Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I assume the Chair is telling me that I cannot reserve any of the leader's time, so I can sit down and take it at a later time?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask that you advise me when I have 3 minutes remaining.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am sorry, but it gets difficult to keep track of the time. I thank the Senate for permitting me to speak a few moments today. We are just 3 full days into the Boxer bill, and several important questions have arisen. Unfortunately, the majority leader has filled the tree. That sounds like something you do around Christmastime, but that is not what it is. It means last night the majority leader decided this bill, when we return to it--if we do, which I don't think we will--would not be amendable. He has put amendments in every place you could amend so you cannot amend any further. So we would not have a chance to fix this. So everybody will understand, 3 days for a bill such as this in the Senate is unheard of. This Senator is serving his 36th year and happens to be fortunate that I was here when the Clean Air Act of America was passed. It was a new regime for trying to clean our air. We were on the floor of the Senate, with Ed Muskie as chairman, for 5 weeks. Over 160 amendments were brought up, and over 100 were approved, or voted on. That is debating a bill--not 3 days. As we consider this bill, we have to ask ourselves if a cap-and-trade regime is our only option, or even our best option, for reaching the bipartisan goal of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. The Congressional Budget Director recently testified before the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Energy that a carbon tax would be five times more efficient, that a rigid cap-and-trade regime would, conversely, be only one-fifth as effective as a carbon tax. So, obviously, we have set about to do something far more difficult than directly attacking the problem with a carbon tax because we fear it. But the American people should know what we are doing to them, in this roundabout way, is far worse on them, their families, and their future than a carbon tax, which everybody says we should leave alone and forget about. It is also appropriate to ask how this bill was written and why it has been written several times. The bill leaves us with more questions than answers. One that immediately comes to mind is, why allowances under this bill are not considered property. This bill mandates that entities pay for the allowances. Then it refuses to extend the rights of ownership to those allowances. The distinguished junior Senator from Tennessee has spoken eloquently about this whole business of allowances and what is wrong with the way we are treating it. He has mentioned, but I mention again, the bill specifically says they are not property rights. Why do you pay for them? If you pay for them, you think you own them. If you don't own them, they are worth nothing because anybody can do what they like with them if they are in a position of authority and you receive nothing. If you try to sell them and an administrator decides you cannot, you have no rights because you don't own anything. This bill mandates the entities pay for them and, I repeat, refuses to extend the ownership rights. I don't know why this is written this way, but I hope we will have a chance to consider an amendment. Perhaps the Senator from Tennessee would have joined me in an amendment to strike that provision, but we will not have a chance to do that because the leader has filled the tree. I repeatedly heard false claims that this bill will create a market- basket approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For a marketplace to operate, its participants must own the products they seek to trade. Property is a fundamental right in a well-functioning market. The right of ownership should not rest with the bureaucrats at EPA. It should rest with the purchasers of the allowances. Additionally, it is not credibly explained how Americans will comply with this bill. There are a number of resources and technologies that can significantly reduce carbon emissions, but often they are not commercially viable or, worse, are blocked from being licensed. Our Nation currently has 104 nuclear powerplants. According to the EIA, Energy Information Agency, we need to build an additional 264 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2050 to comply with this bill. Another Federal agency found that only 44 gigawatts of nuclear would be built and that our needs would, instead, be largely met by 81 gigawatts of coal with sequestration and 61 gigawatts of renewable power. An MIT study found that we would meet our obligations with 236 gigawatts of coal with sequestration. This technology has potential, but it has not yet been commercially demonstrated. The point I am making is, some of the assumptions as to how we will reach this goal under this bill are stated by the experts in our country that they cannot be achieved because some of the things they expect to use cannot be used or cannot be done. In the years ahead, will those who now support this bill strongly advocate the construction of the infrastructure and facilities necessary to comply with it? More than 20 organizations went on record last November in opposition to the National Interest Electric Transition Corridor. These corridors, established in the Energy Policy Act, which we together wrote and passed on the floor of the Senate, are essential to addressing electric transmission constraints or congestion across the country. But an attitude of ``not in my backyard'' has resulted in vocal opposition in many localities. Yet that would be absolutely necessary for this bill to work. According to Greenpeace's Web site, carbon capture and sequestration is ``an unproven, expensive, and inefficient technology'' that taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize. But according to EIA, it is not available. The result is almost a doubling of the negative impacts of economic growth. As recently as 2005, a leading proponent of this bill said in the Senate: Nuclear power is not the solution to climate change, and it is not clean. Friends of the Earth, a large environmental group active in 70 countries around the world, describes nuclear power as a ``false solution'' that ``is simply a diversion'' from the progress of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The fact is, nuclear power is our only carbon-free source of baseload generation, and the 104 nuclear reactors now in our country around the Nation displace as much carbon dioxide-- just this one source of energy--as nearly all the passenger vehicles on the roads of America. That is a pretty good exchange for 104 nuclear powerplants that are old and doing the job. The opposition to energy infrastructure that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions overlooks a fundamental truth that is underscored by nearly every study in this bill. Without these resources and technologies, it will be impossible to meet the targets outlined by this bill. So supporting a cap-and-trade regime is insufficient. The bill's advocates must also pledge to support and work hard for energy infrastructure, which we have just discussed, for years to come. Perhaps the most important question in considering this bill is whether it will accomplish its stated purpose. Listen carefully. The first stated purpose of this bill is ``to establish the core of a Federal program that will reduce the United States greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough to avert the catastrophic impacts of global climate change.'' First purpose. The United Nations IPCC--that is the technical hierarchical leader-- projects that if the global concentration of greenhouse gas increases by 90 parts per million, global air temperature will rise by roughly 1 degree. These are the projections cited by the advocates of this bill. According to the EPA, however, this legislation would only decrease global concentrations by 7 to 10 parts per million by the year 2050, enough to reduce temperatures by only one-tenth of 1 degree Celsius. As I stated earlier in this debate, such an increase will fail the test outlined in this bill. Its impact will not be substantial enough to avert a catastrophic impact of global climate change as stated by the proponents of this bill, cited by the advocates of cap and trade, to say it another way. Their own rhetoric does not match the reality of what this bill would accomplish. The biggest purpose would not even come close to being accomplished. If we did it, it wouldn't come close to what is necessary. I just gave the numbers. The second stated purpose of this bill is divided into seven subsections. First, it is intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while ``preserving robust growth in the United States economy.'' Economic studies across the board have found that this bill fails in this regard. The studies find that this bill will have a negative impact on gross domestic product, our basic test of collective productivity, in the range of trillions of dollars. Next, the bill is intended to create new jobs in the United States. Why then is so much attention given to retraining assistance for workers in this bill? A study by the SAIC estimated that 3.5 million jobs would be lost by 2030 as a result of this legislation. And there is no credible study that says this bill, on a net basis, will create jobs in America. Third, this bill seeks to ``avoid the imposition of hardship on U.S. residents.'' Given the projections of lower economic growth and job losses, this is simply not possible.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. The fourth subsection states that this act is intended to ``reduce dependence of the United States on petroleum produced in other countries.'' Last year, I introduced the American Energy Production Act. I plan to offer this as a complete substitute for this bill. There is no one who could doubt that it would do more to reduce our dependence on foreign oil than this bill. The fifth states that the act will ``impose no net cost on the Federal Government.'' This stated purpose omits the massive cost that consumers and businesses will incur. The number has been placed at $6.7 trillion, which represents an unprecedented transfer of wealth to be carried out at the discretion of the Federal Government. This is the most expensive authorization bill in my 36 years in the Senate. Sixth, the bill states that it seeks to ``ensure the financial resources provided by the program established by this act for technology deployment are predominantly invested in development, production, and construction of that technology in the United States.'' Why then does the bill include an entire title for international offsets and allowances? That has been stated by the distinguished Senator from Tennessee eloquently. Further, uncertainties of numerous kinds remain that I am unsure this act is capable of being administered, but I am not sure exactly how that can be done. CBO estimates an increase of $3.7 billion in discretionary spending at EPA between 2009 and 2018 just to administer this bill--$3.7 billion. That is nearly a 50-percent increase compared to their entire current budget. This bill would require more than 50 new reports and studies, many of which recur on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis. It includes directions for 39 new regulations and rulemakings and would establish 56 new program initiatives, funds, and similar Federal entities. This chart behind me shows just how complex this bill would be. I ask that my colleagues look at it because it is accurate. It should be clear that any reasonable amount of time studying this cap-and-trade proposal leads to more questions than answers. While that may be acceptable for scientific endeavors, it is not a very sound footing for making law. On a global scale, this bill would provide minimal, if any, environmental benefit by the end of this century. But even to achieve a small reduction here at home, we may subject America's economy, prosperity, and global competitiveness to irreparable harm, while creating greater emissions abroad. The capp-and-trade system envisioned by this bill is simply not the answer we seek for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. I hope in the future we can move this debate in a direction toward solutions.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on this vote, I have a pair with the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. If he were present and voting, he would vote ``yea''. If I were permitted to vote, I would vote ``nay''. I, therefore, withhold my vote.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Does the Senator from New Mexico have time under the regular order?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on Monday, I came to the Senate floor and discussed the rising price of gasoline and the additional increases that will result from the Boxer bill. These are not talking points. They are facts from several economic studies done by the EIA, the EPA, and many other groups. Later today I will speak on the accomplishments we have already had in working together to advance policies that will strengthen our energy security and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We have not been asleep. We have done quite a bit. I will also speak about the bill before us and the many concerns I have about its effectiveness, or lack thereof. Right now, I want to speak on the impact this bill will have on the American economy. Like many Senators, I believe global climate change is a great challenge that our Nation should address. I joined Senator Bingaman in expressing that sentiment in a bipartisan Senate resolution 3 years ago. That does not mean anybody has produced a bill or legislation that matched up, in my opinion, with the concerns. The way we are doing it in this bill is one way. It has never worked any place it has been tried. I do not know why it should be expected to work in America. I have great respect for the Senators who have drafted cap-and-trade legislation, but I remain deeply concerned about the steep costs and dire consequences this bill will have on our Nation's economy. I am troubled it will have very little, if any, environmental benefit. To those who are continuing to say this is an absolute environmental necessity, I hope they will try to gather from the experts who have looked at it just how much environmental benefit we will get from this bill. The EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, has concluded this bill would reduce global greenhouse gas by just over 1 percent by 2050. According to the IPCC's own benchmark, such a reduction would reduce average temperatures by one-tenth of 1 degree Celsius in 2050. These rates of reduction are far below the levels needed to mitigate the most serious effects of global climate change. Now, again, Mr. President, fellow Senators, I am not here just giving a speech. I am trying to give you facts. If facts are the things that come from studies by experts, we have facts on this bill. I repeat, the rates of reduction are far below the levels needed to mitigate the most serious effects of global climate change. I am troubled by the various studies on this bill. Everyone has concluded it will increase energy prices and decrease economic growth. Especially in a time of record energy prices and economic slowdown, our Nation simply cannot afford this bill. That is not just speculation or clamor. It is a true probability that we cannot afford it. While these studies confirm that the bill will have a negative impact on our economy, they also reveal significant uncertainty as to what that impact will be. According to CRA International, the only group that included the low carbon fuel standard in its study, motor fuel prices could increase by more than 140 percent by 2015. The EIA projects that the bill could reduce industrial activity by up to 7.4 percent by 2030. The Heritage Foundation estimates that 600,000 jobs could be lost by 2026. Another cause for concern on the economic side is the estimate of the impact on gross domestic product. While all studies project a negative impact on GDP, estimates vary from a low of $444 billion, I say to my friend, the occupant of the chair, to a high of $4.8 trillion. That range of $4.5 trillion is as massive as it is inconclusive. It is equivalent to $15,000 for every American. A careful review of these studies should shake everyone inside of this Chamber. We must realize that cap and trade is neither our best option nor the only option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office Director recently testified that a rigid cap-and-trade program is up to five times less efficient than a carbon tax. The experience of the European Union, which instituted an emissions trading scheme in 2005, should be highly instructive in this debate. The EU's emissions have continued to rise under cap and trade, by about 1 percent per year. While the EU's system has failed to reduce emissions, it is having an adverse economic impact with energy prices rising and other carbon intensive businesses fleeing to the developing world. Europe's difficulties are not the only example of the shortcomings of cap and trade. Last December, it caught my attention when, during an interview on the Charlie Rose Show, former President Clinton lamented the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, saying: 170 countries signed that treaty and only 6--6 of 170--reduced their greenhouse gases to the 1990 level, and only 6 will do so by 2012 at the deadline. Our best projections, combined with the precedent of failing cap and trade regimes already in place, show that America should take a different path. We have been told that this bill is a market-based approach, but then we read a section that says, ``an emission allowance shall not be a property right'' and, ``nothing in this Act or any other provision of law shall limit the authority of the Administrator to terminate or limit an emission allowance.'' Let me explain. These are allowances that are being paid for, in most cases, and the CBO treats them as revenues and outlays. And, the proponents of the bill expect these allowances to be traded like stock and other securities. However, the bill fails to even provide a property right for allowances and permits the EPA Administrator to take allowances or limit them at any time, and in any way. This is the very opposite of a market-based approach, and I will have an amendment in the coming days to remedy this problem. Furthermore, this bill allows nonemitters to hold possession and trade these allowances. Presumably they will enter into contracts, derivatives, swaps, and other complicated arrangements that may undermine the oversight, transparency, and integrity of the market. This is precisely one of the factors that led us to today's mortgage crisis, and maybe this bill creates that blueprint for carbon. My concerns with this bill are no different today than those that were shared by the full Senate in 1997, when we passed a resolution expressing our opposition to the Kyoto Protocol if brought to the Senate for ratification. Our economy expanded by 5 percent in the quarter before that vote. In the midst of robust growth, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected the idea of a treaty that did not include developing nations or ``could result in serious harm to the United States economy.'' With many factors now limiting our economy, and with China's emissions today much greater than in 1997, our resolve should be stronger. High energy prices, a housing crisis, and a credit crunch limited our growth to 0.9 percent last quarter. Clearly, we have plenty of challenges to overcome. Our dependence on foreign energy is great, our trade deficit is high, our national debt continues to rise, and our dollar is weak. As we debate this Boxer bill, we should ask ourselves two questions: What will it achieve, and at what cost? I believe the answer to the first question is very little--even by 2050, this bill will not provide meaningful global environmental benefit. The answer to the second question, however, is too much--this bill will disrupt our economy, add to consumers' pain at the pump, and weaken our Nation's ability to compete in the global marketplace. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman Conrad and the other members of the Budget Committee for their kind words and well wishes that have been directed toward me during our work on this the final budget resolution during my tenure in the Senate. As most of you know, I have worked on many budgets and numerous other initiatives during my 36 year career. However, important work still remains for the Budget Committee. If I had more time I would without a doubt seek to address entitlement spending. I had pledged to work with Chairman Conrad on his bipartisan bill and I am disappointed that we may not have time to take it up this year. This budget, like many before it, fails to address the 800 pound gorilla in the room, otherwise known as entitlement spending. After 2010, spending related to the aging of the baby-boom generation will begin to raise the growth rate of total outlays. The annual growth rate of Social Security spending is expected to increase from about 4.5 percent this year to 6.5 percent by 2017. In addition, because the cost of health care is likely to continue rising rapidly, spending for Medicare and Medicaid is projected to grow even faster--in the range of 7 or 8 percent annually. Total outlays for Medicare and Medicaid are projected to more than double by 2017, increasing by 124 percent, while nominal GDP is projected to grow only 63 percent. The budget currently under consideration does not offer solutions, much less even address, entitlement spending or reform. I do not support this budget in its current form because it does not offer any meaningful solution for entitlement spending. I offer this piece of advice to my colleagues serving on the Budget Committee: tackle entitlement spending. The Budget Committee should propel itself to the forefront of this debate and use the tools that only this committee has at its disposal to address the number one issue on the minds of the American public. With true leadership, this committee has the potential to turn mere Senators into heroes if they choose to address the entitlement programs. I urge Senators to come together and find a solution in the near future before it is too late to resolve this crisis.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I could give these remarks now or I could have given them when we were on the bill because they address something that is disturbing a number of Senators. That concern is that the majority leader may be thinking of filling the tree, which means he is not going to allow us to offer a significant number of amendments to this bill. That is, from what I can tell, something that we should not do, and he should not do. As someone who knows him well and works with him well, I think it would be a mistake to fill the tree on a bill like this, and let me give a few examples from my own experience. When we used to do business the way the Senate does business, not filling trees but filling many days with legislation of importance, we had a Clean Air Act, Mr. President. The manager of the bill was Ed Muskie. The Clean Air Act; Ed Muskie. The first bill of that sort that came to the floor. I was a brand new Senator. I was on the committee. Very interesting. I spent a great deal of time on the Senate floor just listening and watching. That bill was on the floor of the Senate 5 weeks--5 weeks not 5 days--with 168 amendments considered and 162 acted upon. Of those, 60 were Democratic. Now, imagine this bill before us, which is far more important in terms of the ramifications to the American economy, to the costs that will be added to energy, to the trial run that we are taking upon ourselves to try to curtail carbon, which we don't even know will work, yet it will put into the marketplace trillions of new dollars that are allocations. There are certificates, not issued by the Treasury of the United States but, rather, issued under the mandate of this program. All of the language in this bill as to who gets those allocations, as though we walked around and walked the streets and tried to see who might need them and who might support the bill and provide these allocations, that deserves as much time as the Senate wants to spend offering amendments. It is probably the biggest, most complicated bill we have had, certainly in the 36 years that I have been a Senator. Secondly, we tried an energy bill. We finally passed it after the third try, but we didn't try to fill the tree. That is language for saying we are making it so that it can't be amended, so that it will move rapidly because all avenues for amendment are filled, and thus the tree is filled. That is where the language comes from. The leader has the authority to do it, or whoever can be recognized ahead of him, if they want to do that. I will cite another example. We finally passed a very good comprehensive energy act 3 years ago. That bill was on the floor of the Senate for 3 weeks--3 weeks not 3 days. This bill that we are talking about has been on the Senate floor only 3 days, 4 days, and already we are considering closing off debate. I have been here 35 years, and I have never seen anything like this--thinking of filling the tree on a bill of this magnitude, this complexity, and, I might say, with the certainty of having mistakes. It is just as certain as we are standing here and you are sitting there presiding that this bill has to have many errors in it, many things we will regret passing if we don't amend it, talk about it, and analyze it. Having said that, and having examples of precedent here, when we behave like a Senate, where we were not unwilling to take 100 amendments on a bill when you considered that, and you didn't say: Oh, the Senate is closing its doors, we are dead, we used to say: We are live. We are going to get it done. Senator Muskie made his name on that one bill because it was here 5 weeks. Nobody ever questioned his capacity, after that, to handle legislation. I use that as an example when I tell people how do you become a Senator. You have an opportunity to come to the floor to manage something for anywhere from 3 days to 3 or 4 weeks. I had that chance three times on budgets. Before anybody ever knew me, I had the opportunity to come down here and do that. People found out I could manage a bill. That is part of the Senate. That happened to Senator Muskie--5 solid weeks and 100 amendments to get a Clean Air Act through here. This bill is bigger, more important, more comprehensive, and maybe more difficult for the American economy and American people than the Clean Air Act. It needs time, not tree building, not trunk building, not closing off opportunities to amend. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Let me say, I am going to ask the Senator from Tennessee to yield to me a minute of his time to answer a question, or ask a question on his time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry: How did his time expire?

Mr. DOMENICI. This conversation is automatically charged to him?

Mr. DOMENICI. I object.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to say to everyone in the Senate, in all honesty, they ought to have a chance to hear the Senator from Tennessee. If they haven't, they ought to read what he said because there is no question that I, as a rather informed Senator, had no idea what this bill does until I listened to him and then looked at it. It is absolutely incredible that we are thinking of a bill such as this to solve climate change when, as a matter of fact, it is going to be the biggest redistribution of wealth we have ever adopted in this Senate, and we are not even sure it will accomplish anything very significant toward the reduction of carbon dioxide as an impediment to climate change. I cannot understand why we would be doing this. One little piece is a commission of five men who will distribute allocations pursuant to this legislation, totally at their discretion, a trillion dollars or more. Who on God's Earth would think that is in this bill? But it is. I commend him. I hope he comes here two or three times and explains again in more detail what this bill does. I am not against legislation for climate change, but I am convinced that we better do something for the American people on bridging crude oil use, crude oil development, putting some of the things we need in place for energy before we put this legislation in place. I think the American people will soon understand that.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, has time been yielded to the Senator from New Mexico?

Mr. DOMENICI. Let me comment on your observation. First, I thank you for indicating that I had something to do with the rise of nuclear power, which we are all glad to call a nuclear renaissance. I did have a lot to do with it, and I am very proud of that. I think the Senator knows I will not be here very long because I have decided to retire after 36 years, and that means this January. But I am very confident that even leaving in that short time from now we have set the seeds for the nuclear renaissance. It will be in the world, not just in America. But it would always have been short of what it could be and should be if America was not part of this renaissance. If America wasn't a part, the world somehow would not feel right about nuclear. And since we started it, and then we unpropitiously stopped producing it and stopped all the leadership we had, we are starting anew. So there is great excitement in the American nuclear community, which is expanding dramatically. Universities are establishing new nuclear physics courses. I think the Senator from Oklahoma knows that. We have put money in the energy and water bill, $10 million to $15 million a year, for universities to get started and bring them up where they were, and that is going to be very exciting. But have no doubt, since the United States knows how to produce the very best nuclear powerplants--the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is of the highest quality--they are not going to approve licenses unless they are absolutely certain of plant designs and that locations are absolutely the best. And that is going to take a little while. We had, I think 33 or 34 is the number that are in the process of applying, with about 7 or 8 firmed up, completed, and all the process they need to submit being done. That is so exciting when you consider that in 20-plus years we had zero, not a single one, until we passed the Energy Policy Act. And the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma was not on the Energy Committee, but he was very helpful at every step as we produced this Energy Policy Act, which included, as everyone agrees, all of the ingredients to cause American nuclear power to have a renaissance, and it is doing that. Now, there is no way we are going to effectively clean the CO2 we produce in the use of power without nuclear power. It is the one big source of power that has no CO2 emissions attached to it, so it is good we are moving there. But today we have a bill before us that has to be discussed, debated, and amended, as I see it, for such a long period of time for the American people and the Senators to understand its implications, that today I choose to just speak about one little part--the impact of this bill on oil and gas prices. This is a bill that purports to put America on a path of producing less and less CO2, but it has some real difficult hurdles to cross as we move there. In the meantime, there is no question that it has an impact on a lot of things, and we have to consider whether it is worth all the ramifications, considering what the bill will or will not do. So, Madam President, let me remind Senators that we are all coming back from our home States. I am returning from my home State of New Mexico, where I visited constituents and listened to their concerns. In every town I visited, at every event I attended, and during every meeting, I took the same issue and put it before the people and discussed it with them. They asked the same questions over and over: How will Congress deal with the rising gas prices? I expect that most every Senator had similar experiences during his or her recent recess travels. This morning, the price of gasoline was, on average, a record of $3.98. Now, I used an average, and I got that from an appropriate official. In many places it has already passed the $4 mark, but it averages $3.98. At the start of this Congress, the average was just $2.33, meaning the cost of gasoline has jumped by 70 percent in just 18 months. Record gas prices are causing tremendous pain for Americans. In one recent survey, 40 percent of workers said the high price forced them to change the way they get to and from work. Many have stopped driving altogether. Public transit ridership is at an all-time high. Others have traded their vehicles in for smaller ones. But most importantly, many are feeling the impact on the family budget. They are just feeling like they can't make it because they only have one way to go to work. They have to work, and if there are two workers in the family, when you add the price of gasoline to that, it becomes an expense they can hardly bear. The impact is not limited to transportation. It affects nearly every aspect of American life and ripples throughout our economy. As fuel costs rise, as I indicated, family budgets are stretched. Millions have canceled vacation plans and cut down on shopping trips. For those living paycheck to paycheck, the price at the pump is the difference between being able to pay their bills on time and going into debt. Runaway energy costs also hurt our businesses, as evidenced by recent announcements from Ford Motors and American Airlines. High gas prices even impact the quality of education that our children receive. A school district in Minnesota has already announced that schools will move to 4 days a week to avoid budget shortfalls. Schools in North Carolina are planning fewer field trips for their students, which are often among the most memorable experiences that our children can have. As these examples illustrate, the consequences of high energy prices are widely felt, far-reaching, and difficult to overcome. We must take real steps to ensure that these are properly addressed and that we are not telling these same types of stories in the future. After hearing our constituents plead for relief from high gas prices, it was my hope that Senators would rededicate themselves to reducing the cost of oil and gas. Instead, by bringing up a bill to establish a cap-and-trade regime, which we will hear much about in the ensuing days, the majority has chosen to go in the opposite direction from reducing gas prices or holding them steady for our constituents. As the summer driving season begins, and oil prices remain at near all-time record highs, it is simply incredible that the first measure debated in this session will not be a bill to lower energy prices by producing more of our own energy but a bill that will, in fact, substantially increase energy costs. By assigning a cost to the carbon content of traditional fuels, there is no question this bill will increase the cost of gasoline. According to EIA, gas prices could rise by 41 percent in the year 2030. The EPA places this figure as high as a $1.01 per gallon by the year 2030. Every policy has a price, but as we continue to face record energy prices, the costs of this bill are simply unacceptable, no matter which version is up for debate. An economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas recently told the New York Times that: Every one-cent increase in gasoline means Americans pay $1.42 billion more a year for gas. An absolutely incredible number. You wonder why the economy is being affected by these enormous price increases of gasoline and diesel fuel. At a time when they can least afford it, this will translate to even greater pain at the pump for consumers. At a time when the strength of our economy is already a serious concern, it will lower the bottom line of American business and jeopardize their global competitiveness. When recesses end and we make our way back to Washington, it is our obligation to do our best to resolve the concerns of our constituents. Right now we should be working to find a way to reduce energy prices. Instead, as we begin to debate a cap-and- trade regime which may not work, it is clear there is a fundamental disconnect between many in this Chamber and the American people who simply cannot afford to pay more for energy. As the Boxer bill proves, there is much Congress can do to raise these prices and we are setting about to do that. I commend my colleagues for trying to tackle the task of reducing carbon emissions to address global climate change. However, the American people are facing higher costs and tough economic concerns. They are worried about their family budgets and about their jobs. This bill will make these worries greater and increase those costs even more. I will be speaking at great length as we consider this bill in the coming days and I will speak of many other issues besides the one today, for there are many more. I speak of only one today which I think we should start with, and know what we are dealing with in terms of the side effects of legislation that is controversial. It is not only controversial but many are quite certain it will not do the job.

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not wish to use much of the Senate's time--just a few moments--but I came to the floor to say some words to my good friend, Senator Kennedy, and his family. We heard the early news, and then we heard the late news, in which you have been described as being a little bit more ill than we thought. I wish to say to you and your family, as a fellow Senator from the other side of the aisle: I wish for you the best and hope the Good Lord intends for you to get well so you can come back and accomplish some more things and so you and I can have some more arguments and so you and I can have red faces when you argue and I argue and my wife calls up and says: You both are arguing so much that your faces are so red nobody will listen to you. That happened once, and I did communicate to Senator Kennedy that my wife had told me I was getting too red in the face because I was yelling. I asked her: What about Senator Kennedy? And she said: Well, that is not your business, but he is yelling too much too. So I told him that, and he had a big laugh. I wish to say to him that this great big bill we are working on-- parity for the mentally ill by the insurance companies of America; about a 6-year project of his and mine--the House sent us back the bill today, Senator Kennedy, believe it or not. After all these days we have been wishing we could get something, they sent us that bill today. They did not send us exactly our bill, so who knows how much longer we will have to work at it. But this one, big bipartisan bill you started helping me with when I was in the majority, we have not got it there yet, but we will. It has been a pleasure working with you on that and many other things. But most of all, I came to the floor knowing it is not easy to get a hold of you, and I do not intend to try to bother anybody, but at least in the Senate, we are free to speak, so I am speaking how I feel: that I hope you get well, and I hope the Dear Lord blesses you and your wonderful wife, whom I have known, not as well as I know you, but what a nice lady she is. On behalf of Nancy and myself, we say to her, we hope everything goes the very best it can. You are in the best of care--and that is what you should have--and we hope you get well. Thank you. I thank the Senate for the few moments yielded to me. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, every morning thousands of Americans wake up to a bowl of Wheaties, the vast majority of whom have never asked where their Wheaties come from. I submit to you that the farm bill is the primary factor responsible for providing America with safe, healthy, and affordable food and fiber, including Wheaties. What we are debating today is of paramount importance to each and every American. If you look at the title of this bill, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, you will not see the word agriculture. This begs the question, What does this bill really mean to agriculture and the American farmer and rancher? By way of example, I have been contacted by the Dairy Producers of New Mexico which told me that the farm bill does not, on the whole, help rural New Mexico. Rather its policies have short-term and long- term implications that can harm my State. The primary source of economic activity in rural New Mexico today is dairy farming. There are approximately 172 dairy farms with approximately 4,221 direct employees and 17,150 indirect employees. These local operations contribute $1.02 billion direct dollars to the economy and $2.6 billion indirect dollars to the economy. The farm bill undermines the economic stability that the dairy industry plays a large role in creating. The dairy title subsidizes dairy farmers who compete with New Mexico dairymen. Under the farm bill, the ``MILC'' program not only funds milk produced in other regions of the country, at rates higher than New Mexico, it increases those payments. The new bill ensures that the amount of those payments will rise when feed prices go up. This is despite the fact that virtually all of the grain used by producers outside New Mexico is raised by them and they are insulated from much of that price inflation. New Mexico's farmers purchase their feed but receive only partial payments. In short, the Dairy Price Support Program provides no support at all. I applaud the efforts that were made in this bill to address nutrition concerns, provide for broader flexibility for specialty crop growers, and assist rural communities. However, it does not appear to me that enough progress has been made toward conservation programs and other reform initiatives. Moreover, while the bill does continue the peanut handling benefits it does not continue the peanut storage provisions contained in the 2002 farm bill. This alone will cost New Mexico peanut growers up to an additional $50 to $60 per ton, which represents at least $74 million to peanut producers in my State. I am not convinced that this is the best we can do for the people who feed our Nation and I am left wondering if this farm bill is already out of date before it is even law. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that this bill will cost $307 billion over the next 5 years and almost double that figure over 10 years, which is cause for concern in and of itself. Ultimately, I am unwilling to support a measure that is counterproductive to the most important agriculture component in New Mexico, our dairy industry. Instead of enacting policies that will encourage stability and continued growth of dairies in States like New Mexico, the conference report before us today says our farm policy should be to erect unreasonable hurdles and obstacles for many dairies. I intend to vote against this bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, just a minute. Do you have time on each one of them?

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand.

Mr. DOMENICI. I did not hear the ``5 minutes each.'' I am sorry. I have no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, following mine, we would like Senators Hutchison, Enzi, Vitter, and Cornyn to be recognized for 5 minutes each, and 5 minutes for wrap-up for the Senator from New Mexico, with 10 minutes right now for the Senator from New Mexico, and alternating back and forth.