Floor Statements

Mr. President, when I first ran for the Senate in 1996, my position was that we needed to have a broad-based supply of energy for the State of Colorado and that Colorado had the resources and the technology which could help contribute to the energy needs of this country. I said that because we have lots of renewable energy and we have lots of natural resources.

NREL, a Federal research laboratory located in Golden, CO, does splendid work and it is their sole purpose to move the technology and the science of renewable energy to the marketplace. In addition, they did some basic research. We also have universities in the State of Colorado that have contributed a lot to helping develop the technology we use in renewable energy.

We look at the resource side in the State of Colorado. We have abundant sources of wind. There is a wind area that goes through the central part of the United States, down through Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and hits parts of Nebraska and Oklahoma, then goes into Texas. We are known for that resource. Coloradans have been willing to utilize wind energy, and we see now wind generators developing and growing throughout the State of Colorado.

Our tourist boards brag about the fact that 97 percent of the days we have in the State of Colorado you can see the Sun. So we have lots of sun in the State of Colorado. We have it at a higher altitude. It means you can have some pretty efficient solar panels. I was one of the first ones to use the new technology. We have had passive solar, but now we have the more active solar, which is the solar panel.

In Colorado, we have opportunity for biofuels. Agriculture is a strong part of our economy in the State of Colorado.

We have geothermal. We have parts of the State of Colorado that provide an opportunity to use the ground to heat or to even cool your home or your business.

I know the environmental community doesn't like to recognize this renewable source, but we have hydroelectric dams in Colorado because of our altitude and the steep drop we get through our streams. It is a very practical source of energy within the State.

In addition to that, we have a rich source of natural resources that come out of the ground. Obviously, there is oil and gas in the solid and liquid form. We have an abundant source of natural gas along the western slope of Colorado--probably one of the largest reserves of natural gas in the world. And today we have many oil and gas companies that are very active in the western part of Colorado to provide this valuable resource.

We are a good source of uranium. So if we go to nuclear power, Colorado is going to play a role in that.

We have coal. But it is not just plain coal, it is clean coal. It is coal that frequently gets sold to communities in the East, which have soft coal, which tends to be more polluting. So they come to buy Colorado and Wyoming coal because it is hard and it will help them meet the clean air requirements the Congress has passed.

We have oil shale, and it is a developing resource we have in the State of Colorado. It shows lots of promise. In fact, oil shale at one time was in the State of Colorado but it was promoted purely by the Federal Government. Now, without taxpayer dollars going into it, the industry said: Look, there is enough opportunity in oil shale that we are going to put in our resources. So we have companies in Colorado that are putting in millions and millions of their own resources to develop this particular source of energy in the State of Colorado.

Of course, I have always felt that conservation was a viable solution that everybody should look at, and Colorado is particularly sensitive to the need to conserve energy. I was one of the cofounders of the Renewable Energy Caucus here in the Senate and have encouraged Members to join that and get their staffs involved so we can better understand how to develop renewable energy.

My position all along has been that we need to have a broad base of energy not only to meet the needs of my State but to meet the needs of this country. So when we get into this debate, I am flabbergasted that we have Members in the Senate who feel we can only come up with one solution to our energy problems. I think we need to come up with a multitude of solutions for our energy, and that means we shouldn't take anything off the table and that all those sources of energy I mentioned from the State of Colorado are viable resources. We need to be sure we make those resources available in order to meet the needs of this country in an environmentally sensitive way. And Coloradans, obviously, take a lot of pride in their environment, so these technologies have been developed in the State of Colorado in a way that has minimal impact on our environment.

I was very pleased when the minority leader stood up this evening and mentioned that oil shale should be an important part of our consideration when looking for solutions to the energy problems we have in this country, where we have $4 a gallon gas at the pump.

I was struck also by the argument that 20 to 50 percent of our problems with energy is speculation. That is contrary to testimony from experts I have heard in committee. Now, I don't know where those experts came from, but let me tell you about the experts I heard testifying in committee. There was a witness representing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. They deal with futures markets. They regulate the futures markets and they monitor the futures markets for the very thing we are talking about here, which is manipulation of the markets, and manipulation of the market is a Federal crime. You can go to jail for that. So that is part of their mission.

We heard from the SEC--the Securities and Exchange Commission-- experts from their organization talking about whether there was manipulation of the market. These are the experts we have who monitor what is going on.

We also heard from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

They all agreed on one thing: They did not see any indication in the figures and the facts they had which suggested there was a manipulation of the market. They said: Yes, there is speculation, because you have to have some degree of speculation for the futures markets to happen and for the stock markets, and the Senator from New York made that point in her comments a few minutes ago. But they also said we need to monitor the situation closely, because we don't feel as though we have gathered all the facts, and I would agree with that. I think we do need to be very concerned in today's market about the possibility of manipulation, but to say it is 20 to 50 percent of the problem? I don't believe that is going to hold water.

Our problem, in my view, is supply. We need to deal with issues where we think we can increase supply. I was pleased the minority leader mentioned looking at increasing our supplies from offshore, on the Outer Continental Shelf, and from oil shale, and from conservation issues, such as electric cars. Also, we need to be sensitive about speculation. These are issues we could bring together a consensus on the Republican side. We have some people who are pushing hard for nuclear power and pushing hard for drilling in ANWR, but they didn't develop a consensus.

I am proud to be helping, to be a part of the solution, and I fail to see how the package that has been produced by the Democratic side of the aisle addresses the supply problem. Raising taxes on companies has an adverse impact on the market. It doesn't increase supplies. Dealing with things such as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has a minimal impact on the total market and the total world supply. It is minimal. After we had our votes here on the strategic petroleum supply and everything, guess what. Prices continued to climb. We weren't able to have any effect on that.

Price gouging? Obviously, we need to take a look at that. But one of the things I have noticed that has made a difference is when this President said: Look, we need to take the moratorium off drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. That action alone by the executive branch was enough to make investors look out in the future and think that maybe the price of oil and gas is going to go down. So now what we have been seeing since that announcement is the price of oil and gas is going down.

I am here today to actually address some of the myths regarding oil shale regulation moratoriums. The very first myth is that oil shale is a myth. It is not. It is a reality. We have been spending years in the State of Colorado developing technologies to be able to, in an environmentally sensitive way, extract that valuable resource out of the ground. It has incredible potential to help the United States during a time of energy need. Oil shale in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming could yield 800 billion barrels of oil for the global market. Some estimates have gone as high as 2 trillion, but we are looking at 8 to a little over 1 trillion that they think has a legitimate chance of being extracted out of the ground, and at a much lower price than we are getting at today's prices on a barrel of oil. That is more than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia and would clearly help drive down prices in America.

Other countries are developing their oil shale. It can be done in Australia, China, Estonia, and Brazil. All these countries produce oil shale. The United States is behind these countries because we require cleaner, more efficient, and better regulated development. But we are prevented from even beginning to plan how we can utilize this resource by stopping the regulation process dead in its tracks.

Despite attempts to assign motives, proponents of oil shale do not see it as a quick fix. I fully understand we are at the beginning stages in the process of utilizing and benefiting from our oil shale reserves. But I must point out that we won't even be able to use our 800 billion barrels of oil potential as a slow fix if we don't get started, and we need to get started now.

Since December of last year, the Department of the Interior has been prevented by Congress from even issuing the proposed regulations under which

oil shale development could eventually move forward. Instigators of this prohibition want to continue the delay for another year at least.

We have heard claims that the Department is under a frenzied rush to organize a fire sale of development leases. I think it is ridiculous to consider the multiyear oil shale effort as frenzied. The recent efforts started in 2004, and included congressional debate and passage of the 2005 Energy Act, years of planning and years of studies, research and development, and a draft environmental impact statement issued last December. This has not been a frenzied rush and there hasn't been any attempt to organize a fire sale.

When attempting to sensationalize this process, opponents never make it clear we are simply trying to lay the groundwork on how to offer this resource for development. When those who are trying to stop oil shale say we are not ready to move forward with commercial oil shale leasing, and point out that Chevron believes a full-scale commercial leasing program should not proceed, I have to say: True, and completely irrelevant. In that vein, I heard my friend and colleague from Colorado earlier today read excerpts from the BLM draft oil shale regulation report. Quote after quote seemed to suggest that oil shale requires more work, but he did not mention that we aren't even trying to lease yet.

The Secretary of the Interior, a former Member of this body, said this week it would be 2015 before we have a full-scale production. Assistant Secretary Allred said this week that ``commercial development of oil shale will not begin until technologically viable.''

So the point is we need to have the rules and regulations to get started. Then we can phase in for the development phase. But right now we have stopped everything dead in its tracks. You can't even move forward because of the current policies of this Congress. The fact is the moratorium is, at this point, stopping the way forward whereby industry, local officials, affected communities, and the world market would assess and prepare for the upcoming development of this massive resource.

We are not proposing a full-scale leasing program for this year or this decade. We are not there yet, and the moratorium is not stopping a full-scale commercial leasing program. The reality is it has stopped an administrative process that will allow us to see how our energy resources can be best utilized.

Before I finish here, I feel I must point out how strange it is that developing regulations for oil shale, a technology we have been exploring for decades, can be labeled as unproven and harmful by many of the same people who supported the absurdly complicated, wholly bureaucratic scheme of cap and trade for greenhouse gas emissions. This straitjacket on the entire U.S. economy would cost billions and billions of dollars and had no workable examples, antecedents, or precedents. Yet allowing western land managers to move forward with the regulations for how to utilize oil shale is too dangerous?

Let me relate to my friends here on the floor an experience I had in the Interior Committee as the top Republican. I worked with the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations. We had a bill put forward and we worked out our differences. It was ready to go--it was yesterday. Then after our meeting, 4 or 5 hours later, maybe 3 hours later, I was notified that we were not going to have any more appropriations this year.

It was not Republicans who were stopping the process in the committee. It was not the Republicans on the House side who stopped the process over there when they tried to propose amendments in their Appropriations Committee to provide more supply.

This issue needs to come to the floor. We need to have open debate. We need to have an opportunity to produce amendments to support supply. It is not Republicans who are stopping the process. I can tell you from personal experience as an appropriator that it was not Republicans who stopped that process in committee. That was a directive that came down from higher up.

I have to say here that what I see happening on the floor today is nothing more than an attempt to confuse the issue, to confuse the listeners to this debate as to how important supply is to the welfare of this country. I think we need to drill more and we need to use less. That would have been reflected in the Republican package of amendments we talked about.

I encourage the Democratic leadership on the floor to rethink their current policies because I think the American people want to see us move forward. They want to see us put partisanship aside. They want to see something done about what they are paying at the gas pump. They are feeling the pain at $4 a gallon.

Mr. President, I thank you for granting me an opportunity to spout here on the floor, and I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that is in the forefront of every American's mind. Americans nationwide are struggling with high gas prices. I attended a press conference the other day with people who administer programs that provide for the poor, they talked about how the poor are being disproportionately affected by high fuel prices. The part of the American population being most severely affected is those who operate on the margins, such as our poor, such as small business people, who traditionally contribute a huge amount to our economy. Many times they do not have the ability to store their resources for when the economy turns

down, so these small businesses, and these poor Americans, are being impacted disproportionately.

Higher gas prices not only affect our ability to get around, but increasingly they are affecting each facet of our everyday life. Energy builds into our economy from the natural resource level right on up to the final product that goes out to the market and is utilized by the consumer.

Fuel costs are making transportation, construction, and food costs rise. 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 consumer, we have failed to take the steps that are necessary to address this problem either in the short term or the long term. Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today would do little to change that.

The legislation before us today would do little if anything to reduce oil prices. Blaming investors misses the primary cause of high fuel prices: Nearly 2 years of failed congressional energy policy that has done little to increase availability of fuel resources. That is the cause, and time and time again, we have looked at legislation that tries to disrupt the market--the market that provides an opportunity for the businesses of this country to supply energy to its consumers.

This Congress has been ignoring one of the fundamental rules of economics: Supply and demand. Instituting policies that disrupt the free market does not increase supply. Worldwide supply for energy is being outpaced by a growing demand.

President Bush is doing his part by removing the Executive order that limited the drilling for oil and gas off the Outer Continental Shelf.

The majority party now wants to shift blame from this Chamber to investors, who they would have you believe are robber baron speculators. If only it were so simple. There is no nefarious fiend sitting in a dark room waxing his black mustache playing the market like a mandolin. So who is investing then? Pension funds are, for one. They are making an investment in the growing strength of energy stocks and bonds.

In Colorado, the Public Employees' Retirement Association--we refer to it as PERA--has seen oil companies as an attractive place to invest their members' money. Their 2007 investment overview listed two oil companies in their top 10 stock holdings, including their No. 1 valued stock.

Is their greater interest in investing? Sure there is. But it is primarily because short supply of oil has caused its value to increase. This would happen with any commodity in a similar situation. Conversely, when we take steps to increase supply, prices will go down.

If I remember correctly, there is a guidance principle that applies to the Public Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado that says you are going to invest members' money in that part of the stock market that is going to, in a safe way, give you the best return. Energy stocks match that criteria.

The day after President Bush lifted the Presidential moratorium on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, oil prices fell nearly $7 a barrel. Let me say that again. We experienced 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 into cheaper gas.

The national average price for gas yesterday was almost 5 cents less per gallon than it was before the Presidential moratorium was lifted. This shows that instead of blaming investors, we need to look for ways to increase supply. We do this by finding more sources of energy and using less.

One of the most promising sources of domestic energy is found in the West, much in my home State of Colorado. The oil shale found in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming could yield between 800 billion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. This is more than the proven reserves of the entire country of Saudi Arabia and certainly enough to help drive down gas prices and bring us closer to energy independence. Making us less dependent on foreign oil. We in the United States cannot currently begin to plan how to utilize this resource because of an ill-advised moratorium.

Why aren't we taking steps to utilize this resource and cut back on the $700 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 the proposed regulation under which oil shale development could move forward. How do they try to correct this misguided policy? By blaming investors and proposing a piece of legislation that will potentially make things worse by increasing oil market volatility and eliminating investment opportunities.

I support some CFTC reform, such as providing them resources to improve current oversight and get more cops on the beat. I do, however, have major concerns with efforts that would impede the free market with additional regulations. This is especially important now that financial markets are global in scale. Attempts to regulate the market would only apply in the United States. This could cause economic activity to move offshore and help build foreign capital markets that compete against the United States, making us less competitive. This would cause us to lose jobs.

Instead of focusing on blame, we should be focusing on our resources, finding more domestic resources, such as oil shale and using less through conservation. We need more supply and less demand. As we move forward in this debate I hope the Senate will accept amendments, like the ones I hope to offer, that will do just that.

Thank you, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, first of all, I wish to thank the Senator from Iowa for his graciousness in allowing me to speak. He is a tremendous leader for us on issues of tax policy and health care, and I appreciate my relationship with him a lot. He is a wonderful American. He is a wonderful Iowan. He does a great job for the people of Iowa in the Senate.

We all know we are experiencing a time of dramatically increased energy costs. The price of gas sets new highs almost every day, and the price of oil continues to climb. In the face of this, the Democrats in this body think the proper response is to increase taxes and regulations on the energy industry.

It reminds me of a saying from the Reagan era: If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; and if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Well, the bill the Democrats are trying to force on the American people would do at least two of those things. Increasing taxes and regulations do nothing to bring down the increase in fixed costs that result from high energy prices. It is not the right solution. Conventional wisdom dictates that in times when fixed costs are high, discretionary spending must decrease.

As the last budget showed, we certainly do not follow conventional wisdom in DC. But families all over America have to. In plain and simple language: Spending more on what we need generally means we have less to spend on what we want.

Now, make no mistake, we are spending more on what we need. Americans are feeling the pain at the pump due to high gas prices, but increasingly they are feeling pain at the kitchen table too. As gas prices go up, so do food prices. America's farmers and ranchers produce the safest and most affordable food in the world. But rising energy prices have affected almost every level of agriculture. It has caused the cost of everything from fertilizer to processing to increase.

The high price of diesel and other types of energy are forcing up production costs, which also forces up food prices. My home State of Colorado produces some of the best-tasting produce in the world, including potatoes. It is not putting fuel in the tractor that is hurting our farmers. Last year, in Colorado's San Luis Valley, it cost a farmer about $90 an acre for starter fertilizer for a potato crop. This year, the cost is up almost $300, from $90. You heard that right, in 1 year, starter fertilizer costs have more than tripled.

Weld County, CO, is one of the Nation's top-producing agricultural counties. But even in an area that produces as much food as Weld County, people there are fighting high food costs. Higher food costs hurt 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. That is food that goes to our most vulnerable populations, impoverished individuals and their families. In Weld County, 32 percent of the individuals served by the local food bank are children.

The price of food, and indeed all goods that need to be moved any distance, is also increased by the transportation costs. Listen to this. The trucking industry has been especially hard hit by the increases in diesel prices. In January of 2007, when the Democrats took control of Congress, diesel was $2.53 a gallon. Today the national average for diesel is $4.69 a gallon. That is an increase of $2.16 in the 18 months of Democratic control of Congress. In the 6 years preceding Democratic control of the Congress, the price of diesel rose about $1. That is right, $1 dollar for over 6 years, and $2.16 in 18 months.

I think the evidence is clear that the antiproduction Democrats in Congress are ignoring the needs of rural Americans in favor of liberal environmental elitists.

Gasoline prices are also changing families' plans for their leisure time. In times such as these, we see an industry such as tourism both helped and hurt by families having more limited funds. Local tourism in places such as Colorado is helped because people stay closer to home. For example, a family from southeast Colorado might choose to forgo their planned week-long trip to Yellowstone Park and instead spend 3 or 4 days at Rocky Mountain National Park.

This is good for Rocky Mountain National Park because that family might not have visited if they could afford the gas necessary to go to Yellowstone. But it is bad for Yellowstone because they lost visitors. Businesses in the surrounding communities around Yellowstone also lost the opportunity to feed and house that family and to sell them their souvenir T-shirts.

Unfortunately, though, tourism in a State such as Colorado is likely to be hurt by families' needs to visit locally, because although Rocky Mountain National Park will play host to a southeastern Colorado family, they are likely to lose visitation from families who have to travel farther to get there. Now, the Rocky Mountain National Park is a destination tourist area. So that people from all over the country, when they plan their weeks for a week vacation, they plan on making Rocky Mountain National Park their main focal point of that vacation. So families have to travel farther, and when they travel farther, they do not often want to spend more, and so it hurts destination tourist spots such as Rocky Mountain National Park.

But it is not just families who plan to drive who are affected. According to the Air Transportation Association only 8 years ago, 15 percent of the price of an airline ticket went to pay for fuel. Now that number has risen to 40 percent. Fuel prices for airlines are up 84 percent over last year, forcing them to raise fares and add surcharges and fees to recoup costs. Airlines will continue serving their best markets but may be forced to reduce flight frequencies and the number of cities they can serve altogether.

Small cities may keep service with a flight or two a day but only at much higher prices aimed at business travelers, while leisure travelers will have to drive to bigger cities to get more reasonable fears.

U.S. airlines are projected to spend $61 billion on fuel this year; that is $20 billion more than in 2007, an increase equivalent to the compensation and benefits of 267,000 airline workers or the acquisition of 286 new jets.

The rapid increase in jet fuel will add substantially to airline costs at a time when a weakening U.S. economy will make it more difficult to offset those costs with higher fares.

While oil prices are soaring, the airline industry and Denver-based Frontier Airlines has been forced to analyze every facet of their business in an effort to combat the enormous financial strain fuel costs are having on them. Airlines have been resorting to carrying less water per flight, removing bulky, unneeded carts and equipment, while even eliminating hot meal options so they could eliminate ovens and microwaves in the galleys.

While I commend our airline industry for their innovative solutions and creativity during these constrained times, these changes combined with fare increases are having a dreadful impact on our domestic airline industry, which has been vital to national and international commerce and tourism. Denver, CO, is the center of much of that activity.

United Airlines recently announced plans to take 70 more jets out of service and cut domestic capacity by 17 to 18 percent for the remainder of 2008 and 2009. Although Frontier Airlines prides itself on the ability to provide passenger service at relatively low cost, once again the high price of fuel has necessitated an increase to their fuel surcharge which is passed on to the customer.

In addition to raising prices, they have reduced aircraft fuel burns and began using new flight-planning computer software to track fuel and flights to save fuel. Frontier has also had to reduce the number and frequency of its flights into Denver, which will have an adverse impact on the Colorado economy and Colorado tourism, which usually flourishes in the warm summer months.

In closing, I would like to address the claim that Republicans in this body are the problem. Republicans in this body actually have legislation that will increase domestic production of energy, instead of cut it off. We are ready to talk about energy prices. We are ready to talk about gas prices. That is why we are here today doing that. We wish to help Americas alleviate the pain they are feeling at the pump by increasing production. That is the real solution to our problem.

The laws of supply and demand dictate that increasing supply will work to drive down prices. Increased taxation simply suppresses supply, which, in turn, leads to even higher prices. What we should not do is act on a bill that will decrease domestic production by imposing increased taxes.

What we should not do is act on a bill that will decrease domestic production by increasing the regulatory burden. That is what we have on the floor right now. That is what the ``no energy bill'' before us will do. I simply cannot support that. I am supporting the majority leader's effort to allow Republicans to be able to be a part of this process, to submit their amendments on the floor so we can actually move toward more production, instead of less production.

I yield the floor.

For 10 minutes.

For 10 minutes.

Madam President, thank you. I am prepared to discuss the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill that was amended by the Boxer amendment. In general terms, I wish to take a moment to discuss climate change because that is obviously the main topic on the floor today. I have concerns about the science that some people are claiming here on the floor of the Senate.

I think that obviously if we are going to have good policy, we have to have good science. But let me say that from the reports I have seen, I think it is unclear as to what the long-range trend is as far as the temperature of the Earth is concerned. I admit that right now we are going through a warming period, but in the last few years we may have cooled a fraction of a degree.

I am recalling when I was in high school in the late 1950s, that we had magazine articles, National Geographic and everyone were writing about how we were into a cold trend, and we were heading toward an ice age.

Now we are heading toward the trend in the headlines where we have global warming. I have listened to some of the comments here on the floor. One comment was that: We are at the highest temperature on record--the problem is, the record we have of the Earth's warming and cooling is a relatively short period of time when you look at the total history of the Earth. If you go back to the year around 1,000, for example, measuring based on some scientific evidence that has been obtained from our polar caps, by going down through the depths of the ice and analyzing it, some scientists have come up with the conclusion that actually it was warmer in the year 1,000 than it is now. You cannot blame that on human action. So the question comes up whether this is a trend, a natural cycle, that happens, that is related to sunspots or volcanic activity or whatever natural phenomena might be happening.

I happen to agree that we probably contribute some to global warming. The question is, how much? That has not been adequately identified either.

I am here to raise some questions. Obviously, if we absolutely know we are headed for catastrophe, the sooner we act, the better. But on the other hand, we don't want to overreact. We could cause problems for the economy and for Mother Earth if we react in the wrong way without having good scientific evidence.

I am rather disappointed we will not have an opportunity to debate and amend this legislation, as we should. No piece of legislation is perfect. Obviously, there needs to be an opportunity for bills to be amended when they come to the floor. I am disappointed the majority leader has filled the amendment tree and filed for cloture, rather than allowing for the full and healthy debate that is such a rich part of the Senate's history.

Since this bill has been introduced, we have record-high gas prices. There is pain at the pump. The common solution we have heard time and time again, whenever we have high petroleum prices, is: You need to raise taxes. You need to limit supply. You need to blame corporations. You need to somehow control international cartels. You can't control what isn't part of America. We can't pass laws and tell them when they can form a cartel and what they can do. It is beyond our reach. But we can take care of corporate misbehavior. We have had hearings time and again trying to blame oil companies for overcharging. Over the years, the conclusion is, there has not been any misbehavior as far as corporations setting prices. They are responding to supply and demand. They are responding to the cost of the product, taking a reasonable profit and putting that product on the market. I happen to believe supply and demand has the greatest impact on our prices at the pump to date.

Obviously, this is not a perfect process. It is not a perfect bill. We need to bring the bill to the floor, provide an opportunity for substitutes to be brought forward, and then an opportunity to amend those. I am disappointed we will not have an opportunity to do that. That seems to be the trend this year. Republicans are not having the opportunity to bring up issues they believe are important on legislation that comes to the floor. That has happened time and again. Then the other side blames Republicans for somehow blocking the process. If you don't have an opportunity to offer amendments to the legislation, that is a serious concern to those of us who have to work in the minority in an institution such as the Senate, where there are specific minority rights.

I would like to address some of the concerns of the Boxer amendment to the Warner-Lieberman climate change bill. My foremost concern is the science on which the entire bill is based. But because the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee has asked us to leave science aside and focus on the legislation itself, I will start there.

Based on many reports I have seen, it is unclear what, if any, effect climate change legislation would have on global temperatures. However, its potential economic impacts are absolutely staggering. The primary tool this bill uses to reduce greenhouse gases is a cap-and-trade program. It should more accurately be called a cap-and-tax program because it is essentially a camouflaged energy tax increase.

Many of the proponents of this bill have said it is just like the program the Government instituted to control acid rain. But unlike sulfur dioxide in the acid rain program, there is no widely deployable control system for CO2 removal, nor do we expect this equipment to exist in the reasonably foreseeable future. This will result in significant increased cost to electric utilities, their consumers, as well as affected industries and their customers. That is the taxpayers. Thus, the cost of compliance will have a significant negative economic impact on electric consumers statewide and Colorado's manufacturing industries.

A recent study produced by the Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis found that enacting this bill would cost Colorado almost 7,000 agriculture-based jobs and over 21,000 manufacturing jobs. That is over 27,000 lost jobs in Colorado alone. The same study found that statewide, Colorado would have a personal income loss of around $2.162 billion.

This bill also contains a provision in section 201 which was originally formulated for the acid rain program. This provision specifically denies that emissions allowances, which will be given out by the Government, are to be considered a property right. The provision also allows the administrator to limit or revoke the allowances at any time. Specifying that allowances are not property is, therefore, the Government's way to avoid a ``taking'' in the inevitable instance that the administrator does revoke allowances.

How do we justify this? Government enables itself to give a product, sets up a scheme for buying and trading that product but can, at any time and for any reason, revoke that product without compensation. While there is certainly legal precedent, that does not make it right. In my view, this challenges assertions the bill's sponsors are making that their cap-and-trade approach is a market-based one.

I will propose an amendment, if given the opportunity--I filed it by the 1 o'clock deadline--to fix this by specifying that emissions allowances are property rights, and while the Government could still limit or revoke allowances, it would have to compensate the owners of allowances in order to do so. It is only fair that the Government would have to follow the same rules it sets out for industry to follow when buying and selling allowances.

If we allow this legislation to go forward in its current form, we will see energy prices go up. The national cost of gas today averages around $4 a gallon. This will only go up if we pass the climate change bill. Coloradans are currently feeling pain at the pump, but if we pass this bill, they will feel it in their homes also. One of Colorado's municipally owned utility providers has informed me that when this bill takes full effect in 2012, their customers will immediately see their utility bill jump above 25 percent.

Another utility, Tri-State, which provides electric power for 1.2 million rural electric customers in a 4-State area, has projected that their costs to comply with the requirements laid out in this bill will be $12.6 billion in 2012 to 2030. This is based on the assumption that carbon credits would cost $50 per ton.

It is entirely possible that cost projection is very conservative, and these are just rural electric cooperative impacts.

I also have very real concerns related to the fact that anyone--not just covered emitters--can buy, sell, hold, or retire emissions allowances. Anyone with a large enough pocketbook could purchase a significant share of allowances and hold them to push the allowance price up or retire them. That would put our Nation at risk of economic manipulation, should another nation decide to step in and buy those allowances. Additionally, if an investor wants to make a lot of money off of the carbon trading market, they could just purchase and hold those allowances until the price gets high enough to make them want to sell.

In any of these scenarios, the end result will leave the consumers as the ones paying the price.

In closing, I reiterate that this bill is, in my opinion, not the right way to approach the issue of climate change. A far more effective approach would be for the Federal Government to continue to provide incentives for the development of greenhouse gas neutral technologies and technologies that do not produce greenhouse gases. Incentivizing technology development would get us to the same place without the economic hardship that this bill would impose. A good example of doing this has been the significant increases in renewable energy production that have resulted from the production tax credit, clean renewable energy bonds--called CREBs--and with incentives for clean coal technology.

There will, of course, be a need for a larger Federal incentive program in all these areas to move the ball forward, but this will still be at much less cost to consumers than the $325 increase in average annual household energy cost that the Energy Information Administration has projected this bill could bring about.

This is a poorly thought-out piece of legislation. We need to have an opportunity to legislate, to offer amendments, and move forward with this important debate. This is a comprehensive piece of legislation. It is important. It involves lots of Americans. I am disappointed we will not have an opportunity, under the current process, to amend this legislation.

I yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, I object.

Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Oklahoma on this particular issue. I also wish to thank the last speaker, Ted Stevens of Alaska, for his leadership in making sure we have adequate energy for the American people. Right now, we are falling short. The reason for that is this Congress. It is not business where we should assert blame; it is not the stock markets we have heard blamed on this floor, or the futures market. It is simply because Congress has been tying up these reserves and not providing the incentives we need to move ahead with oil refineries and to make supplies available on the market.

This is a supply-and-demand issue. The demand in this country is exceeding the supply. If we want to become less dependent on foreign oil, we need to do more than what we have done historically.

(The remarks of Mr. Allard pertaining to the introduction of S. 3062 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this weekend is the unofficial beginning of summer and the start of the summer driving season. This is as oil hits $135 per barrel and more and more cities and towns all over the country are seeing gasoline prices over $4 per gallon. In the face of these challenges to the American economy and consumer, we have failed to take the steps that are necessary to address this problem either in the short term or the long term.

Last week, the House and Senate voted to suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I voted against that effort as many on the other side hailed it as a major move that would help to alleviate ``pain at the pump.'' Instead, oil prices have continued to increase every day since that measure passed. I think this demonstrates that adding a mere 70,000 barrels a day to the marketplace means little when we consume 21 million barrels of oil per day in this country alone.

Oil shale can be a major part of addressing rising oil prices by potentially bringing over 1 trillion barrels of oil to the domestic market. There are enormous oil shale reserves located in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. Oil shale is energy we can develop here at home to lower gas prices, increase our Nation's security, and improve our balance of trade by keeping money and investment in the United States rather than sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas-- frequently to governments, I might add, that are unstable or whose interests are counter to those of this country. It will also bring in billions of dollars to the States and the Federal Treasury in the form of future royalties.

This bill is necessary because the fiscal year 2008 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill has language prohibiting funds from being used by the Department of the Interior to prepare final regulations and will set forth the requirements for a commercial leasing program for oil shale resources or to conduct an oil shale lease sale as provided in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Without removing this moratorium--and it is a moratorium--companies will not know the rules of the road so they can make investment decisions, things such as what the length of the oil shale leases will be, the royalty rate, and reclamation and bonding requirements.

I have a letter from the Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals at the Department of the Interior, Stephen Allred, dated May 14 in support of removing the prohibition contained in last year's Interior bill on the Department of the Interior issuing oil shale regulations. I ask unanimous consent at this time to have the letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Allred points out that issuing these regulations is critical to providing regulatory certainty for these oil shale projects to go forward. With the regulatory certainty these regulations will provide, companies will have an incentive to commit the resources necessary to develop this technology.

I also have a letter from Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne dated December 12, 2007, objecting to the inclusion of this moratorium that was in the House version of the fiscal year 2008 Interior appropriations. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Secretary Kempthorne also indicates the critical nature of allowing the Department to issue these regulations in order to attract the private investment necessary to develop the oil shale resource.

Let me emphasize that this is not an environmental issue. No commercial lease sales are permitted under the provisions of this bill. In fact, commercial oil shale leases are banned for 2\1/2\ years because the technology for oil shale extraction is not yet economically viable on a wide scale. But, as I have said, the companies that invested tens of millions of dollars in this technology already need to have the Department of Interior issue the leasing ground rules so that they know what their costs will be for taking part in the Federal commercial leasing program when the time for leasing comes.

My bill also makes sure there is adequate public comment by requiring that final regulations not be issued for at least 90 days after they have been published in draft form.

When I offered this as an amendment in the Appropriations Committee, it was defeated by one vote and strictly along party lines. I heard from the other side of the aisle that because the Governor of Colorado and the junior Senator from Colorado opposed lifting this moratorium, Congress should not do so. I find this curious and incredibly inconsistent with prior debates over public lands policy. When we have debated drilling in the section 1002 area of ANWR, the other side seems to have little or no regard for the desires of Alaska's Governor, the people of the State of Alaska, or the entire congressional delegation about how they want their public lands managed.

On this side of the aisle--that is, the Republican side of the aisle--we have offered proposals to bring to market billions of barrels of domestic supply that are continually blocked. If we don't begin to put in place policies to enhance our domestic production, prices are only going to go higher and the American people are going to pay the price at the pump as well as suffer the consequences of a further drag on the economy.

In closing, I wish to state that increasing domestic energy production, including from oil shale, will strengthen this country's national security, lower gas prices, keep jobs and investments right here at home, and, in these tight budgetary times, bring in hundreds of billions of dollars to the States and the Federal Treasury through royalty collections.

Congress needs to take a good, hard look at what it has done as far as encouraging further supply of energy for this country. As was mentioned in a number of editorials that have shown up in the papers, it is easy to blame companies and the stock market, and it is easy to blame the futures market, but really the problem starts right here in the Congress. The Congress needs to come up with a solution to relieve the inadequate supply of oil and gas. If that solution is not arrived at soon, Americans are going to be put out of business. We already hear about airlines having to cut back on the number of employees they have because of the high cost of gasoline. So it is going to have a dramatic impact on the economy of this country.

Just think about how much land we have tied up because of previous action by this Congress--the billions of barrels of oil that potentially would be available in ANWR; the huge amount of reserves that we think is in the deep-sea portions that would be available off the coast of this country. We

are the only country in the world that restricts drilling out in the deep sea. There are potential reserves that would be available for consumers of this country with oil shale in Utah and Colorado and Wyoming. Now we have that tied up with a strict moratorium that tells the oil producers of this country: We want you to shut down. We don't want you to be able to move forward.

I think these are huge reserves, and if we had acted, actually, 10 years ago, we wouldn't now have a problem. We are going to have a problem for the next 10 years unless we do something quickly and drastically, and we need to do something more than just saying that the Strategic Oil Reserve can't purchase oil for 6 months or we wait until it drops to less than $75 a barrel.

I am calling on my colleagues to join us because this is a serious problem we are facing in this country, and the Congress needs to do something about it.

Mr. President, this weekend is the unofficial beginning of summer and the start of the summer driving season. This is as oil hits $135 per barrel and more and more cities and towns all over the country are seeing gasoline prices over $4 per gallon. In the face of these challenges to the American economy and consumer, we have failed to take the steps that are necessary to address this problem either in the short term or the long term.

Last week, the House and Senate voted to suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I voted against that effort as many on the other side hailed it as a major move that would help to alleviate ``pain at the pump.'' Instead, oil prices have continued to increase every day since that measure passed. I think this demonstrates that adding a mere 70,000 barrels a day to the marketplace means little when we consume 21 million barrels of oil per day in this country alone.

Oil shale can be a major part of addressing rising oil prices by potentially bringing over 1 trillion barrels of oil to the domestic market. There are enormous oil shale reserves located in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. Oil shale is energy we can develop here at home to lower gas prices, increase our Nation's security, and improve our balance of trade by keeping money and investment in the United States rather than sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas-- frequently to governments, I might add, that are unstable or whose interests are counter to those of this country. It will also bring in billions of dollars to the States and the Federal Treasury in the form of future royalties.

This bill is necessary because the fiscal year 2008 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill has language prohibiting funds from being used by the Department of the Interior to prepare final regulations and will set forth the requirements for a commercial leasing program for oil shale resources or to conduct an oil shale lease sale as provided in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Without removing this moratorium--and it is a moratorium--companies will not know the rules of the road so they can make investment decisions, things such as what the length of the oil shale leases will be, the royalty rate, and reclamation and bonding requirements.

I have a letter from the Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals at the Department of the Interior, Stephen Allred, dated May 14 in support of removing the prohibition contained in last year's Interior bill on the Department of the Interior issuing oil shale regulations. I ask unanimous consent at this time to have the letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Allred points out that issuing these regulations is critical to providing regulatory certainty for these oil shale projects to go forward. With the regulatory certainty these regulations will provide, companies will have an incentive to commit the resources necessary to develop this technology.

I also have a letter from Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne dated December 12, 2007, objecting to the inclusion of this moratorium that was in the House version of the fiscal year 2008 Interior appropriations. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Secretary Kempthorne also indicates the critical nature of allowing the Department to issue these regulations in order to attract the private investment necessary to develop the oil shale resource.

Let me emphasize that this is not an environmental issue. No commercial lease sales are permitted under the provisions of this bill. In fact, commercial oil shale leases are banned for 2\1/2\ years because the technology for oil shale extraction is not yet economically viable on a wide scale. But, as I have said, the companies that invested tens of millions of dollars in this technology already need to have the Department of Interior issue the leasing ground rules so that they know what their costs will be for taking part in the Federal commercial leasing program when the time for leasing comes.

My bill also makes sure there is adequate public comment by requiring that final regulations not be issued for at least 90 days after they have been published in draft form.

When I offered this as an amendment in the Appropriations Committee, it was defeated by one vote and strictly along party lines. I heard from the other side of the aisle that because the Governor of Colorado and the junior Senator from Colorado opposed lifting this moratorium, Congress should not do so. I find this curious and incredibly inconsistent with prior debates over public lands policy. When we have debated drilling in the section 1002 area of ANWR, the other side seems to have little or no regard for the desires of Alaska's Governor, the people of the State of Alaska, or the entire congressional delegation about how they want their public lands managed.

On this side of the aisle--that is, the Republican side of the aisle--we have offered proposals to bring to market billions of barrels of domestic supply that are continually blocked. If we don't begin to put in place policies to enhance our domestic production, prices are only going to go higher and the American people are going to pay the price at the pump as well as suffer the consequences of a further drag on the economy.

In closing, I wish to state that increasing domestic energy production, including from oil shale, will strengthen this country's national security, lower gas prices, keep jobs and investments right here at home, and, in these tight budgetary times, bring in hundreds of billions of dollars to the States and the Federal Treasury through royalty collections.

Congress needs to take a good, hard look at what it has done as far as encouraging further supply of energy for this country. As was mentioned in a number of editorials that have shown up in the papers, it is easy to blame companies and the stock market, and it is easy to blame the futures market, but really the problem starts right here in the Congress. The Congress needs to come up with a solution to relieve the inadequate supply of oil and gas. If that solution is not arrived at soon, Americans are going to be put out of business. We already hear about airlines having to cut back on the number of employees they have because of the high cost of gasoline. So it is going to have a dramatic impact on the economy of this country.

Just think about how much land we have tied up because of previous action by this Congress--the billions of barrels of oil that potentially would be available in ANWR; the huge amount of reserves that we think is in the deep-sea portions that would be available off the coast of this country. We

are the only country in the world that restricts drilling out in the deep sea. There are potential reserves that would be available for consumers of this country with oil shale in Utah and Colorado and Wyoming. Now we have that tied up with a strict moratorium that tells the oil producers of this country: We want you to shut down. We don't want you to be able to move forward.

I think these are huge reserves, and if we had acted, actually, 10 years ago, we wouldn't now have a problem. We are going to have a problem for the next 10 years unless we do something quickly and drastically, and we need to do something more than just saying that the Strategic Oil Reserve can't purchase oil for 6 months or we wait until it drops to less than $75 a barrel.

I am calling on my colleagues to join us because this is a serious problem we are facing in this country, and the Congress needs to do something about it.

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

Mr. President, my understanding is we are in morning business, talking about the budget.

Mr. President, last year we were obligated to accept the assurances from the majority that under this new regime, pay-go would be respected, spending would be curbed, the entitlement crisis would be addressed, and the debt would be attacked. Undoubtedly, that was an ambitious agenda. Obviously, it didn't happen. We now have results, not predictions. When all was said and done last year, there was an $83 billion increase in discretionary spending. There was $143 billion in pay-go violations. Pay-go violations are provisions we put in the budget that help assure we get moving toward deficit reduction and eventually balancing the budget and reducing debt. We didn't close the tax gap. We added to the national debt. The budget was used to add spending, not reduce it.

Previous to that year, we had always had strong budget provisions that forced budget discipline that actually held down spending. We did nothing for entitlement reform, and we assumed tax increases.

When we began consideration of the fiscal 2009 budget resolution, I hoped everyone was aware of what was promised last year and what transpired. I hope they will use that knowledge with what we see today to understand that what we have now, with two budgets written, soon to be approved, is a pattern, a distinct pattern. That pattern is fiscally damaging to this country. The Democratic budget assumes a tax hike of at least $1.2 trillion which will hit 116 million Americans. This is the second year in a row that the majority party is expecting the American public to surrender more of their income to fund big government.

The pay-for assumed in this budget is simply fantasy. The tax gap, for instance, instead of being closed, was actually expanded last year. Middle-class tax relief was not passed last year either. This budget pushes annual spending over the $1 trillion mark for the first time ever. It increases spending over the President's budget by at least $210 billion over 5 years. That is without including the $79 billion we are considering on the floor this week in the supplemental. We have certainly lost control of our budget.

I want to take a moment and comment that our Budget Committee chairman must be having a little fun with us with his chart showing the difference between his budget and the President's budget. His claim that there is little difference between the two lines on his chart must be intended to be humorous, when the Y axis is over a trillion dollars. If he is teasing us, I appreciate his humor; if he is serious, I fear for us.

Another huge problem in this budget is that the biggest fiscal danger in our future, the looming entitlement crisis, is made worse. Actually, ``danger'' isn't the word. It is not a threat. It is not a danger; it is reality. It is a fact. We need to deal with it. For a second year in a row, nothing is done to address the $66 trillion entitlement crisis now on our doorstep. The budget allows entitlement spending to grow by at least $500 billion over 5 years. This is a huge avalanche of debt waiting to bury our future. But we do nothing. We are not even doing something as productive as fiddling. We are just talking year after year and perhaps wishing it will go away. Instead of reducing the debt as they promised, the majority allows gross debt to climb by $2 trillion by 2013. That debt will have to be paid back by future generations. In fact, every American child will owe an additional $27,000 or more under this budget.

We didn't see many amendments that tried to reduce the debt. I offered one to try to do that, where we looked at those programs that were rated as ineffective. I asked the Members of this body to vote with me to not have a pay increase to these ineffective programs. I thought at least we will let them maintain their funding levels for the previous year. We won't give them an increase, just as we would do with a poorly performing employee. We were not able to get the votes we needed to even put that simple policy in effect. We face a huge challenge, and we need to have a budget that provides the enforcement mechanisms that bring some fiscal sanity back to the process.

There is so much that is disappointing in this resolution that I hate to call attention to some specific points for fear of ignoring all others. But let me point out that an amendment I added in markup, which called for disclosures on debt, was removed. This shows the American public that there are things being done to their paychecks in this bill that the majority party doesn't want them to know. Now that our economy is trending in the wrong direction and when we need the benefits of a reasonable and pro-growth tax policy, we are going to depress our economic growth by adding to the debt and increasing taxes.

When we consider these tax increases, let's remember, last year we were assured we would see tax relief. The first vote we were presented on the budget last year was to budget for an alleged middle-class tax cut. This never materialized. I believe Congress and especially the Budget Committee should be committed to rigid budget discipline, not politically expedient gamesmanship. I urge a return to a tighter and more credible budget document. I plan to offer several amendments to shore up the fiscal discipline we are seeing erode.

Given that this budget assumes raised taxes, increased spending, increases in the debt, failure to address the entitlement crisis, and continuing the ongoing erosion of fiscal discipline in the Government, I feel compelled to vote against it.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the North American Aerospace Defense Command Agreement between the United States and Canada. For my State of Colorado, today is an especially proud and gratifying occasion as it is home to the headquarters of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, located at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs.

On May 12, 1958, the United States and Canada signed an official agreement creating the unique and fully integrated binational North American Aerospace Defense Command, commonly known as NORAD. Administered by the United States Air Force in conjunction with Canadian Forces, NORAD is a premier military command that uses the most innovative technology and equipment to secure our skies. Today, 50 years after its inception, we honor NORAD and pay tribute to the men and women who have served and continue to serve NORAD's mission with humility and distinction. To these American and Canadian servicemembers, I say thank you.

For five decades, NORAD's mission has been to prevent air attacks against North America and safeguard the sovereign airspaces of the United States and Canada by responding to unknown, unwanted and unauthorized air activity approaching or operating within our airspaces. In more recent years, NORAD's mission has evolved to include collaborative efforts with civilian law enforcement officers to detect

and monitor aircraft suspected of trafficking illegal drugs to North America. In addition, NORAD has developed a system to help our homeland defense and security partners observe North American seas and to warn of encroaching maritime threats. In pursuit of these missions, NORAD has achieved remarkable success.

Over the years NORAD has strengthened the venerable relationship between the United States and Canada. It has been a source of stability for our two nations during good times and bad. Throughout the turbulent Cold War, and now in the midst of the war on terror, NORAD is responsible for continually bringing together bright and courageous minds to help detect, deter and defend against lethal threats to the North American continent. Furthermore, NORAD has become a model for international defense cooperation. It has allowed for the necessary enhancement of information and intelligence sharing between Canadian and American militaries, intelligence agencies, and other security organizations. Twenty four hours a day, 7 days a week, NORAD units all over North America are alert, prepared and equipped to take action to defend our continent and to safeguard our freedoms.

Throughout my nearly 18 years in the U.S. Congress, I have spent quite a bit of time with the commanders at NORAD, and each time we visit I am encouraged by their efforts and reminded of why America is, and will always be, great. With the safety and security of America entrusted to institutions like NORAD and to the brave men and women of our armed forces, I am confident that America will be protected for generations to come.

Especially since the horrific events of September 11, 2001, and the launch of the war on terror, the continued resolve of the United States and Canada to pay any cost to face any foe is more relevant than ever. If we are to remain sovereign and free, America and Canada must continue to adapt to a changing world and respond effectively to evolving threats. I am confident in our ability to do so. Through NORAD and other binational partnerships, America and Canada will jointly and efficiently combat any threat we confront in the 21st century.

Today, as a nation, we honor the legacy and achievements of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, and we look forward to another half century of this successful partnership so that NORAD can continue to provide for the protection of our airspace and our homeland. I offer my sincere congratulations to the North American Aerospace Defense Command for 50 years of extraordinary service to the United States and Canada.

Mr. President, I understand the minority leader is on his way to make a few remarks. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor again to talk about energy prices. Each week we must finally be at the tipping point where Democrats are at least willing to address high energy prices. Unfortunately, although energy prices remain at an all-time high, it seems we are not there yet. The average American uses 500 gallons of gasoline every year, with the average gas price at $3.61 per gallon. That means the average American will spend more than $1,800 this year on gasoline. That is almost $300 more than they would have spent a year ago. But let's look at a slightly longer period. Let's look at the period since Democrats took control of the Congress and insisted that they had all the answers.

On January 4, 2007, a gallon of gas cost $2.33. That means the average American has spent $960 more on gasoline in the year and a half since Democrats took over. The question is, Why are we not producing the domestic oil available in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge known as ANWR? The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the potential oil in ANWR would exceed that which is currently being produced in the lower 48 States. We hear a lot of moaning about how we should not open ANWR because that oil would not be available for 10 years. But I remember hearing that exact same argument about 10 years ago. If we had opened ANWR to domestic oil production 10 years ago, we would be less reliant on foreign sources for about 1 million fewer barrels each and every day.

The question is, Why are we not producing in the Outer Continental Shelf? Currently, 58 percent of this area is off limits to production. The National Petroleum Council estimates if congressional restrictions were lifted, we would have access to more than 300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This is enough gas to meet all of the current U.S. needs for more than 13 years. Current levels of production in the Outer Continental Shelf employ over 45,000 people. To those of us concerned about employment figures, opening additional areas offshore will lead to more jobs in addition to increased domestic energy.

The question is, Why are we not producing domestic oil from oil shale in Colorado, for example? The Democrats ensured that BLM could not write commercialization regulations by placing a spending prohibition in the fiscal year 2008 omnibus bill which is being applied this year from last year's action. Commercialization regulations do not authorize production or even lease. These regulations simply allow the department to set out the rules of the road for companies so they can make investment decisions--matters such as the length and requirements for oil shale leases, the royalty rate, and reclamation requirements that would be set by commercialization regulations.

Considering there is well over 1 trillion barrels of oil locked in the shale beneath Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, this is not an inconsequential amount of energy. One trillion barrels of oil would provide for the current consumption levels of 20 million barrels a day for over 136 years. If the numbers seem staggering, that is because they are. The question is, Why are we not addressing the restrictive policies on the construction of new refineries that have led to no new refinery capacity in this country since the 1970s?

We must encourage companies to build new refineries so not only can we produce more oil domestically, but we can refine it into a usable product as well.

The law of supply and demand tells us with high demand and low supply, prices will increase. This seems to have escaped the notice of the Democrat-controlled Congress, however. Oblivious to prices at the pump, this Congress is failing in its duty to the American public.

Each attempt to implement commonsense solutions to current energy problems is met with loud and vehement objections. At this point, these objections can only mean Democrats want energy prices to continue to increase. I can think of no other explanation.

The facts are rather simple. The Congress has blocked efforts to produce trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, trillions of barrels of oil, and prevent the construction of new refineries, nuclear powerplants, and hydroelectric facilities.

The longer we deny access to domestic supplies, the more our current energy shortages will climb. And the less energy we produce domestically, the more we will rely on foreign--and possibly hostile-- sources for it.

It is time--it is time--for Congress to step to the plate and ensure this country remains one of the safest and most prosperous nations on Earth. That means increasing domestic energy production and decreasing our dangerous reliance on foreign energy sources.

We will vote in a very short time on whether to increase domestic energy production or whether to maintain the status quo. I can only hope each of us does the right thing and votes in favor of the McConnell amendment to stop the status quo and to ensure we can produce more of the energy we need right here at home.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure and pride that I rise to recognize and welcome the guest Chaplain for the Senate today, Pastor Brian Severin, who is the pastor of Victory Christian Fellowship Church, Greeley, CO.

Pastor Severin has served in the full-time ministry for 23 years. He was born and raised in northeastern Colorado before attending and graduating from the University of Northern Colorado, which is also located in Greeley.

Prior to coming to Greeley 6 years ago to minister to Victory Christian, he was the founding pastor for Church Alive in Sterling, CO, and served as pastor to New Life Fellowship in Yuma, CO.

He is joined today by his wife of 27 years, Joslyn Severin, along with 14 members of his congregation. My colleagues and I very much appreciate Pastor Severin taking time away from his duties in Colorado to help guide us through our deliberations today in the Senate.

May Pastor Severin's words of inspiration this morning make us wiser and kinder to each other as we go about conducting the people's business today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I compliment the minority leader for stepping forward on the issue of meeting the energy needs of our country and the provision he has just proposed as an amendment to this particular bill.

I think it is very important that we move forward with creating more sources for energy. We have done a lot in this Congress to encourage and promote the development of renewable energy resources. In fact, as chairman and founder of the Energy Renewable Caucus, I have pushed that personally. I think it is extremely important. We have done a lot to promote this new technology, but the reality is, if we want to see pain at the pump immediately relieved, we have to do more.

What we do in the particular amendment that was introduced by the minority leader, we begin to open the more traditional sources of energy that we have here in this country--sources that are supported by an infrastructure that is already in place. Although we do need more of it, there is some degree of it already there. Also, it is supported by technology we have already pretty well developed, to one extent or another, although more technological advances need to be done. Those are the

traditional sources we find in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where we have more than 1.2 trillion barrels of oil, and the Outer Continental Shelf, the extent of whose value and resources is huge. I don't know as anybody has ever been able to really anticipate how great are the resources we have, because we have a huge amount.

The provision also provides for opening the oil shale reserves we have in the State of Colorado--it is not only the State of Colorado, it is in the State of Utah and Wyoming. I am told we have well over a trillion barrels of petroleum that could be extracted from this resource. There is a total of somewhere around 1.7 trillion in that basin. Totally in the United States, we have well over 2 trillion barrels of shale.

The technology has been developed now where, in my State, the companies that have been working on it--primarily Shell--have indicated they have come up with a pretty high-quality jet fuel. It needs some additional refining, with sulfur and nitrogen. This particular amendment begins to address that.

In addition, we suspend the filling of the Petroleum Reserve. Right now, I am told there are about 70,000 barrels of oil being put in that Reserve on a daily basis. That will reduce the consumption of the petroleum products we have.

Also, it repeals permitting and drilling fees that have acted as a disincentive for oil companies and gas producers when this particular provision was passed in the 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill. Also, it encourages coal-to-liquid fuels and also talks about increasing our refinery capacity.

Right now, with all the various blends of fuel--some States have mandated 15 percent, in some cases as high as 20 percent--each time you have a different blend requirement mandated by a State, you have one refinery that gets dedicated to that particular blend. So we have a number of different States that are driving different blends of fuel. Then you have a different requirement for diesel fuel. What you do is you create a shortage of refiners. It kind of funnels down, and then, even if you increase production, you don't have the refineries available to kick out the particular blends we need to meet demands.

We need to do a lot in advancing our battery technology. Where you have intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, the Sun doesn't shine all the time, the wind doesn't blow all the time. We need to have a good battery technology that will carry and supply energy at the times we don't have the adequate supply of wind and solar to carry on the demands on that particular system.

We need to work more on biofuels. I am very excited. We put in incentives in this particular amendment to address that. I am excited; in Colorado, we have a biodiesel plant that takes the oil and grease and fats from restaurants, puts it together, and comes out with a biodiesel. It is a self-sustaining plant; they use the diesel they generate back into the plant to run their own electricity. It could be independent of the power lines, could be a stand-alone facility. It also helps us get rid of a byproduct out there that is a problem for our county dumps and whatnot. The exciting thing about this particular technology is it is to the point where they do not have to have government subsidies, which I think is a huge jump.

I mentioned the oil shale moratorium, removing that, which was in the fiscal year 2008 omnibus bill.

It also provides some reasonable approaches to the regulatory process so we can increase production on an emergency basis because we are facing an emergency situation in this country with the high prices we are facing here in America--and all over the world, as a matter of fact.

We all know the Senate has limited time left this year to debate important legislation. It is becoming more apparent and more clear to me that the Democratic leadership is staunchly opposed to doing anything that would alleviate the seemingly endless upward pressure on energy prices. That is why I am so excited about the fact that the minority leader has introduced this amendment.

Given their unyielding desire to increase taxes on much of the energy industry, I can only assume that the Democrats in Congress believe that steadily increasing energy prices provides political fodder upon which they can capitalize. Democrats in both Chambers appear beholden to the environmentalist agenda, a radical agenda that wholly disregards America's economy. Oblivious to prices at the pump and indifferent to from whom we import our oil, far-left environmentalists and their cohorts in Congress are failing their duty to the American public. The Congress has stymied efforts to produce trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, trillions of barrels of oil, and prevented the construction of new refineries, new powerplants, and hydroelectric facilities. This is bad policy.

America's economy may be struggling, but despite hard times, American businesses and consumers still demand energy. In oil alone, we consume over 20 million barrels a day. Since we only produce over 8 million barrels a day, the gap must be made up by purchasing oil from hostile and undemocratic nations such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria to meet our energy needs. We spend over half a trillion dollars each year importing foreign oil and it is far past time to rectify this unhealthy dependency.

The global price for petroleum reaches new highs every day and petroleum-related import have caused our trade deficit to increase by billions of dollar, According to a study by the Congressional Research Service in 2005 and 2006 alone, our trade deficit rose by $120 billion. As oil prices continue to rise and domestic energy production is further obstructed, America's trade balance will only fall deeper into the red.

As a senator from energy rich Colorado, I am on the front lines of the battle to increase our domestic energy production.

The Democrats continue to delay efforts to tap into a natural gas reserve below the Naval Oil Shale Reserve--often referred to as the Roan Plateau--that contains approximately 8.9 trillion cubic feet. We need this clean source of energy now.

Moreover, below the vast lands of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming lies roughly 1.5 trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil. This amount dwarfs the reserves of Arabia and other petro-rich nations and new technologies that are continually emerging would allow us to responsibly extract this oil to help meet our demands. The benefits to Colorado and the American economy would be tremendous.

Something else that I don't believe we're talking enough about is the economics of this. Colorado, just like every other state is trying to find a way to pay for the many responsibilities and priorities set by the state legislature. Taxpayers are tapped out and there are still shortfalls. I would think that an infusion from a steady income source would be welcome. The BLM estimate that Federal royalties from production of natural gas within the Naval Oil Shale Reserve would be $857 million to $1.13 billion over the next 20 years.

Because these royalties are split with the state we are talking about--probably conservatively--$400 to $500 million going to Colorado. I think our school districts benefits from that kind of money.

I think that local police forces, fire departments, hospitals, roads and other state and community services benefit from that kind of money. I think the taxpayer benefits from that kind of money.

All of us here also know that national environmentalist groups have succeeded in pressuring members of Congress to mandate a lock down of what could be an immense treasure chest of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Not only have these groups subverted the widespread local support of Alaskans by prohibiting the potential extraction of oil, environmentalists stubbornly resist even moving forward with comprehensive testing that could result in the environmentally responsible development of parts of the ANWR.

There could be 5 to 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil there. There could also be much more, or much less. The point is we do not know because extremist environmentalists have convinced their friends in the House and the Senate to prevent us from finding that out. It makes one wonder what they are afraid we might find.

Moving to another part of the country, in April, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that 3 to 4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil exists below North Dakota and Montana's Bakken Formation. This is 25 times more than what was estimated to exist in 1995.

These numbers are staggering and there are other examples where our aversion to responsible development defies common sense. Of course, we must continue our dedicated efforts to explore alternative sources of energy to meet our demand.

We have long advocated for a more diversified energy portfolio. But I do believe it is possible to develop sections of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, extract natural gas from the Rocky Mountains west and harvest resources in economically feasible ways that also protect our natural wonders.

We should not take increased production of any domestic energy source off the table. The longer we completely deny access to domestic supply, the more we exacerbate our current energy shortages. Possibly most concerning to me is the fact that the less we are able to produce our own energy sources, the more we will rely on foreign and possibly hostile sources for it.

We cannot solve the problem of soaring gas prices facing Americans today with any one solution, but we certainly should not allow the relentless push or environmentalists' narrow agenda to make this crisis even worse.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes to wrap up my comments.

Yesterday the national average for a gallon of gasoline was $3.62. What will the average gallon of gasoline in America have to cost for the leadership in Congress to step up to the plate with a comprehensive solution for consumers?

It is time for Congressional leaders to be a part of the solution and not the problem. It is time to put every idea on the table and responsibly develop some of the vast energy resources we have right here at home. It is time for common sense to prevail.

I yield the floor.