Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing new construction at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.

I am proud to offer this bill because there are a number of military construction needs at Holloman as a result of a decision by the Secretary of the Air Force to use Holloman Air Force Base as an F-22 Raptor base.

One of these is a Jet Engine Maintenance Shop to support the F-22 transition and stationing at Holloman. The Department of Defense budgeted for this item in its fiscal year 2009 Defense budget request, and in keeping with that request my legislation authorizes $2.15 million for the construction of the Jet Engine Maintenance Shop.

Mr. President, our airmen are one of the most important assets we have in the Global War on Terror, and they need adequate facilities to do their work. I am proud to offer this legislation to support them in one of their newest missions, flying the F-22A Raptor.

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

Mr. President, I understand I have up to a half hour to speak at this time.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, yesterday I spoke about the work we have done, and the challenges we still face, with regard to energy policy. I return to the floor today to complete my remarks.

I concluded yesterday by putting a pricetag on our dependence on imported oil. Experts estimate that foreign oil will cost us $400 billion just this year. This expense will impact our economy in a number of ways, including our trade balance. In December 2007, imported crude oil accounted for 61 percent of the national trade deficit, or an all-time high of $36 billion. The trade deficit, propelled by high oil prices, has factored into the decline of the dollar.

Yesterday, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke testified that the cost of energy is being passed through and reflected in the increase in prices of core consumer goods and services. Other experts believe that increasing energy prices and lower economic growth could lead to a return of ``stagflation.''

Our dependence on foreign oil also has a negative impact on job creation in America. The National Defense

Council Foundation concluded that imported oil deprives the U.S. economy of more than 2.2 million jobs per year. Choosing to import oil to meet our energy needs exports more than our money--it also exports jobs. Choosing to produce energy here at home would keep those jobs within our borders, and help countless Americans earn a good living.

The National Defense Council Foundation also identified several more ``hidden costs'' of oil imports, including oil-related defense expenditures, lost economic activity, reduced domestic investment, lost Government revenues, and the cost of periodic supply disruptions. Together, these total $825 billion per year, nearly four times the amount that America spent directly on acquisition of foreign oil in 2005.

The money we export for oil flows directly into the economies of foreign nations around the world. Oil-producing nations spend these revenues on national defense, education, health care, social programs, infrastructure, financial instruments, and to bolster their own energy security. As these nations use American dollars to pay for investments in their own futures, we are forced to spend money we do not have, and forgo our own priorities.

The fact that many of the major oil-exporting nations are undemocratic only makes matters worse. We import much of our oil from Canada and Mexico. Unfortunately, beyond North America, most of our oil comes from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, and Algeria. Worldwide, the top oil exporting nations also include Russia and Iran.

Many regimes in oil-rich nations are unstable and unfriendly. Anti- Americanism is prevalent throughout the Middle East. The same Saudi lands that are used to produce 10 million barrels of oil per day also provide a staging ground for the advancement of radical Islam. While the State Department has listed Iran as a sponsor of terrorism since 1984, oil revenues allow that regime to weather heightened sanctions.

Our reliance on foreign oil continues at our own peril. We pay huge sums for oil, but even this premium cannot guarantee the availability of supplies. A recent study identified 24 significant oil supply disruptions between 1950 and 2003. These lasted an average of 6 months, and reduced the world's supply of oil by up to 12 percent. Recent events around the world reveal that our supply of oil is still incredibly vulnerable to disruption.

In Nigeria, conflict over oil wealth reduced that nation's daily output by 25 percent last year. Dozens of workers have been kidnapped there, nearly leading Shell to suspend all of its operations in the Niger Delta region. In Iraq, more than 460 attacks on oil pipelines, facilities, and personnel have occurred in the past 4 years.

Not all supply disruptions will be caused by natural events or manmade strife, because much of the world's oil is controlled by irrational, often unpredictable leaders. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently threatened to stop sending his country's oil to America because of a British court ruling. The simple truth is this: in a world without spare production capacity, every major production loss, no matter where it occurs, can boost oil prices--and even short-term increases heighten the long-term costs to our Nation.

Many foreign leaders are using oil as a diplomatic weapon, and establishing diplomatic ties with growing energy consumers. Such relationships legitimize the regimes in power and allow them to secure regional influence. We have seen the Putin regime use its vast resources as leverage throughout Eastern Europe. But perhaps the best example of this type of petro-influence can be seen in Venezuela. The Chavez regime peddled influence by distributing nearly $5 million in financial assistance per day last year to nations throughout Latin America. Venezuela also used revenue from its oil sales to subsidize bus tickets for Londoners and home heating oil for Americans.

Nearly all of us, and nearly all of our constituents, can agree that America's dependence on foreign oil must end. Before I discuss some solutions to the problems I have outlined, I will provide historical context for them.

Attempting to bolster America's energy security is not new to Washington. In 1973, my first year in Congress, President Nixon gave a major address on energy. He proposed a very aggressive initiative, called `Project Independence', stating:

Let us set as our national goal, in the spirit of Apollo

with the determination of the Manhattan Project, that by the

end of this decade we will have developed the potential to

meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign

energy sources.

At the time of that speech, net imports accounted for approximately 28 percent of U.S. crude oil demand. Thirty-five years later, imports account for more than 60 percent. Imports have grown because the gap between domestic supply and demand has been allowed to widen-- consumption has steadily increased over the years, while production dwindled.

In 2005, the United States consumed 21 million barrels of crude oil per day, but that same year, domestic production hit a 50-year low. The result established a record for oil imports--13.7 million barrels per day--but not a ceiling on them. According to the EIA, oil usage will rise 30 percent by 2030, even as alternative sources of energy account for a much greater percentage of our energy supply.

These estimates show that, while our goals have been admirable and ambitious, we are heading in the wrong direction. As consumption rises, and domestic production falls, oil imports continue to increase and our hand is weakened diplomatically, militarily, and economically. As we debate catch phrases like ``energy independence,'' ``energy security,'' and ``energy freedom''--we miss the point. And that is, we must immediately adopt policies to reverse the course we have been on since before 1973, and the course that our best experts estimate will continue beyond 2030.

Part of the problem is created by the talking points originating in Washington. Although the goal of ``Project Independence'' was never met, the same rhetoric is still used to define the challenges we face. Invoking the Apollo missions and the Manhattan Project ignores the hard truth that an effective long-term energy policy will not be a race to the finish line. As President Nixon asserted, we will need the spirit and determination of past endeavors. We will need our brightest minds and best science. But this time, we do not seek a one-time goal--to land the first man on the Moon, or to develop the first atom bomb. Instead, we seek a fundamental shift in how our Nation powers its economy. The widening delta between domestic production and consumption will continue to swell unless we change course.

Throughout this debate, we must be straight about these challenges. We must be honest with the American people and honest with ourselves. Given our growing energy needs, and our reliance on foreign oil, we should not promise energy independence within a term of office. In the absence of scientific breakthroughs, the strengthening of our energy security that we seek will take substantial time and effort to achieve. But we can begin to move in that direction today.

There are no easy solutions or quick fixes to our energy challenges. As we debate these issues, we should not propose to overhaul the traditional energy industries without also addressing the likely impacts that such actions will have. And we should not seek to transition away from traditional sources of energy until new technologies are affordable, available, and acceptable to the public.

Those of us in Congress share a common goal--to reduce our dependence on foreign oil--but there are deep divisions over how to achieve it. As a result, the Congressional Record is filled with legislation that undermines our ability to move toward this goal. These measures were drafted with good intentions. However, good intentions are not enough, especially when they are not matched with the wisdom and experience necessary to achieve these goals we seek. This Congress is in danger of failing in this regard.

Last year, Congress passed an omnibus appropriations bill in the place of several individual bills. As time dwindled, attention was diverted away from damaging provisions that were inserted in that bill and passed with little notice and no debate. Among these provisions was a moratorium on oil shale regulations, which could delay the commercialization of one of America's

most promising resources. Our Nation holds 62 percent of the world's oil shale deposits. This equals nearly five times the proven conventional oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Just imagine the possibilities if we unleash American ingenuity to access these resources.

Another provision in that bill imposed new fees for domestic oil and gas permits, which will increase the cost of business and ultimately heighten the cost of energy for American consumers. As we have seen our domestic production level off over the past several years, it is irresponsible to adopt policies that accelerate this trend. Yesterday, the House Democrats chose the unwise path of raising taxes on our domestic energy producers by $18 billion. Additionally, some in the majority seek to make it more difficult for our military to purchase unconventional fuels from our allies in Canada. On top of that, some in the majority still seek to undo lease agreements that American companies have to produce energy in the Gulf of Mexico. This makes no sense.

These backward policies prevent us from building on the success of recent energy bills. Legislative efforts to open a small section of the Arctic Coastal Plain have now been thwarted for over 25 years. Much of our Outer Continental Shelf also remains closed for energy leasing. Combined, these areas contain more than 100 billion barrels of oil and 450 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Using old fears about energy production, and ignoring new concerns about energy prices, policymakers are locking up our energy potential. It is clear that this approach has failed, and that we need to find a new way to reach smart consensus on energy policy.

For too long, the debate on energy has been dominated by extreme ideologies. Discourse has deviated into an ``either/or'' approach, where participants are accused of being beholden to either ``big oil'' or ``environmental extremism.'' In an almost equally divided Senate, and at a time when party control is split between the legislative and executive branches, there is no better time to bridge this divide.

We must take action on an aggressive agenda of both new and old energy ideas. Some of these proposals have been labeled as Republican ideas, and others have been labeled as Democratic ideas. We must recognize that reasonable policies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil are American ideas, not partisan agendas. We must affirm that these policies are worth pursuing, because additional steps can and should be taken to reduce the amount of energy this nation imports.

A strong energy policy will rely upon three types of initiatives: those that increase the responsible production of domestic energy; those that accelerate the research, development, and deployment of renewable and alternative sources of energy; and those that significantly enhance our Nation's ability to conserve energy. There is broad agreement that two of these three areas are critical to America's energy security. I see them outlined in the measures introduced in Congress, and they are built upon in the energy proposals of those running for President.

In modern politics, most people would be satisfied with two out of three. But when we miss a critical piece of the puzzle--the one that matters most in the near-term, and would have the greatest immediate impact--then we can safely say, as I do now, that our efforts will fall short of the goal.

I speak, of course, of the continuing disagreements over domestic production. We must, without delay, produce more energy at home. American energy, produced by our workers, must be used to power our homes, businesses, and vehicles.

Increasing domestic production will not be a stand-alone solution. But with proven reserves of more than 21 billion barrels of oil, and undiscovered reserves of more than 100 billion barrels, it is simply unacceptable that America fail to meet a greater share of our own needs with domestic energy resources.

The good news is that we have the resources, the technology, and the support of most Americans. The bad news is that so far we have been unable to muster the political will--we cannot even build consensus to inventory these areas and gain an accurate assessment of our Nation's energy reserves. To have a fair and informed debate, we must know the extent of our resources. And then we must tap them with the ingenuity, skill, and technology at our disposal.

We must listen to the people of Alaska and open the Arctic Coastal Plain to responsible leasing for the exploration and production of oil and natural gas. ANWR is an emotional subject for many folks, so let's stick to the facts. First, to the critics who say that oil from ANWR will take 10 years to come on-line--you are probably right. But to use this as an argument against development is like refusing to save for your retirement because you are not retiring next year. It will take time and patience to develop the resources of Alaska's North Slope. From experience, we know that starting this process a decade ago would have ensured greater domestic oil production when we needed it most.

In 1995, Congress did pass legislation to open a small portion of the Coastal Plain to oil and gas leasing. But President Clinton vetoed the legislation, and more than a decade later, an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil continue to sit under our own soil. The week of that veto, the average price of crude oil was $19 per barrel. This week, the price has risen to about $102 per barrel. I would say that conditions have changed enough to warrant a fresh debate on this topic.

Congress must also open more of the Outer Continental Shelf, as we did in the Gulf of Mexico in 2006. Last year, an amendment that would have allowed leasing off the coast of Virginia was defeated on a near party-line vote. That vote was a step in the wrong direction. Offshore America holds tremendous energy potential, and it is essential that the American energy industry have greater access to explore and produce in this area.

Continuing to restrict the OCS will sacrifice billions of dollars that could be used to develop our Nation's future energy supplies. Opening it would augment our supply of traditional fuels--and dollars that now go overseas to acquire oil could remain within our own economy and could be used to develop alternative sources of energy. The conventional fuels of the 20th century can be used to pioneer those of the 21st century, but we must first find the courage to put ourselves on such a forward-looking and pragmatic path.

Equally important to increased domestic production will be measures to expedite the on-shore permitting process. A good example of why is Alaska's natural gas pipeline. Permitting and activities related to permitting that project may add more than 5 years to its timeline. This is just one example, but it is representative of an increasingly burdensome process. Permitting must be streamlined, not only to prevent energy producers from investing abroad, but also for the sake of growing our energy production.

As I have indicated, our Nation has a great quantity of oil locked up off of our coasts, beneath our permafrost, and within our shale. These areas can provide a stable supply of energy as we transition to alternative fuels. But oil is not the only resource that can be developed at home and depended upon to meet our energy needs. We are also fortunate to have vast reserves of coal: some 270 billion recoverable tons, which would last for 240 years at the current rate of consumption. That coal can be turned into fuels that help meet our transportation, manufacturing, and electric power needs.

Because of the emissions that result when coal is converted to energy, we will need cleaner methods to ensure the protection of our environment. To me, this is an opportunity. Our Nation has a proud heritage of innovation, and there is no reason to believe this strong record will not continue in the future. As our most abundant and affordable fossil resource, we cannot simply cross coal off the list. Any serious effort to strengthen our energy security must include coal.

One of our best prospects is to advance the development of coal-to- liquid fuels. As an alternative to oil, coal-to-liquid fuels have many merits: it will reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, particulate matter, and other pollutants when compared to conventional fuels. Coal-to-liquid fuels have been commercially demonstrated in other countries, can be moved through existing pipelines, and can be

used in existing vehicles. Commercialization of this resource will create investment in rural communities, thousands of good-paying jobs, and cheaper energy for American consumers. Despite this potential, two amendments to advance this type of fuel were defeated on party-line votes in the most recent energy debate.

Future generations of automobiles will be powered by the advanced battery. The Government must redouble its efforts to ensure the research, development, and deployment of these technologies. Reliable and rechargeable batteries will be critical to the success of hybrid vehicles, which hold tremendous promise for reducing the amount of oil consumed in the transportation sector.

The policies I speak of are just a few of the options available to us. We should also increase the number of flex-fuel vehicles on the road, and the number of stations that offer blended fuels. We should offer incentives to existing refineries, and encourage the expedited construction of new ones, to reduce the amount of gasoline we import. We continue to lament that while our refinery capacity has improved at existing sites, we have not built a new refinery in 30 years. We must rethink our policies to match the modern challenge we face. Again, these are just a sampling of the policy options available to the Congress as we seek to chart a more responsible path forward.

As a member of the Senate Energy Committee for nearly 30 years, and its chair or ranking member for much of the past decade, I obviously have strong views on the energy policies that will best serve our Nation. But I also recognize that we must work together to find common ground. We did this in the past on energy policy, and we can do it again.

The costs of our dependence on foreign oil are enormous and increasing. The consequences of removing money from our economy, and sending it to often-volatile oil-producing nations, are becoming clear. Few positives will ever be drawn from this arrangement.

When we import oil, we export our jobs and we export our wealth. We strengthen regimes that are intent on undermining our interests, opposed to the spread of democracy, and unwilling to extend some of the most basic freedoms to their own people. When we import oil, we threaten our national security and our economic strength. As we look ahead, we must remember that for today and the foreseeable future, we need oil. We should put our American energy resources to use.

This is my final year in the U.S. Senate. It is a privilege and an honor to serve the people of New Mexico and this country. But it is not just the end of my time in the Senate that approaches; the time to reduce our growing dependence on foreign oil is also upon us.

It is my sincere hope that we will use this year and the future to work together on policies that will move us toward our energy security goals. This will require us to set aside our differences and make difficult decisions. It will require us to come to the table with open minds and positive intentions. In an era defined by its bitter partisanship, this will not be easy. But given the stakes--our national security, our economic strength, and our standing in the world--that is exactly what we must do.

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

Madam President, I have spoken twice on energy, once today and once yesterday.

I have come to add a few more thoughts to my previous remarks on energy. I spoke yesterday of the recent Energy bills that Congress has passed, and the growing costs of our dependence on foreign oil. This morning, I urged my colleagues to reach agreement on a comprehensive energy policy that uses our own resources to meet our energy needs.

Of all the issues we have to consider in this Congress, some may wonder why I have focused on energy three times in the past 2 days. The answer is simple: it is February 29. Oil is going for nearly $102 per barrel, and gas prices are up 20 cents in the past 2 weeks alone. The start of the summer driving season is still 3 months away, but consumers are already being squeezed by near-record energy prices. More than that, this should be a story we talk about in both good and bad times, because our dependence is growing great and it is not matched by our policy.

We must rethink our policies to match the modern challenges we face. As I have indicated, our Nation has a great quantity of oil locked up off of our coasts, beneath our permafrost, and within our shale. These areas can provide a stable supply of energy as we transition to alternative fuels. But oil is not the only resource that can be developed at home and depended upon to meet our energy needs. We are also fortunate to have vast reserves of coal: some 270 billion recoverable tons, which would last for 240 years at the current rate of consumption. That coal can be turned into fuels that help meet our transportation, manufacturing, and electric power needs.

Because of the emissions that result when coal is converted to energy, we will need cleaner methods to ensure the protection of our environment. To me, this is an opportunity. Our Nation has a proud heritage of innovation, and there is no reason to believe this strong record will not continue in the future. As our most abundant and affordable fossil resource, we cannot simply cross coal off the list. Any serious effort to strengthen our energy security must include coal.

One of our best prospects is to advance the development of coal-to- liquid fuels. As an alternative to oil, coal-to-liquid fuels have many merits: it will reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, particulate matter, and other pollutants when compared to conventional fuels. Coal-to-liquid fuels have been commercially demonstrated in other countries, can be moved through existing pipelines, and can be used in existing vehicles. Commercialization of this resource will create investment in rural communities, thousands of good-paying jobs, and cheaper energy for American consumers. Despite this potential, two amendments to advance this type of fuel were defeated on party-line votes in the most recent energy debate.

Future generations of automobiles will be powered by the advanced battery. The Government must redouble its efforts to ensure the research, development, and deployment of these technologies. Reliable and rechargeable batteries will be critical to the success of hybrid vehicles, which hold tremendous promise for reducing the amount of oil consumed in the transportation sector.

The policies I have spoken of these past 2 days are just a few of the options available to us. We should also increase the number of flex- fuel vehicles on the road, and the number of stations that offer blended fuels. We should offer incentives to existing refineries, and encourage the expedited construction of new ones, to reduce the amount of gasoline we import. We continue to lament that while our refinery capacity has improved at existing sites, we have not built a new refinery in 30 years. Again, these are just a sampling of the policy options available to the Congress as we seek to chart a more responsible path forward.

As a member of the Senate Energy Committee for nearly 30 years, and its chair or ranking member for much of the past decade, I obviously have strong views on the energy policies that will best serve our Nation. But I also recognize that we must work together to find common ground. We did this in the past on energy policy, and we can do it again.

The costs of our dependence on foreign oil are enormous and increasing. The consequences of removing money from our economy, and sending it to often-volatile oil-producing nations, are becoming clear. Few positives will ever be drawn from this arrangement.

When we import oil, we export our jobs and we export our wealth. We strengthen regimes that are intent on undermining our interests, opposed to the spread of democracy, and unwilling to extend some of the most basic freedoms to their own people. When we import oil, we threaten our national security and our economic strength. As we look ahead, we must remember that for today and the foreseeable future, we need oil. We should put our American energy resources to use.

This is my final year in the Senate. It is a privilege and an honor to serve the people of New Mexico and this country. But it is not just the end of my time in the Senate that approaches; the time to reduce our growing dependence on foreign oil is also upon us.

It is my sincere hope that we will use this year and the future to work together on policies that will move us toward our energy security goals. This will require us to set aside our differences and make difficult decisions. It will require us to come to the table with open minds and positive intentions. In an era defined by its bitter partisanship, this will not be easy. But given the stakes—our national security, our economic strength, and our standing in the world—that is exactly what we must do.

Before we leave, Madam President, I say to the distinguished majority leader that I appreciate his kind, generous remarks.

Madam President, I also want to make a comment regarding something the leader said when he was discussing my speech he heard.

I want to say to the Senator, you caught the end of 2 days of speaking on energy, and you heard: coal. I want you to know I had spoken of many other sources of energy before that. But I thought in recapping what we own, you must include coal in that. That is why you heard it there, not to give it special emphasis beyond which it is entitled.

Right.

I thank the Senator.

I object.

I have to stay here until it is done.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about our Nation's growing reliance on foreign oil, and to outline many of the ideas that can help reduce that dependence.

Ten years ago, I gave a speech at Harvard University entitled, ``A New Nuclear Paradigm.'' Its purpose was twofold: to shine a light on the substantial benefits of advancing nuclear power, and to outline specific policy initiatives needed for a nuclear renaissance in the United States. At the time, I stated that it was ``extraordinarily difficult to conduct a debate on nuclear issues.'' After all, it appeared that America had given up on nuclear power.

In my speech, I observed that an open discussion of nuclear energy issues produced only ``nasty political fallout.'' A lingering worry lay deep within me that as such critical issues retreated into the halls of the academy, rather than the Halls of Congress, we risked losing an opportunity to have a serious debate. Had that come to pass, the United States would have missed out on the vital contribution that nuclear energy offers to our national security, economic strength, and foreign policy objectives.

My remarks came in the midst of a stretch when nuclear energy was largely dismissed. Between 1978 and 2007, not a single application was filed for a new nuclear plant to be constructed in the United States. Internationally, the story was much different. During that same period of time, more than 250 nuclear reactors were brought on-line around the world. And, as President Carter took our Nation down the short sighted path of a once-through nuclear fuel cycle, Europe and Japan wisely chose to proceed with their reprocessing and plutonium-use programs. The poor decisions made here stood in stark contrast to those made abroad. Nations that chose to pursue nuclear power became more competitive in the global economy, and America's long-standing edge in innovation began to slip.

In the decade since my address at Harvard, we have changed the face of the debate on nuclear energy. We did this by ensuring that it was framed in the context of how to advance nuclear energy, not whether we should. It is now clear to serious thinkers that advancing nuclear power is essential to providing clean, safe, affordable, and reliable electricity. And, it should be equally clear that the advancement of nuclear power is the essential tool in confronting the challenge of global climate change.

The clearest evidence of this shift in thinking came with the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which included loan guarantees, tax incentives, risk insurance, and an extension of the Price-Anderson Act. All of these policies are important for the development of nuclear power. And to this day, the signing of that important legislation, in my home State of New Mexico, remains a watershed moment in America's nuclear renaissance. In the 30 months that have passed since the bill was signed into law, we have seen the planning stages begin for 33 new nuclear reactors in the United States. I was thrilled to take part in an event last fall celebrating the first operating license application in decades. Since then, six more applications for new nuclear reactors have been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

To put the importance of these achievements in their proper perspective, one must appreciate the enormous global benefits of a nuclear renaissance in this country. Consider that today, there are 104 nuclear reactors in service around the Nation. Together, they displace the same amount of carbon dioxide as is emitted by nearly every passenger car on the road in America. A future for nuclear power in this country will truly mean a brighter tomorrow.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 has already had a positive impact on the advancement of other energy resources as well. The Federal Government has now approved seven new Liquefied Natural Gas terminals, which could bring an additional 15.1 billion cubic feet of natural gas to the U.S. marketplace. As a result of that bill, enough wind-power has been brought on-line to power 2\1/2\ million homes. Along with much-needed electricity capacity, this new wind production has generated $16 billion in economic activity, created new green jobs across the country, and displaced 16 billion tons of carbon dioxide.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also included the first-ever ethanol mandate, a small but important step toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil. This standard has been so successful that since the bill's passage, 77 new ethanol plants have broken ground across the country. Last December, we voted to substantially expand this standard to continue to revitalize rural America and provide our Nation with home- grown energy.

In the years ahead, the benefits of this act will be even more apparent. Renewable fuel usage will increase. The decline in domestic oil production will slow. And if the 33 nuclear reactors now being planned are built, they will generate enough electricity to power 28 million American homes.

In the following year, 2006, Congress picked up where it left off and passed the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. Staring down a more than two decades-old moratorium that prevented the discovery of our Nation's deep sea resources--we acted. By lifting a ban in the Gulf of Mexico, we allowed for the production of American resources in an area that covers more than 8 million acres.

This bill is already attracting great interest, and investment, in America's ocean energy resources. An estimated 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas were made available as a result of the decision to open this area. That is enough natural gas to heat and cool nearly 6 million homes for 15 years.

The 2006 bill is also delivering significant revenues to the Treasury. Last October, the Department of the Interior conducted a lease sale in the central Gulf of Mexico, part of the area covered by the new law. That sale attracted $2.9 billion in high bids, the second highest total in U.S. leasing history.

More important than the resources made available, and the revenues brought in, were changes to the prevailing mindset--that it is acceptable to lock up American resources as both foreign dependence and the costs of essential goods and services continue to rise. We must continue fighting against that type of outdated thinking.

Last December, after 12 full months of debate, Congress again responded to America's energy and environmental challenges by calling for greater efficiencies, a stronger energy supply, and a cleaner environment. With the enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, we will see a 40-percent increase in fuel economy by 2020, a savings of several billion barrels of oil, and 36 billion gallons of biofuels introduced into our fuel mix by 2022. As a result of this new law, energy usage in Federal buildings will be reduced by 30 percent, and 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide will be displaced by 2030.

I begin with these examples to prove that progress on energy policy is not only possible--but that it has, in fact, become something of a pattern. While

conventional wisdom holds that Washington has been asleep in meeting our energy challenges, those of us in Congress have agreed on three pieces of landmark, bipartisan energy legislation in the past three years.

Despite this progress, the energy debate should, and must, continue. Today more than ever, policymakers are faced with a daunting task: how to meet America's growing energy needs efficiently, affordably, and responsibly. Congress's recent achievements have been years in the making. They are steps in the right direction. But in many ways, they are overshadowed by the enormity of the challenges that remain.

Americans now spend hundreds of billions of dollars to import oil each year. Over the course of decades, these billions will become trillions. A tremendous amount of American wealth, accumulated over generations, is being transferred to nations that are rich with oil. We are trading our American capital--a resource that can grow and multiply--for Middle East oil, a volatile and finite commodity. Just as oil and gas wells bore into the surface of the Earth, so too has the stable foundation of the American economy been penetrated by those who sell us the energy that we cannot, or will not, produce for ourselves.

Consider our current situation. In 2005, the United States consumed roughly 7.6 billion barrels of oil. More than 60 percent of this supply came from abroad, and it came at a cost of $230 billion. It is too early to calculate how much money we will send overseas this year, but at our current pace, this number could surpass $400 billion.

To put those numbers in perspective, it would cost less--$188 billion--to repair every structurally deficient bridge in America and $230 billion per year is more than enough to provide health care, not only for every American child but for every American. It is eight times more than the United States distributed in Federal foreign aid in 2005, and enough to reduce that year's Federal deficit by nearly three- quarters. In the wake of the devastation wrought by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, $230 billion would have been enough to completely rebuild the gulf coast. And, $230 billion is well beyond the cost of the economic growth package that the Congress just passed to get our Nation's economy back on track.

With high prices, growing consumption, and decreasing production here at home, the amount of money Americans spend to import oil is set to accelerate dramatically. If oil prices remain high over the next 25 years--and there is little reason to believe that they will not--the Energy Information Administration projects that our reliance on foreign oil will cost as much as $8.5 trillion, even without taking inflation into account. This calculation assumes $89 trillion to be the average price of oil through 2030, a price that we surpassed for much of 2007 and nearly all of this year so far.

Here is one thing we can all agree on: $8.5 trillion is a staggering sum, especially when compared to spending on oil imports for the previous 25-year period. According to the EIA, we spent a total of $1.6 trillion to import oil from 1980 to 2004. This bears repeating: $1.6 trillion over the past 25 years, $8.5 trillion over the next 25 years, more than $10 trillion in half a century. These figures reveal America's dependence on imported oil for what it is--a great and growing burden that will require sustained action to resolve.

The dire consequences of this arrangement are already becoming evident. In the future, they will be felt even more acutely--rippling through our economy, decreasing household income, and siphoning away jobs. Left unchecked, this dependence will threaten our prosperity and our way of life. It has the potential to make us poor.

Unfortunately, these costs are merely the tip of the iceberg. No discussion of oil imports is complete without an examination of the broader implications for our economy, our national security, and our relationship with the rest of the world. The figures I have quoted account only for the transaction price that our refiners and marketers will pay to acquire oil from foreign countries. These costs reflect one, but not all, of the many consequences associated with our reliance on imported oil.

A good place to start is by looking at our economy, a main focus of the Presidential primary races, because oil imports will have a significant impact on its continued vitality. It is testament to the strength of our economy that high oil prices alone have not already thrust our country into a recession. As many experts have noted, our economic energy intensity has improved greatly over the past few decades. Energy consumption has leveled off on a per capita basis, and energy spending as a percentage of GDP dropped significantly between the 1970s and early 21st century.

Many now consider our economy less vulnerable to the price of oil, no matter the cost of each barrel. To be sure, some progress has been made. But the economy is certainly not immune to expensive crude, and we cannot ignore historical precedent, which has established a trend of economic downturn in the wake of high oil prices.

In 2001, the EIA reported that there have been ``observable, and dramatic changes in GDP growth as the world oil price has undergone dramatic change. The price shocks of 1973-74, the late 1970s/early 1980s, and early 1990s were all followed by recessions . . .'' Our present experience has been a gradual and sustained increase in prices, not a price shock. And yet the lesson here is the same: an economy so dependent on such a volatile commodity can only be so strong. As we continue to export capital in order to import oil, and as oil-exporting nations grow more competitive as a result, it will become increasingly difficult for our country's resilience to endure.

I will mark this, as per my request, and I will continue tomorrow with the second part.

I will stop at this point, yield the floor, and I thank the Chair.

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

Reserving the right to object, I was supposed to be recognized next on our side. I was not going to speak long. I had rearranged an appointment.

Madam President, might I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, I greatly appreciate what you have done. I thank you very much.

I have always been in complete support of our troops who risk their lives every day to defend the United States of America. I voted for every dollar requested to fully fund our troops and against every effort to dictate the tactics of war from the Halls of Congress.

However, last year I began to express my concerns about the deteriorating conditions in Iraq and called on the Iraqi Government to do more and to do more quickly. I pointed to benchmarks laid out by the President and Congress that had a great deal of resonancy to them and that were rather unanimous in terms of support.

These were benchmarks on the ways that the Iraqi Government could and should move its country forward. I am glad to say that since General Petraeus took charge in Iraq, conditions have improved and the benchmarks have been met. I am glad to say that since General Petraeus took charge in Iraq, conditions have improved.

Iraq's different sects are working together. There has been a renewed spirit of reconciliation among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. A debaathification law has been passed. Iraqis are taking an interest in their own safety and security, forming neighborhood watch groups and looking out for each other.

There is no question, I know there are some who would not like to admit the facts, but the facts are the facts. Things have changed since last year in Iraq and they have changed for the better. I have briefly outlined how it happened and who made it happen.

There can be no doubt that the military hero of this war is General Petraeus. There can be no doubt he carries a heavy burden on his shoulders now to see if things can be wrapped up in a way that is good for the Iraqis, good for the entire Middle East and obviously in many ways would vindicate America's activities and what we have done there.

Iraqis are taking an interest in their own safety and security. They are forming neighborhood watch groups and are looking out for each other. One thing, and this kind of disturbs me, is that much of the information which I have to get, because I am not able to go to Iraq, is to talk to our own Senators who have been there. Because even though things have changed, Baghdad is safe, we just are not getting the coverage from the press of the United States or the press of the world that the change deserves. Because everybody in America should know what I am saying in this speech.

The very simple fundamental things that have happened have happened since General Petraeus set about with his approach that he told the country about. He named it. He told the President about it, and he did not ask for too much in order to exhibit and exercise his leadership.

Moreover, an Iraqi Army brigade recently deployed itself for operations against al-Qaida. Partially because of these efforts, there is less violence in Iraq now than when the insurgency began.

The Iraqi Government has passed an amnesty law for the country's Sunnis. Many said it would never be done. It was. The Government has further passed a budget--maybe we will not even pass ours this year, but they passed theirs for $50 billion for 2008. That is a compromise between the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds. They were able to sit down and solve their problems, their budget problems, and to pass a budget.

That is truly significant and truly different and obviously indicates that things have changed for the better. Oil revenues are going to Iraq's provinces to fund reconstruction efforts. That is another one everybody said would never happen, they will never be able to reach agreement on that. They have.

Even the New York Times has noted progress in Iraq, reporting that the newly passed legislation in Iraq:

Has the potential to spur reconciliation between Sunnis and

Shiites and set the country on a road to a more

representative government, starting with new provincial

elections.

That is something when the New York Times would choose to say that. They have not covered it very well, but at least the words I read are words found in the New York Times, which would clearly indicate that even they, they of little faith and they of quick judgment on the war in Iraq, had to say what I have quoted.

Now, I am proud to be here today to note this progress, the progress of the Iraqi Government, because it is the progress of the Iraqi people, the people whom we went there to help.

It is their progress, their victory, their win. Yet we are proud it was led by an American who has apparently an exceptional capacity in these areas, the areas that festered and caused these people to remain far apart until the last 18 months.

They have made significant, notable progress in the past 6 months and are on the right path to a stable and secure Iraq. General Petraeus and our soldiers deserve our thanks, our thanks and support for their efforts in Iraq and in the larger global war on terror.

I yield the floor and thank my friend once again for yielding to me.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate National Peace Corps Week and to honor more than 190,000 Peace Corps Volunteers from both my home State of New Mexico and across the Nation. Each year these courageous men and women embark on a 2 year journey to help develop the societies of 139 countries around the world.

Almost 47 years ago, then Senator John F. Kennedy challenged students at the University of Michigan to serve their country by peaceably living and working to develop another country. Over the years, volunteers have made significant and lasting contributions around the world by educating people on basic health issues, performing youth outreach, developing businesses, and offering assistance to small farmers to increase food production.

Today, over 8,000 volunteers are serving in the communities of 74 countries. Many Peace Corps volunteers from New Mexico are currently posted in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Honduras. Volunteers range in age from 25 to 80, with varying levels of education including individuals with undergraduate and graduate degrees. Additionally, the Peace Corps offers programs that support academic studies once a term of service has concluded, which allows many volunteers to further their education after their self-sacrificing service.

The experience volunteers take back with them from their host countries helps shape the course of their lives. Lifelong connections and friendships span these gaps of distance, and volunteers have the satisfaction of not only a job well done, but also of the positive image they created for our Nation.

Throughout this week of celebration, I encourage Americans to ask themselves, ``What can I do for my country?''

Mr. President, I wish to recognize Anthony, NM, today for being the Leap Year Capital of the World. A leap year only occurs once every 4 years, and is something to be celebrated. Anthony has taken this unique day and made it a staple celebration for their community.

Twenty years ago in Anthony, two neighbors who shared a common birthday, February 29, decided they should find other people with the same unique situation and have a giant birthday party; after all, it only happens once every 4 years. Mary Ann Brown and Birdie Lewis created the Worldwide Leap Year Birthday Club which now has almost 500 members. Because of the popularity of the birthday club, they have also created the Worldwide Leap Year Anniversary Club for couples who celebrate their anniversaries on this special day.

The Anthony Chamber of Commerce has planned several events this year for those with leap year birthdays and anniversaries and also for those with birthdays on the other 365 days of the year. The Worldwide Leap Year Festival will be kicked off with a parade, and then those attending will enjoy a leap year birthday dinner complete with birthday cake. Also in attendance will be Josephine Concho Abeita, a true New Mexico native, born in 1908, 4 years before New Mexico was even a State. Ms. Abeita will celebrate her 100th birthday and her 25th actual leap year birthday. I want to commend the citizens of Anthony and the creative way they have designed to promote their city. I wish them much success for this year's celebration.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I rise to introduce the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act, a bill to convert the annual budget and appropriations process to a 2-year cycle and to enhance oversight of Federal programs.

Mr. President, our most recent experience with the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act shows the need for a biennial appropriations and budget process. That one bill clearly demonstrated Congress is incapable of completing the budget, authorizing, and appropriations process on an annual basis and unfortunantly, this is not the first time.

Congress should now act to streamline the system by moving to a 2- year, or biennial, budget process. This is the most important reform we can enact to streamline the budget process, to make the Senate a more deliberative and effective institution, and to make us more accountable to the American people.

Moving to a biennial budget and appropriations process enjoys very broad support. President George W. Bush has supported a biennial budgeting process. Presidents Clinton, Reagan, and Bush also proposed a biennial appropriations and budget cycle. Leon Panetta, who served as White House Chief of Staff, OMB Director, and House Budget Committee chairman, has advocated a biennial budget since the late 1970s. Former OMB and CBO Director Alice Rivlin has called for a biennial budget the past two decades. Vice President Gore's National Performance Review and the 1993 Joint Committee on the Reorganization of Congress both recommended a biennial appropriations and budget cycle.

A biennial budget will dramatically improve the current budget process. The current annual budget process is redundant, inefficient, and destined for failure each year. Look at what we struggle to complete each year under the current annual process. The annual budget process consumes 3 years: 1 year for the administration to prepare the President's budget, another year for the Congress to put the budget into law, and the final year to actually execute the budget.

Today, I want to focus just on the congressional budget process, the process of annually passing a budget resolution, authorization legislation, and multiple appropriation bills. The record clearly shows that last year's experience was nothing new. Under the annual process, we consistently fail to complete action on multiple appropriations bills, to authorize programs, and to meet our deadlines.

While we have made a number of improvements in the budget process, the current annual process is redundant and inefficient. The Senate has the same debate, amendments and votes on the same issue three or four times a year--once on the budget resolution, again on the authorization bill, and finally on the appropriations bill.

Several years ago, I asked the Congressional Research Service, CRS, to update and expand upon an analysis of the amount of time we spend on the budget. CRS looked at all votes on appropriations, revenue, reconciliation, and debt limit measures as well as budget resolutions. CRS then examined any other vote dealing with budgetary levels, Budget Act waivers, or votes pertaining to the budget process. Beginning with 1980, budget related votes started dominating the work of the Senate. In 1996, 73 percent of the votes the Senate took were related to the budget.

If we cannot adequately focus on our duties because we are constantly debating the budget throughout the authorizing, budgeting, and appropriations process, just imagine how confused the American public is about what we are doing. The result is that the public does not understand what we are doing and it breeds cynicism about our Government.

Under the legislation we are introducing today, the President would submit a 2-year budget and Congress would consider a 2-year budget resolution and 2-year appropriation bills during the first session of a Congress. The second session of the Congress would be devoted to consideration of authorization bills and for oversight of Government agencies.

Most of the arguments against a biennial budget process will come from those who claim we cannot predict or plan on a 2-year basis. For most of the budget, we do not actually budget on an annual basis. Our entitlement and revenue laws are under permanent law, and Congress does not change these laws on an annual basis. The only component of the budget that is set in law annually are the appropriated, or discretionary, accounts.

The most predictable category of the budget are these appropriated, or discretionary, accounts of the Federal Government. Much of this spending is associated with international activities or emergencies. Because most of this funding cannot be predicted on an annual basis, a biennial budget is no less deficient than the current annual process. My bill does not preclude supplemental appropriations necessary to meet these emergency or unanticipated requirements.

In 1993 I had the honor to serve as cochairman on a joint committee that studied the operations of the Congress. Senator Byrd testified before that committee that the increasing demands put on us as Senators has led to our ``fractured attention.'' We simply are too busy to adequately focus on the people's business. This legislation is designed to free up time and focus our attention, particularly with respect to the oversight of Federal programs and activities.

Frankly, the limited oversight we are now doing is not as good as it should be. Our authorizing committees are increasingly crowded out of the legislative process. Under a biennial budget, the second year of the biennium will be exclusively devoted to examining Federal programs and developing authorization legislation. The calendar will be free of the budget and appropriations process, giving these committees the time and opportunity to provide oversight, review, and legislate changes to Federal programs. Oversight and the authorization should be an ongoing process, but a biennial appropriations process will provide greater opportunity for legislators to concentrate on programs and policies in the second year.

A biennial budget cannot make the difficult decisions that must be made in budgeting, but it can provide the tools necessary to make much better decisions. Under the current annual budget process, we are constantly spending the taxpayers' money instead of focusing on how best and most efficiently we should spend the taxpayers' money. By moving to a biennial budget cycle, we can plan, budget, and appropriate more effectively, strengthen oversight and watchdog functions, and improve the efficiency of government agencies.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I rise to introduce the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act, a bill to convert the annual budget and appropriations process to a 2-year cycle and to enhance oversight of Federal programs.

Mr. President, our most recent experience with the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act shows the need for a biennial appropriations and budget process. That one bill clearly demonstrated Congress is incapable of completing the budget, authorizing, and appropriations process on an annual basis and unfortunantly, this is not the first time.

Congress should now act to streamline the system by moving to a 2- year, or biennial, budget process. This is the most important reform we can enact to streamline the budget process, to make the Senate a more deliberative and effective institution, and to make us more accountable to the American people.

Moving to a biennial budget and appropriations process enjoys very broad support. President George W. Bush has supported a biennial budgeting process. Presidents Clinton, Reagan, and Bush also proposed a biennial appropriations and budget cycle. Leon Panetta, who served as White House Chief of Staff, OMB Director, and House Budget Committee chairman, has advocated a biennial budget since the late 1970s. Former OMB and CBO Director Alice Rivlin has called for a biennial budget the past two decades. Vice President Gore's National Performance Review and the 1993 Joint Committee on the Reorganization of Congress both recommended a biennial appropriations and budget cycle.

A biennial budget will dramatically improve the current budget process. The current annual budget process is redundant, inefficient, and destined for failure each year. Look at what we struggle to complete each year under the current annual process. The annual budget process consumes 3 years: 1 year for the administration to prepare the President's budget, another year for the Congress to put the budget into law, and the final year to actually execute the budget.

Today, I want to focus just on the congressional budget process, the process of annually passing a budget resolution, authorization legislation, and multiple appropriation bills. The record clearly shows that last year's experience was nothing new. Under the annual process, we consistently fail to complete action on multiple appropriations bills, to authorize programs, and to meet our deadlines.

While we have made a number of improvements in the budget process, the current annual process is redundant and inefficient. The Senate has the same debate, amendments and votes on the same issue three or four times a year--once on the budget resolution, again on the authorization bill, and finally on the appropriations bill.

Several years ago, I asked the Congressional Research Service, CRS, to update and expand upon an analysis of the amount of time we spend on the budget. CRS looked at all votes on appropriations, revenue, reconciliation, and debt limit measures as well as budget resolutions. CRS then examined any other vote dealing with budgetary levels, Budget Act waivers, or votes pertaining to the budget process. Beginning with 1980, budget related votes started dominating the work of the Senate. In 1996, 73 percent of the votes the Senate took were related to the budget.

If we cannot adequately focus on our duties because we are constantly debating the budget throughout the authorizing, budgeting, and appropriations process, just imagine how confused the American public is about what we are doing. The result is that the public does not understand what we are doing and it breeds cynicism about our Government.

Under the legislation we are introducing today, the President would submit a 2-year budget and Congress would consider a 2-year budget resolution and 2-year appropriation bills during the first session of a Congress. The second session of the Congress would be devoted to consideration of authorization bills and for oversight of Government agencies.

Most of the arguments against a biennial budget process will come from those who claim we cannot predict or plan on a 2-year basis. For most of the budget, we do not actually budget on an annual basis. Our entitlement and revenue laws are under permanent law, and Congress does not change these laws on an annual basis. The only component of the budget that is set in law annually are the appropriated, or discretionary, accounts.

The most predictable category of the budget are these appropriated, or discretionary, accounts of the Federal Government. Much of this spending is associated with international activities or emergencies. Because most of this funding cannot be predicted on an annual basis, a biennial budget is no less deficient than the current annual process. My bill does not preclude supplemental appropriations necessary to meet these emergency or unanticipated requirements.

In 1993 I had the honor to serve as cochairman on a joint committee that studied the operations of the Congress. Senator Byrd testified before that committee that the increasing demands put on us as Senators has led to our ``fractured attention.'' We simply are too busy to adequately focus on the people's business. This legislation is designed to free up time and focus our attention, particularly with respect to the oversight of Federal programs and activities.

Frankly, the limited oversight we are now doing is not as good as it should be. Our authorizing committees are increasingly crowded out of the legislative process. Under a biennial budget, the second year of the biennium will be exclusively devoted to examining Federal programs and developing authorization legislation. The calendar will be free of the budget and appropriations process, giving these committees the time and opportunity to provide oversight, review, and legislate changes to Federal programs. Oversight and the authorization should be an ongoing process, but a biennial appropriations process will provide greater opportunity for legislators to concentrate on programs and policies in the second year.

A biennial budget cannot make the difficult decisions that must be made in budgeting, but it can provide the tools necessary to make much better decisions. Under the current annual budget process, we are constantly spending the taxpayers' money instead of focusing on how best and most efficiently we should spend the taxpayers' money. By moving to a biennial budget cycle, we can plan, budget, and appropriate more effectively, strengthen oversight and watchdog functions, and improve the efficiency of government agencies.

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

Madam President, I rise to outline my reasons for supporting the Senate Finance Committee stimulus package.

I have reviewed various proposals carefully. Clearly, the House- passed package is simply unacceptable. I predict that the House would not pass that bill again now that its flaws have been revealed. By denying rebates to Social Security recipients and veterans, yet giving it to illegal immigrants, the House has produced something most Americans would reject.

I understand that in the rush to produce the package, the House may not have completely vetted each and every provision. So when I say it is simply unacceptable, I believe the way I have outlined what probably happened is true. They did a terrific job in a short period of time. It is just that the product, unfortunately, had to go somewhere else, it had to come here, and in coming here the good staff and others had to look at it in its entirety again, and they found what I described and the chairman of the full committee described.

I say to the chairman of the full committee, I am not on this committee, but I follow it, and I know what is in the final package.

Yesterday, the Institute for Supply Management reported that business activity in the nonmanufacturing sector of our economy contracted. That is the part of the economy that has been holding everything together. It had not been contracting; now it has. The level of that key indicator is now at its lowest level since 2001. Right after the terrorist attacks of September 11, the stock market dropped 370 points and investors continued to move into ultrasafe areas, such as Government bonds.

Last week and earlier this week, we had more information about a devastated housing industry and the announcement of bankruptcy of a major home building firm. Last Friday, the Government reported that the Nation suffered a decline in job creation for the first time in 4 years.

In short, we clearly face the possibility of a recession. Worse, this recession may dovetail with the present near freeze in credit markets. And when that happens, none of us knows how these two things may interact and what it may bring to us.

A prudent person would do as the House has done and has been proposed by the Senate and pass a stimulus package that will get money into the economy as soon as possible and will target particular sectors especially hard hit.

The question isn't whether we should have a stimulus package. The question is, which do we prefer? The first thing to look at is the cost. The Senate Finance Committee package, as amended, will cost $158 billion. The House-passed package was $146 billion. In a $14 trillion economy, a difference of $12 billion is insignificant, almost a rounding error in an economy clearly the size we have. Both packages cost about the same.

Second, it seems to this Senator that speed is the important ingredient. Therefore, if we invoke cloture on the Senate Finance Committee package before us, we can move quickly and move toward a Senate-passed package.

Third, I believe the Senate Finance Committee bill spreads the rebates, including veterans and Social Security recipients, and making sure no illegal immigrants receive the rebates.

Fourth, the committee recommendations will give a strong boost to housing and home building through its net operating loss provisions. We cannot ignore the weight that the collapsing housing market and home building sector have had on our economy and loss of jobs.

It used to be common knowledge that you would not have a robust American economy without a robust home building sector accompanying it. That may still be true. We have had a robust housing economy until now.

Finally, I believe the passing of the energy tax provisions in this Senate Finance Committee proposal as soon as possible is important. We can pass the provisions by invoking cloture, not waiting until later in the year to try to pass them on a different vehicle.

I have concluded that I will support cloture on the Senate Finance Committee proposal, recognizing that a conference with the House is likely and that both Chambers will be able to fine-tune the ultimate package and get it quickly to the President. I hope that is the case. The House had its turn. We will now have our turn. Then there will be a conference which will have to be called in any event, but they will now be operating under the gun, meaning getting something done quickly or they will lose all credibility.

I am hopeful I have chosen the right path. I know it is a difficult one for many who think I should do otherwise. I respect all of them, but I made my decision on what is best for New Mexico and what is best for America as I see it.

I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me first say of Senator Lott I must make a slight confession. You know I am leaving next year, and one of the reasons I am leaving is because I have an ailment that has an impact on my brain. I say that in all honesty. I already told the whole world that. The point of that is I have difficulty remembering some things. I still am a pretty good Senator, so nobody is fighting about that. I just know that you and I have gone through some incredible legal situations, legislative situations, and I am trying to pull them up now in the next few minutes just to share them with you and to share them with everybody here.

I have been here 36 years, which is a little bit longer than Trent, and that is six elections. You must know that I was in the middle of a lot of things or I couldn't have been here 36 years. I am not a back- bencher or an under-the-tabler. I am where the action is, and I lucked out on the committee that did a lot of exciting things.

One of the things Trent Lott has taught me about leadership is that it is quiet. It takes place without you knowing it is happening. That is what you did. When we had to put together the votes for the balanced budget and for the reconciliation tax bill, which was one of the most monumental acts, and we had to use that Budget Act drafted by the distinguished Senator Byrd and he didn't quite think we would be able to use it the way we did, and we had that battle and we won that on a vote, then we were using it to reconcile tax cuts for America. It is hard to explain, when you would get everybody around and then you would say: We are almost there, but we are not there. And here I am, I have been working on it forever, and we have this very unique process, and we just have to get the votes. We can't come back a second time on this kind of thing. We will get killed. It has to go right now. He would say we are one vote short or two, and you just knew that it was going to happen. He knew what was there, and when he would tell us to go, we would go, and sure enough, that is how it happened.

So I have had all kinds of situations, from the huge balanced budget, to--I remember when we reformed welfare. Many of these things came from the budget process, the way I used it on behalf of the Senate. We put in the numbers so that you couldn't avoid--if you did the welfare reform, you would get the protection of the budget. And I can remember that was an exciting day because it all of a sudden became bipartisan.

Do you recall, Trent, that it didn't end up with just us; it was them. They came to the party, and so ultimately did the President. It was one great big party. But it was also, in the end, absolutely imperative that we had the reconciliation instruction that came with it that Senator Lott--he wouldn't fuss with me. He wouldn't ask me to prove it. He would just say: Is that the way it is? I would tell him yes. And he said: Well, that is what we will do.

It was just terrific to be a chairman of important matters and have a leader like Trent who would say: If that is what it takes, that is what we are going to do. We didn't redo it or rethink it because it got tough. Many times the path I chose was probably the harder one. He would say: If that is the way we are going to do it, we are going to do it. It was rather terrific to be part of a team like that.

Now, I want to tell you, it works both ways because Trent Lott was on the opposite side of something very important when he was over in the House. We did a Social Security change here to permanently fix Social Security--we thought--and Trent--we heard from over in the House that the rocks and the stones weren't coming from the Democrats.

We said: Where are they coming from?

They said: They are coming from Trent Lott.

I said: Well, maybe I have to go over there and talk with him.

Then I said: Well, maybe I won't. Maybe I will just let him stew.

It was something Reagan was for and we were for, but his little team wasn't for. I think they were right. I think we made a mistake. But we didn't do that. We didn't get it done. Do you remember, Trent? It died. You were over there and, clearly, you knew what you were doing, and I don't think you liked it very much because it was Republicans against Republicans.

But we did get back together, and for the one angst we had many memorable pluses that are just terrific when it comes to thinking back on the life of the Senator over a complicated, tough period of time, when we learned how to use a Budget Act for innumerable

things. In fact, the Budget Act was used, over a period of 16 years, by me, as chairman, with my staff, as an instrument beyond which anybody ever thought it would be used. It changed how we functioned as a Senate because it permitted us to do things through the reconciliation process that were absolutely impossible without that act.

Then we got around to the balanced budget. That was the big monster event of our time. We had to get that done, and we got it done, sure enough, by reconciliation instruction that was really gigantic, and then sitting down in a little room that I use over here that I call my hideaway. I hope somebody puts a sign on it after I leave because that little room was the room wherein we negotiated, four people negotiated the balanced budget.

Trent was the guy who would come in every now and then to see if we were making headway and see if we needed help. It was Speaker Gingrich, myself, and somebody from the White House. Sure enough, when we were through, he was right there by our side, having participated as if he really knew what the budget was all about. He could put on a terrific face. He didn't have any knowledge of what I was doing in there, but he just asked: Is it going all right?

Yes, all right. Is it going all right? Fine. Then he would walk out and have a terrific press conference. They would all think he really knew what this budget was about. I mean, I have to admit, you don't have to tell him very much. We were still a long ways from getting there, and he would walk out and say: They are making great headway. This is really moving ahead.

I would go home after having not slept for 2 weeks, and I would be worried that he shouldn't be saying that because we were so far apart, and all he would say is: Don't worry. Just give them a little bit of optimism; we have to keep them alive a little bit.

I close by saying, Trent, I know what it is to sacrifice to be a Senator. I did that. I came here, believe it or not, with my eight children--and I am going to just mention it once because you had it a little bit better, not much--but the pay was about $38,000 with eight children, and we couldn't find a way to change the pay because we were scared to. That is the kind of suffering we went through. Trent did the same in his early days. When he and his wife came here, the Senate had decided for a number of years that we did not want to pay ourselves a salary, which is one of the worst things we did. A democracy should not do that. We must pay people for these important jobs.

That wasn't what kept him going. He loved the place, and his family loved it, it is obvious. His son was ambitious and rambunctious, wanting to get ahead, and he did get ahead. He was able to do that while his dad served here, and that is truly to their betterment and a compliment.

I say thanks for the sacrifice for serving us, for serving in the Senate, and for serving our Nation. It is important you are leaving at a time when you are strong and have a lot of energy left. That means you will have a second life and you will say to me what James Baker has said at least 10 times. He said: Domenici, there is life after the Senate. And I say that to you: May that life be as good as the Senate or better, and may your family enjoy it as much as they have enjoyed the Senate, and may it be successful for all of them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Colorado, before he yields, would engage in a brief dialog with the Senator from New Mexico. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes for that purpose.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Colorado. I understand he is the ranking member on that subcommittee.

The Senator tried his best to inform those working on this that this was not the way to handle one of America's most significant resources that might, indeed, sooner rather than later take the place of the crude oil we import from all over the world.

Right now, some of the major companies in America are investing in technology which will completely change the way this asset oil shale will be developed; is that not right? It is going to be in situ instead of the old mining system that would have been so tough environmentally.

I thank the Senator. I want to say this is exactly what we should not be doing: putting on a moratorium that stops rulemaking and the ordinary professional evolution of standards by the appropriate Federal agencies to address the utilization of one of America's most profound solutions to our energy crisis. Because the price of oil has gotten so high, it is indeed feasible to develop shale oil in America and substitute it for diesel and crude oil products that are bought from overseas. I know that. I need not ask anybody any questions about that. That is why we put the language in the big energy package, and that is why a candidate running for Senate in the State of Colorado should not pander to those who just want to take out after this product that could indeed be one of America's salvations. The people in the State of Colorado and in America ought to know it. The person who did this, who put the moratorium on wants to be a Senator, I understand.

The first thing we ought to find out is does he want America to have a chance to be independent of foreign oil. This is one that might do it. You can imagine that in 15 or 20 years, oil would be produced from this shale, and it can be taken right out of the ground and used, because they boil it in the ground. That is the new technology.

I am not very impressed with somebody who comes along on a bill such as this and deals with this kind of resource in a willy-nilly manner, to respond or pander to those who don't want the United States on its own to do anything to develop energy. They might say we could not do it before. Of course not. You could not develop it at $25-a-barrel oil. But you certainly can at $50, and there is no question you can at $80 or $90. That is what America's future is all about.

I thank the Senator for his work. I am sorry it didn't work. At least those who put that in know somebody is looking out for them. It won't be there next year. This Senator will see to it that we have a debate and vote on that issue before that happens. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, I do not know where the time is. I do not to want to interfere. I want 2 minutes before they are finished. Thank you.

Mr. President, I wanted to say to the two Senators who have just spoken, this Senator from New Mexico is ranking member of that committee. I am not chairman any longer of the committee they have alluded to. I can assure them that it was not overt action on this Senator's part that put that provision in the bill. I think you know that. We would be talking; I am pretty accessible. You two have already been telling me. I am hopeful that my presence on that committee will be of help to you in resolving whatever problems might be caused by its being there. Having said that, I want to make a comment. If it takes me an extra minute, I ask for an extra minute at this point.

I come to the floor as I embark upon my last year as a Senator after 35 years. Tonight, today, this week, this month reminds me of something. It reminds me that it is time for the Senate to have a serious debate on whether we should be doing appropriations every year and doing a budget resolution every year or whether it is time for the Senate to do that on a 2-year basis, as many States do, and as we certainly could do, taking the first year for appropriations and budgeting and the second year of the bi-cycle with no appropriations other than emergency supplementals or whatever we define. I believe it will work. I believe it will work because it is better than what we have. I also believe things are so bad in terms of not being able to get our work done and ending up with appropriations like this.

As good as they are, as hard as people work, everybody knows it is not the way to do business. We have done it. Democrats have done it. I lay blame on no party. I merely say the Senate can't sleepwalk through this for much longer. This is a huge problem with a simple solution. The solution will be a little one that will address a huge problem. Plain and simple, the legislation is drawn, committees have had hearings, a 2-year cycle for the processes of budgeting and appropriations. I hope those who have come up to me in the

last week will follow through. I hope the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, who has indicated he is going to look carefully and study thoroughly, will do that quickly.

I would like to join with those early on next year in seeing what we can do to better a process that has served us well but, clearly, at this point in history, considering the size of government, how often government must produce budgets, how wasteful that is, all the other things that go with it, I would hope we might make some giant move in the right direction.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I applaud the top public high schools in my home State of New Mexico. I was pleased to learn that in U.S. News and World Report's first ranking of America's best high schools, 16 high schools in New Mexico were awarded with silver and bronze medals for their outstanding performance on standardized tests and in providing college-level coursework.

The students come from many different backgrounds, but they are successful because of the mind-set that says every student can succeed. These schools and the communities around them have embraced the differences in their student body and demonstrated that every single student, regardless of background, can and will learn. It takes the dedicated leadership of a good principal, a talented teaching corps and engaged parents to achieve this level.

The teachers and staff of these high schools have demonstrated their commitment to excellence through quality education. I have always been very proud to call New Mexico my home because of the countless opportunities it provides. This is a well deserved recognition for the excellent work being done by these high schools, and I would like to congratulate them on their great success.

The following schools were commended with awards: Academy for Technology and the Classics in Santa Fe, NM; Bloomfield High School in Bloomfield, NM; Clayton High School in Clayton, NM; Cliff High School in Cliff, NM; Eldorado High School in Albuquerque, NM; East Mountain Charter High School in Sandia Park, NM; Hagerman High School in Hagerman, NM; La Cueva High School in Albuquerque, NM; Lake Arthur High School in Lake Arthur, NM; Logan High School in Logan, NM; Los Alamos High School in Los Alamos, NM; Magdalena High School in Magdalena, NM; Sandia High School in Albuquerque, NM; Springer High School in Springer, NM; Tatum High School in Tatum, NM; and Texico High School in Texico, NM.

Again, I commend these fine high schools on a job well done, and I hope that these awards will inspire high schools in my home State and around the country to strive for the best.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Are there any other commitments to speak on this?

I don't need the entire time, but I will speak a while and see what happens.

I am here because there is a misunderstanding somewhere about the CAFE bill that is coming before us. We all acknowledge the CAFE standards bill that is before us is long overdue. We all understand that it is very good legislation. We all understand that the cellulosic provisions--the postcorn ethanol--are very important. It is here, although it has some problems. The President finds some problems with it. So do many on our side find problems with it. But it is in here.

But the issue is not whether that is a good package. The issue is what is going to happen if we decide we are going to pass this bill with the taxes that are in it as it sits before us at the

desk, $21 billion worth of taxes. What is going to happen to the bill if we pass it with those taxes in? It is very simple: It is going to get vetoed. We have heard it. The President has said it. The only thing we could do would be to get a tape recorder and ask him to say it and bring that down here and make it legal and let him tell us. He has said he doesn't want those taxes on this bill.

We still have people voting for this, as I talked to them, because they want this bill. They say it is great; it is a wonderful bill. I ask you, how are you going to get a bill if you leave the taxes on and send it to the President when he has already told you in advance he was going to veto it? What we should do is, if you want the bill, produce a bill the President will sign.

We have already taken one giant step. We took out the mandatory wind for electricity production. A percentage was mandated, and we took that out. Now, today, the issue is, Are we going to take out the taxes? That is the vote when we come to a vote on the Energy bill.

Some people think that is a nice vote; I like the taxes; I am going to vote for them. But the point is, you are not going to get the taxes and you are going to lose with it the energy portion of the bill because the President is going to veto it. I can't answer any more than to repeat what he has said. I am not his spokesman on the floor; I am merely repeating what has come up Pennsylvania Avenue from down there where he lives and up here where we work. He has said: If the taxes are in, the bill is gone. So it looks to me as if those who want a winner ought to vote to take the taxes.

Those who want a loser ought to vote to leave the taxes in and they will get their wish. But they will not only lose the taxes--which some say: They are pretty good; I like them--they will lose the entire Energy bill on CAFE and cellulosic, which follows right after ethanol and is desperately needed to buttress the ethanol market, as my friend who spoke eloquently for her side of this bill knows.

We need the bill on cellulosic. I call it ethanol 2 for simplicity. We need it because we need to get that ethanol market stabilized a little better and come in with a second kind of product instead of just corn. But we are not going to get that, so the wishers are not going to get their wishes, if they vote for the taxes, even if they say: I have looked at them, and I love them. Lots of people love taxes. Some have looked at this $21 billion or $20-plus billion and said: We love them. They are great. They are incentives. They are the right thing.

But, look, the point is, this is not the bill you are going to get them on. You are not going to get the taxes on a bill that is essentially an energy bill. Send the President an energy bill. Send the President an energy bill and look around for another time when we could send him the tax bill.

I still talk to Senators--some yesterday--and they say: Well, I think the taxes belong in. And I ask them: How do you think we are going to get the CAFE standards, which you certainly would acknowledge is one of the most important energy measures we could do? ``Well, we will just vote for it.'' No, we won't. The President is going to veto it if the taxes that you like so much are in it.

So why don't we take the taxes off and send the President a clean bill with CAFE, cellulosic, and a couple other things? It would then be an energy bill which he would want and he would sign, and instead of a veto, we would have a victory party. That would be good, it seems to me.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, would you like a couple minutes?

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, somebody spoke off your amendment.

About energy.

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

Mr. President, I was, I say to the Senator, but I will be glad to give you a couple minutes. Go ahead and take a few minutes.

Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time I have.

I want to start over again to make sure everybody understands what I have to say. Sometimes the most simple thing is the most difficult to explain.

This is a very simple proposition. We have put in a bill--the Energy bill--the work of two or three committees. It is not all an Energy Committee bill. The lead pony in the bill is an important provision with reference to the mileage on automobiles, and we have, for the first time in more than two decades, changed that in this bill.

We have an ethanol 2, which is cellulosic, which follows on right behind ethanol to make sure ethanol is stabilized and we get a huge product in years to come to take the place of oil-based petroleum.

Those were in a bill, and they were working their way through, and the decision was made: Well, we will put on that some taxes. They put on $21 billion in taxes and another item that was long passed--we will leave it alone--and all of a sudden the President of the United States said: Well, don't send me that bill. I will veto it.

Now, I am one who happens to believe him. Since I believe him, I think what we ought to do is see what we can do to make it most probable we will get these two energy provisions that we need--the ones I have just alluded to for the third time today.

It would appear to me what we ought to do to get those energy provisions, to most probably get them--you never know until the President signs; and this still has to go one time to the House--but it appears to me rather simple. The way to do that is to take out the taxes the President does not want.

They may be good incentives. They may be good taxes on bad people-- whatever it is Senators have to say--but they are bad taxes for those who want this Energy bill. They are bad taxes for anyone who wants these two new provisions of the Energy bill, bad because the President will veto them and we will get nothing.

So I urge that you vote today against cloture so we will have this bill before us, and we know, then, the majority leader will do something to see that we get a bill. He will have some time to work on what kind of language he wants to send to the House. It is very limited with amendments because this is not a very ordinary way the House sent us this bill. They sent us this as a message on one of their bills, and that is very unique.

Nonetheless, let's not get into that.

It is simple today: Do you want an energy bill? If you want an energy bill, then don't vote for cloture so taxes can be taken out of this bill, and then all you have to do is send it to the House after you fix it up, if you would like to, if the majority leader wants to repair it, because it needs some repair.

So there we go. I thank the Senate for listening. I think it is a pretty simple proposition and I hope everybody understands. If they want this bill, they ought to know how to vote. Thank you.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Nevada leaves, I wish to note first I was very pleased to accept your definition of our relationship--good friends. We are friends. I thank you for that and I want to say that now.

I do want to say to you about the bill we have had a long fight about, and we just finished about as difficult a vote as we have had in a long time, that the bill you are going to send back to the House, this bill up here, with a few alterations and the taxes out, this bill, I guarantee, will get signed and it will become law. It will be the most significant act we can take to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, all by itself. It will get passed, now that we are finished with the hurdles, and you will be the one who will be leading it through the remainder of its journeys and you will be there when, indeed, it becomes the law of the land. It will be the most significant energy act we can do.

It was done by the Committee on Commerce, led by Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens. Because they know how to work, they passed it when we could not pass it for years. Now it is ready to go. It is not dead. The vote caused it to stay alive and go down its way to the President for his signature.

I think the Senator's accomplishments in this regard are to be commended. We are going to get a great bill and you will be part of it. I am sorry it is not exactly what you want, and you can rest assured there will be some of us helping you and helping the other side when it comes to the incentives you spoke of in your remarks. Some of us think they are important. We just don't think they belong on this bill and they do not deserve a veto.

I thank the Senator for his kindness as we work this through. I hope we can make a couple of changes that Senator Inouye thinks are important before the bill is sent to the House.

I thank the Senator.

I yield the floor.

I want to clarify the time because I think time was allotted and some Senators who should have gotten time were not here. How much time do I have?

I want to ask Senator Stevens how much time he wants. Senator Stevens wants 3 minutes, but he wants Senator Inouye to speak first.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, how much time do we have?

That is without the leader's time?

Mr. President, thank you. I will use 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison, I ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank all of those who participated. Their names have been mentioned, whether they be Senators or staff. I want to say, I include all of those who have already been mentioned.

I want to make a couple statements that will make the record true.

First of all, this bill was not intended to solve all of America's energy problems.

Second, it was not intended to have a huge number of energy proposals in it. It was a bill that had two great big core provisions, and we are very grateful they are both here before the Senate--not exactly the way they passed the Senate, but good enough for the kind of work that goes on between the House and Senate. Because we must--we cannot get perfection--get some kind of compromise, we have a great bill.

Everybody has said all that can be said about this bill. But the Commerce Committee of the Senate, chaired by Senator Inouye, and with Ranking Member Stevens--while we, the Energy Committee, were debating one way, and another committee another way--one afternoon decided they were going to alter, amend, and change the fuel standards for American automobiles, and they did it. We have been waiting around for years for it. It was the impulse and impact for us to do the rest of this bill.

We added to it the RFS, which is ethanol 2--and I will acknowledge that as to those speakers who have said it is not as good as the Senate provision, they are right. But there are two bodies, and it was difficult to negotiate everything we wanted. So there will have to be some ardent observations of what is going on in ethanol and its successor to ethanol to see if we need to make some changes. But things are not done in legislation to correct all problems. They are done to do the best you can. If the best you can is good, you adopt it. We have done that.

It certainly has been a rocky road, but I am thrilled that the Senate is finally considering a bill that contains the right priorities and stands an excellent chance of becoming law.

Today is a historic one for the U.S. Senate. The bill before us takes important steps to reduce our dependence on oil and improve our energy efficiency.

For the first time in 32 years, the Senate today will increase fuel economy standards. We will also extend and expand the renewable fuels standard, which will help us diversify our fuel supply. And we will improve the efficiency of our appliances, our lighting, and our buildings.

While I was not happy with the process by which we proceeded on this bill, it nonetheless reflects a compromise for many of us. And, reaching a fair agreement is the way things get done here in the Senate.

This energy bill contains the right priorities. Although it took us two tough cloture votes, we have avoided adding costly provisions that would have placed this bill in jeopardy, like a renewable portfolio standard and tax increases on domestic energy production.

Instead, we have focused on provisions that will help us save oil and save energy, such as CAFE and energy efficiency. The renewable fuels standard that we enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has already helped farmers and diversified our fuel supply, and that RFS is expanded in this bill.

The House of Representatives should pass this bill, and I believe that the President should sign it into law.

I am pleased to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to pass it today. We will send the right message and begin the long process of reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

I wish to close by saying, everyone did not agree on what would go in this bill along with the energy provisions. There were very difficult votes that were taken, and actually there was no question that as between the Democrats and Republicans there was truly a big difference of opinion. But when it ended up, we had the major energy provisions left in the bill. We had tax provisions mostly out. We had the provision that has to do with mandating alternative fuels, led by wind, by every State--we had that provision out.

What is left is a very good bill. Senator Bingaman described some of the unheard of and unknown quantities that are good. The other Senators have all sung the praises, so I do not need to do it again. It is historic, however, to change the automobile standards after 32 years, and to do it in a way where our automobile makers think they can comply. That is very unique. They never did that. They think they can comply and keep their businesses manufacturing cars. That is No. 2.

No. 3, when you are looking to solve the problem of how much crude oil you import, you look for someplace you can save on that quantity and commodity

you are importing. Now, the best experts in America have testified there is no act the Congress could take that will do more to cut our dependence upon foreign oil than this measure. Get it? The experts of America say you will reduce America's dependence more by the passage of this bill, the Inouye-Stevens bill, than any other single provision you could pass. That is pretty good.

The experts are in the records where we have taken testimony as Senators. The best experts said that about 2 weeks ago. It shocked everybody. They said there is nothing you can do that will save more foreign oil that we import that makes us dependent than if you change CAFE standards as we have changed them.

I think that would have to be hard work. Senators are tired. They voted twice on cloture on this bill in a roundabout way. In both instances, one or two votes was the only difference. That makes sometimes for hard feelings. But I do not think it has here. I think we have come out of this OK, friends, ready to go to work on some more energy bills.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I believe we are out of time except for leader time.

I have no other Senators who want to be heard on my side.

I yield back the remainder of our time, reserving the full leader's time at this point.