Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, if I might respond quickly, it is unfortunate we are in this situation. I commend the chairman, as well as the ranking member, for coming up with a pretty good piece of legislation to address a critical issue. It is unfortunate because we are not allowed to move ahead with amendments, that we are stuck in this quagmire. I know it is not the desire of the chairman to do anything other than move forward with amendments, amendments that are germane to the particular bill. Unfortunately, the amendment of the Senator is not germane to the pending business before the Senate. My amendment is. I think there are others who have amendments they want to bring up. I know it is not the fault of the chairman we are not allowed to move forward, but I certainly hope that by the time we get back next week we can do so and take up amendments that are critically important to the issue at hand and that we can remove those amendments that are not germane because it is a very critical piece of legislation. It is a good bill, and my amendment is a good amendment. I hope we are able to address it shortly.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would inquire as to what is the current business before the Senate?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I pay tribute to an exceptional officer in the U.S. Air Force, MG Michael A. Collings upon his retirement after more than 33 years of distinguished service. Throughout his career, General Collings has personified the Air Force core values of integrity, selfless service, and excellence in the many missions the Air Force provides in defense of our nation. It is my privilege to recognize his many accomplishments and to commend him for the superb service he has provided the Air Force and our Nation. General Collings entered the U.S. Air Force as a graduate of Southern Illinois University's Reserve Officer Training Corps program in 1974. His career has spanned a variety of operational assignments and major command staff functions. A command pilot with more than 2600 hours in the T-37, T-38 and F-16, General Collings spent more than 10 years in the cockpit, instructing in the T-37, F-16 and at the U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School. Moving to the logistics field in 1987, General Collings has served on the staff at Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, Washington DC, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces, Hickam Air Force Base, HI, and Headquarters Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, VA. He has commanded two squadrons, two groups, and two wings including the 82nd Training Wing at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas and the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Air Force Materiel Command, Robins Air Force Base, GA. His assignments have increased in scope and responsibility, culminating in his current assignment as Chief, Office of Military Cooperation, Egypt. As the Senior U.S. Defense Representative to Egypt, General Collings leads six divisions responsible for all aspects of the security assistance mission in Egypt. In addition to providing advice and assistance to the Government of Egypt on a wide range of military procurement and training issues, the Office of Military Cooperation serves as a liaison between the Egyptian Ministry of Defense and United States Central Command, coordinating the planning of joint military exercises throughout the region. During his career, General Collings has served the U.S. Air Force and our Nation with excellence, distinction, and unwavering integrity. His exceptional leadership skills have been evident throughout his career as he repeatedly demonstrated superb command and operational leadership, a brilliant and innovative vision for his unit's future, and an unmatched loyalty to his faith, people and country. General Collings will retire from the U.S. Air Force on August 1, 2008 after 33 years and 1 month of dedicated commissioned service. On behalf of Congress, the country, and the State of Georgia, I thank General Collings, his wife Jan, and their entire family for the commitment and sacrifices they have made throughout his honorable service. Congratulations on completing an outstanding and exemplary military career.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss once again the rising cost of energy for Georgians and all Americans. My constituents continue to suffer due to the ever-increasing price of fuel. They are facing very difficult choices--between food and gasoline--between driving to work to earn money for their families and driving to the grocery store to feed their families. I would like to take just a moment to read some of the letters I have received from my constituents that I think shed light on the real-world impact high gas prices are having on all Americans: Mr. John Broomfield from Lawrenceville writes: We are conserving, recycling, buying compact fluorescent lamps, driving less and slower, but we cannot do this alone. You in Congress must have the foresight and vision to pass policies that will actually help us. Please make it possible for our oil and energy companies to search for and extract our own natural resources. No matter where they are! Mrs. Betty Byers from Marietta writes: Dear Senator Chambliss, I appreciate all you can do to help develop a program that will allow the exploration of our country's energy sources without materially affecting our environment. We need to break away from relying on other countries (even our enemies) for our energy supplies. The rising price of gasoline is hurting ALL Americans. PLEASE--put our families first before environmentalists. We are all hurting from the rising cost of gasoline. Please do something ASAP. I was pleased to hear yesterday both President Bush and Senator McCain highlight their support for oil and gas leases in the Outer Continental Shelf. I think their public support for this effort will raise the profile of this important way in which Congress can act to help increase our supply of oil and gas to help lower gas prices for all Americans. Is this the only answer? Absolutely not. But certainly this is the right direction to go. The Department of the Interior released a comprehensive inventory of OCS resources in February 2006 that estimated reserves of 8.5 billion barrels of oil and 29.3 trillion cubic feet--tcf--of natural gas. Congress has imposed moratoria on much of the OCS since 1982 through the annual Interior appropriation bills. Some contend that lifting the moratoria would pose unacceptable environmental risks and threaten coastal tourism industries. First, that is simply not true. In 2005, we suffered significant damage in the gulf coast region of our country as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Yet off the coast of Louisiana, off the coast of Mississippi, off the coast of Texas, off the coast of Alabama, where Hurricane Katrina came through, we saw not one drop of oil spilled even though there are hundreds and hundreds of oil-producing platforms in that region of the gulf. I come from a coastal State. There is nothing I would ever do that would in any way endanger the pristine beaches in my State or the coastal regions of any other State. But, simply stated, we now have the technology in place to ensure that type of thing never happens. Second, we can do this in a way that ultimately lets the individual coastal States decide whether or not to opt out of this moratorium. So instead of politicians in Washington dictating what will happen off the coast of my home State of Georgia, the people of Georgia and the Governor of Georgia will get the ultimate decision. I am hopeful the Senate will come together to take this first step to increase our supply. Would I like to see more development? Sure. I support the development, not just of the OCS but in other regions of our country too, where we know we have vast resources of energy. We need to make sure that when we do explore, we do it in the right way, that we do nothing that will endanger the environment of any part of our country. But we do have the technology to make sure that happens--whether it is on the Outer Continental Shelf, whether it is in the shale of the Rocky Mountains, or whether it is in the ANWR region of Alaska or other areas of this country where geologists are fairly certain that we do have additional resources. This will add to the supply we have so that, long term as well as short term, we can see gas prices in this country stabilize and hopefully begin to come back down to something more reasonable than what we are looking at today. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I think Senator Harkin has said it all. It seems like we vote on the farm bill once a week as of late, and this is our weekly vote on the farm bill again. I do hope this is our last vote because this is such a serious piece of legislation. I did a talk radio show a little earlier today, and we were talking about gas prices, and I talked about what we did in the farm bill relative to energy. The talk show host said: Wait a minute. All you are doing is getting criticized in the press over this farm bill. He said: This has some good stuff in it relative to gas prices. I said: Yes, it really does. So we did an awful lot in this bill relative to energy. We did an awful lot relative to nutrition, as the chairman said. And, finally, I think, hopefully, that message is going to get out across America. The Chairman did a magnificent job leading us down this road, and I commend him and thank him for his great work. And to my good friend, Senator Conrad, without him this would not have gotten done. I appreciate his great leadership and great support. I want to tell particularly the chairman, as we had our meeting today with the Secretary, we were talking about implementing, Mr. President, this farm bill, and we were reminded in that meeting about what is going on in Iowa today, as we speak. The banks of the Mississippi and a couple of other rivers out there are overflowing onto farmland and destroying crops and creating havoc. In this farm bill we have a disaster package that is not going to require emergency spending for the 2008 crop. And it was criticized very much as we went through the process, yet folks in Iowa are going to be hurting, and folks in Missouri, as that water comes downstream, are going to be hurting, and I think this farm bill is going to turn out to be the best product we have put out, from a farm bill perspective. It will continue to be criticized, and it is not perfect by any means, but under the leadership of the chairman, I think it has been a great product, and I thank him and I thank Senator Conrad for his great leadership and friendship that we have as a result of this farm bill. To our staffs, thanks for great work. I look forward to this 5:30 vote, and I certainly hope this is the last one on the farm bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about how Congress can take action to provide relief to American families who are really feeling the pain at the pump due to high gas prices. Obviously, this is a very complex issue and requires a multipronged strategy to respond. But the base price of gasoline reflects the principles of supply and demand. Asian economies continue to boom, creating soaring demand for oil. At the same time, many oil-producing regions are curbing output. These factors can create a perfect storm that leads to historic high prices for the price of crude oil and the resulting prices at the pump we see today. I believe we must find both short-term and long-term solutions to provide energy security for our Nation and give relief to the unprecedented gas prices we are experiencing today. Republicans and Democrats recently came together and passed a piece of legislation, with my vote, to suspend the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until the end of the year. This was an attempt to provide a short-term solution to high gas prices at the pump by dealing with the supply side of the issue. It is a bill that passed with strong bipartisan support. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has the capacity of 727 million barrels of oil and currently holds just over 700 million barrels. The United States had been filling this Reserve to the tune of about 70,000 barrels per day. This was the right thing to do for several reasons: first, because we should not be buying the most expensive oil ever and simply putting it in the ground; secondly, because it will leave a little more oil on the market, which will hopefully alleviate prices somewhat; and third, because it shows that Congress recognizes that increasing the supply of oil in the market can have an impact on the price of oil. Finally, it sends a message to energy markets that Congress can take action and thereby reduce speculation, which certainly has been a participant in the rising price of oil. Congress also acted in a bipartisan manner to address a component of the long-term solution to energy security by enacting the Energy Independence and Security Act in December of last year. This legislation, again with my support, was an attempt to provide a long- term solution to high gas prices by dealing with the demand side of the issue. This legislation contains an aggressive new renewable fuels standard that requires fuel producers to include a certain amount of alternative fuel in their product. I am excited about the significant opportunity this provides for Georgia, which has not been a large producer of biofuels in the past, to participate in the development of renewable fuel sources. The renewable fuel standard requires 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels in American motor fuels by 2022. I think it was the right thing to do to require 21 billion of the 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to come from advanced biofuels. This means instead of corn-based ethanol, we will be making fuels from cellulose such as wood chips, peanut hulls, and switchgrass. This emphasis on biofuels is consistent with legislation I introduced last year to increase the amount of advanced biofuels and gasoline. This is also very consistent with the farm bill that passed this body. In the energy title in that farm bill, of which I was particularly excited about and remain excited, what we did was to induce the manufacture of additional amounts of ethanol in this country. But the production of ethanol from corn has had unintended consequences--we have seen the price of food products increase. It hasn't just been corn-based food products as a result of the high demand for corn. We have seen more corn planted, which means the demand for wheat, soybeans, peanuts, as well as other commodities, has increased and driven up the price because farmers are simply planting more corn due to the high price. It looks as if the demand is going to be there for a long time to come. So in this farm bill, what we did was to incentivize the production of ethanol not from corn but from cellulosic-based products, whether it is peanut hulls, switchgrass, pine trees, or who knows. In my part of the world, we have a vine culled kudzu that grows rampant across Georgia, and there is not much use for it. One of these days we may even see a biodegradable product, such as kudzu, become available for the manufacture of ethanol. It is a serious problem, and in the farm bill we sought to address the additional production of ethanol through cellulosic-based products. I wish to read a couple pieces of correspondence I have received from constituents of mine which further emphasizes the intensity of this problem, the seriousness of this problem, and the fact that all of a sudden families are simply not able to incorporate into their budget this huge increase in gasoline prices in such a short period of time. Deanna Payne of Winder, GA, writes as follows: Senator Chambliss: Due to the high cost of gas, I am having to cut down on groceries and visit local food banks. My husband makes the same amount of money he did in 2007, but we just can't make ends meet. Gas prices have doubled the cost of some of the grocery items I used to purchase. I just can't do it. Please give us some relief! This is ridiculous! Americans are going hungry and losing everything! Another constituent from Augusta writes: I am very concerned about rising gas prices and what if anything Congress plans to do to help Americans. I cannot afford to fill up my vehicle at these rates which today are approaching $4. My husband is a platoon sergeant training troops at Fort Gordon. I work at the Medical College of Georgia. We have a combined income of over $70,000. It is becoming harder and harder to put any money aside. Not only is the cost of gas rising, but the cost to heat and cool our home and the cost of groceries are all making it difficult to make ends meet. My husband re-enlisted in September 2007. We as a family came to the decision that even during this time of war, the Army was the only guarantee of a paycheck and health care coverage for the next few years. I hope that Congress is putting aside its partisan issues and working together to help all Americans, as I feel our Nation will soon fall apart at the rate it is going now. A constituent from Montrose, GA, writes: Please work to help us with the prices of gas and its effects on every household's budget. We should be drilling anywhere and everywhere to alleviate this current situation. The brightest in this country need to be assembled and given the resources to come up with alternative energy sources. We need to have the Nation go to a 4-day work week starting with government agencies leading the way by example. These problems have been gradually getting worse all along with nothing getting done. Steps better be taken soon before this country gets into a position that it can't recover from. Thank you. From Douglasville, GA: I am a single mother of 3. I had to take $20 out of my grocery money to pay for gas just to get to work. That is the only place I drive. The kids and I walk to our local stores if needed. This is not the American Dream, or the way we are supposed to live in the great United States! I can't afford a new car that is better on gas. I already drive a 4 cylinder.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 7 minutes. I know it is unusual, but I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged to the Democrats.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the issue of Medicare reimbursement for doctors. Doctors are reimbursed through Medicare by a formula known as the sustainable growth rate, SGR. Due to the formula's methodology, it has mandated physician fee cuts in recent years. This has forced Congress to place a band-aid over the possible cuts that doctors and their practices have hanging over their heads. So every year, or now 6 months, doctors must come to Washington, DC and plead with their Representatives and Senators to pass legislation that will allow them to receive the adequate Medicare reimbursement they need. Medicare reimbursement is already well below the actual cost of providing patient services, and physicians tell me every year that if these cuts go into effect, they will be faced with the tough decision of either laying off employees or no longer treating Medicare patients, or both. Oftentimes, we in Congress wait until the last possible moment of each year to pass legislation that will provide these physicians with their much-needed relief. While we all know that there is a need to replace the current SGR formula, this afternoon I want to focus on the relevant legislation pending before the Senate. The bill before the Senate would alleviate the 10.6 percent physician fee cut and replace it with a 1.1 percent increase over 18 months. I support this element of the legislation and believe that an 18-month fix will not only keep physicians from worrying that their reimbursements will be cut, but will also give Congress time to look at possible alternatives to the SGR. However, I do not agree with other aspects of this legislation. First and foremost, the President has threatened to veto this legislation. In December of last year, we passed legislation that would remove the SGR cuts until June 30 of this year. Even if this legislation had overwhelming support, which it does not, the process of this bill passing both Houses, getting vetoed by the President, and returning for a veto override would be quite a feat to accomplish in 18 days, and simply cannot practically happen. Second, this legislation expands entitlement spending such as the Part D Low-Income Subsidy and Medicare Savings Program. While these are good programs, I do not understand why we would expand these programs when there are already significant numbers of seniors who are eligible for the programs at current levels but are not enrolled. This is not the time to expand entitlement spending when it is already out of control and unsustainable. Here we are trying to put a bandaid on reimbursement to our doctors and, at the same time, talking about additional expenditures in Medicare, so that the next year when we come back, it is going to be even harder if we don't have a permanent fix to use this bandaid approach for physicians and hospitals. Third, this legislation reduces access to Medicare advantage plans. These plans aren't perfect, but Medicare Advantage has been the one reform in the Medicare system we have seen that works. It needs some modification to it, but the fact is it is working. These plans, which are approved by medicare, save beneficiaries an average of $86 per month compared to premiums in traditional fee-for- service medicare. They have been especially important in enrolling low- income and rural beneficiaries. We should have learned from past congresses' mistakes that cutting payments to medicare advantage plans results in them being forced to drop seniors. In my home State of Georgia, more than 138,000 beneficiaries rely on these plans. Senator Grassley has introduced alternative legislation that would provide physicians with the exact same 1.1 percent fee increase that is included in the pending legislation. And it would do this while eliminating duplicative indirect medical education payments to medicare advantage plans, making reforms to curb controversial and abusive medicare advantage marketing practices, and spending 25 percent less than the pending legislation. Most importantly, this alternative legislation would not be vetoed by the President and could be signed into law before the July 1 deadline. Unfortunately, the majority will not allow us to bring this legislation to the floor. I hope that decision changes. Doctors and seniors deserve a serious and responsible effort that addresses the impending fee cut without playing politics, cutting essential services, and creating a major expansion of entitlement spending. It is my hope that Congress will work toward a bipartisan agreement that will provide doctors with the relief they need before July 1. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Brownback follow my time with 5 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the most important issue on the minds of my constituents in Georgia and, I know, folks all over the country; that is, skyrocketing gas prices. I hear from hundreds of Georgians every day who are struggling to fill their gas tanks to get to work or to take their kids to school or to run their necessary errands. They want to know what Congress is doing about these out-of-control gas prices. Nobody disputes the fact that the United States is dependent on foreign sources of oil, and nobody disputes that this problem has been in the making for any number of years. We currently import more than 60 percent of our oil and, over the past 30 years, we have reduced our domestic exploration options and left our refining capacity stagnant. But we can do something to provide relief to American families who are really feeling the pain at the pump. If we can do something about it, the obvious question is, Why aren't we? Let's look, first, at what the Democratic response has been to high gas prices. Yesterday, we voted on a so-called energy bill proposed by the majority. The two highlights of this bill to address skyrocketing gas prices are, first, sue OPEC. The Democrats want to sue the individuals we are doing business with as a means of lowering gas prices. This is hard to understand. Second, the Democrats propose to put a windfall profits tax on big oil companies that are certainly achieving big profits in today's market in the petroleum industry. I had a group of businessmen from Georgia in my office yesterday. They were small businesspeople, but they were all from the same industry. I said: OK, let me ask you this. If the Federal Government walked into your office and said, we are going to put a windfall profits tax on you; we are simply going to raise your taxes by an extraordinary amount, what would be your reaction? They said: It is pretty simple. We would do two things. First, we would try to reduce our profits below a point where we would not be subject to a windfall profits tax, and that means we would decrease production. The second thing we would do is, if we had a tax that we had to live with, we would pass it on to our customers. Again, to think that a windfall profits tax on oil companies is going to decrease the price of gasoline is somewhat foolish. What has been the Republican response? Where should we go? There are very clearly four separate issues that need to be addressed with respect to the issue of skyrocketing gas prices. The first one has just been alluded to by Senator Bond from Missouri; that is, we simply need to take advantage of additional resources we have inside the United States. We, as Republicans, have sought to do that. On May 13, less than a month ago, Senator Domenici and Senator McConnell proposed an amendment to expand exploration in the ANWR region of Alaska and to authorize drilling in offshore coastal waters currently subject to a Federal moratorium--in other words, deep-sea exploration. This amendment was defeated. Mr. President, 43 Republicans voted for the amendment; 48 Democrats voted against the amendment. So once again, as is known throughout the country, Republicans are consistently advocating--and have for all of the 14 years I have been privileged to serve in the Congress--exploration for more domestic oil in this country to alleviate our problem, while the Democrats continue to oppose measures to explore domestically. Now, of the four things we need to do, certainly exploration for more oil is one of those. We do have a lot of capacity in this country that has simply gone unexplored over the years. There is deep-sea exploration available to us. There is oil in the ANWR region of Alaska, which we have consistently sought to explore, as well as now we know that in the Rocky Mountains of our great country, we have a greater resource of oil than exists in Saudi Arabia. It is simply imperative that we explore more from a domestic standpoint. Secondly, supply and demand dictates the price of everything in our economy. We simply have to implore our oil companies to provide more gasoline to Americans. We are seeing today more people driving to the gas pump than ever before in the history of our country simply because of the increase in the population. Our economy has done pretty well in the last several years. People are traveling more than ever before. We must have the capability to provide the kind of supply that is demanded by Americans. Thirdly, we have to continue down the road of researching and developing more alternative fuels. Historically in this country, we have shied away from that. We have seen the development of ethanol primarily in one region of our country, the Midwest. But when you get to the Northeast or the Southeast or even, for the most part, the far West, you simply do not see a supply of ethanol. It is concentrated in one part of our country. But that is changing. It is changing now, and we are seeing more production facilities built in all parts of the country. But there is an unintended consequence that nobody thought about. We have 101 ethanol-producing facilities online in this country today. We have another 100 ethanol manufacturing facilities that are scheduled to come online in this country in the next 14 to 18 months. All but two of those facilities are producing ethanol from corn. The unintended consequence we have seen due to the high demand of corn for energy production is an increase in food prices. Corn, wheat, soybeans, peanuts, or other commodities have simply increased in price because of the demand for corn; therefore, farmers are planting more corn and less of the other commodities. That is the unintended consequence. I am very proud of the fact that in the farm bill we just passed we addressed the issue, that we ought not to incentivize the production of additional ethanol from corn. But what we have done in that farm bill is to provide funding for research--grant money as well as loan money-- as well as funding for the construction of additional ethanol and biodiesel facilities to be resourced not with corn but with cellulosic- based products. The Presiding Officer comes from a part of the country where corn can be grown in great quantities and great quality, I might say. But in the southeastern part of the United States, because of our hot weather and our soil is not as rich and our rainfall is not as consistent as the midwest part of the country, we cannot grow corn the way it can be grown in the Midwest. But there is one thing we can grow like nobody else; that is, a pine tree. What we are seeing in Georgia today is the construction of an ethanol-producing facility that is going to be resourced with pine trees. It is one of two facilities that are under construction in the country today where cellulosic products are, in fact, going to be used. So I am very proud of the fact that in that farm bill we have sought to incentivize additional production of ethanol from cellulosic-based products. The fourth thing we have to do--Americans have been very spoiled. We are used to getting in our car and going where we want to go when we want to go, and when the time comes when we have finished our business and want to move on, we are used to getting in our vehicle and moving on, by ourselves for the most part. That simply has to change. We have to implement conservation practices from a personal household standpoint like we never imagined we would have to do in this country. From a political, legislative policymaking standpoint, we have put some measures in place that are going to dictate to the automobile manufacturing industry that they have to develop automobiles that get higher miles per gallon. That is good. But we also have to implement some personal measures to make sure we truly do have conservation practices in place. I had a constituent say to me just the other day: Saxby, I don't understand this issue of why we are not exploring for more oil domestically when everywhere I go, people tell me, why aren't we exploring for more oil that we know we have in America? He said: What you ought to do is call for a national referendum on this, and let's see what the American people, by and large, think of this issue. It is difficult, frankly, to do that, although I think it is a very good idea. I would like to know what the masses in other parts of the country think. I certainly know what they think in my part of the world. But there is one thing very similar that I think should be considered. I note that just yesterday, the American Solutions for Winning the Future announced that over half a million Americans have signed a petition online urging Congress to immediately start exploring for oil domestically to lower gasoline prices. Now, here is the way the petition reads: We, therefore, the undersigned citizens of the United States, petition the U.S. Congress to act immediately to lower gasoline prices (and diesel and other fuel prices) by authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries. According to American Solutions' resource data, 81 percent of the American people support the United States using more of its own domestic energy resources to combat the rising cost of energy. I cannot say that I am surprised by that statistic, but I think it further underscores how Senator Domenici's bill is a commonsense plan for lowering gas prices for Americans, and doing it now. Another commonsense solution Republicans have offered, which I have supported, was proposed by Senator McCain. This would provide an immediate Federal gas tax holiday. What does this mean to our American consumers? Well, here we are going into the summer when travel certainly increases. If this bill passed, as soon as tomorrow, if it got to the President's desk and he signed it, each and every American could be paying 18.4 cents per gallon less for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon less for diesel fuel. The Democrats promised leading up to the November 2006 elections that if you send the majority of Democrats to Congress, we are going to address this issue of gasoline prices, we are going to get prices under control. Well, at the time Senator Reid became majority leader, at the time Congresswoman Pelosi became the Speaker of the House, the price of a gallon of gasoline in this country was $2.33. Today, average prices have increased by $1.71 cents per gallon over that last year and a half. We all know summertime is the time when families take an annual vacation. Americans generally drive more during this time of the year. Giving a temporary gas tax holiday until Labor Day is a pure short-term policy and will benefit Americans only in the short term, but I think it is another way we can provide immediate relief to American families. This is an issue that ought not to be partisan in nature. It is an issue all Americans are feeling every single day. It is an issue we as policymakers should address. It is an issue that cries out for strong leadership in Washington today. We need to see that leadership come forth out of this body. We need to see the American people given some relief and given a long-term solution to this issue of gas prices; otherwise, the next generation is going to be looking at much higher energy costs than what we are looking at today. With that, Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today, June 6, 2008, the 64th anniversary of D-day, to commend our Armed Forces for their ongoing contributions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries where they are currently deployed, as well as their history of service and sacrifice for our country and for the causes of freedom and democracy worldwide. Yesterday, I had the privilege of attending the Board of Visitors meeting for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, which is located at Fort Benning, GA. WHINSEC, as it is called, provides security cooperation and strategic partnerships with countries in the Western Hemisphere in order to support democracy and human rights, and they have made a tremendous contribution since WHINSEC's inception in 2000. The chairman of the Board of Visitors of WHINSEC, who is a Roman Catholic bishop, commented that members of the military are ``agents of mercy.'' He is correct, and ultimately that is the role our military has played in the world in the 64 years since U.S. and Allied forces landed on the beaches of Normandy. No one joins the military to get rich and famous, since the life of military personnel almost always takes place behind the scenes and out of the headlines. Many people join the military to achieve a better way of life and associate with a bigger cause than themselves. The military has provided a way for countless numbers of Americans to improve their own quality of life and learn the skills they need to succeed. We should be proud of the positive effect the military has on those who serve in its ranks. But there is one thing everyone who serves in the military has in common, they join to serve. They join, realizing their service makes the lives of their fellow Americans better and more secure. But also, they know their service makes the lives in other countries safer and more prosperous. Without question, that is the result of the service of our military personnel over the last 64 years in places such as Germany, France, Bosnia, Kosovo, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Vietnam, and countless other locations where U.S. military personnel have served and sacrificed. These countries are more prosperous today because of the commitment of our Nation's military personnel. No military, and no institution for that matter, is perfect. However, we should not be surprised that year after year the United States Military remains one of the most trusted professions. They deserve that position based on their commitment to a cause greater than themselves, their integrity, and their commitment to excellence. Today, there are 1.4 million personnel serving on Active Duty in our Nation's military, along with 1.2 million serving in the Reserve components. All of them deserve our appreciation and gratitude for their service, their sacrifice, and their contribution to our Nation's security and contributions to freedom and democracy around the world. I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing thanks for them and for the key role they have played and continue to play in serving and sacrificing for our country and for those in other countries where they are serving. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, here we are, as Senator Harkin said, back again for one more vote on the farm bill. As I told my colleagues at lunch today, I wish I thought this would be the last one. We may have one more, if the President vetoes this bill. We may be back here again. But what a great opportunity it has been to work with Chairman Harkin and Senator Conrad, who is my dear friend. We became much closer friends during this process because we spent a lot more time together than we did with our spouses as we got through final negotiation. What great assets they have been for American agriculture. I appreciate my colleague from South Carolina and my colleague from Oklahoma. I told them to come down and talk about anything they wanted to. They talked about the same things we have talked about over the last three debates on this bill. Is this a perfect bill? It absolutely is not. Farm bills are always massive pieces of legislation. It is a 5- year bill. It spends $600 billion over 10 years. I had my staff check, though, and while I appreciate the comments of the Senator from South Carolina, the 2002 farm bill spent $800 billion over 10 years. So we are $200 billion below the 2002 farm bill on a 10-year basis. Again, it is not perfect. But what it does do is provide a school lunch program to needy kids as well as kids who can afford to pay. We are providing food stamps to people in this country who would go hungry otherwise. We are providing a food bank supplement to our food banks around the country that provide such great, valuable services to hungry people in America. We are providing the right kind of tax incentives in the form of reforming the Endangered Species Act in a positive way. We have been trying to reform the Endangered Species Act in all of my 14 years in Congress. This is the first time we have been able to do it. We did it with 250 organizations supporting it. We have good tax provisions that allow the perpetuation of land so it can't be developed forever. My children and my grandchildren will have the ability to enjoy farmland in my part of Georgia that they might otherwise not have the opportunity to enjoy. So is it a perfect bill? No. Do we provide a safety net for farmers? You bet we do. Prices are not always going to be high. We depend today on foreign imports of oil for 62 percent of our needs. We can never, ever afford to depend on importing food into this country in the same percentage that we import oil today. While it is not a perfect bill, while there are things that, if I had to write it by myself, I might not have written it this way, overall it is a very good piece of legislation. It covers a broad swath of America, from farming to hunger to conservation to measures involving good tax policy. With that, I ask for passage of this bill. On behalf of Senator DeMint, who is not here--and I know a lot of my folks would like to have a voice vote, but because I know Senator DeMint wants the yeas and nays, unfortunately, I will have to ask for the yeas and nays on behalf of Senator DeMint and ask for a recorded vote.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. At this time I believe Senator Coburn requests the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I believe under the unanimous consent, Senator Harkin and I have 10 minutes equally divided, Senator Coburn has 20 minutes, Senator DeMint has 30 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. What is the present business before the Senate?

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I believe this bill could be more fair and equitable. We also should work to make it more predictable for businesses and understandable to taxpayers and consumers. One of the greatest challenges to any climate bill will be to ensure that it does not stymie economic growth and protects American jobs. We need to continue to seek the best way to generate the greatest benefits for the lowest cost. We cannot burden our children and our grandchildren with increased energy costs. A climate bill must be flexible to adjust to changing science, economic conditions, and the actions of other countries. The Climate Security Act attempts to encourage other countries to reduce emissions, but does not appear to be flexible enough to ensure Americans are not disadvantaged because of the inaction of other nations. The details of the Climate Security Act will greatly affect every American and are extremely important. Have no doubt about it, a vote for cloture on this bill is a vote to increase gas prices by a minimum of 53 cents per gallon. I yield the floor.