Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the stimulus package. This stimulus package attempts to overturn an oil shale agreement that was reached in the continuing resolution.

This is more of the same shoddy process we have seen from the majority party throughout the entire Congress. If the purpose of this amendment is to stimulate the economy, why would we attempt to place one of the largest potential deposits of oil in the world out of reach?

This provision would maintain the status quo of sending $700 billion annually to the likes of Hugo Chavez, if we enacted this provision. Not only are we sending American dollars abroad, but we are sending American jobs after them. It is ironic that something that is supposed to stimulate our economy would, in fact, hurt us.

This Congress has already passed a stimulus proposal as well as a supplemental disaster appropriations bill, and we are going to vote on a $700 billion Wall Street bailout. We must realize that the United States does not have a blank check to spend unlimited amounts of taxpayer money.

It is premature to consider the stimulus package before we fully know what our other obligations are going to be. This do-nothing and drill- nothing Congress is out of touch with the people who put them in office.

Earlier this week we saw the largest single-day jump in oil prices in history. How did Democrats in Congress react? They attempted to extend the ill-conceived moratorium on oil shale regulations. This moratorium places over 800 billion barrels of potentially recoverable oil out of reach. That is an energy source larger than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. Let me repeat that again. We are talking about an energy source larger than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia.

The Democratic-controlled Congress is completely ignoring the needs of our Nation. It is not only unfortunate but also insulting to the American people who are struggling to pay these high fuel prices at the gas pump.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for working with Senator Salazar and myself in getting two individuals finally confirmed by the Senate; that is, Phillip Brimmer and Christine Arguello to the District Court of Colorado. I know it was not an easy task that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee had before him. I know he had to buck some of the persistent rules of his committee, he had to buck a very tight timeline at the end and had to deal with some misunderstandings that further delayed their confirmation.

I respect him highly for his good work as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I respect him for the fact that he was able to keep his commitment to both myself and Senator Salazar on these two individuals. Senator Salazar and I worked hard to work out an agreement where we could fill at least two of the vacancies of the three existing vacancies on the District Court of Colorado.

I also compliment my good friend and colleague Senator Salazar for being willing to work with me to meet the needs of this district court. When you have three vacancies on a district court, they are reaching the status of what we call emergency status. That means there is considerable more workload there because of the vacancies, and as a result of that it begins to impede their ability to deal with the cases that might come before that district court.

I also state for the record that this is a court that deals with a very heavy workload and probably should have an additional seat on the bench there in this district court because of the heavy workload we have in the Colorado District Court.

Philip Brimmer

I would like to take a moment to talk about the two fine individuals on whom Senator Salazar and I ended up agreeing--first of all, in regard to Mr. Brimmer.

Mr. Brimmer is an outstanding lawyer. He is a graduate of Harvard and Yale Law School, institutions that provided him with tremendous analytical tools and an arsenal of knowledge which have served him well in his career.

Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Brimmer spent 2 years clerking for the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Thereafter, he joined a Denver law firm, where he spent 7 years in private practice before making a decision to devote his career to public service. This decision led Mr. Brimmer to the Denver District Attorney's Office, serving first as a deputy district

attorney and later promoted to chief deputy district attorney,

Former District Attorney and current Governor of Colorado Bill Ritter wrote, ``throughout Mr. Brimmer's service at the Denver District Attorney's Office, he upheld the highest standards of integrity, fairness, honesty, hard work--and a dedication to public service.'' Governor Ritter felt he could trust Phil Brimmer with the most challenging cases that came through the office; Phil Brimmer did not disappoint.

Current Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey recently wrote of his former colleague in a similar fashion. ``[Phil Brimmer] never failed to impress me both with his work ethic and his knowledge of the law . . . He was one of our most valued attorneys.'' The sentiments of Governor Ritter and District Attorney Morrissey are reflected in numerous other letters sent to my office from people who worked with Mr. Brimmer throughout the years.

Similar to his experience as deputy district attorney, Mr. Brimmer has been exceptionally successful as Federal prosecutor. Almost 7 years ago, he joined the U.S. Attorney's Office as an assistant U.S. attorney and has worked on an assortment of criminal cases as chief of the major crimes section and now as chief of special prosecutions section.

As chief of special prosecutions in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mr. Brimmer handled very challenging and procedurally complex case, dealing with an assortment of crimes, including child exploitation, cyber crimes, capital crimes, and prison crimes. Attorney general of Colorado John Suthers hired Phil Brimmer in the fall of 2001, recognizing his ``excellent work ethic'' and his ``tremendous intellectual capability''. It seems Mr. Brimmer continues to impress everyone he works beside as he continues to serve Colorado's legal community with great distinction.

Anyone familiar with Philip Brimmer's professional credentials can attest to his intelligence and his talent. Anyone familiar with Philip Brimmer, as an individual, would certainly observe that he is respectful, loyal, and good-humored. His integrity, honesty and professional dedication to public service also contribute to making Philip Brimmer a ``rare find.''

From my conversations with Mr. Brimmer, it is clear that he recognizes the proper role of the judiciary. His personal qualities and character, coupled with his professional experience, an ABA rating of ``well qualified'', and outstanding bipartisan recommendations from within Colorado's legal community make Philip Brimmer ideally suited to service on the federal district court.

christine arguello

I would also like to welcome Ms. Christine Arguello to the U.S. Senate.

This is not my first endorsement of Ms. Arguello. In 1999, I made a recommendation to then President Clinton to nominate Ms. Arguello for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. This past January, I again offered her name to President Bush and urged he consider nominating Christine Arguello to fill a vacant judgeship on Colorado's Federal district court.

I speak before the Senate today in support of the nomination of this fine lawyer for service on the Federal bench. In her more than 25 years of legal experience, she has worn many different hats. She has experience as a trial lawyer, in-house counsel, law professor, and public servant.

She is a skilled attorney with impressive credentials and a diverse professional background.

Ms. Arguello earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado and her law degree from Harvard. She began her distinguished professional career working as an associate for a law firm. She moved to a public service career after 19 years of private practice when she joined the Colorado Attorney General's Office, where she served as the chief deputy attorney general under the former attorney general, and now my currently Senate colleague, Ken Salazar.

In 2003, she returned to private practice as a civilian litigation attorney, and in 2006 she assumed her current job as managing senior associate counsel for the University of Colorado at Boulder.

She has been described by many as a trailblazer. Ms. Arguello and the wide-ranging experiences and accomplishments she brings with her would make her a great asset to the Federal bench. In addition to being the first Hispanic from Colorado to be admitted to Harvard Law School and the first Hispanic to be promoted to partner at one of the ``big four'' law firms in Colorado, Ms. Arguello has added law professor to a long list of accomplishments.

She became a tenured professor at the University of Kansas Law School and joined the faculty at the University of Colorado School of Law and the University of Denver College of Law as an adjunct professor and visiting professor, respectively.

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I am able to see to conclusion the confirmation of Phil Brimmer and Christine Arguello to the District Court of Colorado.

Again, I cannot say how thankful I am I have a good friend and colleague such as Senator Ken Salazar who is willing to work with me on issues that are facing the Colorado District Court and many other issues that are facing the State of Colorado.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I object. Senator Bond had already asked for time.

No objection.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, for his leadership on energy, and also the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, for her leadership, as well as Republican Senator Pete Domenici for his very strong leadership on energy over the last number of years. This is an issue that is extremely important to the country. I rise to talk about energy policy and some of the thoughts I have been talking about since coming to the Senate. It is important that we get the solution right.

I fully support what the Senator from New Mexico talked about, the three goals he outlined for the next Congress. I will not be here. I am retiring voluntarily. But I do support those goals. I hope we continue to follow through with those goals; that is, an adequate supply of energy, affordable, and that we have a clean source of energy to begin to address some of our environmental problems.

When I first came to the Senate from the House of Representatives, I had been a member of the renewable energy caucus. I came over to the Senate and discovered that we did not have a renewable energy caucus to support the staff and Members of this body. I began the process of establishing a renewable energy caucus because I had come to realize that not only was a balanced energy policy good for the State of Colorado but also for the Nation.

In the State of Colorado, we have the Renewable Energy Laboratory, which was focusing on new technology, whose main effort was to move that technology--not only to discover it but also to move it to market. That is an important step that happens so often in the research world. Nobody looks at the practical aspect of moving scientific discoveries into a market that will really serve the people.

This is a fabulous agency we have, a research agency in Colorado. It naturally came on my shoulders to begin to organize the Senate renewable energy caucus. We did this in a bipartisan manner. We were able to get leadership from the Democratic Party to join me. As cochairmen, we promoted the Senate renewable energy caucus. Over the years, the membership built up. Our programs got stronger with the support of renewable energy labs as well as support from renewable energy industries and businesses throughout the country.

As time went on, we had a change in administration from President Clinton over to President Bush. At the time, he was very strongly in favor of the oil and gas industry and perhaps did not appreciate what was going to be brought to the table with renewable energy. I had to spend some time trying to convince this Republican administration that it needed to appreciate a little more what renewable energy technology was going to bring to this country, now and in the future.

When first coming to the Senate, I always believed we needed to eventually get to a renewable energy economy, but we needed to do it in a way that wouldn't destroy the economy. In other words, initially we had to support new energy development--whether it was in hydrocarbons or other sources of energy, whether it was nuclear, whether it was coal, whatever--but we could not afford to take anything off the table because we had to establish a bridge between older technology built on hydrocarbons, an economy built on that, and build that into sort of the new stage of energy independence. This is not something I was trying to think about in the last year or two when we had the energy crisis, but something I have been working on since coming to the Senate, thinking that we needed to have that balance, that it was important for us to move forward.

Eventually, the Bush administration became very supportive of renewable energy. I am delighted to have them understand the importance of renewable energy and what needs to be done as far as nuclear power.

On nuclear power, by the way, we have lost our infrastructure. A lot of technicians who know how to operate nuclear powerplants, we have lost, and we have exported our technology to France and England. I have gone to those facilities and visited with them. They have been supporting nuclear power, which allowed them to sign on to treaties like the Kyoto Treaty which we did not pass in this Congress by a very large margin because we understood that this country was not ready to move forward yet. We understood at that time that we were exempting big polluters in the world such as China and India.

We need to get ready because we need to be prepared to compete in a world where the source of energy is going to be changing.

I continued to press for oil and gas development, which is important to the economy of Colorado. It was important to the economy of this country when I first came here, and it remains so. It is with interest that I looked at the public employees' retirement accounts in the State of Colorado. These are State employees. It is a retirement plan with growth built on the stock market. A large percentage of their investments today are in oil and gas. So if we walk away from oil and gas development in the State of Colorado, we would severely impact the retirement incomes of many of our State employees.

We need to keep in mind how important oil and gas still is to the economy

and to retirement benefits. There are mandates in States such as Colorado that say you have to invest those dollars in those areas where you can get a good return. So by law in the State of Colorado, they have to invest in oil and gas companies because they have a good, safe return. That is probably going to be there for some time.

Clean coal, obviously, in Colorado and in the country remains important. Clean coal in Colorado is used to dilute the softer coals so that mainly communities on the eastern seaboard can meet their air pollution requirements. We still have a need for that very inexpensive source of energy, and we should not ignore it.

There are proposals to convert oil to liquids, which is extremely important from a national defense standpoint. I know the Defense Department is looking at this kind of technology so they can have a reserve available in times of war or if, for some reason or other, this country's reserve should be disrupted, pretty much like the naval oil reserve we used to have in Colorado, which is now referred to as the Roan Plateau, where much of our oil shale is today.

Natural gas remains important. Again, we are giving in to the lower carbons which burn very cleanly. Colorado State University, which I attended, is doing some remarkable research where they are growing algae now that will grow and develop a diesel fuel. It is a biofuel. We have a company in Berthoud, CO, to the south of where I live that has taken the grease from restaurants and converted it to a diesel fuel. This not only helps us get rid of a very problematic sort of discharge that we have from restaurants, but it converts it into fuel. The exciting thing about this company is they can operate without subsidies. To me, that is really exciting. I hope we can continue to get more companies of this nature to begin to work without having to lean on the Government for the subsidies.

We are all familiar with ethanol and how that has developed over time. There is a lot that can be done. We have talked about hydrocarbons.

There is a lot that can be done in renewables. I see that development happening in the State of Colorado.

We have communities that are using geothermal energy. This is where they run pipes down into the ground. It provides either cooling and/or heating into a building structure. It takes a certain type of geology for that technology to work, but there are many areas in this country where that can work. The environmental community doesn't like to talk about hydroelectric power, but it is a renewable energy, and it is something we should not forget. There are times when it is very applicable to use hydroelectric power.

We have a large wind area in the Midwest involving Texas and Colorado and Wyoming and Montana, parts of Nebraska, Utah, Nevada. These areas are being looked at for wind technology. We have been hearing about it throughout these debates.

Solar and hydrogen are two things that work well.

Obviously, we have legislation dealing with conservation and battery technology. Senator Bingaman talked about the Energy bill of 2005. We promoted all this to happen in that Energy bill.

I was extremely disappointed when last year's appropriations bill had a rider in it that prevented us from developing Outer Continental Shelf oil resources as well as oil shale in the State of Colorado. Oil shale in Colorado is one of the largest potential reserves we have of hydrocarbon fuel in the world. It is larger than all the known reserves in Saudi Arabia. We should not mark that off. When we start disregarding sources of energy, we run the potential of breaking down that bridge that we need from traditional fuels to where we need to be in the future with renewable sources.

Each year, we send over $700 billion overseas for fuel. Much of this money goes to nations that are on less than friendly terms with the United States. For both economic and national security reasons, achieving energy independence should be one of our top priorities.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives took a step in the right direction by approving legislation which would repeal the moratorium on offshore drilling and on issuing oil shale regulations. This is an important step that Republicans in the House and Senate have been championing. Lifting the moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf will allow access to an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Lifting the moratorium on oil shale regulations moves us one step closer to being able to access an estimated 800 billion barrels of potentially recoverable oil. That is more than the proven reserves, as I mentioned earlier, of Saudi Arabia. It is one of the largest reserves in the world.

Taking these steps to increase our energy supply could not come at a better time. Families across America are struggling with high fuel prices. The cooler temperatures of fall are also making folks worry about how the cost of home heating fuel is going to affect their ability to make it through the winter.

As the Senate takes up the continuing resolution that was worked on by the House yesterday, I am hopeful my colleagues will consider this. I am not saying drilling is the only answer to our energy needs. As a founder and cochair of the Senate renewable energy caucus, I know the importance of using renewable energy. I was pleased the Senate passed legislation yesterday that extended many important renewable energy tax incentives.

I am a strong supporter of renewable energy, but we are not at a point yet where renewable energy can meet all our energy needs. We still need fossil fuels, which is why I support removing the Outer Continental Shelf and oil shale moratoriums. With millions of Americans struggling with high fuel prices, it is imperative that the Senate pass a continuing resolution that does not contain these misguided moratoria.

So I ask my colleagues to join me in working for a balanced energy policy for this country that will not only help mean a more secure America from a military aspect but also a more secure America from an economic aspect. I urge my colleagues to join me in that effort in the closing days of this session.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for his comments and recognize his leadership, particularly on housing issues, and I think he has some great ideas he is bringing forward.

Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution today that will designate September 25 as National First Responder Appreciation Day. Last year I introduced this resolution with my good friend and colleague Senator Robert Casey and I am pleased Senator Casey has joined me again in honoring our first responders. I am also pleased to be joined by Senators Akaka, Bennett, Brown, Chambliss, Clinton, Coleman, Crapo, Domenici, Durbin, Enzi, Hutchison, Inhofe, Kennedy, Landrieu, Leahy, Lieberman, Mikulski, Murray, Pryor, Rockefeller, Sanders, Stabenow, Stevens, Voinovich, Whitehouse and Wicker in this important recognition of our men and women who keep us safe.

The contributions that our Nation's 1.1 million firefighters, 900,000 police officers, and 890,000 emergency medical professionals make in our communities are familiar to us all. Their heroics can be seen every night on our TV screens, read about in our papers, and heralded by the survivors of every modern disaster. From the wildfires in Colorado and California, the tragic events at Virginia Tech, and the horrific damage of Hurricanes Katrina, Gustav, and Ike, our first responders regularly risk their lives to protect property, uphold the law, and save the lives of others.

The duty of a first responder is never without risk and requires the courage to place the safety of others ahead of one's own. It is courage that compels a firefighter to rush into a burning building, a police officer to charge into an active shooter, and an emergency medical professional to perform precision lifesaving procedures in the most hazardous conditions imaginable. While all of these brave Americans know the risks involved, some make that ultimate sacrifice to save another, at the cost of their own life.

Every year over 100 firefighters and nearly 200 police officers are killed in the line of duty. And while some may not consider a career in the emergency medical services dangerous, EMS workers actually have an occupational fatality rate comparable to that of firefighters and police officers. I know I speak on behalf of all Americans when I express my sincerest appreciation for their service and sacrifice.

While we recognize our first responders for their sacrifices, we also acknowledge their everyday contributions that make our communities throughout America a safer place. In addition to battling fires, firefighters reach out through fire prevention and public education, like teaching our children about fire safety and proper emergency response. In addition to arresting criminals, police officers encourage communities to stay involved in crime prevention and cooperate with law enforcement to help make our neighborhoods safer and more livable. If we or our loved ones experience a medical emergency, EMTs are there at a moment's notice to provide lifesaving care.

In many ways, our first responders embody the very best of the American spirit. With charity and compassion, these brave men and women commit themselves to preserving the highest standard of life we all enjoy in this great Nation. Through their actions they have become heroes to many, through their examples they have become role models to us all.

While various cities and towns have recognized the contributions made by their local first responders, there exists no national day to honor and thank these courageous men and women. The time has come to give our first responders the national day of appreciation that they deserve.

Designating September 25 as National First Responder Appreciation Day provides an opportunity for this institution and the people of the United States to honor first responders for their contributions, sacrifices, and dedication to public service.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting passage of this worthwhile resolution.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for his comments this morning. I, too, wish to make some comments about our energy problems we are having in this country.

Before the August recess, I and many of my Republican colleagues came to the floor of this great body to make the case for a sound national energy policy that would make a difference to the millions of Americans struggling with high energy prices.

We just heard the majority leader mention energy as a critical problem in America. But, unfortunately, instead of dealing with this issue, it was set aside by the majority party in favor of a recess, and like the recess enjoyed by millions of American schoolkids, this recess was an opportunity for the majority party to run away from the hard work waiting for them on their desks on energy.

When or if we move to the energy debate again, I am hopeful we will be able to accomplish something. This is especially important because this will likely be the last opportunity for many months to offer relief to millions of Americans struggling with high fuel prices. It is relief to commuters, school carpoolers, it is relief for farmers, it is relief for small businesses, grocery shoppers, and all across the spectrum of American life where higher prices mean budget problems.

The price of oil has dropped from its summer high, and that is good, but the fundamental truth remains: America does not control its energy sources. Americans rely on overseas energy, and we pay billions and billions for it. We see those dollars go to countries that sponsor terrorism, which creates additional problems for the security of this country.

Our precarious position comes to everyone's realization when we deal with an interruption in energy. My esteemed colleague from Missouri just finished talking about the impact of Hurricane Ike and how it has had an effect, and that is when Americans realize how precarious our energy supplies are in this country.

For weeks now, dating back to before the August recess, Republicans have been pushing and prodding the Democrats in an effort to address this growing crisis. I suspect that during the August recess Democrats got an earful from their constituents on energy. The citizens of this country told them to release areas off the coast for domestic exploration. They told them to open sections of ANWR to tap millions of barrels of our own vital oil and natural gas supplies. I heard those same concerns raised when I was back in my State during the summer.

Mr. President, the American people have spoken, and it is high time the Democratic Congress started to listen. We must open the Outer Continental Shelf for exploration. Unfortunately, Congress has enacted appropriations riders prohibiting the Department of the Interior from conducting activities related to production of oil and natural gas on much of the Outer Continental Shelf every year since 1982. The current congressional moratorium under which we are operating places nearly 86 percent of America's Outer Continental Shelf lands off-limits for exploration. No other country does that. Fortunately, the current moratorium is set to expire at the end of this current fiscal year; that is, September 30 of this year. In July, President Bush lifted the executive moratorium leaving only the congressional appropriations Outer Continental Shelf moratorium standing in the way of increased U.S. energy production. I encourage our Democratic friends to allow the moratorium to lapse. With the high cost of fuel, we must allow American companies to seek out new sources of energy off our coastal regions.

In conjunction with offshore exploration, we must open vital areas of Alaska and the West. Recently, in my home State of Colorado, the Roan Plateau was finally opened to the bidding process, and I am pleased the Bureau of Land Management was able to move forward with the Roan Plateau lease sale. This sale was important for the people of Colorado because it will generate millions of dollars of revenue for our State. But more importantly, Mr. President, the Roan Plateau development is one of the most environmentally conscious plans ever created, representing almost a decade of collaboration between local, State, and Federal officials. Also, more importantly, is what the Roan Plateau lease sale means for people around the Nation. The development of the oil and gas resources on the Roan Plateau will help secure the midrange future energy needs of our Nation.

The development of the Roan Plateau will be conducted in a staged approach in order to minimize wildlife habitat fragmentation, disturbances, and to encourage innovation in reclaiming many of our disturbed areas. The Roan Plateau is an example of how we can strike a balance between energy development and environmental protections.

While additional production of traditional oil sources is vital, we in Congress must continue to provide incentives for implementation of renewable energy and for the infrastructure necessary to support them. Our fossil fuels have become a bridge to better technology and much of what lies in the area of renewable energy. This is a necessary step in balancing our domestic energy portfolio, increasing our Nation's energy security, and advancing our economic prosperity.

The American people deserve an energy policy that calls for funding more domestic energy sources, including oil, natural gas, clean coal, nuclear, as well as renewable resources and new energy efficiency technologies while not forgetting the conservation aspect of our energy problem and doing everything we possibly can to conserve our precious energy supplies. By investing in renewable energy research and development today, we will actually be saving money in future energy costs.

Energy runs the world in which we live, so without affordable, accessible sources of energy we open ourselves to dangers we simply should not allow to happen. I believe renewable energy and energy- efficient technologies help offset fuel imports, create numerous employment opportunities, develop our domestic economy, and enhance and create export opportunities. In addition, renewable energy and energy- efficient technologies provide clean, inexhaustible energy for millions of consumers.

But renewable energy alone is not enough. We still need additional sources of domestic energy. Mr. President, I disagree with my own Governor from the State of Colorado and the points he was making at the majority leader's energy conference in Nevada, where he stated that renewable energy was the main reason we were having many job opportunities and why our economy was doing well in Colorado. There is no doubt that the renewable energy effort in Colorado has created more jobs. It has created some diversity in our economy, and that is good. But it is the oil and gas industry that has provided the revenues for the State of Colorado and will continue to do it for some time. If we push too hard and too quickly to go to renewable energies before that industry has matured, we will create additional economic problems not only for the State of Colorado but for this country.

It is fascinating when one looks at the retirement portfolio for the employees of the State of Colorado. A large percentage of that revenue and that portfolio is coming from oil and gas companies. It is helping provide for the future retirement of employees who have worked for the State of Colorado. So although renewable energy is beginning to play a larger and more important role in the State of Colorado, it is not ready to replace the huge amount of revenue oil and gas is producing for my State.

One of the most promising sources of domestic energy in the Nation is found in my State of Colorado, and that is oil shale. This shale could easily yield 800 billion barrels of oil, which is more than the entire proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. Now, the estimates on the oil shale in Colorado and Utah and Wyoming are estimated up to 2 trillion, but 800 billion seems as though it is the minimum amount that most people believe we can bring to the surface with the new technologies we have in oil shale, which, by the way, is environmentally favorable.

Unfortunately, we can't even begin to move toward assessing this unparalleled resource because Democratic obstructionism has effectively put this resource out of reach. Any Member of Congress who refuses to consider comprehensive solutions that include reducing energy consumption while increasing domestic supplies is ignoring the needs of this country.

I am very hopeful that within the next few weeks we will be able to find a commonsense approach to our energy crisis that addresses the basic economic law of supply and demand. It is simple: If we increase our supply while reducing demand, energy prices will go down. We shouldn't forget that we live in a supply-and-demand economy.

So, Mr. President, I urge the majority leader, and I urge the majority party to quickly get us on the issue of energy and onto reasonable commonsense solutions to move us forward. This country is dependent on our doing the right thing on energy because it is such an essential part of our economy. It builds into all levels of manufacturing, it builds into each individual American's life, and it is a driving factor when we talk about the inflation that is happening right now in our economy.

So, Mr. President, let's move forward. Let's do something about the energy crisis we have in this country, and let's not let the current election year environment in this country disrupt our effort to try to do what is best in making sure we have a safe and secure country and a secure economy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the Republican time be reserved.

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

Mr. President, I am rising to speak in regard to the Defense authorization bill, which is now being considered on the floor of the Senate. I am delighted that we are moving forward with this piece of legislation. It is something that gets passed every year. It is important that we get this kind of legislation passed because, with the challenges the country is facing, we need to deal with some very vital issues in the defense of this country and also take care of the families and the men and women in the armed services.

I want to mention a few things about a couple of amendments I plan on introducing at some point in time for consideration by the Senate. One of them has to do with Fort Carson, which is located in Colorado Springs, CO. It is an attractive place, if you are in the Army, to be assigned. It is one of the bases where we are looking at some expansion possibilities.

One of the key points with the new personnel we are bringing is that they need more training space. So I have been working with the Colorado Springs community and the commander at Fort Carson, as well as the Army, to facilitate this so it can move forward and everybody would be comfortable with what is being done. Earlier in our discussions, when I visited with the commander, he assured me that in the process of acquiring property he would protect private property rights. That is extremely important to the people of Colorado, particularly in the rural areas. This expanded training area is in a very rural area in southern Colorado. With the assurance that they would protect private property rights, I began to say that now you need to talk to the members of the communities and elected officials and see if you cannot work out some agreement. The Army has put forth considerable efforts up to this particular point in time. I have been asked to begin to propound an amendment that would support the Army's position on protecting property rights.

Last year, as part of the fiscal year 2008 Defense Authorization Act, I included language that would require the Army to submit to Congress an outline of their justification for the expansion of the Pinon Canyon maneuver site. I was pleased with the Army's findings and am convinced there is a critical need for additional training space for the new troops that are set to arrive at Fort Carson in the near future.

Although the Army identified a need of 418,577 acres, they have decided that just over 100,000 acres will be adequate to meet their immediate needs. These 100,000 acres will still provide the necessary space for enhanced training but will have less of an impact on the surrounding community.

In reading the Army's report, I believe they have shown their willingness to work with the community on a variety of issues: land, cultural resources, and historic preservation concerns in the area. For example, Otero County, one of the neighboring counties to Pinon Canyon, has asked that the footprint of the expansion not invade the Comanche National Grassland, and the Army's new plan leaves that area untouched. Additional community leaders suggested that the expansion site not cross Interstate 350, which the Army has also agreed to.

I also want to draw attention to the economic impact data that signals significant increases in revenue for the surrounding area. The expansion would generate more than 100 full-time civilian and contractor positions, equalling as much as $5 million in payroll. These would be civilian jobs and would yield increased property and tax sale revenue for the area.

Now, that is important, because if you have Federal facilities in your county, the Federal Government doesn't pay taxes. They make payments in lieu of taxes. Many times, the complaints we have from local governments in Colorado say it doesn't measure up to the lost revenue if that had been a facility in the private sector. This is an important part of that, so this part of Colorado wants and needs economic development. They need ways to be able to expand their property tax base so they can support their schools and support their community infrastructure in that area and in the country. So this is a very important provision, as far as the elected officials in that area. Most importantly, the Army has again reiterated their commitment to acquire the land from willing sellers only.

In spite of the Army's continued commitment to acquire the land for expansion only from willing sellers, there is still apprehension among the landowners, and I want to help ease that concern. That is why I will be proposing later on this amendment to the Defense authorization bill. It is an amendment which will take the possibility of eminent domain completely off the table.

As I said time and again, we must remember that property rights go both ways. Landowners should have the right to keep or sell their land if they so choose. If there are willing sellers in the area of the proposed expansion, then I see a very win-win solution.

Again, property owners don't want to have the Army come in and begin to condemn their property. Many of the farmers and ranchers have property in their families that date clear back to the Mexican land grant era in Colorado. They are very established in those areas and have no desire to move and want to be a part of the community and do not want to be forced out of the area.

I have said time and again, we must be very sensitive about property rights. The Army now has issued this comprehensive plan which shows the critical need for expansion. The Army has completed everything Congress has asked of them in the previous legislation. They continue to work with community leaders and landowners to find a win-win situation.

Fort Carson is growing fast and will soon have an additional brigade combat team. The United States has a responsibility to ensure our service men and women who have so courageously chosen to serve this great country receive the best training possible. I believe this expansion will help them do so.

I hope this amendment I will be offering will ease the concerns of our ranchers in the area, and we can soon move forward with a decision from the Army and from the locally elected officials and ranchers involved in the area.

Amendment No. 5298

Mr. President, another amendment I have been working on is an amendment to bring attention to the fact that our military servicemembers are faced with an ineffective process and unnecessary hurdles when attempting to exercise their right to vote.

Military absentee voting gained attention in the 2000 Presidential election. The Government Accountability Office reported that military ballots during the 2000 election were disqualified five times as often as civilian ballots. Despite numerous attempts by the Congress, our military continued to face voting problems in the 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections.

In 2006, Active-Duty military voted at a rate of 42 percent lower than the general population. It reported 47 percent of servicemembers who wanted to vote never got the chance to do so. This amounts to over 110,000 of our Nation's bravest and most patriotic men and women who were denied the right to vote.

Of those who were able to cast a vote, only 20 percent of them were even counted. This is simply unacceptable. These men and women risk their lives for democracy and freedom and voting rights all over the world. As we did over 60 years ago during World War II, the voting process still depends on a single soldier in the field reading a large number of pages in a guide--I am told up to 466--and being informed on how each individual soldier is to vote under specific precinct guidelines. If a soldier is able to complete this step in the process, the mail system must still track down a moving target in order to get the ballot to a soldier who has the intention of voting. Warfighting and technology have come a long way since World War II, and in my view it is unconscionable that our voting capabilities have failed to keep up for our men and women in the military.

In recent years, there have been several voting ballot programs that would allow the soldier to request, receive, download, and print their absentee ballots no matter where they are deployed. We now have the capability to use electronic signatures. These are effective programs and would remove most, if not all, major hurdles facing our men and women in uniform who would like to exercise their right to vote. Despite these attempted advancements, none have been universally put into place. Our military men and women remain disenfranchised at the polling place.

It is time the United States ensures their right to vote. We have deployed these men and women to all corners of the world. We have sent them to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight for our security and freedom. They help to ensure the rights of others to have a voice in their Government. As we approach November and arguably the most monumental election of our time, I call on our colleagues to ensure that our men and women in uniform are given the opportunity to have their votes heard.

I will be offering an amendment at some point to the Defense authorization bill, and the amendment will basically do two things: First, it will eliminate the notary requirement on both the Federal postcard application to request absentee ballots, as well as the notary requirement on voted ballots. This is unnecessary as civilians in most States are not required to even do this.

Second, this amendment will permit electronic submission of the Federal postcard application. The Federal postcard application is an application needed to request an absentee ballot. By allowing electronic submission of this document, it will not just allow greater accessibility in a timely manner but will also allow servicemembers to request their absentee ballots closer to the election date, hopefully granting them additional time to know where they may be stationed in November.

Additionally, this amendment expresses the sense of Congress to encourage the States to permit members of the Armed Forces to apply for, receive, and submit absentee ballots for elections for Federal office by electronic means and to encourage the Department of Defense to implement and maintain programs that permit the secure submittal by members of the Armed Forces of absentee ballots for election for Federal office by electronic means.

It is simply time for Congress to ensure our military men and women the accessibility and right to vote, particularly at a time when we have the technology to provide the reliability and integrity of the system. I call on my colleagues to support me in this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from the Colorado Secretary of State, the American Legion, Vets for Freedom, and the National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition.

Mr. President, I am glad to see we are able to move forward with the Armed Services bill. I have taken some time and talked about a couple of amendments that I will offer that I think are important. I fully intend to call them up as we proceed with the debate on this important bill, important not only to our men and women in the Armed Forces but to the process, and important to the country as a whole.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support Senator Vitter's amendment to authorize the additional $271 million which is fully offset--it is fully offset--to the Missile Defense Agency.

The importance of missile defense is increasingly crucial to the safety of the United States and our allies. The United States must maintain the capability to respond to near-term ballistic missile threats that present grave danger to the United States, our deployed forces, and our allies.

We know that rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea will have the capability to use nuclear weapons. We cannot escape the fact that this widespread proliferation of ballistic missile technologies makes it increasingly possible for dangerous States and terrorist organizations to obtain and use them for harm.

We are in a crucial time in our Nation's history and we should understand the importance of defense of the homeland. I am frustrated that as other nations continue to develop nuclear programs, that as Russia has demonstrated a renewed capacity for aggression, that as China and North Korea press forward on missile technology, the Armed Services Committee cut more than $411 million from the administration's request for the Missile Defense Agency's program.

The United States has worked hard to reach agreements with the Czech Republic and Poland to establish ballistic missile defense radar sites. This was a monumental and important step

in our efforts to protect the United States as well as our NATO allies from the growing threat by the proliferation of ballistic missiles. Radar will provide precision tracking of ballistic missiles launched out of the Middle East and will be linked to other U.S. missile defense facilities in Europe and the United States. Cuts to our missile defense program simply undermine this progress and signals to NATO that the United States is backing away from our commitments to a European missile defense.

This amendment will authorized $54 million to accelerate and upgrade an additional two Aegis cruisers to equip with ballistic missile defense systems.

Admiral Hicks, program director for Aegis BMD, recently stated the need for additional Atlantic fleet ships for defense of the United States, our allies, and our deployed forces.

The amendment will authorize an additional $100 million for THAAD fire units interceptor and ground component advanced procurement. It will authorize an additional $30 million to reduce SM-3 schedule and technical risk. This is the premier missile defense cooperation program with our Japanese allies. And it will authorize $87 million for a target spare and to maintain minimal inventory as contingency for additional short notice test events for the Ground Based Midcourse Defense. This is Missile Defense Agency's top unfunded priority. The SASC Committee report notes that for some MDA systems the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation requires additional tests to prove out capabilities, which necessitates additional target sets.

There is no doubt that the United States will continue to face missile threats. Missile defense is needed and should have been made a priority of this committee and by this Senate. I thank Senator Vitter for bringing this amendment to the floor, and I urge this Senate to vote yes.

Mr. President, today I honor Colorado State University professor Maury Albertson in recognition of his 90th birthday on August 30, 2008.

Dr. Albertson has distinguished himself in countless ways throughout his extensive and renowned career. He has been a devout champion of civic responsibility, a selfless servant to others, and a man who has changed lives worldwide through his compassion and understanding of other peoples and cultures.

As a young professor in 1960, Dr. Albertson and his team of scholars and students won a contract to study the option and assess the likelihood of creating an International Youth Corps, which laid the groundwork for the creation of the Peace Corps. He later went on to coauthor ``New Frontiers for American Youth'' that put forth the basic design for the Peace Corps.

Throughout his many years as a consultant for the World Bank, the United Nations Development Program, the Agency for International Development, and others, Dr. Albertson organized and advanced innovative projects involving sanitation, water resource development, village development, small industry development, and research and education.

A true believer in the philosophy of local empowerment, Dr. Albertson founded and currently serves as president of Village Earth, an international organization that has trained villages and NGOs in 15 countries in the methods of sustainable village development. Remarkably, in 1993, Dr. Albertson

convened an international conference on sustainable village development, attended by over 350 people from 34 countries. It was an extraordinary success.

In May, 2006, Colorado State University awarded Dr. Albertson an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters in recognition of his exceptional contributions to industry and developing nations. This was a well- deserved honorary degree for Dr. Albertson.

Mr. President, I am proud the Senate has recognized the many accomplishments of Dr. Maury Albertson, a distinguished professor and true humanitarian.

Madam President, I wonder if I might ask the Senator from Kansas to yield because I would like to add additional remarks.

I think the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, has done a fabulous job with the energy issue, not just this year when it is fashionable--and this is the big issue--but he has devoted his whole legislative career to energy, making it available, how we can use research and technology to meet the energy needs of this country. He is recognized not only by me but nearly all Members of this Senate for his hard work on energy. We all should appreciate that work.

I join in the chorus of those who have congratulated Senator Domenici on a distinguished career. His dedication to energy--I cannot think of another subject one could pick up that would have more of a long-term impact on this country, whether we are talking about economic security, whether we are talking about military security, or whether we are just talking about a secure home where one can rely on utilities and everything to have a comfortable lifestyle in this country. The Senator needs to be recognized for that. It is a pleasure for me to do so, as I have served on several committees now with him. He is very articulate on this subject, and he does a great job.

I do remember.

Well, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his gracious remarks and, again, it is a statement of his statesmanship to actually go and visit the site and find out what is going on. That is why he makes such a great legislator in the Senate.

I am with my colleagues. I am sick and tired of delays. It is time for us to move ahead. I have a chart: There have been six attempts by the Democrats to change the subject from $4-a-gallon gas, all while people are suffering at the gas pump and we are having dramatic adverse effects on our economy. We are getting ready for the school year, and school districts are struggling with how they are going to get fuel for the school buses. We have farmers and ranchers starting to put up their crops, and they are wondering how they are going to get money to pay for fuel, which is a major cost. It just doesn't balance out for us.

So I am very concerned that we have had these six attempts to move off of $4-a-gallon gas when it is such a vital issue. I can't think of another issue since I have been here that has had this profound an impact on people's lives. We shouldn't be delaying or stopping this matter.

There have been other subtle attempts on the other side, even if we move forward, to delay the development of energy, and let me cite a couple of examples.

One is the offshore drilling provisions, which we have in our Gas Price Reduction Act on the Republican side, where we look at the offshore drilling--the deep ocean drilling. We have had Members stand here on the Senate floor and say: Well, I am all in favor of that, but we haven't gone ahead and done the seismographic studies to figure out where our deposits are.

Well, we have been trying for years, mostly through Senator Domenici's efforts, to try to get the money to do the seismographic studies so we know how much and where those deposits are. But there is delay before we actually get to it.

So Members will stand up and say: Well, I am all for offshore drilling, but we need to do the studies. Well, they won't support the studies and the money to get it done. Let's take oil shale, for example. What we need to do is to put the regulations in place so that when the technology is developed and we are ready to move forward with development, we can do that in a phased process. But, no, we are not going to let the regulations go forward, which ends up being an additional

delay when the technology is ready to go.

So I am hoping--and I want to thank the Senator from New Hampshire, who had proposed the amendment I had made in the Appropriations Committee a little earlier this afternoon--it was objected to on the floor--where we said, let's move ahead with rules and regulations. Then in the amendment it says that we will delay development until 2011 because the technology for development won't be in place any sooner than that. So that was acceptable. The Department of the Interior has got the rules and regulations. They are out there for public comment, but that is all the further they can go.

If we continue what we have been doing year after year, we have stopped the development of oil shale dead in its tracks. Even worse than that, when it is ready for development, we will have delayed it that much more because we haven't done the things up front that will allow the oil companies to begin to look at what their lease agreements might be, as the Senator mentioned from his visit, or what the royalty payments might be or what the remediation issues may be when they move in with oil shale.

I happen to think the technology we are developing in Colorado is environmentally friendly, and it is not a mining operation. You freeze out an area of the ground, you heat out the middle of it, and you get a high-quality fuel out of there which will help us meet our energy needs. The hydrocarbons we get out of the ground, I think all of us realize these are nonrenewable resources. At some point in time, we are going to have to do something else other than just rely on those. But right now they are the bridge. They are our bridge to renewable energies.

I have heard comments on the Senate floor against the Republicans; that all we are interested in is drill, drill, drill. Republicans, to a person, believe that we need to use our hydrocarbons to bridge, and they understand we need the new technology. We are not saying exclude anything. On the other side they are saying: We will just go with renewables. We will let $4 a gallon stand. Who cares. Let it go to $5. Let it keep going to $7.50, even to $10 a gallon. We don't care because the high cost of gasoline will encourage conservation.

I think there are other ways we can encourage conservation, and I think a lot of it is happening today. But that is certainly not the way to do it because it has such a dramatic adverse impact on our economy, and it has an adverse impact on the security of this country.

Both my colleague from Kansas and New Mexico talked about how all of our dollars are going overseas, more than $700 billion a year going overseas to support the economies of our adversaries. They are the ones who don't support what we are trying to do: to spread democracy around the world. They would like to see us go away.

So I think we need to take a serious look at our alternative energies, and we need to act now to do something to increase hydrocarbons and do something to reduce the price of gas at the gas pump.

There is one area of the economy that I don't think we have talked much about, and that is the trucking industry. Talk about renewables. What is going to provide the energy for trucks? What renewables do we have for trucks? I know some trucking companies are looking forward to going to propane to help a little bit, but there is not much substitute out there on renewables for the diesel engine right now. The diesel engine is what we use in trains, in trucking, in farming, and it is not going to be an easy solution for us to come up with an alternative fuel for diesel. We need to do what we can to hold down the cost of those kinds of fuels because that new technology is going to take a while to develop. We can't just shut it off today and expect our economy to function when it is such a vital part of what is happening in this country.

I will be glad to yield.

I yield to the Senator from Kansas.

I thank the Senator from Kansas for his support. I couldn't agree more with him. It is time we stop these tactics that are causing the price of gas to get so high. Obviously, before the summer break, it doesn't look like we are going to have an opportunity to deal with the issue of bringing down the price of gas. Come September, we are going to have to do something more dramatic than what we have at this point. If it means we have to stop the continuing resolution with moratorium language in it, I think at that point in time we may have to make a strong stand--at that particular point in time. I predict we are not going to see that much of a decrease in the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel at the gas pump.

I thank the Senator from Kansas for his comments and for his support. We talked about how various aspects of the economy are being impacted by the high price of gas. I was at a press conference earlier. We had representatives speak on how the poor are getting adversely impacted, more than any other part of the population in the United States, because of the high cost of fuel. We had a member from the Congress of Racial Equality. We had Bishop Harry Jackson, who talked about the High Impact Leadership Coalition. We heard from the All Nations Pentecostal Church of God in Christ talk about how the poor they were dealing with were being so impacted by the high cost of fuel. We had a number of people from all aspects of life, including veterans. We had also consumer groups. We had the Farm Bureau and we had Americans for American Energy, all there at that press conference, talking about how letting the price of fuel get so high was actually a war on the poor. I thought that was a rather dramatic way of putting it.

We need to think a little bit about the fact, if we allow the price of gas to get high like this, there is a lower income section of our society that is going to be dramatically impacted because they do not have the reserve capacity to pick up the costs of fuel that is impacting their lives.

We need to act now. We should not be putting it off. I have been disappointed that we have not been able, as Republicans, to put our amendments forward on the floor. The majority leader has changed his view--we will go up to four, we will let in some amendments--and then all of a sudden we are at none. We are back to the none right now.

We need to move forward. I see my time is expiring.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak about a topic that has been important to me for some time the role of veterinarians in safeguarding the public health. Yesterday, the Senate passed the Higher-Ed bill which contained historic language improving veterinary education in this country. This language has important implications for human health. We have been overdue to invest in veterinary medicine as a national asset. Today, there are only 28 colleges of veterinary medicine across the Nation which collectively graduate a mere 2,500 veterinarians per year.

Unfortunately, this number is insufficient to meet demand and leaves our Nation vulnerable to emerging infectious diseases such as west nile virus, severe acute respiratory syndrome, SARS, Monkeypox and Avian Influenza although there are numerous other examples of animal-born infectious diseases, some of which could be used as biological agents in a terrorist attack.

To meet the critical shortage of public health veterinarians and to augment the ability of veterinary expertise to guide public health, I introduced the Veterinary Workforce Expansion Act, S. 746, this Congress and the two previous Congresses. I am pleased that part of the Veterinary Workforce Expansion Act made it into the higher-ed reauthorization.

The language in the higher-ed bill will establish a new competitive grant program for capital improvements to allow veterinary medical colleges to expand and graduate more veterinarians trained in public health. As both a veterinarian and a member of the HELP Committee, I have seen first-hand the links between human and animal health. A half- century ago, more people appreciated this too and we were able to all- but eradicate malaria and other animal-born infectious diseases with techniques such as mosquito control and inoculations.

Veterinarians are uniquely qualified to address high-priority public health issues such as animal-to-human transmission of infectious diseases because the curriculum in veterinary medical colleges is significantly different from that of other health professions. In addition to the basic biomedical sciences and the surgical and medical training that physicians receive, veterinarians receive extensive training in population medicine. Veterinary colleges also provide a broad, multispecies, comparative medical approach to disease prevention and control, which is fundamental to understanding the transmission and life cycle of infectious disease agents, especially those that animals share with humans.

Although I hope awareness of the part veterinarians play in promoting public health will improve, I want to note that I am by no means the first Government official to recognize the importance of veterinarians in public health practice. Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, noted that, ``Eleven of the last 12 emerging infectious diseases that we're aware of in the world have probably arisen from animal health sources.'' CDC estimates that more than 60 percent of all infectious organisms that are harmful to people are transmissible between humans and animals. In addition, more than more than 75 percent of newly emerging infectious diseases fitj into this category and, even more important, more than 80 percent of biothreat agents of concern are shared between animals and man. These are the harmful biothreat agents most likely to be used in a bioterrorism attack.

So in closing, I would like to thank Senators Kennedy, Enzi, Mikulski, and Burr for working with me to include this program in the bill. I am grateful for their hard work and support. My hope is that through this new grant program, veterinary colleges will be able to fulfill the needs of the communities that they serve and on a national level will augment the expertise of other public health specialists in preventing or mitigating the effects of possible pandemics or biological terrorist attacks.

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to the American Cowboy. This distinguished body saw fit to designate July 26 as the Day of the American Cowboy. I cosponsored this resolution and would like to take this opportunity to recognize this iconic figure.

Around the globe, the American Wild West is known. To many it means cowboys, ranchers, cattle, horses, outlaws, and gunfights. But it was also homesteading and pioneering. These folks helped establish the American West, expanding our territories while creating a lasting culture and way of life, passing down the traditions of honesty, integrity, courage, compassion, respect, a strong work ethic, and patriotism from generation to generation. The cowboy spirit is the backbone of our great Nation, exemplifying strength of character, sound family values, and good old-fashioned common sense.

The enduring lessons and virtues of the American cowboy are as prevalent as ever in towns all across America. As a young boy growing up in northern Colorado, agriculture and livestock were an integral part of everyday life. Coming from a community where I saw the strong moral character and drive to succeed that modern ranchers exhibit, I can speak to how vibrant the cowboy spirit still is today in America's heartland.

In many ways, it is the unexpected places where you find the influence of cowboys that amaze us and show the true breadth of their impact. Originally known for their tough and rugged way of life on the Great Plains, the American cowboy has a magnetism that has drawn some of this Nation's most talented writers, architects, artists, and poets to devote their work to the tradition of the cowboy.

I am pleased to be a part of continuing this tradition with the designation of July 26 as the Day of the American Cowboy and hope we will honor the legend of these American heroes with our continued steadfast, hard work and dedication to this great country.

Mr. President, I am joined on the Senate floor by my colleague from Wyoming. I ask unanimous consent that we may engage in a colloquy.

Mr. President, I had an opportunity to speak on the floor this past week a number of times and speak in committee about the cost of energy, about pain at the pump. I am of the view that we need to act now.

My position on energy has always been that we should not take anything off the table; that is, we need renewable energy, we need to have energy

from whatever source we can derive--oil and gas, nuclear energy. We need to concentrate on our efforts to try to produce more energy. We need more. That is not the entire solution. We also need to consume less. We need to encourage conservation everywhere we can.

That is why I have signed onto bills such as the Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008. This bill says we begin to open deep sea exploration, where we go out more than 50 miles from the coast, and that we begin to drill in those areas and share the revenues with the States that are involved. Under our proposal the Governor petitions to allow exploration, and he does that with the concurrence of the State legislature. A portion of funds generated would even go to the Land and Water Conservation Fund in addition to States, with other funds going to the general fund.

Also, in the particular legislation I mentioned, we talk about Western State oil shale exploration. This resource would provide more than three times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia, this oil shale is found in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado.

The legislation I have signed onto says we also look at ways of trying to create conservation, such as electric cars and trucks, and focus our attention on better batteries so we can create an electrical supplement to the use of liquid fuel, whether it is a truck or car, and create some efficiencies on the highway. In the case of cars, as much as 60, 70 miles to the gallon with an augmentation from an electrical source. For these efficiencies to happen batteries are a key technological advancement that has to occur, and it has to occur at a price that consumers can afford. In this bill, we put our efforts into coming up with that type of a battery.

In addition, we try to do what we can to strengthen U.S. futures markets. That means increased funding for staff to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and it directs the present working group to study the international regulation of commodity markets. Remember, on commodity markets, it is not just an American market, it is international. We have to be careful how we disrupt the markets as we do that. If we are not careful we can create a real disadvantage to Americans and not really help in the supply of energy.

These are the types of actions that will make a difference in the price of oil and gas because we increase the supply. That is our problem; we don't have enough to meet worldwide demand. Because of high global demand we need to work not only in this country but also in other countries to spread the idea of conservation.

I have to tell you, Mr. President, the suggestion from the majority leader that somehow if we just stand on the floor of the Senate and talk about more rules and regulations on the commodity markets, somehow that is going to bring down the price of gas, I happen to think that just talking doesn't bring about action. But I do happen to believe that action does create a reduction in the price of oil at the gas pump.

I credit most of the recent price reduction to the President because he actually took action, which was to take the moratorium off the Outer Continental Shelf. This took us closer to allowing for exploration for more energy sources out in the deep ocean. Because of that, the markets did respond. I don't believe it was the debate on the Senate floor where we just talked, because the markets looked and said the President took real action to repeal a regulation, making it easier for us to extract energy out of the ground.

That is the kind of action in which this Congress needs to participate. It is action that needs to happen now, not 30 days from now, not a week, not a day. The sooner we act, the better it is because people every day are feeling the impact on their daily lives of high energy costs.

I recently participated in a press conference where we had people who are involved with supportive programs for the poor. They said because of the high cost of food, it is making it difficult for them to meet their goals and objectives and to keep their budgets within what they allocated at the first of the year. They are having all sorts of supply issues when it comes to feeding the poor and the disadvantaged in this country. We heard from all aspects of the various agencies and religious groups that make it part of their mission to provide for the hungry in this country.

We heard from truckdrivers today. I was at a press conference where we heard from truckers. When you think about it, renewable energy obviously works pretty good if you are talking about power lines. What kind of renewable source do they use in trucks? Ethanol, perhaps, might have some uses for trucks, but basically they are locked in with one source of energy right and that is diesel.

The only way we are going to bring down the price of fuels to the truckers who provide medical supplies, who provide food to Americans-- they transport all sorts of produce around the country. They haul around all sorts of manufacturing. They deliver our mail. I am trying to think of one commodity that at some point in time does not spend some time on a truck. It is very important that we keep the total prospect. There is not a simple solution. It is not a one-issue solution where we can say: We are just going to focus on renewable energy and the heck with everything else. We need to look at all alternatives. We are having supply problems. We can't take anything off the table. That is what I want to comment on.

I have on the floor with me a Senator from Wyoming, a good friend of mine who is new to the Senate, one of our newest Members, doing a tremendous job for the State of Wyoming. I know that in Wyoming, for example, they have lots of energy. One of the sources of energy they have is coal. The western part of the United States has hard coal, which is very unique. Frequently, it is mixed with soft coal so communities and towns on the east coast can meet their pollution requirements.

In our discussions, there was some talk about the various alternative sources we could look at for clean coal, for example. I was hoping that perhaps maybe my colleague who is on the Senate floor with me can talk a little bit about energy in Wyoming and how their economy is being impacted with the high cost of gas and diesel and what energy potential is in their State.

I yield the floor to my colleague from Wyoming to talk a little bit about Wyoming. We are neighbors. We have very similar environments and very similar natural resources. Senator Barrasso.

The figure I have seen is more than $700 billion in 1 year's time. That is a whale of a lot of money to be sending overseas, to our enemies potentially.

I would be delighted to talk about oil shale. First, I want to address the issue where the majority leader tried to imply that Republicans are interested in only one issue, and that is extraction of oil and gas from the ground. Republicans I talk to on this Senate floor, in my party, understand we need to have a balanced approach. We need to go after all sources of energy. The problem is that on the Democratic side, they only want to go after renewable sources.

I helped to found the Renewable Energy Caucus, and so I understand how important renewable energy is to our future. But we need something to bridge us over, and that is where I think the comments of my colleague from Wyoming are so important, when we are talking about converting oil to liquids or to natural gas. It helps create that bridge. We need to create that bridge by having an opportunity to go and explore for oil and gas in the ground.

One source of fuel in the ground is oil shale, and I think it is important that my colleagues here on the floor understand that oil shale is a huge resource in this country. We have oil shale in the State of Wyoming to a lesser amount than we have in Utah and Colorado, but we have lots of oil shale in Colorado. In fact, most of it is in Colorado. There is a fair amount in Utah, and then a smaller amount in Wyoming. We have different types of oil shale in Utah and Wyoming, and the extraction proposal out of those two States is a little different.

We need to move forward with oil shale, and that is why I am working so hard to get the moratorium off of oil shale because Shell Oil Company and other companies have developed a technique where extraction is environmentally friendly. Utah's oil shale is closer to the surface. It is a higher quality shale which contains lots of oil in one small chunk of rock. What they do is they go ahead and grind it up, heat it, and they extract a heavy type of oil out of that product.

In Colorado, what we are talking about in Mesa and Garfield Counties, for example, is a deeper oil shale. It is a good quality oil shale--not quite as good quality as we see in Utah--and we have a new technology that is being developed there that takes the ground and freezes a perimeter around the section of ground and then heat the middle of it. Basically what you have is a refinery in the ground. So what you extract out is basically a jet fuel that contains sulfur and nitrogen. Obviously, the sulfur and nitrogen has to be refined out, but it is a very good, high-quality product. It is a jet fuel. Then the heavy tarry stuff is left in the ground.

There is no disruption of the surface of the ground other than the fact that you run some pipes in the ground, and you need some water. They have taken out water rights in that part of Colorado to make sure they have water. It is the type of water that can be recycled and reused. So there are lots of conservation aspects to this new technology that is being developed for oil shale. That is why I had the support for the provision that was provided for in the Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008, removing the moratorium we have on oil shale.

The current law says you can't move forward with the regulatory process on oil shale, so it has stopped it dead in its tracks. In the meantime, up to 2 trillion barrels of oil in the form of oil shale is in the ground, and we think, with today's technology, that between 800 billion and 1 trillion barrels is what can be economically extracted out of the ground and made available to us. That is three times all of the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Oil shale is a huge resource, but we need to remove the moratorium that says we can't even go ahead and layout the rules and regulations. Now, why is that important? Because they tell the oil companies what the rules of the game are going to be, what they can expect the royalties to be, what they can expect the price of leasing the public lands to be, and also what remediation requirements are there for cleaning up the environment. When the President removed the moratorium on going after our natural resources through the floor of the ocean, he sent a significant message that he is willing to provide more supply for oil and gas, and that had a positive impact on the market. We need to continue that sincerity the President showed to the American people by taking some real action here on the floor of the Senate, and we need to do that by removing an additional moratorium on drilling off the coast and we need to relieve or take off the moratorium on oil shale so that resource can be developed.

The technology is not going to be developed until about 3 years from now, so it would be around 2011 or later before it is ready to go. But you need to put in place the rules and regulations first. We need that now. Some of the reasons for objecting that I have heard is people will say: Well, it is going to take 10 years to develop. Maybe so. But 10 years from now, are you going to say now is the time? It will still take 10 years.

My point is that the sooner you put this in place, you can begin to prepare this bridge we need to have for today's energy sources to get us to future energy sources, which are the renewables--the Sun, or photovoltaic cells, wind, geothermal, and hydrogen. That is what we are talking about, and that is what this particular piece of legislation provides for.

Citizens in Colorado are being dramatically impacted by high fuel prices. We talked before about the agricultural sector and the trucking sector. Trucking is more heavily impacted than any other area, because in the West, we are big States and we have lots of land to cover to provide our goods and services. I don't know whether the Senator from Wyoming has anything to say about how his citizens in his State are feeling the impact of high fuel prices, but certainly they are being felt in the State of Colorado, and it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't very similar in the State of Wyoming.

That is very key. We need to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil, not only for our own economic well-being but also for the security of this country. If we have to rely on our enemies, or possible enemies, to provide us with fuel, that creates all sorts of security problems for this country. So we have to make sure we have plenty of sources for us to meet our military needs throughout the world if we are going to be the Nation's and this world's peacekeepers.

I note that the Senator has a very busy corridor that goes through the southern part of Wyoming, and it is a big trucking corridor. I think nearly every truck going east to west has to go through Wyoming. They like to avoid the high mountains passes in Colorado, so they find it easier driving through Wyoming, and I expect you see quite an impact there in your State.

I don't see any solution on the Democratic side. They are talking about more taxes on oil and gas production; they are talking about more rules and regulations. I don't see any proposal that says we need to increase the supply, as we do on the Republican proposal, where we want to turn to oil shale, and to the Outer Continental Shelf, and we turn to the futures market to try to put more enforcement there, and we also work on the conservation side with the electric car.

Truckers are small business people, I attended a press conference today with truckers, I was struck by how conscious they were in trying to conserve. They were maintaining their trucks. They had great safety records. They were making sure the air in their tires was optimal so they could improve the mileage on it. The trucker I heard this morning, he was saying that about a year ago he was spending somewhere around $1,200 to $1,300 to make a trip from Virginia to Texas. There are no high mountain ranges such as we are used to in the West but a relatively flat trip. This year it is up around $2,500, $2,600 to make that same trip. It is getting close to double what he was paying last year. That has to have an impact on the goods and services that are provided in this country.

We need to be looking at real solutions. That is the point of this colloquy. That is the point the Republicans are trying to make. Just standing here debating on the floor of the Senate doesn't make a difference. We need to have an opportunity where Republican Senators can put their ideas forward. These need to be in the form of amendments.

We need to pick our own amendments. The majority leader should not be picking our amendments. It happens he wants to dictate that process. This is the Senate. This is where we should have open and free debate. I think if we had an opportunity to debate these amendments on the floor we could change the direction of this country. I think we could change the type of legislation that is being proposed as a solution.

Deep down I believe most Members of this Senate understand this is a supply-and-demand problem and we need to produce more supply and we also need to encourage more conservation. My hope is we will have an opportunity to make amendments to achieve this. I have made some of those amendments in committee and found I had bipartisan support and had commitments from both Democrats and Republicans that would help support my position on taking the moratorium off oil shale and similar moratoria.

We are simply cutting off supplies to this country and we are becoming more and more dependent on foreign oil. We are sending more than $700 billion overseas to potentially our enemies--countries such as Iran and Venezuela, for example, and many of the Arab countries which are marginal friends. We have to admit, they are there one day and gone the next.

We will need to make sure we have the security we need in this country, both economically and from a military standpoint. That means we need more oil and gas and not less. We need to have more energy from all over the energy spectrum and encourage the American people to conserve.

I thank my friend from Wyoming for his contribution to this colloquy. I think he is doing a great job and Wyoming should be proud of him.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is no objection on this side.

No objection.

Mr. President, it is time this Senate begin to act on what it is going to do to increase the supply of energy. It is time to lay aside politics. It is time to begin to look for real solutions to solve this country's energy problems.

What we have heard so far from the other side has nothing to do with increasing the supply of energy. We heard speeches on the Senate floor attacking speculation. Speculation works as a normal way of doing business on the futures market. What is against the law, which creates problems, is if you have manipulation of the markets. That is where somebody goes in and takes some kind of action on the market that somehow is going to artificially drive up the cost of fuel. It is manipulation. The administration has discovered a company or two that is doing that. They have been working on it for some time.

This shows the regulation process is working. We heard testimony in one of the committees on which I serve and we had a discussion on the supply of energy and the manipulation of the markets, and the regulators agreed they need to do more. I agree with that. We need to make sure they have the manpower they need to adequately enforce what we already have on the books.

I am looking for real solutions and my Republican colleagues, I believe, are looking for real solutions because we realize how important it is we become less dependent on foreign oil and not more. It is important for the security of this country, now and 20 to 30 years down the road, that we increase our supply of energy. So we need more energy, and we need to consume less.

Increasing taxes, which has been talked about on this floor, is not the answer. We are going to have a tax proposal that will be brought up, perhaps, on the floor of the Senate that will temporarily cut taxes for renewable energy--and, by the way, I am a strong supporter of renewable energy--and put in place a permanent tax increase on business. That is not the way we should be doing business on the floor of the Senate. That does not increase the production of oil.

Now, making it more difficult to produce more energy through more regulations is certainly not the answer. But we have heard proposal after proposal on the Senate floor claiming they are going to increase the supply of energy by increasing the regulatory environment, making it more difficult to go out and produce energy.

One of the things, in my view, that would produce more energy is utilizing capped wells, we have a lot of capped wells out there. These are existing wells that do not have to be drilled. They were shut down because at one point the economics were such that they could not make a profit with these wells. So they capped them and said: We are going to quit wasting our money on that one and go on to new areas where we can provide more oil for this country--oil and gas.

Well, the cost of the market is such that now it is feasible to begin to open these capped mines. We need to make sure we do not pass a regulation in this body that is going to make it more difficult for them to uncap those wells. That is a ready resource of energy.

We also heard comment on this floor about the fact that we have all this leased land out here. Leasing land does not equal more oil and gas. Many times, when you go onto a parcel of land and lease it, you have no idea whether there is oil or gas underneath there until you begin to put in some test wells and test the area. Just because you talk about all of this land that is available for leasing doesn't mean there is oil and gas on it. Leasing land doesn't mean there is oil and gas on there.

What happens with many of those leases is they may have found they are not productive. The leases are let out for 5 years or they may be let out for 8 years or 10 years. Then, if they are not producing, they put them back on the market and see if anybody else is interested in using the technology they have to try to discover if there is a source of energy under the surface of that land.

The important point to make is that just because you have land available doesn't mean there is oil and gas underneath it.

So my view is--and I think the view of many Republicans--we need to increase the production of energy, whether it is natural gas or whether it is oil shale, in order to bridge the gap to develop technology that is going to produce more energy in the future. I happen to feel that nuclear power is something we have ignored, and we need to do more in the way of nuclear power to meet the needs of providing adequate energy supply to our businesses and to our homes.

Let's talk about the pain at the pump. Throughout this great Nation, people are struggling with high gas prices. I am looking for some renewables to deal with cars. A lot of the renewables happen to deal with wind, solar, happen to deal with geothermal, biofuels. Now, there is something that might be able to be used with cars, but most of these renewables we are talking about can't be used in the car world.

People are feeling the pain. It is when you pull up to the gas tank and put your credit card in there and you fill up the tank, and when you look at the total at the end is when you really begin to hurt. High gas prices not only affect our ability to get around but increasingly are affecting each facet of our everyday life.

Americans are feeling pain at the pump due to high gas prices, and increasingly they feel pain at the kitchen table too. As gas prices go up, so do food prices. Food prices go up because it costs a lot to produce those food products that will end up on the table. America's farmers and ranchers

produce the safest, most affordable food in the world, but rising energy prices have affected almost every level of agriculture. It has caused everything from fertilizer costs to processing costs to increase. The high cost of diesel and other types of energy are forcing food prices up.

My home State of Colorado produces some of the best tasting produce in the world, including potatoes. In Colorado's San Luis Valley last year, it cost a farmer about $90 an acre for starter fertilizer. This year, the cost is up to almost $300. Imagine that. In 1 year, it has gone from $90 an acre to $300 an acre. Suppose you have a farm of 100 acres. That is a huge cost, a huge impact on the bottom line. That is right, in 1 year those costs have more than tripled.

Weld County, another agriculture-producing county in Colorado, is one of the Nation's top-producing ag counties. Even in an area that produces as much food as Weld County, people are fighting high food costs.

Higher food costs are affecting all Americans, but they are especially damaging to people dealing with food insecurity. Food banks are struggling to stretch dollars so they can keep food on their shelves. This is food that goes to our most vulnerable populations-- impoverished individuals and their families. In Weld County, 32 percent of the individuals served by our local food bank are children.

Recently, oil hit $145 per barrel, and from the beltway to Middle America, $4-a-gallon gas is the frightening norm.

In the face of these challenges to the American economy and consumers, we have failed to take the steps necessary to address this problem either in the short term or in the long term.

This Congress has been ignoring one of the fundamental rules of economics; that is, supply and demand. Currently, worldwide supply of energy is being outpaced by growing demand. That is not only worldwide but here in this country. I saw on the TV a report which said that it is everything we can do to keep up with current demand. So if we were to implement any of the policies we are talking about here to increase supply, we would barely be able to keep up with current demand at the current levels. This is a huge challenge for Americans, and we shouldn't be backing away from that challenge here on the Senate floor.

If we take steps to increase supply, prices will go down. The day after President Bush lifted the Presidential moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, oil prices fell nearly $7 a barrel. Let me say that again: a drop of almost $7 per barrel in 24 hours because action was taken that got us closer to putting additional supply on the market. This translates eventually into cheaper gas.

One of the best ways to drive down fuel prices is by finding more and using less. Embracing renewable energy is an excellent way to increase supply.

As a founder and cochair of the Renewable Energy Caucus, I know the importance of using renewable energy, but we are not at a point yet where renewable energy can meet all of our energy needs. We still need fossil fuels.

One of the most promising sources of domestic energy is found in the West, much of it in my home State of Colorado. We have lots of natural gas available on the western side of our State. We also have oil shale which is found not only in Colorado but in Utah and Wyoming that will yield somewhere between 800 billion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. This is more than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia and certainly enough to help drive down gas prices and bring us closer to energy independence.

However, we cannot delay. Some people say it is going to take 10 years to develop this resource. Well, are we going to wait another 10 years before we start developing a resource that is going to take 10 years to develop? We can't continue to delay these kinds of policies; we need to act now so we can begin to give the American people some relief.

We aren't taking the steps necessary to utilize the resources we have and to cut back on the $700-plus billion we send overseas annually for fuel because the Democrats in the Senate and in the House of Representatives have prevented the Department of the Interior from even issuing proposed regulations under which oil shale, for example, could be moved forward.

My position is that we need to put the regulations in place so that then the leases can be let. If you expect oil companies to go and begin to lease all of the land that is apparently available and that they thought was available for lease, if you want them to do that, they have to know the rules of the game. They have to know what is going to be their return on their investment. They have to know what the lease rates are going to be. They have to understand the market forces. They need to understand what the remediation is that might be required. They need to understand what environmental laws they have to deal with if they go ahead and happen to put in place a project to extract oil shale.

By the way, the technology in oil shale has changed significantly. We have moved that basically from a mining operation in Colorado to an in situ process where you leave the rock in the ground, you heat the ground and extract basically a high-quality jet fuel that needs further refinement with nitrogen sulfur. So that is how far the technology has come. It has gone from a mining operation to where you have in situ technology where you leave all the heavy, tarry stuff in the ground, you extract a good-quality fuel, and it has a lot of environmental advantages when you use that process.

So it is time for us to move forward. It is time for us to quit bickering about profits that are made by oil companies. It is time for us to stop blaming the President. It is time for us to recognize that it is a supply-and-demand issue. We need to supply more, we need to encourage less consumption through conservation, and we need to begin to move forward on this Senate floor and pass some meaningful legislation.

Mr. President, I now yield the floor.