Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from Virginia for his comments. I understand that duty calls him to go to his meeting at the CIA. I am grateful for his support.

Mr. President, just before Christmas in 1968, I was appointed to succeed Alaska's first senior Senator, Bob Bartlett. Next month will mark the 40th year I have had the honor and privilege to serve in this great Chamber.

First, and most important, I thank my family. After my wife Ann's tragic death in 1978, I thought the end of my career had come, but my dear wife Catherine entered my life in 1980, and joined by my six children, Susan, Beth, Ted, Walter, Ben, and Lily, and my 11 grandchildren, my family has given me love, support, and sacrifice, which made my continued career in the Senate possible and gave it meaning. I dearly love each member of my family.

Forty years. It is hard to believe that so much time could pass so quickly, but it has. I want everyone listening to know that I treasure every moment I spent here representing Alaska and Alaskans, the land and the people I love.

As a Member of this body, I served as whip from 1976 to 1984, as chair of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, as chair of the Arms Control Observer Group, as chair of the Ethics Committee, as chair of the Rules Committee, as chair of the Governmental

Affairs Committee, as chair of the Appropriations Committee, as chair of the Commerce Committee, and also had functions as the ranking member as the political change took place back and forth across this aisle. I also served as President pro tempore and President pro tempore emeritus.

I am having really a difficult time today articulating my feelings, and I hope if I puddle up a little bit, as my old friend used to say, I will be excused.

When I came to the Senate, Alaska had been a State for less than a decade. We were then more of an impoverished territory than a full- fledged State. The commitments made by the Federal Government in our Statehood Act were unfulfilled, and some are still unfulfilled. Alaska had not received the land and resources it had been promised. Poverty and illness reigned supreme in rural regions of our State. I remember so well when Senator Kennedy and I went to the Arctic and examined some of those villages. It was a disaster. Our fisheries were in peril, primarily from the intrusion of foreign vessels that were anchored just a few miles offshore 12 months out of the year.

Many people doubted whether Alaska had what it took to be a successful State, and they asked whether Alaska was still Seward's Folly. We proved those doubters were wrong. Working with one another as Alaskans and with great friends in the Senate, Alaskans took control of our own destiny.

In 1958, as legislative counselor for the Department of Interior, I worked on Alaska's Statehood Act. Section 4 of that act committed Congress to settle the Alaska Native land claims.

In 1971, Congress did enact the Alaska Natives Land Claims Settlement Act, settling aboriginal claims in our State. Native corporations, established at my request to manage $1 billion paid to our State by the Federal Government, and the 44-million acre land settlement are now driving forces in the Alaska economy.

In 1973, after a dramatic tie-breaking vote by the Vice President of this Chamber on an amendment which closed the courts of this country to further delay by extreme environmentalists, the President signed into law the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act. That act dramatically improved America's energy security and secured the economic future of Alaska.

In 1976, Congress passed what became known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act to fight foreign fishing fleets which endangered America's fisheries. Because of that act, America's fisheries today are the most productive and the best managed in the world.

Working within the framework of these basic laws, Alaskans have labored in the appropriations and administrative process to make statehood a reality. Where there was nothing but tundra and forest, today there are now airports, roads, ports, water and sewer systems, hospitals, clinics, communications networks, research labs, and much, much more. Alaska was not Seward's folly and is no longer an impoverished territory. Alaska is a great State and an essential contributor to our Nation's energy security and national defense. I am proud to have had a role in this transformation. Working to help Alaska achieve its potential has been and will continue to be my life's work.

My motto has been here ``to hell with politics, just do what's right for Alaska,'' and I have tried every day to live up to those words. I take great pride in the work of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, the leadership of which I have shared for almost three decades with my brother Senator Dan Inouye, and I thank him for being here. He is a great American patriot and a true friend. Together, we have worked to rebuild our Armed Forces to provide the support and training needed by our warfighters to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world.

I don't have time today to recount the highlights of 40 years of work in this body. That will take a lot of time. I will take time, however, to acknowledge the friendships I have enjoyed with so many of my colleagues and Senate staffers.

I really am grateful to every Member of the Senate for their friendship, and I bear no ill will toward any Member of this body. I am most grateful for the support and counsel of my colleagues in the Alaska congressional delegation, my old friend in the House, Congressman Don Young, who has done so much for our State, and my steadfast partner in the Senate, Senator Lisa Murkowski, to whom I owe so much and admire so much. She has been a true friend and true partner. I wish her well in the future here.

I also want to acknowledge the tremendous contribution made by hundreds of young Alaskans who have come to Washington to serve on my staff. In particular, let me express my gratitude to my current staff, all of whom have worked hard for Alaska during the toughest of times. I know all will go on to do great things for Alaska and our country.

I feel blessed by God to have had the opportunity to serve in this body. I deeply appreciate the trust Alaskans have reposed in me for 40 years. When Alaska needed a strong voice to speak up for its interests, I did my part to the best of my ability. When an administration submitted legislation or a budget that ignored Alaska's legislative concerns, I urged Congress to exercise its constitutional power to redress the balance. When an Alaskan--any Alaskan--or any Alaskan entity needed help, my office was ready and did help to the maximum extent possible.

I feel the same way now that I did in 1968. I really must pinch myself to fully understand that I am privileged to speak on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Coming from the boyhood I had, I could never even have dreamed of being here today. And home is where the heart is, Mr. President. If that is so, I have two homes--one is right here in this Chamber, and the other is my beloved State of Alaska. I must leave one to return to the other.

As I leave the Senate and the work that has given me so much happiness and satisfaction over the years, I know Senator Murkowski and Congressman Young will continue to be strong voices for our 49th State. This is the last frontier. I also pray for my successor's success as he joins in that effort.

My mission in life is not complete. I believe God will give me more opportunities to be of service to Alaska and to our Nation. And I look forward with glad heart and with confidence in its justice and mercy.

I told members of the press yesterday that I don't have any rearview mirror. I look only forward, and I still see the day when I can remove the cloud that currently surrounds me.

That's it, Mr. President, 40 years distilled into a few minutes, I close by saying and asking that God bless Alaska and our Governor, God bless the United States of America and our President, and God bless the Senate and every Member of this body.

I yield the floor for the last time.

(Applause; Senators rising.)

Mr. President, I thank my house and senate colleagues for their hard work and dedication these past months as we have worked for a bipartisan, bicameral consumer product safety bill. This is a product of a bipartisan effort in both chambers and I am proud to have been a part of it. This final product will provide essential resources to a commission badly in need and help ensure the safety of our children from hazardous products.

The number of toys coming from overseas has increased greatly, while the resources of the Consumer Product Safety Commission have decreased. The result is unsafe products making their way to our store shelves and into our homes. We all remember the wave of recalls last year. Passage of this bill will help assure consumers that products are safe.

This bill provides the commission with $626 million over the next five years and directs it to significantly increase the number of staff, also adding to the number of CPSC employees stationed at our ports of entry inspecting products for safety defects.

In addition to these increased resources, the CPSC will have greater authority to punish violators of its statutes. The amount the CPSC can collect in civil penalties for a single violation will be raised to $100,000, with a maximum penalty cap of $15 million. And, as a way to ensure compliance, state attorneys general will have authority to enforce particular violations of CPSC statutes, including violations of consumer product safety rules, regulations, standards, and bans, as well as product recalls.

I am pleased that the all terrain vehicle (ATV) provision that I included in the Senate-passed bill remains in this final bill. For many Alaskans ATVs are the primary means of transportation in the summer. More than a third of the ATVs sold in 2006 came from overseas--many ATVs from overseas do not meet our safety standards. ATVs injured over 146,000 people in 2006, and approximately 39,000 of those injuries were to children under 16. This bill requires all ATVs, both foreign and domestic to be subject to the same safety standards.

Additionally the bill establishes tough lead standards and calls for safety rules for durable infant and toddler products such as strollers and cribs. Selling, reselling, offering or providing for use any of these products not meeting our new safety standards will be illegal. Consumers will also have the option of registering their purchases so they can be notified in the event of a recall.

Consumers are purchasing more products over the internet or through catalogues, and it is sometimes difficult to ascertain a product's dangers by the photo online.

Advertisements providing a direct means of purchase will be required to contain a cautionary statement. By including these statements, consumers, will be able to make an informed decision when purchasing products for a young child.

I congratulate everyone who worked so diligently on this bill. It took some time, but we have a solid bill to send to the President that will better protect our children and give the Consumer Product Safety Commission the resources it has been missing.

Mr. President, BG John W. Peabody has served as commander and division engineer for the Pacific Ocean Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers since July, 2005.

I relied on General Peabody to help resolve the crisis of coastal erosion in my State of Alaska.

He was instrumental in developing a partnership between State, Federal and local agencies dedicated to helping our communities deal with the effects of coastal erosion.

Under his leadership and commitment our Army Engineer District, Far East, has begun the Korea relocation program, moving our forces and their families to new, state-of-the-art facilities south of Seoul.

In Japan, General Peabody directed the largest military construction program in the history of our Corps of Engineers. USAED, Japan completed over 500 projects, greatly enhancing our operational readiness level and significantly improving the quality of life for our service men and women and their families living in that country.

Brigadier General Peabody oversaw the construction of the Stryker Brigade stationing facilities at Schofield Barracks, HI. Those new facilities allow our soldiers to train for contingencies throughout the Pacific region and around the world.

Brigadier General Peabody's professionalism, caring leadership, and devotion are in keeping with the proudest traditions of our military, and reflect great credit upon himself, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Army.

Mr. President, after 36 years of service to our Nation, GEN Dick Cody will conclude his military career on August 1. I salute his leadership and honor his lovely wife Vicki, for her invaluable support of her husband and our soldiers.

Dick Cody began his service more than 40 years ago, leaving his family's car dealership in Vermont and reporting to West Point.

He has served our Nation on battlefields and bases around the world, commanding our soldiers, including the famed Screaming Eagles of our 101st Airborne Division.

General Cody's service as operations officer and later vice chief of staff, reminds me of GEN George C. Marshall's service as our Army's Chief of Staff during World War II. Marshall noted that before the war, he had ``time'' to prepare the Army, but ``no money.''

After France fell to the Nazis, Marshall said he had ``money, but no time.'' Dick Cody faced similar circumstances and deserves our gratitude for preparing our soldiers to fight the war against terrorism.

Our Army entered this war with significant equipment shortages. Our forces were organized to fight the Cold War rather than the vastly different global war on terror.

Since September 11, 2001, with funds provided by Congress, Cody has directed the fielding of 94 new Army equipment programs worth over $100 billion. He orchestrated the Army's largest restationing and construction program in 70 years. He directed the most sweeping transformation of our Army since the dawn of mechanized warfare.

He oversaw the conversion of our Reserve components to a critical part of our operational forces, and supervised the addition of 65,000 new soldiers to our forces. He has also been instrumental in ensuring our wounded soldiers receive the treatment and care which they deserve.

Vicki Cody supported her husband, and his soldiers, throughout their 33 years of marriage. She cared for our military families during training missions and deployments, often while her own husband was serving far from his family.

Dick and Vicki raised two sons, Clint and Tyler, both U.S. Army captains, with six combat deployments between them. When young Dick Cody left Vermont, and Cody Chevrolet, he truly started a new ``family business.''

Our Nation is grateful for his leadership, and we wish him and Vicki all the best as they begin a new chapter of their lives.

Mr. President, currently, annual catch limits for subsistence whaling by Alaskan natives is set through periodic negotiations of the international whaling commission. In setting the quota, the IWC has tremendous power to influence the lives--even the survival--of these aboriginal communities.

For over 30 years I have worked with the International Whaling Commission to secure the right for native Alaskans to hunt bowhead whales and preserve their subsistence lifestyle. Currently, native Alaskans living in 10 villages on Alaska's north slope and St. Lawrence Island carry forward an ancient tradition of harvesting small numbers of bowhead whales. Not only do these whales serve as a primary source of food for the communities, but they define their very identity and culture.

The Alaska natives who rely on this subsistence hunt have complied with the mandates passed down from the IWC to ensure a sustainable and humane harvest. In fact, since the IWC

began regulating these catches, the number of bowhead whales in the Arctic has risen substantially.

The IWC, however, may not always produce the bowhead quota upon which Alaska natives depend due to political games. Over the last several years, I have seen other nations attempt to influence the U.S. position on other whaling issues at the IWC by specifically interfering with the native Alaskans bowhead quota votes. This is unacceptable. Any positions on whaling issues under IWC's purview need to be debated on their own merits. It is unthinkable to allow other countries to use The health and welfare of our Alaska natives, whose lives depend on this hunt, as leverage for influencing U.S. positions on other IWC matters.

The legislation I am introducing will ensure that native Alaskans maintain their rights to engage in subsistence whaling--an ancient practice vital to their culture and survival. This bill would amend the Whaling Convention Act of 1949 to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to issue bowhead whale catch limits for aboriginal subsistence whaling in Alaska native communities.

This bill ensures that the U.S. will continue to seek and negotiate bowhead whaling quota through the IWC. But if the IWC is unable to issue bowhead whaling quota, the Secretary of Commerce could then issue domestic aboriginal subsistence whaling permits. Such action would need to ensure consistency with IWC rules on subsistence whaling ensuring safe, sustainable, and humane hunts, and the harvest must not exceed the original subsistence needs recommended by the U.S.

The IWC has the great responsibility of ensuring that any subsistence whaling, now or in the future, is carried out in a scientifically sound and sustainable manner. I continue to support the IWC's efforts on this vital issue. yet the United States must also protect the rights of our native communities to continue their ancient subsistence bowhead harvesting. This bill strikes the proper balance between supporting IWC work and protecting our Alaska native communities. I thank my colleagues for considering this important legislation.

Mr. President, currently, annual catch limits for subsistence whaling by Alaskan natives is set through periodic negotiations of the international whaling commission. In setting the quota, the IWC has tremendous power to influence the lives--even the survival--of these aboriginal communities.

For over 30 years I have worked with the International Whaling Commission to secure the right for native Alaskans to hunt bowhead whales and preserve their subsistence lifestyle. Currently, native Alaskans living in 10 villages on Alaska's north slope and St. Lawrence Island carry forward an ancient tradition of harvesting small numbers of bowhead whales. Not only do these whales serve as a primary source of food for the communities, but they define their very identity and culture.

The Alaska natives who rely on this subsistence hunt have complied with the mandates passed down from the IWC to ensure a sustainable and humane harvest. In fact, since the IWC

began regulating these catches, the number of bowhead whales in the Arctic has risen substantially.

The IWC, however, may not always produce the bowhead quota upon which Alaska natives depend due to political games. Over the last several years, I have seen other nations attempt to influence the U.S. position on other whaling issues at the IWC by specifically interfering with the native Alaskans bowhead quota votes. This is unacceptable. Any positions on whaling issues under IWC's purview need to be debated on their own merits. It is unthinkable to allow other countries to use The health and welfare of our Alaska natives, whose lives depend on this hunt, as leverage for influencing U.S. positions on other IWC matters.

The legislation I am introducing will ensure that native Alaskans maintain their rights to engage in subsistence whaling--an ancient practice vital to their culture and survival. This bill would amend the Whaling Convention Act of 1949 to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to issue bowhead whale catch limits for aboriginal subsistence whaling in Alaska native communities.

This bill ensures that the U.S. will continue to seek and negotiate bowhead whaling quota through the IWC. But if the IWC is unable to issue bowhead whaling quota, the Secretary of Commerce could then issue domestic aboriginal subsistence whaling permits. Such action would need to ensure consistency with IWC rules on subsistence whaling ensuring safe, sustainable, and humane hunts, and the harvest must not exceed the original subsistence needs recommended by the U.S.

The IWC has the great responsibility of ensuring that any subsistence whaling, now or in the future, is carried out in a scientifically sound and sustainable manner. I continue to support the IWC's efforts on this vital issue. yet the United States must also protect the rights of our native communities to continue their ancient subsistence bowhead harvesting. This bill strikes the proper balance between supporting IWC work and protecting our Alaska native communities. I thank my colleagues for considering this important legislation.

Yes.

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

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

Mr. President, I am here once again because the price of oil remains at a historic high. It has come down slightly today, and I hope that will continue. As a matter of fact, I hope people listen to what we are saying so it will come down because I do think this drop has something to do with the fact that everybody is talking about speculation.

There is no question that my people, Alaskans, are paying more for fuel oil and gasoline and petroleum products than anyone in the country despite the fact that we produce almost a million barrels of oil a day. We don't have any gasoline refineries. We have refineries for jet fuel because we have such an enormous traffic, through our State, of commercial cargo planes. Of course, during the summertime we have enormous tourist traffic to our State by the airlines.

It is a great problem for us right now because we have less than a million people spread out over an area that is more than twice the size of Texas. We are absolutely fuel-intensive in terms of our lifestyle because 70 percent of our cities can be reached only by air year round. We really have to deal with the problems that are presented by this energy crisis.

I applaud the President lifting the offshore drilling ban. I do think it sent a signal to the country that it is a very serious thing. After all, his father placed that in effect, and it has been there, and it really is something that has to be dealt with.

The difficulty is that even with the ban lifted and even with full approval of the Congress, we are going to the Outer Continental Shelf now to determine how much we can produce. We know we can produce a great amount, but how much we can produce from the Outer Continental Shelf? Two-thirds of the Outer Continental Shelf is off our State, and there is only one oil well there now. There are hundreds of thousands of wells in the other one-third, but because of the constant opposition of those who oppose exploration and development in our State, we are stymied.

Take for instance the leases on the Chukchi Sea, which is the area off the northwest coast of Alaska, some 70 miles off the coast. The oil industry has obtained leases there to explore for and develop that area for its oil and gas potential. That has been, now, tied up for over a year by a series of lawsuits. One of them is claiming that oil and gas exploration would harm the polar bear. I want the Senate to know that just a week ago, the ice at that area was 17 feet deep. The ice is not disappearing the way people say it is, particularly in the period of time when the polar bears are there. But beyond that, the difficulty is there is a whole series of things that--these people who are against exploration and development in my State have caused wildlife to be listed as endangered or at least threatened, and they are using those findings in order to delay the development of new facilities to bring us the new production we need, the new production the Government needs.

It reminds me of the time I spent here on the floor--almost 4 years-- in the seventies when the first group litigated again and again to delay the oil pipeline. Finally, we reached the stress point where we had to ask the Senate to do something it had never done before and hasn't done since, and that is to close the courts of the United States to this constant delay in building that pipeline. We finally brought that amendment to the floor. It was debated at length for 4 days, and it ended up with a tie vote--the only tie vote at

the time of the then Nixon administration. Vice President Agnew broke the tie. It was 49 to 49.

Think of what that means. At that time, there was a paradigm that the Senate would not filibuster anything that involved national security. The availability of oil to meet our needs is a matter of national security, but we faced a filibuster ever since then, in terms of trying to develop the Arctic.

One of the things we ought to look to today, though, is the letter that has been sent by almost all the airlines in the United States. AirTran, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Continental, Delta, Hawaiian, JetBlue, Midwest Airlines, Southwest, United, and U.S. Airways, all joined in sending a letter to the holders of their frequent flier programs dealing with the problem of the skyrocketing oil and fuel prices and what they are doing to destroy the capability to provide air transportation to the United States.

I read before and let me read again this one paragraph. I think it is absolutely something everyone should understand. I am quoting now from this letter signed by all the presidents and heads of these companies.

Mr. President, I ask again to have it printed in the Record following my remarks.

The letter says:

Twenty years ago, 21 percent of oil contracts were

purchased by speculators who trade oil on paper with no

intention of ever taking delivery. Today, oil speculators

purchase 66 percent of all oil future contracts, and that

reflects just the transactions that are known. Speculators

buy up a large amount of oil and then sell it to each other

again and again. A barrel of oil may trade 20-plus times

before it is delivered and used; the price goes up with each

trade and consumers pick up the final tab. Some market

experts estimate that the current prices reflect as much as

$30 to $60 per barrel in unnecessary speculative costs.

If those pieces of paper that represent future delivery of oil are purchased by people who are just speculating and that purchaser ends up, after selling the paper, acquiring it again, to me, that is absolute proof of a criminal conspiracy in this country.

I think this speculation has to stop. We have to start talking more about it, and we have to do something about it. What I would do is make sure it is a criminal matter if someone acquires the same piece of paper dealing with futures in oil and has no ability to use the oil. I really do not think there is any reason--I can understand a company might buy ahead for 2 or 3 years in oil and buy futures and hedge against the price, that, in fact, it might go up, but people who buy those pieces of paper solely to manipulate the price--and that is what happens when someone not involved, these institutional investors, buys a piece of paper to buy oil in the future and then sells it to another institutional investor and then another one. If that piece of paper ends up in the same hands the second time, to me, that is a criminal conspiracy, and it is time we looked at that and understood it. This letter sets it forth.

Believe me, any Member of the Senate who ignores this letter ignores the fact that every single frequent flier person in the country has it in their hands. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am getting thousands of letters from people who are sending me this letter and saying: What are you going to do about it? I say what we have to do about it is send a signal to these speculators to take notice that Congress is serious about speculators.

I know there is a difference of opinion out here on the floor of the Senate, there is no question about it, but in the last 5 years, investments in commodity index funds jumped from $13 billion to $260 billion. That means institutional investors have gone from owning $13 billion worth of oil futures to $260 billion in oil futures.

Now, someone tell me that is not a conspiracy.

Let me put up this chart. This chart represents the so-called NYMEX oil futures. The red on the chart represents the price of oil; the gold represents the volume of trading. The volume of trading has gone up, but the price has gone up more than twice as much as the volume.

There is only one thing that can drive up a spike like that. That is speculation, it is not demand. Someone told me not to try to understand supply and demand in the oil business. I think I know something about oil demand in the oil business, because we tried to meet that demand in terms of our State. We had a better chance of satisfying the demand of the United States than any State. But to have this situation go along I think is wrong, to go forward I think is wrong.

I have personally talked to one of the economists. I must say he does not share my feelings that we ought to make this a crime immediately, because, it is my understanding, he does not believe we have seen evidence of criminal conduct yet.

But I say it is criminal conduct if someone owns one of those pieces of paper twice. There is no reason to sell a future in oil and then turn around and buy it later at a higher price. They are actually being acquired and turned over more than 20 times before the oil is delivered. That ought to be something the Justice Department and the CFTC should have notified us on before it took the time of all of these presidents of these companies to send this letter to their customers so they can send it on to us. These people have told their customers to contact us. Well, this is one time I hope all of us listen to what they are saying. Because there is no question that we have to find some way to restrict this trading to those who need oil in the future, those who legitimately hedge to try and save their customers money, not to cost them more money but to save money. A true hedge would save money for the customers of the particular person who acquired the futures.

I think the legislation Senator Feinstein and I introduced some time ago represents an important step toward breaking this bubble. The position limits we would place on institutional investors would be very minimal and would make them stay away from market manipulation.

If we can see these investments shift away from the energy commodities and back to the stock markets the way we have in the last few days, I think the stock market would recover.

I thank my friend from New Hampshire for letting me use part of his time. But I say, we cannot stop at mandating transparency. We have to do something to put these people in fear before they will stop this action of driving this price up.

Exhibit 1

An Open letter to All Airline Customers:

Our country is facing a possible sharp economic downturn

because of skyrocketing oil and fuel prices, but by pulling

together, we can all do something to help now.

For airlines, ultra-expensive fuel means thousands of lost

jobs and severe reductions in air service to both large and

small communities. To the broader economy, oil prices mean

slower activity and widespread economic pain. This pain can

be alleviated, and that is why we are taking the

extraordinary step of writing this joint letter to our

customers. Since high oil prices are partly a response to

normal market forces, the nation needs to focus on increased

energy supplies and conservation. However, there is another

side to this story because normal market forces are being

dangerously amplified by poorly regulated market speculation.

Twenty years ago, 21 percent of oil contracts were

purchased by speculators who trade oil on paper with no

intention of ever taking delivery. Today, oil speculators

purchase 66 percent of all oil futures contracts, and that

reflects just the transactions that are known. Speculators

buy up large amounts of oil and then sell it to each other

again and again. A barrel of oil may trade 20-plus times

before it is delivered and used; the price goes up with each

trade and consumers pick up the final tab. Some market

experts estimate that current prices reflect as much as $30

to $60 per barrel in unnecessary speculative costs.

Over seventy years ago, Congress established regulations to

control excessive, largely unchecked market speculation and

manipulation. However, over the past two decades, these

regulatory limits have been weakened or removed. We believe

that restoring and enforcing these limits, along with several

other modest measures, will provide more disclosure,

transparency and sound market oversight. Together, these

reforms will help cool the over-heated oil market and permit

the economy to prosper.

The nation needs to pull together to reform the oil markets

and solve this growing problem.

We need your help. Get more information and contact

Congress by visiting www.StopOilSpeculationNow.com.

Robert Fornaro, Chairman, President and CEO, AirTran

Airways; Bill Ayer, Chairman, President and CEO, Alaska

Airlines, Inc.; Gerard J. Arpey, Chairman, President

and CEO, American

Airlines, Inc.; Lawrence W. Kellner, Chairman and CEO,

Continental Airlines, Inc.; Richard Anderson, CEO,

Delta Air Lines, Inc.; Mark B. Dunkerley, President and

CEO, Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.; Dave Barger, CEO, JetBlue

Airways Corporation; Timothy E. Hoeksema, Chairman,

President and CEO, Midwest Airlines; Douglas M.

Steenland, President and CEO, Northwest Airlines, Inc.;

Gary Kelly, Chairman and CEO, Southwest Airlines Co.;

Glenn F. Tilton, Chairman, President and CEO, United

Airlines, Inc.; Douglas Parker, Chairman and CEO, US

Airways Group, Inc.

Mr. President, I wish to remember the life of Philip Austin Robbins III, of Kodiak, AK.

Phil was born on June 28, 1943, in Anacortes, WA, where he spent his youth. After graduating from high school, he set out on an adventure that would take him around the globe. With little money, Phil hitchhiked, took odd jobs, slept where he could find shelter, enjoyed the hospitality of strangers, and made many new friends, as he traveled through Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

Upon returning home, Phil was drafted into service during the Vietnam war. As fate would have it, though, he was not sent to Vietnam but instead stationed in Heidelberg, Germany, where he worked as a code- breaker in the U.S. Army.

After serving in the Army, Phil lived for a few years in Makaha, HI. He attended the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, and married Lisa Gayle Tatsumi.

Not long after this, Phil would embark on another adventure, moving with his wife and newborn son to Kodiak Island in Alaska. Here, the young family would live in a log cabin in the woods of Island Lake, and Phil would pursue a career as a commercial fisherman. It was a career that would span 40 years. During this time, Phil would see firsthand the boom and bust of the lucrative Kodiak king crab industry from the 1960s to the early 1980s as well as the recordbreaking salmon prices of the late 1980s. He would participate in the cleanup efforts that followed the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 and the frantic derby-style halibut seasons that were phased out in the 1990s. Phil was one of the pioneers of the potcod fishery in Kodiak. Cod fishing had previously been dominated by large trawlers. Over the years, Phil saw fortunes made and friends perish in dangerous waters. He owned three fishing boats at different times during his career, all of which he named the ``Lisa Gayle'' after his wife.

Phil had a tireless work ethic, a great sense of humor, and a warm heart. He was a modest man and the last to expect his life story would be told on the floor of the U.S. Senate. His bold spirit is emblematic of that of many Alaskans who come to our State with big dreams and a taste for adventure.

Phil lost his battle to cancer earlier this month at the age of 65. He is survived by his loving wife Lisa and proud sons Philip Junior and Mark. Philip Junior is a computer engineer and Mark, a member of my staff.

May you find calm seas and beautiful new horizons, Phil. You will be missed.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be excused from the call of the Senate until the first vote that occurs on July 14.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I never thought I would have this occasion, but I want to speak today to honor the life of a great woman, my mother-in-law, Elladean Hays Bittner.

Ellie was born February 1, 1919, in Phoenix during the great flu pandemic. She often remarked on why she had no birth certificate--the hospital did not expect her to survive.

Ellie grew up and worked on her family's ranch in Arizona. She studied home economics at the University of Arizona, graduating in 1939. During college, she rode with the U.S. Army cavalry and was chosen to be a member of the Mortar Board, a national honor society.

Ellie married William-Bill-Edward Bittner in 1944 in Arizona. They honeymooned to Alaska, traveling by Alaska steamship and train to Anchorage to meet her in-laws. In 1950, Ellie moved to Alaska with Bill and their children, Catherine--my wife, William, and Judith. Ellie worked for the Anchorage school district, teaching home ec. She started a boys' cooking class and an early childhood education program.

Governor Hickel appointed Ellie to a position with the Alaska Department of Education. She traveled extensively, interviewing women in remote villages and towns and published a study that was a pioneer effort to identify economic opportunities for women.

Ellie and Bill were very active in Alaska, entertaining frequently at their downtown log house in Anchorage and flying all over the territory in their Cessna 180 with their children.

The family began splitting their time between Alaska and Arizona in the 1970s and Ellie returned to ranching. She established the ``Quien Sabe'' outfit, which she was featured with in 2002 at the Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame, and is included in ``Hard Twist'', a book on western ranching women. Ellie remained active in ranching until her death.

She was a great lady. She passed away on June 10 in our hometown of Anchorage, AK, surrounded by her family. I had the honor to be with her for part of that time. I speak for all of us and many more when I say this. There is a hole in our lives that will never quite be filled. Ellie left us with wonderful memories. Through these, she will live on.

Every time I hear Willie Nelson I am going to remember Ellie. She loved Willie Nelson. I think the only difference she had with Willie is she hoped her children, her babies, would grow up to be cowboys.

Leave of Absence

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be excused from attendance of the Senate following today's session, until the first vote in July.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute, on his 80th birthday, to a great American and a great Alaskan, Governor Bill Sheffield. My friend Bill Sheffield was the Democratic Governor of Alaska from 1982-86, which was just a short episode in a lifetime of service to Alaska both in government and in the private sector.

Governor Sheffield came to Alaska in 1953, the same year I moved to our great State, to handle television sales for Sears and Roebuck. His exceptional intellect and work ethic were easily recognized. Quickly, he took leadership positions in the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups in Alaska, eventually becoming president of the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce and, in 2006, being awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in Business by the Alaska Business Monthly. By 1960, he had entered the hotel industry by purchasing his first hotel in Anchorage. The day before the Good Friday Earthquake in 1964, Bill Sheffield had just opened a new hotel, but it would take more than that earthquake to stop Bill. His hotel business continued to grow until he owned 16 hotels throughout Alaska and the Yukon Territory.

As Governor, Bill Sheffield was focused on ``Bringing the State Together,'' the theme of his campaign. His reputation as a problem- solver and his pledge to unite Alaskans resulted in a landslide victory. Governor Sheffield's experience as a businessman served him and Alaskans well during his time in the Governor's Office. His efforts reduced excessive spending in State government and helped save Alaska's natural resources for the use of all Alaskans for generations yet to come.

After leaving government, Governor Sheffield continued his service to Alaskans, taking seats on several private and nonprofit boards of directors. Currently, he is the director of the Port of Anchorage, where he has developed a master plan for expansion of the port through 2014. Governor Sheffield's vision for this expansion of the State of Alaska's largest port will not only serve Anchorage, but nearly the entire geographic area and population of our State. Mr. President, over 90 percent of the goods that come into my State come through the Port of Anchorage. Furthermore, this expansion will serve the national defense needs of the United States by providing vital transportation support and access to four major military installations in Alaska, including the Stryker Brigade at Fort Wainwright. I am proud to have supported the port expansion project and I am proud of Governor Sheffield and the work he is doing for Alaska and all of the United States.

Governor Sheffield's continuing service does not end with the Port of Anchorage. Additionally, he is a trustee of Alaska Pacific University, a member of the advisory board of ENSTAR Natural Gas, a charter member of Commonwealth North, past chairman of the Federal Salary Council and a member of the board of directors of the Alaska Railroad and formerly the railroad's president & CEO. As Governor, Bill Sheffield was instrumental in saving the Alaska Railroad, purchasing it from the Federal Government and then providing the necessary investment in Alaska's infrastructure to assist in our development. In recognition of his service to the railroad and to the State of Alaska, the Alaska Railroad Depot at the Anchorage International Airport was named after Governor Sheffield in 1999.

Most importantly to Alaskans, Bill is also a skilled fisherman and avid outdoorsman. A love of bush Alaska runs through every aspect of this man. I know firsthand of his love for the bush areas of our home State. He and I have enjoyed many days together out on the water whether fishing for salmon on the Kenai River or elsewhere in Alaska.

In this Chamber today, we see a lot of partisan fighting. One of the greatest qualities of my friend Bill Sheffield is the ability to get past the labels of Democrat and Republican. Bill Sheffield is a lifelong Democrat. While he was the Governor of Alaska and I was here in Washington as Senator, we always found a way to work together. As Governor, Bill Sheffield was able to identify what needed to be done for the greater good of Alaska. More importantly, he pushed aside the partisanship, went ahead and did what needed to be done for Alaskans. In both business and government, Governor Sheffield is a leader and a doer. He is a fine example for all of us. I am honored to count Bill Sheffield a friend and I hope the entire Senate will join me in wishing him a happy 80th birthday. Happy birthday, Billy.

I believe I have been allocated 20 minutes to speak.

Mr. President, that photograph brings back many memories to me. The gentleman on the right was my employer at the time, the Secretary of Interior, Fred Seaton. As a matter of fact, I was standing right behind him at the time that photograph was taken.

I remember the debate here on the floor of the Senate on the Alaska statehood bill. On the day the vote was taken, I was standing up where those people are right now in the Press Gallery. That was unheard of, but I was standing beside my good friend who was the editor of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, C.W. ``Bill'' Snedden. He had bought this newspaper. He purchased it a few years before we got statehood, and he turned its policy around to support statehood.

One of the things he created was a cartoon they put on the front page of the paper every day. It was a small thing down at the bottom. This was Sourdough Jack. Sourdough Jack had wise sayings every day. This one day he published this, it was:

All of the valid arguments against Alaska statehood are

listed in full on pages 2, 3, and 4.

All blank. That was the attitude of Alaskans. There really was no valid opposition to our becoming a State.

However, I think the Senate should know what the Senate did then and the role of the Senate in Alaska becoming a State--and Hawaii, too, later the same year.

Our delegate at that time in the House of Representatives, Democrat Bob Bartlett, discovered an old rule in the House that permitted matters of constitutional import to be taken to the floor of the House and worked on solely by the Committee of the Whole of the House, bypassing the Rules Committee. So after having tried since 1913 into 1958 to get statehood, our delegate made the motion to bypass the Rules Committee. With a vote of the House, they approved going right to the floor with the Alaska statehood bill. That was an achievement no one could even have expected. But it showed the power of the press at that time. The American press took up the cudgel, they took up the sword to have both Alaska and Hawaii become States. It was really great to see Hearst and Luce and so many of the leaders of the newspaper profession joined together to urge the American people to swell up and demand these bills be passed.

As the bill passed the House and came over here, there was a great problem because the Rules Committee chairman made it very plain that if there was an attempt to have a conference committee on this bill admitting Alaska to the Union, he would see to it that it would never see the light of day in the House. So our job at that time was to get the statehood bill passed by the Senate without one single change--not a comma, no paragraphs, nothing altered, and nothing changed.

I think the Senate today would appreciate that problem because those were the days of the true filibusters. Those were the days before the current rule on cloture. At that time, it took two-thirds to stop debate. It was something to behold, sitting in the gallery as I did, to see the power of Senator Scoop Jackson on the one hand and Senator Norris Cotton on the other--Norris Cotton being a Republican from New Hampshire, Scoop Jackson being a Democrat from Washington--guide that bill through the Senate and overcome the filibuster that was led by my late good friend Strom Thurmond.

It is a total tribute to the democracy we represent that this enormous act of admitting a State--there had not been another State admitted since Arizona had been admitted in 1913. Here we were in a post-World War II period, when part of the momentum for our getting statehood was, in fact, the people who had served in the Armed Forces and were stationed in Hawaii or in Alaska--many of them had been stationed in the territories and went back to the territories after they were released from service after we won World War II.

But this day, the day the Senate finally passed this bill, was a unique one.

The galleries were full. That is one reason I was up in the press gallery rather than over in the normal gallery for visitors. But, very clearly, we knew it was going to be a difficult day for us. We had counted votes and all of the rest trying to predict what was going to happen. But when it happened, I want the Senate to know, this was something significant that happened. The people in that photograph, except for the President, gathered right out in the reception room of the Senate. Then we went to--Republican and Democratic alike--members and people from the gallery, we went to the then-chapel of the Senate, and we offered a prayer to thank the people who had given us this new right.

It was one of the most significant days that I can remember in my life. I am proud of my colleague who has brought upon the Senate the idea of having some remembrance here of what went on in those days. Our State has become a State. We have developed our economy to be one of the great producers of natural resources. Many people have challenged that, and we are currently blocked in exploring the Outer Continental Shelf off our State. Two-thirds of the Continental Shelf of the United States is off our State.

Every well so far that has been tried has been blocked. We have been blocked now for 25 years at getting the right. We thought we achieved it in the 1980 act which set aside 1.5 million acres of the Arctic for oil and gas exploration and development.

I hope we will come to a time where we will realize the errors of our past and we will find that the day will come when the Arctic Coastal Plain will be opened. Once it is, the Alaska oil pipeline, which was built to carry 2.1 million barrels a day--it is carrying less than 700,000 barrels a day now--will be full. Because we know from 3-D seismic and from the well that was drilled,

there is no question that there is oil on the Coastal Plain that some people call ANWR. But the development of that plain will bring us, both the Federal Government and the State, billions of dollars that we want to dedicate to the development of renewable and alternative resources.

For instance, we have half the coal of the United States. We should have mine-mouth conversion for coal gasification, coal liquefaction.

We have those magnificent five military bases in our State. They all need lots of energy. We have to find some way to assure they will have energy for our national defense. I think we are proceeding to the point that the American people know what we must have; that is, we must have the right to proceed to develop our resources.

Fred Seaton, whose picture was photographed there as the Secretary of the Interior, was an appointed Senator from the State of Nebraska. He made only one statement on the floor of the Senate. He was absolutely convinced that Alaska should become a State.

Let me read a portion of what he said:

Alaska is as deserving of statehood, and as ready for

statehood, and as greatly in need of statehood, to come into

her own, as were any of the present States when it was their

turn before the bar of the Senate.

Let us deal with the American citizens in Alaska no less

generously in this manner than were our forbearers dealt with

in their respective territories. Alaska, like all other

States will keep the faith and carry the grand old United

States tradition. Alaska's star has for too long been denied

its rightful place on the glorious flag of the United States

of America.

We, as Alaskans, are proud of what we have done. From the days we became a part of the United States in 1867 when Secretary Seward led the negotiations to buy the Territory of Alaska from Russia for a mere 2 cents an acre, we have contributed substantially to the income, the resources, and to the well-being of our people.

We are the northern territory for the defense of this country. Our national missile defense site at Fort Greely, AK, has the capability of defending the whole United States, 360 degrees around, from Maine to Florida, from the tip of California to the tip of Alaska. That national missile defense site defends America.

We have committed ourselves to support those in uniform who defend this country and defend our way of life. So I think this is a wonderful thing to celebrate, the fact that the Senate took the action it did in approving the basic approach of the House to take the initiative to bring Alaska into the Union.

We were followed by our great and dear friends from Hawaii. And many people wonder why we are so close, those of us from Hawaii and Alaska. We represent offshore States. When we got here, many of the laws that applied to the 48 States did not apply to us. The effect of our working together has been that Hawaii has four Senators and Alaska has four Senators because we have a lot in common. We do not vote together on issues of national issues, that is not a position. But when it comes to the rights of our States, we have shown what can happen in the Congress of the United States when two delegations say: We are together. And as new States, we deserve to be recognized and treated as equal partners in this Union.

I am proud to speak of the alliance that we have with Senators Inouye and Akaka--that has been achieved in my almost 40 years here.

As I have said, Mr. President, for many days in June of 1958 I watched from the gallery as the Senate debated and finally passed the Alaska Statehood Act. That vote marked the end of our long and difficult road to self-determination.

Alaska was my home. I had been U.S. Attorney in Fairbanks. Working in Washington as Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior, Fred Seaton, I became involved in the battle for statehood.

Some Americans believed Alaska was too remote and too politically immature to become a full partner in the Union.

Alaskans worked tirelessly to show the American people and Congress that the Union would benefit from Alaskan statehood. My friends, Bill Snedden, publisher of the Fairbanks Daily News Miner, and Bob Atwood, publisher of the Anchorage Times, wrote to almost every paper in the U.S. setting forth our positions for statehood and requesting support for our efforts.

Alaskans reached out to their friends and family in the lower 48 asking them to write their Senators requesting they support statehood.

Fifty-five men and women met at our constitutional convention in Fairbanks and devoted themselves to creating what has been called ``the best state constitution ever written,'' proving Alaskans had the political maturity to join our union.

I worked with the Secretary of the Interior, Fred Seaton, and members of the Eisenhower administration to explain the President's support of Alaska being a State.

Six years earlier Secretary Seaton had been a Senator from Nebraska. He served for only 1 year being appointed to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Wherry. In his first address to this body, Senator Seaton spoke strongly in support of statehood for Alaska, recalling the doubts and objections raised when his own State of Nebraska was struggling for statehood.

Senator Seaton said:

Alaska is as deserving of statehood, and as ready for

statehood, and as greatly in need of statehood, to come into

her own, as were any of the present States when it was their

turn before the bar of the Senate.

Let us deal with the American citizens in Alaska no less

generously in this matter than were our forbearers dealt with

in their respective territories. Alaska, like all the other

States, will keep the faith and carry on the grand old United

States tradition. Alaska's star has for too long been denied

its rightful place on the glorious flag of the United States

of America.

Our delegate to the House of Representatives, Bob Bartlett and our ``Tennessee Plan'' Senators and Representatives, and Alaskan pioneers Ernest Gruening, Bill Egan and Ralph Rivers met with Members of Congress to convince them to support Alaska statehood.

After the House passed our statehood bill on May 28, 1958, opponents in the Senate tried to stop the bill by attaching controversial, unrelated amendments.

Our good friend from Washington, Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson led a bipartisan effort to fend off changes to the bill.

In the 6 days of debate prior to the vote, Senators carefully weighed the prospect of granting statehood to Alaska.

Alaskans are proud of all we have accomplished in the 50 years since that historic vote.

Through responsible development of our vast natural resources we are working to build a strong and vibrant economy.

Prudhoe Bay and the 800 mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline, completed in 1977, have delivered more than 15 billion barrels of oil to the American economy.

In 2007 alone, Alaska's mining industry contributed an export value of $1.1 billion to the national economy.

Through science-based management, our fisheries have been protected and rehabilitated. Because of our success, Alaska's fisheries management principles are now used as models for fisheries across the country. Today half our Nation's total domestic seafood production comes from Alaska.

Modern water and sewer facilities and health care clinics are now located in most rural Alaskan communities. Through these and other projects and development of our natural resources, Alaskans are creating educational and job opportunities in the most remote corners of our state.

Alaskans proved our strategic military value to the Nation during WWII when our Territorial Guard provided a first line of defense and protected the terminus of the lend lease Aerial Bridge at Fairbanks.

Today Alaskans welcome and support the men and women of the 1st of the 25th Stryker Brigade Combat Team based in Fairbanks, the 4th of the 25th Airborne Brigade Combat Team based in Anchorage and the 11th Air Force based at Elmendorf.

They, and our Alaska National Guard, have served our Nation bravely in Afghanistan and Iraq and around the world. Our strong tradition of service has resulted in more veterans per capita living in Alaska than in any other State.

While Alaskans have much to celebrate on our 50th anniversary of statehood, we continue working to accomplish more.

The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline will deliver 4 billion cubic feet of domestically produced natural gas each day to homes and businesses throughout the United States. Our pipeline will also create 400,000 new jobs nationwide.

Continued development of Alaska's resources, including oil and gas development on the arctic coastal plain and our outer continental shelf, could also help deliver the energy needed to power our Nation's economy.

Recent estimates show that the arctic coastal plain alone could deliver 1.5 million barrels of oil a day to market and contribute billions of dollars in corporate income tax revenues and royalties to the U.S. Treasury.

Alaskans began our journey to statehood in 1867 when the Secretary of State William Seward advocated for the purchase of the territory from Russia for a mere 2 cents an acre. At the time the decision was ridiculed as ``Seward's folly.''

Alaskans have worked hard to realize the full potential of our land and our people. There is no doubt Alaskans have lived up to the faith the Senate showed in us 50 years ago when it voted to grant us statehood. Alaskans have earned the name of our State, ``the Great Land.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the names of distinguished young Alaskans who have been permitted to be on the floor today to witness the celebration of our 50th anniversary.

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

Mr. President, as Americans travel with families over the Fourth of July and for summer vacations--on cruises, RV trips, or on sightseeing tours, to Alaska, hopefully--they are going to be shocked by the price of fuel at the pump. This is because the consumers of fuel--from airlines to truckers to the fishing captains of the boats off the Pacific in my State--must in effect bid against speculators in the oil markets, speculators who will never take delivery of fuel but bid up the price and turn it into an inflated profit. Some people will be forced to cancel summer plans--or worse, close their businesses-- primarily because fuel costs have increased so much.

Today, the average price of a gallon of gas is $4.08. In some parts of our State of Alaska, the price of a gallon of gas is over $8. I believe Congress must take action now to address this issue before Americans can no longer afford even basic activities and the goods they need.

Most foreign producers believe Americans will pay any price for oil, and Congress validates this each day we fail to implement a comprehensive energy strategy. Americans are being taken advantage of not only by OPEC but by speculators right here in our own country who are exempt from regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Historically, this has not been a bad problem. Only recently has speculation reached these unsustainable levels.

Some speculation when oil consumers use oil futures is bona fide. For instance, an airline might buy fuel at an advanced price for delivery in the future to make certain that it has a supply in the future. That is legitimate. There is no problem with brokers facilitating even this type of purchase. But Congress must recognize that speculators who are not consumers of oil have taken control of our market. Ultimately, the price Americans must pay for oil and other fuels skyrockets because of their speculation. Even major institutional investors have taken up oil futures markets as a major asset class in their financial portfolios. In the last 5 years, investments in commodity index funds have jumped from $13 billion to $260 billion due in large part to oil futures. Let me repeat that. Investments in the commodity index funds jumped from $13 billion to $260 billion due in large part to oil futures.

Excessive speculation in oil futures is causing our economy to continue its decline. Congress must mandate the CFTC to stringently regulate these exchanges.

Let me show this chart, Mr. President. This shows the period from 1986 through 2007. The gold marks on the chart are actual trade volumes of oil futures in NYMEX and red is the price of the oil that was paid on those deliveries. It is easy to see that as these spikes have occurred, they have not been related to the delivery of oil, they have been related to the price of oil--just speculation in terms of the future delivery of our oil. One economist told me that 30 to 35 percent of what we pay at the pump for gasoline today is caused by speculation--these so-called investors. I call them speculators, and I think they all ought to be in jail. This is a terrible situation, actually.

Our oil crisis has combined with our economic instability and excessive oil speculation to become a vicious cycle. As energy prices continue to cripple our economy, inflation rises and the dollar weakens. One of the few places that investors see a safe bet is in the energy market. They know that worldwide oil demand is increasing and will continue to increase, and so they bid higher and higher for speculative purposes on the delivery of that oil to our own country.

Three weeks ago, I stated on the floor that the IEA predicted world oil demand to increase from 85 million barrels a day to 116 million barrels a day. If that is the future of oil, of course the investors want to increase their position in oil futures. Who wouldn't want to do that, particularly when there is no control over them at all on how much they can raise the price just by trading paper that represents future delivery of oil?

I believe that immediately the CFTC needs to conduct a review to examine where unregulated trading in oil futures has adversely affected the market--the price we pay at the pump--and to determine what regulations need to be adjusted. I would also like to have full disclosure from any entity or person taking part in the oil speculation game so that the American people can see who is buying and selling their energy but never even hoping to accept delivery. They are just buying pieces of paper to represent the future delivery of oil and they are speculating and raising the price to the entity that needs the oil in the future.

There should be a limit on the extent to which investors in petroleum futures can increase their positions in this important commodity market. It should be a crime when spectators knowingly manipulate oil prices and drive up the price of fuel at the expense of the American family. Such actions undermine our country's energy stability and our energy security. American consumers are at the mercy of foreign oil sellers and domestic oil buyers already, and they should not be forced to pay so much more because of speculation.

Last year, the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and I each crossed party lines, to a certain extent, to get together to pass a change in the CAFE standards. That was the first Federal increase in vehicle fuel efficiency in three decades. Senator Feinstein has been a champion of conservation, and I applaud her.

Now we are working together again, on S. 3131. Under the terms of this bill, the CFTC will be required to identify and crack down on the oil commodity futures markets that have spun out of control. This may involve the New York Mercantile Exchange, the Intercontinental Exchange--so-called ICE--and even foreign markets, if necessary, to address this serious problem. Our bill probably needs to be improved to make it even more certain that speculators in oil futures will be charged with a serious crime, and they should have serious penalties.

The time is now to act against speculators. I hope the Senate will lead in this and try to crack down on speculators. I predict that if we do, we can break this bubble. If we can reduce the price by at least 30 percent by prosecuting the speculators, I think we should do it, and we should do it before we go home next week.

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

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

Mr. President, what is the situation regarding time?

Mr. President, Americans are forced to pay more for gas every day, every week. The price is going up and up. There have been many ideas presented on the floor of the Senate, but I do think some of the comments made by the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, need a response. He has made some comments about the developing of the Arctic Plain, known as ANWR. Actually, it is not part of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. It is 1\1/2\ million acres that were set aside in 1980 for oil and gas exploration and development. That land has been waiting for approval of Congress and the President. The 1980 act required that there be an environmental impact statement finding that there would be no irreparable harm to the flora and fauna of the Arctic, and that finding would have to be approved by the President and Congress; namely, it would have to be approved by an act of Congress, signed by the President.

Since 1981, we have tried to proceed as was planned at that time. At the time that President Carter had withdrawn over 100 million acres of Alaska land, the one success we had in that bill--the 1980 bill--was the provision that permitted the exploration and development of the oil and gas resources of this area of the Arctic Plain.

Now, the Senator from New York said opening ANWR's 1 million barrels a day of production would reduce the price of gas at the pump by only a penny. We found that rather strange because he later said he wanted the President to ask the Saudi Arabian people to increase their production of oil from 700,000 to 800,000 barrels a day, and if they did, it would reduce the price of gas at the pump--at first, he said by 35 to 50 cents, and then he said it would reduce it by 62 cents a gallon. I find it strange that 1 million barrels of oil from Alaska would reduce the price at the pump by only one penny but 800,000 barrels a day from Saudi Arabia would reduce the price at the pump by 62 cents. Somehow or other, that kind of calculation is not the way we add up things in Alaska.

Let me repeat that. He said: One million barrels a day from Alaska would reduce the price at the pump by one penny, but 800,000 barrels a day from Saudi Arabia would reduce the price up to 62 cents. It is not really understandable when a Senator presents arguments that contradict each other. I think it is time now for the Senator from New York to come back to the Senate floor and restate his position on ANWR. Is it an economic position or is it just a philosophical position, where he is agreeing with those people who are against exploration and development of the Arctic Slope? If it is, I understand it.

At first, the Senator from New York said he favored drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico because the oil could come to market more quickly than Alaskan oil. That, too, is too much to pass up. Congress authorized the eastern gulf development a year and a half ago, in December 2006. The lease sale occurred this past March, and it will be 7 to 10 years before that oil comes to shore. As a matter of fact, it is probably going to take longer to develop the gulf oil than it would take to develop the Alaskan oil on the Arctic Slope because the 3-D seismic has been done in our State. We know where the oil is located. We just have to finish exploration and develop that field. And it would take less time because there is a pipeline already in place.

Perhaps the Senator from New York has forgotten that we have a pipeline. At the time of the Persian Gulf war, that line carried 2.1 million barrels a day to American markets. Now it is carrying about 700,000. It is about two-thirds empty, Mr. President. That is a very difficult thing for Alaskans to understand, when we know there is oil in the Arctic Plain waiting to be developed. As a matter of fact, if President Clinton had not vetoed the ANWR bill in 1995, we would have up to 1\1/2\ million barrels a day being delivered today through that pipeline. That argument has been the same every year since 1980.

I have been here every year trying to get approval of the finding that there would be no irreparable harm to the Arctic if developed. It is supported by the people of Alaska and other people of the United States and there is an overwhelming approval now to proceed with development of the Arctic Slope. It has to be done.

We have had development of our Arctic at Prudhoe Bay. At the time we argued on the floor of the Senate for approval of the amendment to permit the oil pipeline to be built back in the 1970s, there were cries on the Senate floor, in the press, and throughout the country that it would harm the caribou, that the caribou would be put into jeopardy.

Mr. President, there are three to four times as many caribou in that area now than before the pipeline was built. As the pipeline was built, in the area where it was restored, we planted grasses there that were even better than the natural grasses. If you want to see caribou in Alaska now, the place to go is by the pipeline. We have not had any spill on shore of any nature. There was some last winter--in terms of a gathering pipeline, that leaked a little. But it was during the wintertime, and it was totally cleaned up and there has been no irreparable harm.

We have literally billions of barrels of oil available to us. At the time we proceeded with the oil pipeline, the estimate was made that Prudhoe Bay would develop 1 billion barrels. Well, we have sent over 14 billion barrels of oil to the south 48, by virtue of the Mondale amendment to the Oil Pipeline Act, that all the oil transmitted in the Alaska pipeline must go to American markets. I voted for that amendment. I think this is American oil, and it should fill American needs. As a matter of fact, we are tired of seeing the increase in the importation of oil from foreign sources.

At the time of the 1970s embargo on oil by the Arab nations, we were importing about 33 percent of our oil. Today we are importing over 60 percent of our oil. In about 5 years we will be importing about 40 percent of our natural gas, LNG. Think about that. This Nation, which has been a leader in the world in industrial development and in technology, is going to be at the place where almost two-thirds of our need for oil or gas is going to be dependent upon foreign sources, when we have known areas in this country that can boost out oil and gas.

It is primarily a situation where this is an opposition that has arisen on a political basis. After President Clinton vetoed the ANWR bill in 1995, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle decided they would not support ANWR anymore, and they have voted that way.

I think it is unfortunate because we should have access to develop American sources of oil to meet American needs. This area of our North Slope meets those conditions fairly well. I do think the concept of the Senator from New York, in demanding that the President go to Saudi Arabia to increase their production when he opposes doing so in this country, is unacceptable.

It is the duty of Congress to keep American dollars in America when we can. By developing a very small portion--less than 2,000 acres of that million and a half acres, which is all we need to develop for the oil and gas resources of the Arctic Plain--we could offset the entire oil imports we bring in from Venezuela or Saudi Arabia. I was surprised at my friend from New York, when he said the idea of developing the ANWR oil is a poorly executed ``magic trick.'' I don't know what is magic about it. It is just a matter of simple engineering. We can and have developed oil and gas in the Arctic, and we have not seen the harm that other people have indicated would come to either our area or to the wildlife of our area.

We need to have Americans realize it is the very fact of starting to develop this oil that will bring down the prices from foreign sources. Once the foreign sources see we are getting ready to increase our own supply, they will start reducing their price in order to take away the incentive we have, based on the current prices, to open these areas in the United States. So if you want an immediate reaction from anything, in terms of this current gas price problem, then have the Congress act and have the President sign a bill to start the development of the Arctic Plain, known as ANWR. If we do that, that signal to the foreign producers of oil will say America is just getting ready to restore its own supply. If it restores its own supply, prices will come down in foreign oil. They don't want our competition; they want our markets. So far they are convinced that we will not provide our own oil, and since we will not, there is no limit to what they will charge us for oil.

We have seen such a dramatic change that I cannot believe it. At the time the oil pipeline was approved, oil was $7 and $8 a barrel. It is now approaching $150 a barrel. Why? Because of the law of supply and demand. We have refused to increase our domestic supply of oil, and having done so the price is set at a world price.

I remember there used to be a posted price in San Diego or Los Angeles or Philadelphia or Seattle or even in Alaska--a posted price by the refineries on how much they paid for oil. That is no longer the case. The case is now that we look to the foreign suppliers to see what they are going to charge. We have to pay whatever they charge. With an increasing demand all over the world from the developing countries, such as China, there is no reason for us not to understand what is happening.

Just a week ago, on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, there was a chart that showed the future situation with oil and gas. It showed the supply almost steady at the same level for coming years. It showed the demand on an ever-increasing curve going up, up, and up. When the price of oil started going up, I predicted on the floor of the Senate, when we debated the ANWR situation in 2006, that the price of oil could reach $100 a barrel. Actually, there was laughter from the other side of the aisle. Some of my Democratic colleagues laughed and said it was another exaggeration by the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. President, it reached not only $100 a barrel, it is over that. It is going to stay over $100 a barrel, until we wake up and start developing our own supply of oil. Once we start developing that supply, the foreigners will know we are going to be able to bring that price down by our supply, and they will start bringing it down so we will not increase it to the point where we present a dangerous challenge to their domination of the world market, as far as oil is concerned.

I think the concept of these imports has just been totally missed. My friends talk about exporting jobs. Nothing has exported more jobs than purchasing our oil abroad. Every 1 million barrels of oil a day coming in has eliminated 20,000 jobs in the United States. That is 20,000 jobs for every million, and we are importing over 12 million barrels of oil a day. Mr. President, 12 million barrels of oil is the same as 240,000 jobs.

When we look at this, I think it is time for the Senate to settle down. I do hope my friend from New York will settle down a little bit because there is no trickery in ANWR, there is no trickery in exploring and developing American sources of oil. The trickery is in terms of the prices we are paying, the exaggerated prices caused by those who are buying futures and speculating futures on our oil. We are no longer buying oil from foreign sources, we are buying them from some of our own people who invested in futures, and they are speculating on that price and driving up the price.

It is time for us to get down to the fact that we must find a way to authorize exploration and development of the Arctic Plain, known as

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

Madam President, this morning when I read the Wall Street Journal, I was interested in this article: ``Energy Watchdog Warns of Oil Production Crunch.'' This is the IEA, the International Energy Agency, that makes estimates and keeps the world informed on the status of energy supplies. The conclusion in this article is that the demand for energy throughout the world continues to rise, but the supply is flat.

I think there is no question that this is a problem this country faces, the problem of supply. Too often people in the Senate are unwilling to talk about the problem of supply. As a matter of fact, in 1995, President Clinton vetoed a bill that would have opened a very small portion, about 2,000 acres, of the ANWR coastal plain, which is a million and a half acres set aside for oil exploration. It would have opened it to oil and gas development. That was shortsighted, a mistake, and it has had a devastating effect on Americans.

As this article in the Wall Street Journal points out, it predicts global demand for oil of 116 million barrels per day by 2030. Today the world's demand is only 87 million barrels a day, and we are paying $135 for each of those barrels. As the demand continues to rise--and we know it will--so will the cost. It will become higher and higher. This is what I have been trying to say now for 20 years in the Senate. We should be able to produce more of America's oil, and we import today 67 percent of our oil.

During the oil embargo in the 1970s, we imported about 34 percent. We are almost totally dependent now on oil from offshore. American oil is not available to this country. The alarming fact is, the military is the largest consumer of oil in the country. It uses about 4.8 billion gallons of oil per year. The problem really is, if we had an embargo today, we could not sustain our military, let alone our essential infrastructure. Our economy could not survive another embargo.

We need to realize we can produce American energy to meet our needs. If we produce it over a period of years, the price will be stabilized. The interesting thing is, on May 1--right here on the Senate floor--the senior Senator from New York called drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ``plain wrong.'' He said it was an ``old saw.'' He said the field's probable 1 million barrels a day would reduce gas prices ``only a penny a gallon.''

Then, on May 11, the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, said:

There is one way to get the price of oil down and it's two

words--Saudi Arabia. If they were to increase 800,000 barrels

per day, the price would come down probably 35 to 50 cents a

gallon. That's a lot.

Now, why would 800,000 barrels of Saudi oil reduce gas prices 50 cents a gallon and 1 million barrels of American-produced oil from our State reduce the price at the pump only a penny?

As a matter of fact, the Senator from New York said this extra supply from Saudi Arabia would probably reduce the price of a gallon of gas by 62 cents before it was all over. Imagine that: 800,000 barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia could bring down the price of a gallon of gasoline by 62 cents. There is an absolute inconsistency with what the Senator from New York has told the Senate. I find that appalling on a thing such as the oil supply now, in view of the price of gasoline for Americans at the pump. They are paying the price because of President Clinton. They are paying the price because of stubborn opposition to develop the resources in my State.

Now, they tell us that drilling in the arctic could harm the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. It will not. As a matter of fact, the land we are going to develop was set aside in the act of 1980, a million and a half acres in the Arctic Plain, so it could be explored. It will not be part of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge until the exploration and development of that area is over.

I think there is no question we have to find a way to have the Members of this body make up their minds: What is the problem America faces today? It is supply. Our demand is increasing, like the rest of the world, but we do not have an American supply of oil. Off our shores, and in the deep water off Alaska, there is a bountiful supply of oil. We have two-thirds of the Continental Shelf of the United States, and there is only one well on that two-thirds of the Continental Shelf.

If you look over to the other side of the Bering Straits in Russia-- Russia, which was a net importer of oil just 20 years ago, now is a net exporter of oil. Why? Because they developed the OCS off their shores. They now have a strong economy in Russia. Why? Because they do not export petrodollars anymore. They use money in their own country to finance development in their own country.

We have to make up our minds whether we are going to face blind opposition, incorrect, and uninformed opposition, or whether we are going to take the actions needed to develop American oil to meet American demand, and whether we are going to use the deep water off our shores to produce oil as does the rest of the world.

Norway produces oil off their shores. Britain produces oil off their shores. As a matter of fact, we produce oil off our southern shore, but we are prevented from producing oil off our northern shore. It is absolutely inconsistent and irrational what we are facing.

Our pipeline, at its peak, was transporting 2.1 million barrels of oil to the west coast of the United States. Today, it is producing about 700,000 barrels a day. It is two-thirds empty, in effect. It would not need a new pipeline to carry the oil that would be produced in ANWR. It is there. It could carry more than 1 million barrels a day easily. Yet it has been opposed. It has been opposed for over 20 years, by the same irrational people who come to the floor and say: Oh, oh, Saudi Arabia, produce more oil. Produce 800,000 barrels of oil a day, and we can probably expect gas prices at the pump to come down 62 cents. But if you bring 1 million barrels of oil down from Alaska, it is only going to affect the price by a penny.

I have to tell you, we have to have smarter energy solutions. I hope the time will come when we have a rational debate on this floor. I am reminded of that rational debate when we finally approved the legislation that brought about the construction of the Alaska oil pipeline in the 1970s. We waited 4 years for that pipeline to start because of stubborn opposition from the extreme environmentalists. It was finally overcome. That opposition was overcome by an act that was started right here on the floor of the Senate, which closed the courts of the United States to any further litigation over building that pipeline.

We were just following the oil embargo. America realized we had to have more American oil. There was no filibuster on this floor. The vote was 49 to 49, and that tie was broken by the then-Vice President.

Now, what has happened? Why should every time we bring up ANWR we have a filibuster? Why can't we bring to the American continent the resources of the continent that happen to be in our State?

Madam President, I am happy to yield to my friend.

I have to tell the Senator, that is comparatively new in terms of my time in the Senate. When I first arrived here, there was bipartisan support for producing American oil. We had a coalition with Republicans and Democrats, and we worked with the administration, whether it was Republican or Democrat, to find a way to bring more oil on line, oil produced by Americans and consumed by Americans.

When the opposition started on a political basis, we were then importing about 20 percent of our oil. As the opposition has continued, as I said, we now import 67 percent. That money, which would have been spent in this country producing millions of jobs, and putting people into permanent jobs, long-term jobs, is going to all these countries throughout the world because we do not have that investment. We have now what we call petrodollars, and we have to send our exports overseas to bring that money back.

This chart shows that 1 million barrels of imported oil cost the American economy 20,000 jobs, and we are importing 14 million barrels a day now.

So I tell the Senator, it is a recent phenomenon comparatively, and it is partisan. It started with President Clinton.

I thank the Senator very much.

I will close on this statement.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record. I would hope that the Senate would pay attention to it.

Madam President, I do thank the Chair for her patience.

Let me do one last thing.

(The remarks of Mr. Stevens pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 575 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

I thank the Chair for her patience and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution that is cosponsored by Senator Murkowski, Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka, Senator Cochran, Senator Isakson, Senator Craig, and Senator Snowe.

I am submitting this resolution to honor veteran entrepreneurs and calling on the Federal Government to improve Federal contracting opportunities for service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses. They call them SDVOSBs.

These veteran entrepreneurs have given so much to our country, and the Federal Government needs to honor them by utilizing their array of valuable skills.

Almost 9 years ago, Congress passed the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999, which directed the President to establish a goal of awarding at least 3 percent of Federal contracts to service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses.

In subsequent years, however, the Federal agencies have consistently failed to reach that statutory goal. In the most recent official governmentwide report, contract awards for service-disabled, veteran- owned small businesses made up less than 1 percent of all Federal contracts.

As I travel home this weekend to observe Memorial Day, I will have the great honor of being accompanied by U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Dr. James Peake, who has accepted my invitation to visit our State.

Dr. Peake, a decorated combat veteran and former Army Surgeon General, is an exceptional American. An important challenge for the VA will be to provide adequate VA health facilities and services to veterans in rural areas.

Dr. Peake's decision to travel from our Nation's Capital to Alaska on this important holiday shows his commitment to all veterans, particularly those who come from rural areas.