Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, when the Founders envisioned this Senate, I believe they hoped it would be a place where strong opinions, established life skills and varied experience would come together to serve the nation. Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon has matched that standard and the whole nation has benefited. I have always been encouraged and inspired by Senator Smith's forward-looking mind and his energetic advocacy of a better life for all Americans. He has fought for better schools for our children. He confronted the reality of America's ``drop-out culture'' and fought for individualized attention for at-risk kids. We have worked together to ensure that the Medicaid Program fulfills its promise to America's less fortunate, and to extend the excellent quality of American health care to a broader and broader share of the population. It has been an honor to work with Gordon Smith on the Aging Committee in particular. His tireless advocacy to ensure that our seniors are afforded the dignity and respect they deserve has been an inspiration. Gordon Smith has also been a strong voice for Oregonians on the environment and the natural treasures in their State. And he turned personal tragedy into a nationwide effort to prevent suicide. On issue after issue, Gordon Smith has demonstrated a boundless enthusiasm for the process of reform, and a confidence that we can always make government programs more responsive, more relevant and more effective for the American people. Like the modern day Oregon pioneers he represents, Gordon Smith has always demonstrated both a fierce independence and a strong belief that there is a better way--if we dream big, work hard and stick together, there is no problem too big for America. In ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' Hollywood memorialized the commonsense man, of impeccable character, as the ideal Senator. Gordon Smith would have fit the part perfectly. I will dearly miss his integrity, his enthusiasm, and his friendship in this place. But I am excited for what the next chapter of his leadership will mean to Oregon and this country. I hope we can all bring more of his can-do spirit and positive energy to the urgent challenges we face in the days ahead.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I think the length of my service is a blink of the eye compared to those who have spoken before. And as I stand here, I cannot tell you whether it is going to be two blinks. But I was on the CODEL with the Senator from Washington. We were in China with Senator Stevens, and I would like to offer some insight, if I can, as to the question raised by my colleague from Kansas as to what makes Ted Stevens tick. When we were in China, Senator Stevens was treated as a hero. And he is a hero because of his service in World War II. He flew under General Chennault and went over, I think it was, the China-India-Burma bump. He landed in places in China to refurbish supplies, ammunition, I think, bring in intelligence sources, as described to me, where landing fields were cut out. There may have been a foot on one side and a foot on the other side, and this young guy was flying in there because he loved his country. When we talk about Ted Stevens and his service to our country--so many talk about 40 years in the Senate--as I reflected on who that young guy was, flying in there with absolute fearlessness, with courage, with love of country, he is the same guy. He is the same guy. That is what he has given to this country his entire adult life, and it has been given in great service to this country. I think that is pretty special. He has the veneer of a tough guy. And Ted Stevens can be tough. There is no question about that. But those of us who know him also see the love, the love that is in his heart, reflected in love of country, but love of family, love for his magnificent wife, love for his daughter. You see the gleam in his eye anytime he talks about her or she is in his presence. We see the love he has for this body, the love he has for his colleagues, even, by the way, for those with whom he disagrees. I have not been on the side of ANWR with my colleague from Alaska. But if you simply tell him where you are and you give your word and live by that, he is always there with you. Senator Smith is not with us today, but few of us will ever forget when he stood on the floor of this Senate after the tragic death of his son and reflected upon the support of his colleagues and took special note of the fact that he was not with Ted Stevens on the most important issue to Ted at that time: ANWR. Yet when Senator Smith suffered tragedy in his life, who was the first person to step up to try to provide support, to try to ensure that cause get there? It was Senator Stevens. That is the person we know. He has given his entire adult life to service to this Nation--extraordinary service to this Nation--and he has done it with fearlessness, courage, love, and commitment, as with everything he did as a young man. He has never lost any of those qualities, and we see them today. This Nation has been blessed by his service, and many of us have been blessed by his friendship, and we wish him our very best. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, as the Senate completes its work for the year, we have also reached the end of the distinguished career of the senior Senator from Virginia, John William Warner, Jr. In their wisdom, our Founders created the Senate to be a body like no other on Earth to harness the special wisdom that experience can bring. I think they had people like John Warner in mind as the kind of person who would best serve the Nation in the Senate. Senator Warner has lived a life of faithful, skillful service to his country. He served in World War II, enlisting as a 17-year-old. He interrupted his law school studies to also serve in Korea. He served as an assistant U.S. attorney. And for 5 years he served in the Secretariat of the Navy, leading the department from 1972 to 1974. That seems like a full career in itself, but it was just a prologue to five terms in the Senate. Over three decades, John Warner has worked with great energy, skill, and wisdom to protect the national security of the United States. The Department of Defense is a massive organization with a budget that staggers the imagination. But Senator Warner has devoted himself to mastering the details of the DOD and been a relentless advocate for its modernization and continuous improvement in effectiveness. Throughout his career, he has demonstrated tremendous caring for the millions of men and women who have worn the country's uniform and been their best friend on Capitol Hill. Senator Warner has been a counselor and mentor to me in my first 6 years here, and on behalf of the people I represent in Minnesota I thank him for his counsel to me on how to do this job right. He taught me that just as the human body has its bones and vital organs under the skin and out of sight, the most important work of the Senate takes place away from the TV lights and the press conferences. The day-to-day work of achieving compromise on hundreds and hundreds of issues that come before us is where the real difference can be made, and John Warner excelled at that work. Another Virginian, George Washington, said during the darkest days of the American Revolution that, ``spirit and perseverance have done wonders in all ages.'' Today I honor the spirit of patriotism that has always motivated John Warner and his perseverance through more than five decades that has made this a stronger and freer nation. May his sterling example of service inspire all of us to serve as nobly and as skillfully as he has done. Pete Domenici Mr. President, one of the lessons of our history is that America is not great because our leaders were somehow superhuman, but because regular people enjoy extraordinary freedom and use it to pursue ideals beyond their individual concerns. Senator Pete Domenici is a wonderful example of this unique brand of American greatness, and as he completes his service to the Senate, I wanted to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to honor him and thank him. Pete Domenici was born to Italian immigrants during the Great Depression in Albuquerque, NM, which was a long cultural distance from Washington, DC. He worked in his family grocery businesses and played for a farm team of the Brooklyn Dodgers, which is enough to endear him to me right there. He became a junior high math teacher and then earned a law degree. He served in local government for 6 years before his first election to the Senate in 1972. And he has served six full terms in the Senate, which is amazing in and of itself. But what is perhaps most amazing is he has remained the regular person he was brought up to be in Albuquerque and has always applied his commonsense values to the most complex national problems. Senator Domenici has been a stalwart in the difficult job of trying to curb Washington's seemingly endless appetite for more spending. Politics tends to be a business in which all the rewards flow to those who say ``yes.'' But for the sake of the taxpayers and children and grandchildren of ours who cannot yet speak, Pete Domenici has been willing to say ``no'' to more spending in order to say ``yes'' to their economic future. Senator Domenici has made a tremendous contribution to the advancement of science by focusing resources and efforts to understand the human brain. For decades from now, a wide spectrum of discoveries and therapies to improve human life will come out of his insistence on progress of the basic science of brain research. It has been a great privilege to work with him closely on his signature issue for the last several years: mental health parity. His tireless commitment to ending insurance discrimination, and willingness to share his own family's struggles, has broken down barriers to treatment and brought hope to millions of Americans living with mental illness. The legislative process has regrettably become more divisive and partisan over the last decade, but through it all Senator Domenici has been a role model of civility, diligence, and goodwill. The Senate was built to achieve consensus on the great issues of the day, and Pete Domenici was always focused on what we could get done, rather than on who got the credit. His ability and willingness to find consensus and produce legislation the American people need has been showcased by his 30 years of service on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It is a testament to his abilities that as either chairman or ranking member, Pete Domenici has guided three energy bills into law in the last 3 years: the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Pete found a way to cut through a tough, partisan climate in the Senate to address our dependence on foreign oil. Personally he has been a connecting point for me with the great compromisers and policy experts of the Senate's recent past. And he has always reminded me that we are not Senators who happen to be people; we are people who happened to be Senators for a time, and we need to nurture the roots of faith, family, and friendship that give us life. Pete Domenici is a great American success story, and it has been an honor and privilege to serve with him in Washington. His influence on me will continue long after he has left this body. Chuck Hagel Mr. President, one of the first experiences of a new Senator is to open their drawer in their desk here on the floor and learn a special lesson in Senate history. Traditionally, Senators do what we prevent sixth grade boys from doing: we write our names into our desks. When I first opened my drawer here, I saw decades of people who had occupied this particular desk, and it told me that for however long I am here, I am a temporary occupant. Many came before me and many will come after me. So at each 2-year interval, we say goodbye to many of our colleagues and await the new. I will be particularly sad to say farewell to the Senior Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel. He came to this body with an extraordinary career in communications, finance, and international business. He was like a Senator of a bygone era, when Members of this body often were the national experts in their fields. He made a tremendous contribution to the world of the Senate because he had first-hand knowledge of the dynamism and transformational nature of the global economy all around us. He is the kind of decisionmaker that is shaping the new economy and it has been so valuable to have him among us. Chuck Hagel's whole life expresses his conviction that the world can and should be a better place, and it will not get that way by itself. He is fully engaged in life-long effort to make the world a better place, and he applies every waking hour to the quest. I know that ``retirement'' is not the word for his departure from this place--in a way he is released from this responsibility to pursue his passion of public service in multiple other ways. He is the embodiment of the ideal of a life of self-sacrifice for the betterment of others. Senator Hagel brought his analytical, probing mind to the Foreign Relations Committee, where I served with him these last 6 years. His contributions to the committee's work were always thoughtful and challenging--and that was just his Halloween costumes. Chuck Hagel is one of the most energetic people I have ever met. When you look at the list of organizations he supports with this ideas and his leadership, it looks like the combined resume of five people. He works with veterans organizations, antipoverty organizations, international cooperation organizations and the list goes on and on. He has been honored by dozens of organizations for excellence in public service. For some reason, Nebraska has a habit of sending independent-minded members to this body, and they play a key role in our deliberation. Perhaps because Nebraska is kind of plains State, kind of a Midwestern State, kind of a Western State, and in that way unique, Nebraskans have contributed a great deal of independence to our deliberations, which is so valuable in the Senate's search for consensus. We in Minnesota are glad to be a part of Chuck Hagel's life. Since some of his education occurred at the Brown Institute in Minneapolis, we too claim a piece of him. We thank the people of Nebraska for sharing him with the Nation as a Member of the Senate. We will certainly miss his razor sharp analytical mind and his wonderfully engaging personality. I am personally grateful to him for the way he introduced me to the habits and ways of the Senate and for helping me understand how to do my best for the people of my State. In the history of this Nation, different kinds of men and women have given some of their talents and vision to this place for the benefit of the whole Nation. We thank Senator Hagel for his willingness to serve and for the way he made the most of every moment of his time here in the Senate. Wayne Allard Mr. President, with the conclusion of our business for the year comes the moment when we must say farewell to Members who have chosen to leave the Senate, and I want to take this opportunity to honor my friend and colleague from Colorado, Senator Wayne Allard. He is leaving as a matter of principle, believing in the value of ``citizen legislators,'' which he is fulfilling by ending his service here after two terms. I greatly respect him for that choice. One of the wonderful things about the Senate is the distinctive experiences that bring people to this place. Senator Allard's professional training is as a veterinarian, a skill that is of great importance to a State with as much livestock agriculture as Colorado. He began a successful veterinary practice from nothing in Loveland, in the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains. That experience has given him unique insight into the needs and concerns of America's millions of small businesses, where the job growth and creative energy of our economy comes from. Wayne Allard brought many values with him to the Senate, but perhaps the most important is the need to use more care in the way we spend the people's money. He personally practiced that value by returning $42.2 million of his office allotment to the U.S. Treasury. As a member of the committees which handle appropriations, the Federal budget and banking policy, he has been a constant advocate for lower spending, improved efficiency in government programs, and steady progress toward a balanced budget. Our former colleague, Howard Baker, once said that you could trace the decline of the legislative branch of Government to the installation of air-conditioning in the Capitol. What he meant by that was that previous generations of Senators were driven from Washington by the tropical summers, and that gave them an opportunity to reconnect with their roots so they could return refreshed and reoriented toward the people's wishes. Senator Allard needed no such climatic encouragement: he couldn't wait to get back to Colorado where he would spend countless hours listening to and learning from the folks who sent him here. I will truly miss his example and his friendship here in the Senate. The Senate is a distinctive and valuable institution generation after generation because the senior Members pass on their lessons to the junior Members. Senator Allard taught me a lot about how to be a good Senator by working hard, sticking to your principles, and listening more than talking. Former Senator Harry S. Truman said that if you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog. But Senator Allard has been my good friend, encouraging me when I was discouraged and keeping me humble when I was flying too high for my own good. I think the ideas of fiscal conservatism and frugality that he based his life and service on are returning to the forefront here in Washington as he departs. As we move toward a balanced budget, I think he can take pride in fighting for it for 12 years in Washington and pointing us in the right direction. Wayne Allard is a good man who chose to serve in the Senate for a specific amount of time and he has done that. I honor him today as a person of character and wisdom, and I thank him for making me a better Senator and for making the Senate a place that better reflects the values of regular people. Larry Craig

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, a man well acquainted with crisis, Abraham Lincoln, said this: I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts. I rise to affirm this confidence and lay out some of the basic facts and principles we face in this unprecedented financial crisis. Fact No. 1: We live in a world which is very different from the realities of a decade ago. The financial world is interconnected and reacts at the speed of digital transactions. There are no borders to hide behind or cooling off periods in which to contemplate at our leisure. Problems arise quickly and solutions must be found quickly yet responsibly. Fact No. 2: This crisis we face today touches each and every American. As the recent market events have proven, the crisis has entered a new and critically dangerous phase in which our entire financial system and economy hangs in the balance. The crisis we face today is as serious as any I have faced in my 32 years of public service. When the Secretary of the Treasury talks about the possibility of a collapse of the American financial system, that gets your attention, as it should. Money market accounts, retirement savings, college and small business loans, and home mortgages are all at stake. This is not about Wall Street but about Main Street. It is about every street on which American families live. Just think of what you have to tell your son or daughter if they got accepted to some great school, and you are about to get that loan that you need to pay for that education, and then all of a sudden it is not there. Credit has dried up. Capital is not available. You are going to have to say: By the way, you can't go there now. I am sorry. Mom and dad cannot afford it. Small business owners depend on credit to stock their shelves, to supply the goods we buy. If this system collapses, freezes, how are they going to go about providing both goods and services to families, as well as the jobs of folks who work there? This is about every street on which American families live. Fact No. 3: This crisis, not unlike energy or health care, is too big for one party to solve. We must work together--Democrats, Republicans, House and Senate, administration and Congress. There was a moment of opportunity yesterday with the White House, Senator Obama and Senator McCain, and the leadership of both sides of the aisle from both Houses. After the debate tonight, we have to get back, as Americans, to figure out how we put this together to provide the stability this economy needs. People have asked a lot of questions about how we got there. Outright greed and mismanagement, coupled with an outdated financial regulatory system, have all been part of bringing us to this point. People were sold loans they could not afford. In some instances, I heard of ninja mortgages: no income, jobs, or assets, and yet they got packaged and securitized and passed on and sold to investors throughout the country and the world. Now it seems these securities are not worth what was paid for them. It has not only put companies in dire straits but our entire financial system as well. Our obligation now as Americans is to come together and do the right thing, and to do it now. Fact No. 4: The American people are watching. I have already heard from over 11,000 Minnesotans who have called or written to my office who have expressed their deep concerns about what is happening and what is being proposed. They say: Don't bail out Wall Street. My calls are running 10,000 against and maybe 100-and-something for. They say: Don't bail out Wall Street. Unfortunately, the way this stabilization plan was presented was such in which the public watched and saw it that way. Secretary Paulson proposed a $700 billion plan to rescue our financial system. People are concerned the plan did not provide for clear transparency, it did not provide for clear oversight. The consensus is, it amounted to a bailout of Wall Street. This is not what the American people want nor should they have that. While I share the administration's sense of urgency to act, I share the concerns of Minnesotans from all across the State and certainly Americans all cross the country. So I want to assure folks back home I am not going to move forward on a plan unless it puts taxpayers first and holds Wall Street accountable. But I also want to tell my citizens that it is our obligation and responsibility, before we get out of here--before we get out of here this weekend--to in fact put in place a plan that puts taxpayers first and holds Wall Street accountable. We need to get there. We must get there. We need a plan that provides effective oversight and transparency. We are not going to give the Treasury Department a blank check. There is talk about taking some of the options that have been put on the table and been discussed in the last days, that instead of $700 billion as a blank check, that there are X dollars put up first, with the obligation to come back for further approval, with very clear and specific oversight, very clear and specific transparency. We must get there with a plan that holds Wall Street executives accountable for the terrible mistakes they made getting us into this mess--no golden parachutes. We are going to have to deal with executive compensation. If there is going to be Government assets involved, if they use the Government credit card, folks are going to have to comply with the terms and conditions. We must look into other individuals who enrich themselves on mortgage-related assets while fully knowing of their dangers. There is going to be a lot of looking back. In the long run, shareholders have to have a greater say about executive pay. We must get there with a plan that gets taxpayers the best value for their dollar. If we, ultimately, go forward with the Treasury's plan--or a variation of the plan because we are not going to go forward with that plan--this will be a plan in which the concerns of my colleagues in the House--they have expressed concerns; my colleagues in the Senate have expressed concerns. We need to go forward in a way that assures that distressed assets are bought--and when I say ``bought''--that distressed assets are acquired--I want to be clear about that--acquired at prices that are fair to the taxpayer and any returns that we get as assets come back into this fund after expended, that they have to go to debt reduction. We are talking about increasing the national debt from over $10.6 trillion to over $11 trillion. As assets come back, as distressed assets regain value over time, as folks get back on their feet, we have to make sure those assets then are put into debt reduction, not more Government spending, not deepening the mess we are in already in this country. Over the long term, we cannot go back to business as usual. We need to aggressively undertake fundamental financial regulatory reform. First and foremost, any reform must include stronger regulatory oversight over the entire financial system. The sad reality is that some of our current system goes back to the Civil War era. It is like trying to fight a fire today with a bucket brigade. It is marked by ineffective coordination among regulators and redundant oversight in some areas and lack of oversight in others. Greater transparency and accountability must be factored in. We must ensure that market participants have a direct stake in their own actions so that taxpayers are not left holding the bag. In many ways, it has been described to me as almost a 9/11 kind of moment--that before 9/11, in the area of security, we were not able to think the unthinkable, and we did not have in place a system that allowed us to see and understand that the unthinkable was about to happen. In the situation we face now with this economy, we did not have the regulatory oversight, the transparency to deal with the complex financial instruments that are being used today, so we both did not think the unthinkable and we had no capacity to know that the unthinkable was about to happen. The unthinkable now stands in the shadows, as we talk about the potential meltdown of the American economic system. That cannot happen, and we will not let that happen. At the same time, we must put more cops on the beat to better detect possible threats to the financial system, such as conflicts of interest that could undermine the integrity of the system. And, finally, we must ensure greater regulatory flexibility in order to keep up with market innovations. Regulators should have the ability to intervene before a crisis reaches critical mass. What happens after the opening bell rings on Wall Street every day affects the folks in Hibbing, MN, just as much as the people in New York City. Wall Street executives must shoulder a great deal of responsibility for this crisis. If taxpayers are being asked to sacrifice, Wall Street too must share in the cost of rescuing the financial system. Hardworking Americans deserve to have the peace of mind that their stake in the financial system is appropriately safeguarded and that they are not put on the hook for the mistakes of corporate America. Times are tough. Folks are having a hard enough time dealing with high energy costs and making ends meet. In the short term, we need to act for the sake of our economy. In the long term, we need major reform that protects the American taxpayer and works for our economy. Maintaining a viable and robust financial system is critical to each and every American's future. We have to recognize there are a lot of questions out there, even at this hour on Friday night, as we are moving toward what I hope will be putting in place a system that protects the taxpayer, that holds Wall Street accountable. We are talking about assets, and there is a discussion about Government buying assets. At what price? If we buy it above market price, are taxpayers being ripped off to protect shareholders and bondholders? That should not be allowed to happen. If we are to buy assets, then what kind of system do we need to have in place to evaluate and oversee those assets? Are we creating more bureaucracy, more cost, for which, in the end, the taxpayers will suffer? Could we avoid that, while looking at loans-- secure loans, of course, being preferable--but even in cases where there are not enough assets to secure the loans, moving forward from a loan perspective? These are the kinds of questions I know those at the table right now need to answer. They need to answer them with a first and foremost principle that the taxpayers must be protected. Finally, I wish to say that even as we move forward--as we have to move forward to provide stability to the American economic system--we must understand that this is not getting us out of the woods; that, in fact, those challenges to our economy are still there, including the threat of the recession, or the reality of the recession, and I think the economic numbers from this quarter will demonstrate that it is, in fact, where we are today. But greater danger lies ahead in our financial system, so the expenditure of Government resources now must be done in a way that keeps in mind that there are going to be some major issues that are going to have to be confronted in the near future. There may have to be some further action by this Government to provide stability in order to keep this country moving forward. Those considerations cannot be blocked out as we look at the crisis of the moment. We need to recognize that there are challenges that still await us. The American people throughout our history have come together at every crisis that has threatened our national or economic security. We, in Congress, working closely with the administration, must protect their interests by working quickly, in a bipartisan way, to help secure a better, safer, and sounder tomorrow. Now is the time for statesmanship, not partisanship. Now is the time for leadership. Now is the time to come together to generate confidence in the American body politic and in the people that will then reflect confidence in our economic system, that will give the opportunity for a better and brighter future. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. Enacting comprehensive parity legislation is long overdue. This is simply a matter of fairness and I hope the Senate will pass this compromise legislation so it can be sent to the House today. We owe nothing less to the more than 80 million Americans suffering with mental illness and addiction. Thoughtful compromises were made so that the bill we are considering today provides mental health and addiction benefits on par with other medical and surgical conditions and, for the first time after 12 years, a compromise is supported by all of the business, insurer, addiction and mental health groups. Throughout my time in office, I have been a strong advocate for ending the discrimination against people suffering from mental illness and addiction and ensuring those in need have access to effective treatment services. This passion was shaped by the many Minnesotans who have raised their voices to get us to where we are today in this important fight. In particular, I want to thank all the people at Hazelden Foundation, Kitty Westin from the Anna Westin Foundation, NAMI Minnesota, the Minnesota Psychological Association, Mental Health America's Minnesota advocates and others. Finally, this bill will not only be a living legacy to their tireless efforts, but also to the unwavering support from Senators Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici, and Representative Jim Ramstad. As a supporter of parity legislation since I arrived in the Senate, I know that passage of comprehensive parity legislation and ensuring access to treatment is long overdue. I know that effective mental health and addiction treatment can mean the difference between happiness and hopelessness and in some cases, even life and death. The good news is that those of us on both sides of the aisle and both wings of the Capitol finally recognized this and are coming together to send a strong bill to the White House. The time is now. Let's end the discrimination by passing the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, while my city of Saint Paul was enjoying its moment in the spotlight earlier this month, we were also mourning the passing of one of our great storytellers, Don Boxmeyer. Throughout his life as a reporter, columnist and author, Don discovered and brought out the human strength and variety of Saint Paul as no one else has. That made him one of our most important citizens. Don worked as a hard news reporter for the St. Paul Dispatch and the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and wrote a column for over two decades. Here is how he described his career in his own words: I realized that the interesting people and places nobody ever wrote about held more fascination to me and my readers than all the governors, mayors and city council members who never seemed to be much persuaded by my opinions anyhow. I began to collect hobos and hermits, bare-knuckled brawlers and bread-baking nuns, short order cooks and hockey coaches, drake mallards named Jake, and bridge tenders, band directors, bear hunters and quiet old men who wept softly when we talked about the friends they'd left on the battlefield. And he shared them with the rest of us with humor, respect and a love of the nobility of regular people. In his book, ``A Knack for Knowing Things,'' Don collected many of his best columns about Saint Paul and Minnesota. He wrote about Swede Hollow in Saint Paul, the Rondo neighborhood destroyed by the construction of I-94 and Saint Joseph's Orphanage. He wrote about Stillwater, Lake Superior and Ashby, MN, and hundreds of other places and the people who made them. If a new resident of our State or its capital city asked me to tell them what kind of place they had moved to, I would just give them a copy of that book and let them discover it for themselves. Don Boxmeyer's life eloquently conveyed an important lesson: each of our communities has roots in the values and experiences of generations that came before and we need to capture them before they disappear. His oral history of places Minnesotans know well and events they only vaguely know about is a priceless gift to the future. Somewhere I read about a moment of despondency in the life of Robert F. Kennedy as he mourned the death of his brother Jack. Attempting to comfort him, someone said something like, ``It is tragic that he only got to serve for 1,000 days, but that's as long as Julius Caesar served and we still remember him.'' Robert Kennedy replied, ``Yes, but Caesar had Shakespeare to tell the story.'' Saint Paul and Minnesota are much the greater because we had Don Boxmeyer to tell our stories.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express a word of enthusiastic appreciation to the thousands of courageous and principled law enforcement members who did their utmost to allow the Republican National Convention in St. Paul to proceed in an orderly fashion. I saw some of their work with my own eyes and want them to know we respect them and the vital role they play in our Nation. It has been said that every society is defined by the boundary between each individual's right to do whatever they want and the broader community's right to peace and order. Societies without such a border disintegrate into chaos and eventually repression. That boundary is not an abstract philosophical construct, but the life's work of law enforcement personnel who enforce society's laws. This past week we saw an extreme test of that principle as self- described anarchists, who represented a very small segment of thousands of peaceful demonstrators, sought to disrupt proceedings of the convention. Law enforcement personnel acted with professionalism, restraint and great skill in the face of serious threats to public safety. The great irony is the actions of law enforcement guarantee the future rights of protestors to protest. I only wish the small minority of violent protestors had not created a climate of fear that may have regrettably kept observers away and reduced the patronage of St. Paul businesses, that were counting on increased sales during the convention week. The convention, the first in Minnesota since 1892, presented many logistical obstacles. St. Paul is a town of less than 300,000, not the kind of metropolis where these events are usually held. The ability of multiple jurisdictions to work together to scale up their response to the level needed was a great example of the Minnesota can-do spirit. Many thanks are due, specifically to St. Paul chief of police John Harrington whose team was able to ensure the safety of all of our visitors, displaying Minnesota admirably in the national spotlight. Special thanks are also very much in order to the law enforcement officers who traveled from all over Minnesota and the rest of the country to assist in the security efforts. I would also like to take a moment to express my thanks for the excellent work of a few other individuals during the convention: St. Paul assistant chief of police Matt Bostrum, Minneapolis chief of police Tim Dolan, Minneapolis deputy chief of police Rob Allen, Bloomington chief of police John Laux, Ramsey County sheriff Bob Fletcher, Hennepin County sheriff Rich Stanek, and Minnesota Department of Public Safety commissioner Michael Campion all deserve our gratitude. They, and their departments, performed with excellence in the way they did their duty and their integration with other departments. The week of September 1, 2008, will be remembered by almost all of the thousands of visitors to Minnesota as a great week and proof- positive that our State is capable of putting on a world class event. The ability of our excellent law enforcement personnel to play defense against those who sought to disrupt the festivities allowed the people attending the convention and a worldwide audience to see an orderly process of our democratic society at its finest. My heartfelt thanks to all the Minnesotans who worked so hard to make our dreams a reality.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, legislation I am introducing today will rescind $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2009 funding for Iraq's reconstruction. As you know, on the first of this month, U.S. forces handed security control of the Anbar province to the Iraqi government. This was an area that was considered all but lost to al-Qaida just 2 years ago, but as a result of the surge and related policies, today the Iraqis are able to take over the lead role for security in the province. This not only is a shining example of the success of the surge, but also shows the great improvements that the Iraqi government has made since the country's historic elections in 2005. In fact, I believe these gains are so significant that it's time for the Iraqis to foot the bill for their reconstruction. From 2005 to 2007, the Iraqi government brought in an estimated $96 billion--94 percent of that coming from oil revenues--and a cumulative budget surplus of $29 billion. An August 5, 2008, report by the Government Accountability Office estimated that in 2008 the Iraqis will generate up to $86 billion, with a surplus of up to $50 billion. This means that, by the end of this year, the Iraqis will have realized a budget surplus of up to $79 billion. I have long been calling for the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for its own reconstruction costs. Just as they continue to take the lead in securing their country as the situation on the ground improves, I once again call on the Iraqis to take more responsibility for their country's reconstruction. The Iraqis have made great progress in developing their oil infrastructure, and they are now in a position to assume greater financial responsibility of their economic future. There is no reason that we can't begin to return American tax dollars to the U.S. Treasury. That is why today I am introducing legislation that would rescind more than $1 billion in funding that has been appropriated for future Iraqi reconstruction. My legislation will rescind approximately $1.1 billion in Iraqi reconstruction funding appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 2009. It is important to note that this legislation will not affect any of the funding for our soldiers who are putting themselves in harm's way every day. Nor will it affect on-going projects, nor any money that has already been obligated. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Iraqis in the improvements they have made by allowing them to take control of their own reconstruction. For the people of Iraq, this is a matter of self- determination and self-reliance. For American taxpayers, it's a matter of fairness. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, legislation I am introducing today will rescind $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2009 funding for Iraq's reconstruction. As you know, on the first of this month, U.S. forces handed security control of the Anbar province to the Iraqi government. This was an area that was considered all but lost to al-Qaida just 2 years ago, but as a result of the surge and related policies, today the Iraqis are able to take over the lead role for security in the province. This not only is a shining example of the success of the surge, but also shows the great improvements that the Iraqi government has made since the country's historic elections in 2005. In fact, I believe these gains are so significant that it's time for the Iraqis to foot the bill for their reconstruction. From 2005 to 2007, the Iraqi government brought in an estimated $96 billion--94 percent of that coming from oil revenues--and a cumulative budget surplus of $29 billion. An August 5, 2008, report by the Government Accountability Office estimated that in 2008 the Iraqis will generate up to $86 billion, with a surplus of up to $50 billion. This means that, by the end of this year, the Iraqis will have realized a budget surplus of up to $79 billion. I have long been calling for the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for its own reconstruction costs. Just as they continue to take the lead in securing their country as the situation on the ground improves, I once again call on the Iraqis to take more responsibility for their country's reconstruction. The Iraqis have made great progress in developing their oil infrastructure, and they are now in a position to assume greater financial responsibility of their economic future. There is no reason that we can't begin to return American tax dollars to the U.S. Treasury. That is why today I am introducing legislation that would rescind more than $1 billion in funding that has been appropriated for future Iraqi reconstruction. My legislation will rescind approximately $1.1 billion in Iraqi reconstruction funding appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 2009. It is important to note that this legislation will not affect any of the funding for our soldiers who are putting themselves in harm's way every day. Nor will it affect on-going projects, nor any money that has already been obligated. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Iraqis in the improvements they have made by allowing them to take control of their own reconstruction. For the people of Iraq, this is a matter of self- determination and self-reliance. For American taxpayers, it's a matter of fairness. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, Minnesota is the land of over 10,000 lakes and nearly as many fishing guides. We even have a Fishing Hall of Fame in Baxter where many of our legendary guides are enshrined--names like Al and Ron Lindner, Babe Winkleman, Gary Roach and many others. In fact tonight there is a banquet honoring the Hall. The craft of the fishing guide is to understand fish and to share their knowledge and the sport with many of us who don't possess their skills. When I travel my state I meet with folks from all walks of life who have dealings with the federal government and last summer I was in the city of Baudette, a small community on the Rainy River on the northern border of Minnesota. I had the chance to speak with a fishing guide who told me about a new federal regulation with which he had to comply. As you can imagine, I was amazed when he told me that he was being required to get a Transportation Worker Identification Credential--or TWIC--in order to stay in business as a fishing guide. Now I understand that folks who do business on the water should be able to exhibit seamanship and operate a safe watercraft. But, my guides and I are having a hard time understanding why a guy whose briefcase is a bucket of minnows and his workday starts when he backs his boat into the lake should be required to submit to the same security screening as operators and workers in our major ports. To address this issue, I am introducing the Small Marine Business and Fishing Guide Relief Act. I want to thank Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for joining me as original cosponsors of this legislation. Our bill is very straightforward--it will exempt mariners from needing a TWIC if they are not required to submit a vessel security plan for their boat to the Coast Guard. This group of mariners includes fishing guides, charter captains and other small recreational boaters. I want to be clear these mariners will still be required to have a Coast Guard license. Security should not be jeopardized by eliminating the TWIC requirement because the Coast Guard conducts significant background checks when mariners apply for a Coast Guard license. These background checks review crimes against people, property, public safety, the environment and examine whether the applicant has prior drug offenses or committed a crime against national security. These folks already pay a minimum of $140 for their Coast Guard licenses which are good for five years. Given these factors, asking these operators to pay over $100 more for another credential-- especially with the recent downturn in the economy and the cost of gas--is an unnecessary burden that doesn't make sense. Additionally, our legislation calls for a report to examine the feasibility of identifying which small boat operators already purchased a TWIC but will not need it once this legislation is signed into law. Once this is done, refunds or credits could be issued towards license renewals for these folks. The TWIC program is an important tool to ensure the safety of our nation's ports, but common sense tells us that a fishing dock on Lake of the Woods or Rainy River is vastly different from the major ports around the country that receive thousands of cargo containers per day. Simply put, we need to make sure our local fishing guides and other small marine operators are not being subjected to excessive government regulation and this legislation will provide that relief. A similar TWIC exemption passed the House on April 24 as part of the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act and I encourage my Senate colleagues to pass this legislation as well before we adjourn for the year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, Minnesota is the land of over 10,000 lakes and nearly as many fishing guides. We even have a Fishing Hall of Fame in Baxter where many of our legendary guides are enshrined--names like Al and Ron Lindner, Babe Winkleman, Gary Roach and many others. In fact tonight there is a banquet honoring the Hall. The craft of the fishing guide is to understand fish and to share their knowledge and the sport with many of us who don't possess their skills. When I travel my state I meet with folks from all walks of life who have dealings with the federal government and last summer I was in the city of Baudette, a small community on the Rainy River on the northern border of Minnesota. I had the chance to speak with a fishing guide who told me about a new federal regulation with which he had to comply. As you can imagine, I was amazed when he told me that he was being required to get a Transportation Worker Identification Credential--or TWIC--in order to stay in business as a fishing guide. Now I understand that folks who do business on the water should be able to exhibit seamanship and operate a safe watercraft. But, my guides and I are having a hard time understanding why a guy whose briefcase is a bucket of minnows and his workday starts when he backs his boat into the lake should be required to submit to the same security screening as operators and workers in our major ports. To address this issue, I am introducing the Small Marine Business and Fishing Guide Relief Act. I want to thank Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for joining me as original cosponsors of this legislation. Our bill is very straightforward--it will exempt mariners from needing a TWIC if they are not required to submit a vessel security plan for their boat to the Coast Guard. This group of mariners includes fishing guides, charter captains and other small recreational boaters. I want to be clear these mariners will still be required to have a Coast Guard license. Security should not be jeopardized by eliminating the TWIC requirement because the Coast Guard conducts significant background checks when mariners apply for a Coast Guard license. These background checks review crimes against people, property, public safety, the environment and examine whether the applicant has prior drug offenses or committed a crime against national security. These folks already pay a minimum of $140 for their Coast Guard licenses which are good for five years. Given these factors, asking these operators to pay over $100 more for another credential-- especially with the recent downturn in the economy and the cost of gas--is an unnecessary burden that doesn't make sense. Additionally, our legislation calls for a report to examine the feasibility of identifying which small boat operators already purchased a TWIC but will not need it once this legislation is signed into law. Once this is done, refunds or credits could be issued towards license renewals for these folks. The TWIC program is an important tool to ensure the safety of our nation's ports, but common sense tells us that a fishing dock on Lake of the Woods or Rainy River is vastly different from the major ports around the country that receive thousands of cargo containers per day. Simply put, we need to make sure our local fishing guides and other small marine operators are not being subjected to excessive government regulation and this legislation will provide that relief. A similar TWIC exemption passed the House on April 24 as part of the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act and I encourage my Senate colleagues to pass this legislation as well before we adjourn for the year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would note that this issue of speculation is something that has come before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on which I am now ranking member and I was, in the past Congress, the chair. We looked at this issue. It has come before Homeland Security, a committee that works on a very bipartisan basis. I would tell the Republican leader that at least one of the witnesses has come forward and said: If we do all we can do, if we do conservation, if we let the world know we are serious about ending our addiction to foreign oil, that we are serious about not being held hostage to what Saudi sheiks or Chavez or Ahmadinejad does, the suggestion is that prices could drop like a rock. I am not going to suggest that I know. I would not suggest to the Republican leader that in fact they will drop like a rock. But common sense says that if we increase production, if we do those things, tell the world that we are not going to be stuck with scarcity, that we are going to use the great power of America to tap into our resources, that, in fact, would have an impact. I would also note, for those who say it is only going to have an impact in the future, would that be such a bad thing, for this Congress to be looking forward to the future? We are going to have this debate 10 years from now if we do not do anything. In 10 years, we will be saying: If only 10 years ago we had opened the Outer Continental Shelf, we might today not be 80 or 90 percent dependent on foreign oil. I would suggest that we have the debate now. One final comment. We have not talked much about the issue of natural gas. I represent a State which is cold. The Presiding Officer represents a State that gets very cold in the winter. I would suggest that we are going to come back here in September, and the cost of heating our homes is going to start to go up as the leaves turn color and the temperature starts to drop. By October, the snows may hit. By November, they actually may be here. In December and January, it is going to be below zero. And the price of natural gas is going through the roof. My farmers in Minnesota have trouble today buying fertilizer and will next year because folks will not speculate on what the price of natural gas will be. I would then ask the Republican leader, that in objecting to the Coleman-Domenici proposal, the majority is not only stopping the possibility of tapping into billions of gallons of oil but also trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, a market that is much more susceptible in the short term to increases of supply. Is that the result of the Democratic objection, that we are not going to be able to tap into this and tell the world that there are trillions of cubic feet of natural gas available, and I cannot tell my folks in Minnesota, when it is cold in November and December and prices shoot through the roof, that we were not able to act because the Democrats objected to the unanimous consent offered by the Republican leader.

Mr. COLEMAN. A proposal that does nothing to deal with more conservation? A proposal that suggests it is going to focus on speculation only, and that is what the New York Times says would actually do more harm than good?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I have one more observation. First, I do wish to make it clear that when the Republican leader talks about the underlying bill, he is talking about the majority proposal on speculation, a proposal that does not do anything to increase production?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would note to the leader that, by the way, the Coleman-Domenici amendment also has conservation pieces in it. I believe we will discuss that later. But as I listen to the objection from my friend from Colorado, talking about phantom solutions as we look at the issue of the rising price of oil, I think there is bipartisan understanding that part of the problem is the basic law of supply and demand; that demand is increasing, and if you want to somehow affect demand, I would take it that the supply piece is the other piece. And as I understand the Coleman amendment, this is an opportunity to increase supply. I would also note that part of the discussion has been about the issue of speculation, that there is money going into believing that oil is going to be scarce in the future, and that is somehow driving up the price of oil today. I would ask, then, if, in fact, we would open the Outer Continental Shelf, that we would increase supply, finding more oil of at least 14 to 15 billion barrels, would that not indicate that in the future there will be less scarcity because we are increasing supply, and would it make common sense that if there is going to be less scarcity, more supply, we are going to tap into America's resources, that would have an impact on the price of gas today?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would say to the Republican Leader, first, I want to make it clear that if I understand the objection, the Republican leader has offered an amendment that if gas reaches $10 a gallon, more than double the record levels, the other side is objecting to opening areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, areas that would yield at least 14.3 billion barrels of oil and 55.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas at a minimum--at a minimum; there are other estimates that say if we opened all of these areas, up to 80 billion gallons of gas. So I understand the objection and that as a result of that objection, we cannot move forward on increasing the supply of oil, that we cannot then move forward and open these areas on the Outer Continental Shelf that could yield at a minimum over 14 billion barrels of oil. Is that the result of the objection placed by the majority?

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I first thank and applaud my colleague for the leadership she has shown in dealing with the challenges this Nation faces on infrastructure. We need to do something about it. She moved forward aggressively after the bridge collapse, and I joined her and applaud her for those efforts. Like everyone who suffers loss, the people of Minnesota have come to a tragic anniversary, a hole in the calendar where we confront the pain of our past. Friday, at 6:05 p.m., we commemorate the moment when the I-35W bridge collapsed, taking the lives of 13, injuring hundreds, and disrupting the lives of untold thousands. I have a few words to share as we observe this first memorial. So much of what Minnesota was, is, and will become is tied to our rivers and bridges. Before the roads and the railroads, rivers were Minnesota's fluid highways through difficult terrain. European settlement followed the rivers. Because of Minnesota's unique geography, our rivers flow out toward all the points of the compass, which is why we call ourselves ``The Headwaters State.'' But rivers can be barriers as well as thoroughfares, so towns and cities grew up around bridges which allowed people to move perpendicular to the river flows. More than a century later, we are a State of river towns and bridge towns. That is why the I-35W bridge collapse was so significant humanly and spiritually to Minnesotans. It fell not far from the Falls of St. Anthony, the head of navigation of one of the world's great rivers. It fell where Father Louis Hennepin became the first European to look on the area which comprises Minneapolis today. It fell where huge early 19th century flour mills, textile mills, lumber processors, and railroad terminals met to create an economic boom which put Minnesota on the map. It fell at the heart of our heartland. It has been said that adversity doesn't create character, but it surely does reveal it. We witnessed that in the days following August 1, and it continues to this hour. Preparation is a virtue, and our Twin Cities learned the valuable lesson of 9/11, that we have to get ready for the unthinkable. When it happened to us, there was an extraordinarily well-coordinated response from law enforcement, medical institutions, and other first responders. The speed and professionalism of their actions are a textbook case of emergency response. We also experienced amazing spontaneous acts of heroism. It is our natural instinct to run from pain and danger, and on this occasion, hundreds of regular Minnesotans ran toward the pain and toward the danger and saved many lives. In the days following the disaster, the 364 days preceding today, we have seen an unprecedented unity of effort among all branches of government and levels of government, without regard to party or position. Our single goal has been to raise a new bridge over our old river that we can be proud of and that we can trust, as the pictures shown by my colleague from Minnesota reflect. Our goal has also been to care for those who have been injured, and we have done that. But this is a day to remember those who have been lost: Greg Joldstad of far northern Kanabec County, a construction worker on the bridge; Sadiya Sahal, her daughter Hana, and her unborn child; Paul Eickstadt of Mounds View, 10 miles north of the bridge; Vera Peck and her son Richard Chit, who had an inseparable bond; Scott Sathers, a young husband of Minneapolis; Peter Hausman, a computer security specialist; Christina Sacorafas, of White Bear Lake; Julia Blackhawk of Savage, MN, 10 miles south of the bridge; Patrick Holms, also from Mounds View; Sherry Engebretsen, a wife, mom, and businesswoman from Shoreview; and Artemio Trinidad-Mena of Minneapolis. I ask my colleagues to join me in a moment of silence and reflection in their honor. (Moment of silence observed.) Madam President, sometimes a meaningful silence is the only answer. I conclude with the ancient words I have prayed many times this last year, the Hebrew Kaddish, prayed by Jewish mourners for centuries. It ends as follows: May there be abundant peace from Heaven and life upon us all and upon all Israel, now say amen. He who makes peace in his heights, may he make peace upon us all and upon his Nation, Israel. Now say amen. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COLEMAN. No objection, Madam President.

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I am seeking time to follow on the remarks of my colleague from Minnesota reflecting on the collapse of the bridge, but I will defer to my colleague from North Dakota. Madam President, how much time is left in the majority's time?

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Unfortunately, the Senator from New Mexico is right. We do not have the opportunity to come before the American public and say we fully debated, fully considered the opportunity to produce more energy, to find more energy, to do more with conservation because the tree has been filled. Now, I believe that right of the Senate, that obligation and responsibility, cannot be fulfilled. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. I would say to the Senator from New Mexico, there has to be strong bipartisan support for moving forward on new battery technology. I do not know who is against that; it is part of the solution. More production is part of the solution. More conservation is part of the solution. Addressing speculation is part of the solution. But, unfortunately, because of this process that we are seeing so much more frequently today, we are losing the ability for the Senate to do what the American public expects the Senate to do, and that is to have a full debate, put the ideas on the table, and let it come to conclusion. I want to come to conclusion. I want a bill. We have a process that is set up right now to fail, to say we addressed it or say somebody blocked it, and move on without any real desire to solve the problem. I think that is a great tragedy. I think it is inconsistent with the traditions of the Senate.

Mr. COLEMAN. I say to my colleague, as one who is on the forefront of renewable technology in Minnesota, we pride ourselves as being the land of 10,000 lakes. Actually, we have more than that. Minnesota is prone to understatement. But clean water and clean air is an important part of where we live. We are an environmentally strong State. The people of Minnesota are telling me: Senator Coleman, we have to do it all. We need to open drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf; we need more production; we need commitment to consume less, but we also need the opportunity to find more and produce more. Those are the voices I am hearing in Minnesota. I have to believe we are hearing it in New Mexico and Arkansas and Pennsylvania and throughout this country.

Mr. COLEMAN. I tell my friend from New Mexico I certainly can't influence what the majority leader does. But I have to believe the American people are talking to me as I know they are talking to the Senator from New Mexico. When I go home, they are scared, they are anxious. They have to be speaking to folks on both sides of the aisle. If that voice is then heard by the majority leader, maybe then we could have an opportunity to fully debate and fully consider the most important issue facing Americans today.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, we are dealing here, for those who watch the Senate, with a procedure where the majority leader has done what is called filling the tree. It is a tactic where the Democratic leader brings a bill to the Senate, fills the tree so no amendments can be offered without his consent, and then files cloture on the bill, which stops debate. The end result is a process that is designed to fail because it prevents any other Senator from offering amendments. I would note the number of times the amendment tree has been filled by the present majority leader has been 14 in this 110th Congress. That is more than the total number of times that procedure was used by the leaders in the 107th Congress, the 108th, and the 109th Congress. Here we stand in the Senate, while our constituents are raising their voices, expressing their frustration, and asking us to do something on an issue which is ``the issue'' of the day. We worry about the high cost of food. My farmers have an increase in the cost of energy that is driving up the cost of food, and we are taking more money out of our pockets now to pay for gas. I tell folks at home, not so jokingly, that when you go to the gas station today and you put the pump in the tank, you wonder what is going to get filled first, the tank or your credit limit. So what we have is an energy speculation bill. This is what we are allowed to debate when it comes to answering the most urgent crisis facing America. This is the Senate. It is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world, and this is not the way you deal with the energy crisis. You don't set up a procedural process that is designed to fail. I am going to talk further about speculation, but we have to do all of it. In Minnesota, we play hockey. It is a way of life for many. There is no question we have plenty of ice to play on, and everyone knows hockey isn't exactly a no-contact sport. In the same way, it is reasonable to expect there will be differences of opinion and lively debate among Senators when an important bill is considered on the floor. But what the majority leader has done with the process on this Energy bill is akin to a hockey team throwing their gloves on the ice before the puck is even dropped. This isn't about solving a problem. This no-amendment process is set up to deliver a political fight, and that is not in the best interest of the American people. It is the last thing Americans want and need. Minnesotans are smart--Americans are smart--and they get it. They know we need to use every resource at our disposal to deal with this energy crisis. They also know politicking when they see it. I don't think either party wins if we go home in August without passage of a strong energy bill. Not this. Not this, designed to fail, addressing a narrow aspect of it. I wish to address it, but there is so much more that has to be done. I agree speculation is an important issue. I have been looking into this matter, as ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation and when I was chairman before that. So as both the chairman and ranking member, since 2006, we have been looking at this. But speculation can't be dealt with substantively without changing the current supply-and-demand dynamic. The bottom line is we need to find more, we need to produce, and we need to consume less. Speculation is based on the belief that there is going to be scarcity in the future. If you tell folks: No, no, there is not going to be scarcity because we are going to tap into American resources, we are going to do what has to be done to break that dependence on foreign oil, to do what we have to do to tap into our resources in an environmentally safe way--you change the dynamic. We had testimony before our subcommittee, and one of the witnesses said that if we did it--and he was talking mostly, by the way, about renewables and conservation and production--if we put it all together, the price of gas would drop like a rock. Now, I can't guarantee that, but I can tell you if you are concerned about speculation, then one of the things you want to do is to tell the speculators who are betting on scarcity that there is not going to be scarcity in the future because we are tapping into American resources. We have those resources to tap into. That is what the Coleman- Domenici amendment would do; it would untie America's hands as we try to deal with this energy crisis by allowing States to explore for deepwater oil and natural gas that is 50 miles or more off the Nation's east and west coasts. That amendment would also focus on the conservation side because you have to do both. It would pave the way for plug-in hybrid vehicles, by making battery production more efficient and more affordable. Currently, 85 percent of the lower 48 Outer Continental Shelf acreage is off-limits--85 percent of the OCS is off-limits right now in the lower 48. Meanwhile, undiscovered OCS reserves are expected to be as large as 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Producing just 1 million barrels a day from the OCS would increase domestic oil production by nearly 20 percent for 40 years. I live in a State that is cold in the winter, and that winter starts early. We are going to see the price of natural gas start spiking in September and October. My farmers are impacted by that because natural gas is important to the production of fertilizer. They are having trouble getting price quotes--not just for next year, some are having trouble getting price quotes for the near future. If we tell the world we are tapping into this resource that is there, regardless of when it comes on, we are going to change the dynamic today. On the demand side, widespread use of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, greenhouse gas emissions, and the costs associated with driving. In fact, we could reduce the petroleum consumption by 3 to 4 million barrels a day by the mid-21st century and cut the cost of driving by about 75 percent. This amendment is not a silver bullet. In fact, there are many other areas we need to look to--coal to liquid, oil shale, ethanol, expand nuclear production now, wind energy--expand that now. We had Boone Pickens come into our caucus--and he spoke to our colleagues on the other side--and say: Do it all. Do wind, do nuclear, do Outer Continental Shelf exploration, do oil shale--do it all. I think there is a better way to address the speculation issue than what has been done in the underlying bill. Unfortunately, the Senate has been handed a take-it-or-leave-it process on a speculation bill that doesn't cover production and doesn't cover conservation. I believe if we abandon the type of take-it-or- leave-it process that failed to allow full consideration of a whole range of bills, as we have seen with this process of filling the tree, and look to the bipartisan template that was so effective during the farm bill debate, we have a chance to pass an energy bill. That is the way the Senate works. There are Senators on both sides of the aisle who want to do this. They are listening to their constituents. They understand. I want to go back to the farm bill. If you recall, last November it looked as though the farm bill was dead. The legislation responsible for ensuring America's food security had fallen victim to disagreement about amendments. There were 285 amendments filed to the farm bill, and the stalemate over process lasted weeks. But at the end of the day, the majority and minority leaders agreed to 20 amendments on each side. Voting began on December 11, and the farm bill was passed by 79 votes on December 14. Argument over process had lasted for weeks. Yet in 4 days the Senate was able to breeze through an incredibly complex reauthorization bill. Senators did not need to vote on 285 amendments, but they did need enough votes to ensure the Senate could fully consider the measure and do the job. The farm bill debate not only proved reasonable accommodation of process can be found on important issues, but it also proved the power of bipartisanship to allow this body to serve the American people. The farm bill couldn't have been passed without Senators on both sides coming together for the greater good of the Nation. The American people are in desperate need of a good energy policy. We don't need to vote on every amendment that has been filed, but there is no reason we can't start out with seven amendments on each side. Time should not be a problem either, as surely it will not take the 4 days it took doing the farm bill. Maybe this could be shorter. But we need to do it. We need to move forward. Americans are demanding it. I will be the first to sign up. I want to work with the Presiding Officer. I want to work with others. We need to find a bill that finds more and uses less. Let's find something for production, for conservation, and speculation. Do it all. That is what the Senate should have a chance to vote on. I yield the floor.