Floor Statements

Mr. President, is it proper to speak on a matter not concerning bankruptcy at this time without consent?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes on a matter not concerning the bankruptcy bill.

Mr. President, I hope all Members of Congress saw the news yesterday, that oil prices reached $55 a barrel. Now, some of us reacted with shock and amazement, but others knew the reality that this day would come.

We have witnessed the impact of these high energy prices every time we fill up our gas tanks and pay our heating or electric bills.

These high prices are unsustainable, jeopardizing jobs and threatening the long-term health of our economy. The impact of high energy prices can be seen at all levels of our economy. High energy prices have produced job losses, trade deficits, and constraints on consumer spending and economic growth. Demand for energy in the United States is outstripping supply, and Americans are feeling the impact of Congress's failure to act to solve the problem. Our people rely on our ability to stabilize energy prices and provide them with the energy resources all of us need.

The good news is that this worsening crisis is avoidable. The United States has the natural resources to increase our energy supply. But inconsistent Government policies discourage the exploration, development, and use of our own energy resources. Almost 30 percent of all the lands in this country are owned by the Federal Government. That is 657 million acres--almost four times the size of Texas. Under those lands lies 90 percent of the predicted undiscovered oil and 40 percent of our undiscovered natural gas. Those public resources are needed to meet our energy needs and secure our future.

Since 1983, access to our Federal lands has declined by 60 percent. Over half of the lands that are designated currently as multiple use-- in other words, ones that oil and gas exploration could take place on-- are subject to highly restrictive land classifications or lease stipulations which effectively restrict energy exploration and development.

The effect of these policies is clear. In 1981, 91,533 oil and gas wells were drilled in the United States. In 2000, that number declined to 29,284, almost down to 25 percent of what we did some 20 years ago. As a result, crude oil production in the United States is at a 50-year low, and permitting for oil and gas projects on Federal lands that once took 18 months--and that was considered a long time then--can now take up to 10 years. In some instances, it takes 10 years to clear a permit to start exploring for oil on Federal lands. Those delays force companies to pursue projects overseas rather than develop U.S. resources.

Some people have commented upon the fact that the U.S. oil industry is no longer seeking to support the concept of drilling on Alaska's Arctic plain. They have opportunities all over the world where they can proceed much more rapidly than in this country, and there is no question that they need to find oil to meet our needs. What industry is going to put up the money for 10 years to explore for and develop energy here at home when it can go abroad and do that in less than 1 year?

In a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Stephen Entin, a former staff economist for the Joint Economic Committee and currently president of the Institute for Research On the Economics of Taxation, argued that our current policies actually support OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, and enhance its power. By locking up our own lands we have basically manipulated prices because we have restricted competition from American companies, and OPEC reaps the benefits from an inequitable playing field. As a matter of fact, we encourage them to raise prices because our demand constantly increases and our domestic supply constantly decreases. Jobs and energy security have been outsourced, as we seek our energy security in places where there are unfriendly and unstable regimes. I have had personal talks with some members of the oil industry. They know that those are unstable regimes, but they have no alternative.

For every $1 billion we spend to develop petroleum resources domestically we would create 12,500 jobs. That would mean that last year we lost over 1.3 million jobs by importing oil instead of producing it. People wonder why our jobs are going abroad. When we withdraw lands from oil and gas exploration, that is not free. Many people in this country think it is an easy decision and it doesn't cost anything. It is a very expensive policy. We are paying a huge price now because we have locked up our lands and made them inaccessible, when they purportedly are open, by restrictive policies, restrictive stipulations that take so long to comply with that no industry is going to put up the money and wait so long for the opportunity to see if there is oil and gas in those lands.

The American taxpayer picks up the tab, and the American consumer is severely punished by this policy. Consumers are paying more for food, goods, and energy bills. According to Daniel Yergin, an economist from Cambridge Energy Associates, high energy and gasoline prices essentially act as a consumer tax, leaving Americans with less disposable income for travel, home buying, restaurants, and retail establishments, all of what we call our quality of life.

Only yesterday, I received this estimate. It is estimated now that for every one-cent increase for gasoline at the pump, there is $1 billion lost in consumer spending. Just look at the price of gasoline now. The price of gasoline is at an alltime high, and it will not come down. It is going to continue to go up.

In China, 5 years ago only 5 percent of their people were using energy. Now 15 percent are using it. Even at that low rate of 15 percent of their people using energy, talking about oil and gas energy, they have now passed Japan in consumption annually of oil and gas. They are second only to the United States, and only 15 percent of their people are using oil and gas so far. People blame a lot of things for these high prices, but the fact is the world is starting to use oil and gas. We are competing for the world's oil production and ignoring completely our capability to produce right here at home.

Unless Congress acts to ensure greater domestic production of our oil and gas resources, our energy security is jeopardized. I am talking about security. We had one embargo since I have been in the Senate in the 1970s, when we were totally embargoed by OPEC. They would not sell us oil. At that time about 33 percent of our oil was coming in from OPEC countries. Today it is 60 percent. An embargo today would destroy our economy.

There are many people who advocate quick fixes to use alternative sources. I believe there must eventually be alternative sources to oil and gas in our economy, but just relying on them and saying we are going to do it and never bringing that about has led us to the point where we no longer have the capability to produce the oil and gas to meet our needs in the event of national security.

We believe that it is time now that we should review these policies, and one of the key policies, of course, is an area that comes from the development of an area in my State. In 1980, we passed the Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act, an act that withdrew over 100 million acres of Alaska's lands for national purposes.

One provision in that bill guaranteed the right to explore the Arctic plain, a million and a half acres, for oil and gas, probably even then known as the area most probable to produce substantial quantities of oil and gas. It is estimated to contain 10.4 billion barrels of oil. Just as a comparison, when we first drilled at Prudhoe Bay, the estimate was it might contain 1 billion barrels of oil. We have already produced 16 billion barrels of oil from Prudhoe Bay. In other words, this area now considered to be capable of producing 10.4 billion barrels of oil is probably the last most significant oil and gas area in the country, and we have worked, now since 1981, to try to fulfill the promise made to us in the 1980 bill that that area could be explored.

It is high time that we take action to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. As I said, we rely upon foreign sources for 60 percent of our energy needs. The area of the Arctic plain, 1.5 million acres guaranteed to be available for oil and gas exploration, is there. Allowing exploration and development of this area that is known as ANWR, although it is not part of the refuge until oil and gas development is over, would improve our U.S. balance of trade, reduce the amount of money we spend abroad, and improve our national security by having available the capability to produce that amount of oil.

It is estimated that by 2025, the United States will spend approximately $200 billion on foreign oil and petroleum products. By opening this area, and when it produces, we could save a considerable portion of that by producing our own oil and gas. It means we could create tens of thousands of jobs and contribute greatly to the overall economy.

There is no question that we are now in an energy crisis. Anytime we see $55-dollar-a-barrel oil, that is a crisis. I cannot believe that Congress wants to wait until the price goes up to somewhere around $80. I believe it is going that high unless we start developing our domestic resources and look to alternative supplies of energy right here at home.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I feel honored to be here today to support this resolution recognizing the lifetime achievements of my good friend Howard Baker. Howard and I have been friends for a very long time. We arrived in the Senate at about the same time. Howard was elected in 1966, and I was appointed in 1968. In 1977, Howard became minority leader. I was elected minority whip. We became leaders of the majority in the Senate in 1981. Being part of the Senate leadership was a new chapter in my life, and I was privileged to start out on that path with Howard Baker.

After the 1980 elections, we traveled together to the White House almost every couple of weeks to meet with President Reagan. I cherish those trips to the White House to this day. They remain some of my favorite memories of the time I have spent here in the Senate.

Howard Baker is a great leader. He understands how to bring people together to accomplish great things. Those who were here during Howard's tenure, I am sure, remember his commitment to collegiality and fairness. It earned him tremendous respect among his colleagues in the Senate. He was a great choice for majority leader. All of us were honored to serve with him.

In early 1984, I went to his office to discuss the future. Howard convinced me I should plan to stay in the Senate. Later that year, however, Howard announced his own retirement. And, as we know, he later became President Reagan's Chief of Staff.

Catherine and I were sad when Howard lost his first wife, Joy. She was a wonderful woman. We were glad when he and Nancy found each other. Nancy, who is also a friend, served as a distinguished Senator here in her own right. She has been a great friend and partner for our friend Howard.

In 1989, the day before Catherine and I were married, Howard called to tell me he needed to go to China, but Joy was ill--she was in the hospital--and Howard could not leave. Deng Xiaoping had called, as leader of China, and wanted to understand what ``Reaganism'' meant. When Howard could not go on the trip which Ronald Reagan asked him to take to answer that question, Howard dispatched me on that mission. Again, it was a wonderful memory for me, and I appreciated that honor.

Catherine and I were married on December 30 and left for China on December 31. There was no time for a honeymoon. But we got on that plane to China at Howard's request, and we haven't stopped since. I am reminded of that every year now, and it has finally caught up with me. Catherine and I are scheduled to take that honeymoon this spring. So I am not allowed to call Howard to congratulate him because we cannot risk being dispatched again to some foreign country.

Howard's time as Ambassador to Japan is only one chapter in the long and distinguished career the leader just talked about, a career that he spent serving the American people so well. Few men are more deserving of the honor of such a resolution, and Catherine and I wish our good friend and his good lady great luck in their pursuits.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached statement from the Office of Compliance be printed in the Record today pursuant to section 304(b)(1) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1384(b)(1)).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached statement from the Office of Compliance be printed in the Record today pursuant to section 304(b)(1) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1384(b)(1)).

Mr. President, today I introduce, with Senators Inouye and Murkowski, the Federal Land Recreational Visitor Protection Act of 2005.

Across our State of Alaska, Western States, and areas of the Northeast, local governments and businesses struggle each year to remove potential avalanches or recover from the disastrous effects of avalanches.

While such damage can bring hardships to many local communities, none can compare with the loss of a friend or family member. The U.S. averages over 20 deaths a year from avalanches, a majority of which are results of recreational activities in unmitigated avalanche areas. Earlier in January, 3 people were killed in two separate avalanches in northern Idaho and Utah, bringing the total number of people already killed in the U.S. this winter season to 16.

Some States try and set aside money for rescues prior to the winter season, knowing that the resources required to clear all avalanche threats are not at hand.

This bill brings those resources to the entities that need them the most, enabling us to significantly reduce the effects of avalanches on visitors, recreational users, transportation corridors, and our local communities.

Mr. President, today I introduce, with Senators Inouye and Murkowski, the Federal Land Recreational Visitor Protection Act of 2005.

Across our State of Alaska, Western States, and areas of the Northeast, local governments and businesses struggle each year to remove potential avalanches or recover from the disastrous effects of avalanches.

While such damage can bring hardships to many local communities, none can compare with the loss of a friend or family member. The U.S. averages over 20 deaths a year from avalanches, a majority of which are results of recreational activities in unmitigated avalanche areas. Earlier in January, 3 people were killed in two separate avalanches in northern Idaho and Utah, bringing the total number of people already killed in the U.S. this winter season to 16.

Some States try and set aside money for rescues prior to the winter season, knowing that the resources required to clear all avalanche threats are not at hand.

This bill brings those resources to the entities that need them the most, enabling us to significantly reduce the effects of avalanches on visitors, recreational users, transportation corridors, and our local communities.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Dr. Condoleezza Rice's nomination for Secretary of State. I first met Dr. Rice when she served as the Soviet and East European Affairs adviser during the first Bush administration. Her reputation as an invaluable adviser was well established even then. She helped guide that administration through the reunification of Germany, rebellion in the Balkans, and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Her unshakable commitment to freedom, democracy, international peace and justice are unquestioned.

Philip Zelikow, who served with Dr. Rice on the National Security Council during this time, and is the Executive Director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, stated this:

She believes in empowering people. In international

affairs, that means real commitment to liberty and freedom.

She sees the message of her life as a message of how to

realize a person's potential. No one should ever become the

prisoner of other people's expectations.

Dr. Rice returned to Stanford at the close of the first Bush administration. In 1993, she became the first female and non-white provost in the university's history. She was also the youngest.

My daughter, Lily, graduated from Stanford in 2003, so I have a unique appreciation for Dr. Rice's accomplishments. During her 6 years as provost, Dr. Rice succeeded in restoring Stanford's financial position, and also engaged in one of her passions--sports.

A stalwart sports fan, Dr. Rice would regularly be seen cheering the Stanford Cardinals from the bleachers. I even saw her one day when Stanford beat UCLA--a terrible day. She was also seen working out with the Stanford football team. Dr. Rice is a role model, especially for young women. During her time at Stanford she was loved by undergraduates and appreciated by faculty members.

Dr. Rice has had a profound impact on students across our Nation. A political science major at nearby Howard University put it best, saying:

She has opened the door for not only women but minorities

in government and, hopefully, she [will] be a role model for

women and minorities to achieve high, important positions in

government.

Dr. Rice is also capable of making tough decisions. Up to this point she's had mostly advisory roles in government, and she has served in that capacity with honor, dignity and unwavering dedication. It is those qualities--and her unsurpassed intellectual abilities--that prompted Forbes magazine to name her the most powerful woman in the world last year. I believe she is entitled to that acclaim.

Dr. Rice is a balanced genius in her own right. And, when the Senate confirms her nomination to become Secretary of State--as I believe it will and should--she will be the boss. The Nation could not be in better hands. Dr. Rice has my complete support. I look forward to working with her in her new role.

I ask unanimous consent it be possible for me at this time to introduce S. 39.

Mr. President, I introduce today S. 39, the ``National Ocean Exploration Program Act'' to expand exploration and knowledge of our Nation's oceans. When I introduced this bill in the 108th Congress, Senator Hollings and Senator Inouye were original co-sponsors. Senator Hollings has left this body, but he worked closely with Senator Inouye and me on this bill and we thank him for his contributions to ocean policy. Senators Snowe and Dodd would like to be added as original co- sponsors of this bill.

Senator Inouye and I introduce this legislation today in an effort to increase and coordinate research and exploration of our Nation's oceans. Alaska and Hawaii are uniquely dependent on the ocean for food, employment, recreation, and the delivery of goods. However, approximately 95 percent of the ocean floor remains unexplored, much of it located in the polar latitudes and the southern ocean. This legislation will advance ocean exploration and increase funding for greater research.

In its final report, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation lead an expanded National Ocean Exploration Program. This legislation will accomplish that goal.

The National Exploration Program expands ocean exploration. Through this program we will determine whether there are new marine substances with potential therapeutic benefits; study unique marine ecosystems, organisms and the geology of the world's oceans; and maximize ocean research by integrating multiple scientific disciplines in the ocean science community.

The program will focus on remote ocean research and exploration. Specifically, research will be conducted on hydrothermal vents communities and seamounts. Increased research in these areas, where organisms exist in highly toxic environments, should yield significant scientific and medical breakthroughs.

Decades ago I help Oscar Dyson, a great Alaska fisherman, secure a small grant to explore the North Pacific. With that grant he discovered a great number of marine species that are now considered vital to the North Pacific. It is my hope that the National Ocean Exploration Program Act will be the catalyst for that type of ocean exploration and discovery.

Mr. President, I introduce today S. 39, the ``National Ocean Exploration Program Act'' to expand exploration and knowledge of our Nation's oceans. When I introduced this bill in the 108th Congress, Senator Hollings and Senator Inouye were original co-sponsors. Senator Hollings has left this body, but he worked closely with Senator Inouye and me on this bill and we thank him for his contributions to ocean policy. Senators Snowe and Dodd would like to be added as original co- sponsors of this bill.

Senator Inouye and I introduce this legislation today in an effort to increase and coordinate research and exploration of our Nation's oceans. Alaska and Hawaii are uniquely dependent on the ocean for food, employment, recreation, and the delivery of goods. However, approximately 95 percent of the ocean floor remains unexplored, much of it located in the polar latitudes and the southern ocean. This legislation will advance ocean exploration and increase funding for greater research.

In its final report, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation lead an expanded National Ocean Exploration Program. This legislation will accomplish that goal.

The National Exploration Program expands ocean exploration. Through this program we will determine whether there are new marine substances with potential therapeutic benefits; study unique marine ecosystems, organisms and the geology of the world's oceans; and maximize ocean research by integrating multiple scientific disciplines in the ocean science community.

The program will focus on remote ocean research and exploration. Specifically, research will be conducted on hydrothermal vents communities and seamounts. Increased research in these areas, where organisms exist in highly toxic environments, should yield significant scientific and medical breakthroughs.

Decades ago I help Oscar Dyson, a great Alaska fisherman, secure a small grant to explore the North Pacific. With that grant he discovered a great number of marine species that are now considered vital to the North Pacific. It is my hope that the National Ocean Exploration Program Act will be the catalyst for that type of ocean exploration and discovery.

Madam President, our time is almost up.

I am delighted to have heard the comments of the Senator from Illinois. I remember so well when we faced the problem of dealing with Federal employees back in the 1980s. We determined that a thrift plan was necessary. We encouraged members of the Federal employee workforce to set aside a portion of their income. For every $2 they set aside, the Federal Government agreed to match it with $1.

I think this thrift plan has proved to be a decisive factor in maintaining the employment of key employees because it gave them a chance to reach out and be part of the general economy, to invest in the issues that were covered by the thrift plan management group. I do believe it has been a successful venture.

I hope the exploration we make of the President's suggestion leads to a similar type of circumstance, to a similar development of the opportunity for everyone covered by Social Security to similarly participate in funds that are part of the general stock market, part of the general investments of the United States. So many investors now in our country participate in that way.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come on this side--and I do not think there is--I yield back the remainder of our time and ask for the regular order.

Madam President, it is my intention to make a statement presenting the nominee's qualifications and the consideration the Commerce Committee gave to this nomination, to be followed by time that I will yield to the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye. I hope that will be acceptable to Senator Dorgan. His time would start following Senator Inouye's time, who I understand is on the way to the Chamber.

This was the first nomination that came before the Commerce Committee after I became chairman. President Bush nominated Mr. Carlos Gutierrez to be Secretary of Commerce on November 29, 2004. Mr. Gutierrez is the chairman and chief executive officer of the Kellogg Company, a major food products company based in Battle Creek, MI. The incredible story of how he got there, rising through the ranks, is a testament to the American spirit.

Shortly after Fidel Castro assumed power in Cuba during the Communist revolution, Carlos Gutierrez and his

family fled their native country. They arrived almost penniless in Florida and, after several years, eventually settled in Mexico City. There at the age of 20, Carlos Gutierrez took a job selling cereal out of the back of a van to small grocery stores.

With a lot of hard work, 10 years later, he was general manager of Kellogg's Mexico division. Fifteen years after that, he was running the whole company. It is a great American success story by any measure.

Mr. Gutierrez's nomination comes before the Senate at a time of significant change in the American economy. The shock of September 11, 2001, a series of corporate scandals, and the spending pressure of the war on terror, including the Iraq conflict, have taken their toll.

However, the President's economic stimulus program, centered around tax relief, is helping our economy turn the corner. The economy has created more than 2.4 million new jobs since August of 2003--15 straight months of job gains. The unemployment rate is at 5.4 percent, down from 6.3 percent last June, and is below the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. After-tax income has risen more than 10 percent since the end of 2000, and household wealth is now at an all-time high. Even the stock market has shown strong gains in recent months.

Secretaries of Commerce spend much of their time promoting American business at home and abroad. If confirmed, Mr. Gutierrez will have an impressive record of growth at his disposal.

There is much more to the Department of Commerce than representing America's economic interests. Most of the Department's budget is devoted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA's role in predicting tsunamis was not well known outside of the Pacific coastal States before last month's devastating tsunami in Asia. The administration recently announced a strong proposal to improve detection and response to tsunami events along the U.S. coast. NOAA will be the lead in this critical endeavor.

Mr. Gutierrez has probably already learned more about fisheries than he ever expected. If confirmed, he will learn much more. The recent report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy reaffirms the important role that domestic fisheries play in our society. Fisheries create jobs in rural communities and provide valuable protein in the world's food supply. The report of that commission highlighted the need to manage all fisheries in a sustainable, regional manner. And that is exactly what has taken place in the State that the occupant of the Chair and I have the honor to represent. Our State, with half the coastline of the United States, has led in developing new policies to protect and preserve the reproductive capability of the fisheries off our shore.

I commend the President for his Executive order creating a Committee on Ocean Policy within the White House. Those of us on the Commerce Committee look forward to working with the President and Mr. Gutierrez to ensure that our Nation's fisheries are managed sustainably, responsibly, and regionally.

On January 5, Senator Inouye and I held a hearing in the Commerce Committee on this nomination. Mr. Gutierrez answered a variety of questions at the hearing and has since responded to many more written questions. The next day, the committee voted unanimously to report this nomination to the full Senate. I am here today to recommend the Senate's quick confirmation of this nomination.

I thank Mr. Gutierrez for his willingness to serve our Nation and the Department of Commerce, and I join in congratulating the President on this fine nomination.

Mr. Gutierrez has my strong support, and I do urge the Senate to vote to confirm this nomination as quickly as possible.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I yield such time to the Senator from Montana as he may desire to use.

Mr. President, we have no further speakers on this side. I reserve the remainder of our time.

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

How much time is remaining?

Has the minority no time remaining?

Is it possible to get permission to yield back the balance of the minority's time?

I ask unanimous consent all time be yielded back.

I ask the Chair to put the issue before the Senate.

I ask that the President be immediately notified of the confirmation of this nominee.

I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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 suggest the absence of a quorum.