries are adding to the demand part of the supply-and-demand cycles in mammoth ways. Already, China is moving ahead as one of the largest importers of oil and users of oil in the whole world. Just 10 years ago, or 12, they were hardly on the map. For our Nation's future energy security and the world's, we will need to ensure our supply of energy is reliable, affordable, and abundant.

Today, I introduced the Domestic Energy Production Act of 2008. I ask unanimous consent that title be changed to the American Energy Production Act of 2008.

I ask that the clerk so change the bill, if they can. If not, the Senator from New Mexico asks for the right to change it.

Madam President, the policies set forth in this bill will begin to move us in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support its passage and to look at it seriously.

First, the bill allows for States on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to petition the Federal Government to opt out of the broad moratorium that for two decades has locked up America's assets and forced us to turn toward unstable foreign nations to power our lives. I believe it is time that we ask the Atlantic and Pacific coastal States to take a real look at whether we could drill distances from their shores without doing any harm and adding substantially to the American supply for all our citizens, not just the coastal citizens. I believe the time is ripe. I believe right-headed people will consider that might be a reality. If we were to do it, we were told just that contains literally millions of barrels of crude oil and billions of cubic feet of natural gas for the American energy future.

First, this bill allows these Atlantic and Pacific coasts to petition their Government to opt out, as I said, and these are large quantities of assets that are American. Together, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans contain oil reserves, and here are the numbers, what we know without doing a detailed reconnaissance. There are reserves of up to 14 billion barrels and natural gas reserves totaling 55 trillion cubic feet. Those are big enough for the American people to demand that everyone who represents States in this Senate look at this, whether they are coastal State Senators or not. America needs an honest evaluation because with these States, if there was no damage--and I believe we can drill without any damage today--we might move in a direction, an honest direction, of reducing dramatically what we must import overseas.

Opening them to leasing would literally bring billions of dollars to the Federal Treasury and billions of dollars to the coastal States because they would share in it 37 percent, as we did with the coastal States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas when we, 2 years ago, did the same thing for Gulf States and opened those areas for drilling. Those States abutting were positively impressed and helped by it because they wanted development and they also wanted to share in the royalties. The new way we build platforms and drill is a far cry from 20 years ago when coastal States were so worried. Actually, we can do it with little or no footprint, little or no seepage or damage, there is no question about it.

Next, the bill opens 2,000 acres of the 19 million acres of the Arctic plain, or ANWR, for oil and gas leasing. In 1995, President Clinton vetoed an ANWR bill, and the price of oil was $19 a barrel. As a result, 1 million barrels of oil continue to sit beneath our ground each day instead of in our gas tanks. I believe the ultimate find, if we are permitted to drill, would be much more than the million barrels, without a question. The footprint is so small, the new directional drilling is so accurate that I believe it deserves an opportunity for the Senate to look again and think again and for the American people to look again and think again with us on what should be done. The price of oil is now $113 a barrel. When we last voted, the price was somewhere above $50 but certainly nothing like this.

Yesterday, I heard a colleague on the other side of the aisle urge OPEC nations to release 500,000 barrels of oil to the global market. Today, in introducing this bill, I respond to my colleagues to release more than 1 million barrels to that supply, from our own lands, by supporting my bill. We don't know how much more we will get if the coastal States join in and begin lifting the moratorium. We may be able to send a message that more than the 500,000 barrels my colleague on the other side sought and far more than the 1 million we would get from Alaska would be released into the American market.

This bill provides for a consolidated permitting process to ease constraints on building refineries in this country. While we improved the capacity over years, we consistently hear the criticism that no new refinery has been built in our country for over 30 years. Our Nation cannot afford to go 30 more years without building additional refineries.

The bill also provides a small measure of relief by suspending delivery to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I ask my colleagues to consider their views on certain issues. I remind them that this issue I have reconsidered on my own. I believe it is appropriate in this pricing environment that we stop filling the SPR for up to 6 months, thus providing 70,000 additional barrels of light sweet crude per day. That might have an effect. Although it will be minor, it might be recognizable on the price of oil. I think it is time to do that.

I told the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, with whom I serve and was the principal sponsor of this, that I would join him in this when he was ready to move on the Senate floor.

By its very nature, this is just a fraction of the oil that will be gained through OCS production. OCS is what I am talking about in the bill I introduced today, and ANWR, oil shale production, and coal-to- liquid production are in this bill. In today's environment, any small amount helps the people of this country.

In the area of alternative resources, this bill requires studies on ethanol to help ensure that smart decisions are made as we move toward cellulosic and other advanced biofuels. This bill provides incentives for the advancement of breakthrough energy technologies, such as battery-powered vehicles. That is important. It is obvious to everyone that we have not moved ahead as rapidly as we should in battery development, and we ought to push hard with our greatest scientists because a change in the right direction there would be a dramatic change in the right direction for automobiles that would be electric- motored and that would be good for our country.

Our Nation is often called the Saudi Arabia of coal, and we should use that domestic resource to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This bill creates a mandate for up to 3 billion gallons of clean coal-derived fuels over the next decade and 6 billion gallons over the next 14 years. This will provide diesel and jet fuel to help power our economy and create jobs throughout our coal-producing States.

Additionally, this provision requires that the mandated fuels have life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions no greater than conventional gasoline.

This is a win-win for our economy and our environment. I don't know why it is so violently opposed by some in America. I think they just don't want us to use our own if it means we are going to use it in automobiles, diesel trucks, or the like. I don't understand. If we don't do it, we will be using foreign oil unless and until we find a total new substitute, which will be years from now.

This bill also allows for the long-term procurement of synthetic fuels by the Department of Defense and repeals section 526 of last year's Energy bill.

That provision ties greenhouse gas emission requirements to the types of fuels our Air Force can purchase. The practical translation is that in a time of war, this policy would direct our military to purchase oil from the sands of the Middle East rather than the oil sands of Canada.

While this bill takes many steps to strengthen our Nation's energy security, it also repeals several provisions in last year's appropriations bills that threaten to damage our Nation's energy security. At this point, most everyone knows what they are. I will merely mention one of those that is big, and that is a mandate that was imposed on oil shale development in America.

Somebody in conference--I think we know which one but need not say since it is not certain--put a rider on that bill that said the final regulations for shale development have a moratorium imposed. That comes at a time when Shell Oil and others are exploring the great potential of shale converted to oil. I don't see why we should do this. I believe we should take that off and let them proceed. They will be bound by the laws of our land, and obviously, with the high price of crude oil, it is clear to me that they are going to find a way to make oil shale equal to conventional oil and thus usable by Americans as American- produced oil. We should let that happen as rapidly as possible and not deter it. I know some will not agree, but I would think that debate, carried to the American people, would be voted overwhelmingly in favor of letting it happen. That is why we put it in this bill.

Finally, this bill repeals a $4,000 fee for drilling permits. These costs, slipped into a large Omnibus measure without notice or debate, hit the smallest oil and gas companies in our States. Making it more difficult to produce domestic energy for domestic use will only serve to further increase the prices we pay at the pump.

As I complete my final year in the Senate, I look back on the many accomplishments this body has achieved for the American people. This great work has often been done when Members reached across the aisle after thoughtful deliberation, serious debate, and reasoned judgment. I hope, as the Congress makes a serious effort to tackle the energy challenges of our time, that we will address these challenges in the same spirit.

As I said a few months ago on this floor that America faces a serious energy crisis with vital implications for our national security, economic strength, and foreign policy. The American people deserve a serious debate, for our present challenge will require thoughtfulness, vision, and judgment--not just today, but when the cameras are off, the elections are far away, and gas prices subside.