Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I am still trying to determine whether I can successfully offer an amendment. I know I have a right to offer it, but whether it is successful----

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make a point again to the Senator from Connecticut and see if there is any mutual understanding on these issues. To use one example, we had a city that was completely evacuated in my State by a flood 10 years ago--actually 11 years ago now. It was the largest evacuation of any city since the Civil War. A city of 50,000 was completely evacuated because of a flood. In the middle of that flood, there was a fire in downtown Grand Forks, ND. A city that was flooded and evacuated was on fire. In the intervening 10 years, there has been a flood protection plan, a very expensive one, $416 million, built to protect that city. The residents of that city, I believe, paid 45 percent of the cost of that flood protection plan. As I read title VII--I believe it is on page 9 of the legislation-- what is being said now is this city that has a 250-year flood plan, that is to protect against a 250-year flood, will be told: By the way, you residents, yes, you paid a lot of money for flood protection. It is blue ribbon, first rate, first class protection against a 250-year flood, but we have now decided you have to ante up $1 a day to buy flood insurance. They are going to ask the question: What is this flood protection we paid for? We were told this was blue-ribbon flood protection. I know you have a 250-year flood protection levee; now we want you to buy flood insurance. Is there anything in the legislation that allows FEMA to look at this situation, here is a levee that gives 100-year protection, here is a levee that gives 250-year protection, and here is one that doesn't give any at all? We have different kinds of insurance. Would FEMA be allowed to take a look at a new state-of-the-art, blue-ribbon, 250-year flood protection device and say those folks don't need to buy flood insurance, they just paid a substantial portion of the cost of a significant new flood protection device? I ask the Senator from Connecticut, what is his intention with respect to that provision of the law?

Mr. DORGAN. I understand the notion of residual risk, and I think the Senator from Connecticut will agree those residual risks are different in different circumstances. I am not suggesting if you are behind a levee, wherever that levee is, you shouldn't have to buy flood insurance. But I am suggesting if you exhausted yourself and your community and your region producing a state-of-the-art flood control plan and spent a lot of money doing so, including your own money, and you are now told you have a 250-year protection, that when somebody from FEMA comes in and says, it doesn't matter a bit, it is irrelevant you built that, it doesn't matter, you are going to be required to purchase what our friends from the committee have now enacted--if my colleague from Connecticut is saying this legislation either will or, as we might want to change it, could allow FEMA to take a look at that brand new 250- year flood protection plan and say, in this circumstance you have minimal requirements----

Mr. DORGAN. We don't have a problem with the merit and value of flood insurance. I think the program makes sense. We have an agreement, as it is currently written, and I hope we can perhaps modify it in a managers' amendment. On page 9, section 7, it appears to me FEMA would be required to come in and say: Ah ha, you are behind that levee; therefore, you must purchase this insurance. I hope what the Senator from Connecticut intends with this is that it be risk based because there will clearly be a different risk attached to someone who has a brand new levee system that they exhausted themselves paying for over the last 10 years. It is all done. They cut the ribbon, they celebrated, they had the town band out, in fact, but they are told by FEMA: That is not a factor.

Mr. DORGAN. Let's see if we can craft something between now and the end of the day. I would not offer the amendment; the Senator from Connecticut will offer it, and it represents our combined views about this issue. I appreciate my colleague having this colloquy.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for 5 minutes in morning business.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to make a point. I don't know yet if there is a markup this afternoon of the Appropriations full committee. If there is, I am intending to offer a couple amendments to that markup. I wish to describe one amendment that I plan to offer, and that relates to dealing with oil and gas prices. The price of oil is way beyond that which is justifiable by simple supply and demand conditions. It is bouncing around like a yo-yo up around $120 and as much as $124 a barrel of oil. There is no justification in the supply and demand of oil for that price. It is damaging to the economy, and it hurts a series of industries in this country. The airline industry and trucking industry are just two examples. It hurts every American as they pull up to the gas pump to figure out where they are going to get the money to pay for the gasoline price. What is happening? At the moment, a couple of things are happening. One, we have an unbelievable bubble of speculation in the futures market. I have people say to me: That is not true. It is true. It is hard to justify the current price of oil given the physical elements of the market today. What we have is people entering the commodities futures market that have no interest in buying oil. They buy oil and sell it. They never take possession of it. They buy what they will never get from people who never had it. They are making money on both sides of the transaction because they are waging. To put it plainly, they are gambling. That is speculation. We have an orgy of speculation on the futures market. We had people testify in the Senate and House that it adds $20 to $30 to a barrel of oil. Should we sit back and watch a bubble develop and say, ``Whatever the consequences, that is fine?'' The answer is no, of course, we should not. Buy stock on margin and it will cost you a 50- percent margin requirement. If you want to buy oil on margin in the futures market for crude oil, then you pay 5 to 7 percent. We have hedge funds neck deep in the futures market. We have investment banks neck deep in the futures market. Are they are oil experts? Do they want to own oil? No, they want to speculate on oil and make money. The fact is, it is damaging this country's economy. We ought to wring that speculation out of those commodity markets. We ought to be increasing margin requirements. I know it is hard to do, but we ought to do that. When we see this kind of speculation damaging our country by driving up oil prices and driving up gasoline prices, we ought to do something about it. Second, we are now putting oil underground right now. We are taking sweet light crude oil off the Gulf of Mexico and sticking it underground in something called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I think it is fine to have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if we run into trouble. It is nice to have an oil reserve. Yet, that reserve is 97 percent full. Still, this administration is taking up to 70,000 barrels a day, every single day, and sticking it underground. They say it doesn't affect the price. Of course, it affects the price. We had testimony before the Energy Committee that because it is a much more valuable subset of oil, called sweet light crude, that it has as much as a 10-percent impact on the price of oil and gasoline. So, of course, it affects the price. I think it is nuts for this country to be taking $124 barrel of oil and saying let's stick that underground and save it for a rainy day. I tell you what, it is a rainy day these days when you have to pay this price at the pump. It is a rainy day these days when you see four, five airlines go belly up because they cannot afford the fuel. It is a rainy day these days when truckers say that we have to park the truck because we can't afford the fuel. An entire industry is at risk. The fact is, we have to do something about it. I mentioned two things, both of which are tangible and real and both of which are causing this increase, at least a significant part, in my judgment, in the increase in the ramp-up of the price of oil and gasoline. The President believes that there is not much anybody can do in the near term. This is not a time to wring our hands, mop our brow, gnash our teeth and say there is not much anybody can do. This is a time for us to try to figure out what is happening and try to respond to it. It is doing great damage to our economy. In the longer term, I believe that there are things we need to do. We are unbelievably dependent on overseas oil. We are unbelievably dependent on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Venezuela. Sixty percent of our oil comes from offshore. As I described before and others have, we stick straws in this planet and suck oil out of the planet. Every day we suck out 85 million barrels of oil. One-fourth of that has to be used in this country. Let me say that again. The appetite of oil is this: One-fourth of all the oil we pull out of the planet every day is used in this little place called the United States of America. Sixty percent we get from outside our country. Seventy percent of it is used by vehicles. We have a lot to do. After 32 years, we finally mandated an increase of 10 miles per gallon in 10 years on a range of vehicles. We also need to produce more. I and three others in this Chamber got the law changed to allow us to go into lease 181 in the Gulf of Mexico and finally produce more oil and gas. Frankly, we ought to open up more of the Gulf of Mexico. That is the greatest potential reserve on the Outer Continental Shelf. I and three others introduced the legislation and got it passed and opened up lease 181. If you look at the Gulf of Mexico, California, and Alaska, and the East Coast, the greatest potential reserves are in the Gulf of Mexico. We need to conserve more and produce more. We need greater efficiency for all we use, and we especially need to move into renewables. I understand we have to do all of that. At the moment and in the short run, we have to take specific steps that will put downward pressure on prices. John Maynard Keynes said, ``In the long we are all dead.'' That is an economist talking. We can talk about the long run here, but let's also talk about the short run right now. What can we do to address something that most Americans understand is a very serious problem? The issue is price of gasoline? I am just saying this, and there are those who disagree with me. Look at the commodities market and look at this orgy of speculation. This is a bubble. Wouldn't it be nice if someone had looked at that bubble as it built with respect to home mortgages and home prices? We have seen a lot of bubbles. We have seen the tech bubble. We have seen the bubble in home prices. Every bubble bursts. This one will. But in the meantime, how many additional casualties will we see on the side of the road? Look at what's happening with American families, American business, American industries. How many casualties? The big integrated oil companies go to the bank with a ``permagrin.'' They can't stop smiling because they are depositing our money in their bank accounts. But it is not only the big integrated oil companies, it is the OPEC countries. They are going to the bank everyday with our money because we recycle this money to provide for a bank account for the Saudis and others just like we do for the major integrated companies. I do not think there is any justification for this price. This Congress is prepared to act. Senator Reid and others have joined together, and I am a part of it to deal with this issue of putting oil underground. We are going to stop it in its tracks. I introduced a bipartisan bill a couple of months ago to suspension the filling of the SPR. Our entire caucus is also behind the proposition. We believe it's time to begin to wring this speculation out of the futures markets and stop this insidious rise in oil prices. While we need to move beyond oil, right now we still need oil. There is no question about that. We need to find more, and we need to use less, to the extent we can. That means more production and more conservation. In the meantime, when markets do not work and people are doing things that have no common sense at all, such as putting oil underground when oil is $120 a barrel, then this Congress has a responsibility to act. We need to get things straight. Let's set things right; let's stand up here on the side of the American consumer and on the side of American businesses who need this energy. One final point: In yesterday's The Wall Street Journal, they wrote one of those editorials that must make those folks grin like Cheshire cats as they sit there with their gray suits on, behind horn-rimmed glasses, deciding what to write next in the Wall Street Journal about the Senate. Did you see what those folks did in the Senate--Dorgan, Schumer, and others? What they did is said we should put pressure on the Saudis because the Saudis want to buy precision weapons for their own security from us. We should say that maybe they need to be producing more oil. Of course, the Wall Street Journal had an apoplectic seizure over that. Here are the points. The Saudis are producing 800,000 barrels a day less than they did 2 years ago. It is not lost on them what this is doing to price. It is not lost on them, or it should not be, what this is doing to our country. They are pumping 800,000 barrels a day less than they did 2 years ago and then they say to this administration we wish to buy sophisticated weapons from the United States because we have our strategic military concerns in our region. Maybe we say to the Saudis: The United States has strategic concerns in our country as well. Why are you pumping 800,000 barrels a day less when you could be putting more oil on the world market? Partnerships work both ways. I am very concerned about arming the Middle East. I am going to speak about that at some point later. But our point to the Saudis and the point in the Middle East was simple. If you are pumping 800,000 barrels a day less per day and then demand weapons from the U.S. without reciprocating then it's not going to work. That is a long statement to say it is time for us to act. Senator Reid, Senator Klobuchar, other Members and I have decided we are not going to sit here like potted plants. When something is happening in the futures market and when something is happening to take oil off the supply to put it in the SPR, then we have a responsibility to act. I intend to be a significant part of that. If we have the markup in the Senate Appropriations Committee this afternoon, I intend to offer a couple amendments at that appropriations markup. Unfortunately, I understand it may well be canceled this afternoon.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. It is the case. I have introduced legislation here in the Senate. Fifty-one Democratic Senators, including Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, signed a letter to the President saying stop sticking oil underground for the rest of 2008. Also, a couple of weeks ago our Republican colleague, Senator Hutchison, led on a letter to the White House saying, yes, we agree. We ought to stop sticking oil underground at this time. There were 15 Republicans who sent that letter. Further, Senator McCain said it was nuts to stick oil in the SPR while on the campaign trail. When you add that up, that is 67 people in the Senate. That is a veto-proof majority.

Mr. DORGAN. There are several views on that, but we know it is a lot more than zero like the Administration assumes. We don't know exactly what the savings would be. We do know this: If today 70,000 barrels, especially the sweet light crude--which is the most valuable subset of oil--were put back into this marketplace, then people have testified in the Senate that it could impact as much as 10 percent of the price of oil and gasoline. We know it would impact the price. Some say 70,000 barrels is not very much given what is used in a day. It is true, 70,000 barrels is not all that much, but this is sweet light crude which is very different. We had an economist named Dr. Verleger testify before the Energy Committee and make that very point. This is a more important point. There are plenty of Members of the Senate who have now joined on this. I was just informed the markup starting at 2 this afternoon has been canceled. This is where I was going to offer this amendment, so the amendment I expect to be able to offer will now wait until next week. We will get this done. We cannot sit around and allow things to happen. We have to make things happen, good things happen for this country and for the economy. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee onIndian Affairs will meet on Tuesday, May 13, at 2:30 p.m. in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on ``the successes and shortfalls of Title IV of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act: Twenty Years of Self-Governance''. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian AffairsCommittee at 224-2251.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator would yield for a question.

Mr. DORGAN. The last amendment that the Senator sent to the desk, my understanding is that it is an amendment very similar to something I was intending to offer, but I am not certain I understand your amendment, so if I could just work through it with you. My concern about the underlying bill with respect to the mandatory coverage areas is that it requires the expansion of areas of special flood hazards to include areas of residual risks, including areas that are behind levees, dams, and other manmade structures. Is your amendment designed to strike that provision?

Mr. DORGAN. But, if I might inquire further, is it the intention of the amendment to provide that there shall not be mandatory requirements on all of these levees, dams, and other manmade structures, which the underlying bill would require?

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I believe I looked at the amendment, and it does not strike what is in the underlying bill--all of section 7-- which I was intending to do with my amendment. I didn't quite understand the consequences of striking just a portion of it. But if the Senator from Connecticut who is on the Senate floor--when the Senator from Louisiana concludes, I would like to make a couple of comments about the reason for my concern about this matter, and perhaps we can visit. If our amendments have exactly the same impact, there is no reason for me to offer mine.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I was surprised by what is section 7 in the underlying bill. I understand the substitute at the desk has it on a different page. I am talking about the same provision the Senator from Louisiana spoke about briefly; that is, an expansion of the requirement to have flood insurance in areas of special flood hazards, to include areas of residual risk, areas that are located behind levees, dams, and other manmade structures. I am not surprised we want people to buy flood insurance if they are at risk of being flooded. That is not my point. But let me give you a case study, if I might, and talk about Grand Forks, ND. Eleven years ago--in fact 11 years ago about this time--the city of Grand Forks, ND, a city of nearly 50,000 people, was nearly completely evacuated. It was the largest evacuation of a city since the Civil War, and it was because of a flood on the Red River. It was a very significant flood; some said it was a 500-year flood. All of us who went to that city and spent time there and went to the Air Force base--a major Air Force base--15 miles west of the city and visited with the citizens who had been evacuated-- tens of thousands of people--we will never forget that. So what happened in the last 10 years--by the way, let me speak about the memory of not only a city being flooded and evacuated, but in the middle of that city there was a raging fire. So there is a flood, and then buildings in the middle of the city that are inundated by water caught fire, and there was a major fire in the middle of the city. To watch firefighters work in a flood to try to see if they can't, in the middle of a significant city, put out a fire that is consuming a number of businesses in the downtown district is quite extraordinary. Fast forward 10 years, and I think we have spent close to $400 million over a decade to provide unbelievable flood protection for that city. That is not going to happen again. There is a flood protection plan in place for that city that is very significant. That flood protection plan protects against a 250-year flood. The provisions in this bill talk about a 100-year flood. We have now flood protection for a 250-year flood. It is blue ribbon, first rate, brandnew flood protection for this city. So it is a little surprising to me to see a bill that says, by the way, we have just finished spending a lot of money to provide very significant 250-year flood protection and now we have one other decision; we want you to understand you should now buy flood insurance. It is only $1 a day, $300 or $400 a year, they say. That is going to be pretty surprising to a lot of people who are still paying debts to fix up their houses from 10 or 11 years ago from that flood. They are going to ask the question: Why are we asked to buy flood insurance when you have built a very significant flood protection plan, with 250-year flood protection for our city, and now you say to us we all should go buy flood insurance. Are you daft? What are you thinking of? They would not understand this. I am trying to figure out what the requirement is. I understand there are some manmade levees and dams and other circumstances that perhaps have risk attached to them, which are old structures. I understand that. There are some circumstances where those who take a look at this believe that more should participate in the flood insurance program. I understand all that. But to simply say that in every circumstance, including areas located behind levees, dams, and other manmade structures, everybody should have flood insurance, that doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know how you explain that to somebody who was told we completed a terrific flood protection program that gives you a 250-year flood protection, but you need to pony up some money to buy new flood insurance. I think this is not a good provision, and I hope we will be able to remove it.

Mr. DORGAN. Yes.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, in my subcommittee that I chair on appropriations, dealing with energy and matter, we spent $2.2 billion on Corps of Engineers construction alone, to say nothing of maintenance, remediation, and other expenses. Just the construction in fiscal year 2008 was $2.244 billion. So we are spending a lot of money working on levees and dikes and other areas of protection. It seems to me--my colleague from Connecticut indicated this and he is absolutely correct--levees do fail, and I understand that. He is absolutely correct about that. Levees do fail. Manmade structures, from time to time, will fail. But it is also the case that some risks are substantially lowered, and there are some risks that are substantially elevated because of the condition of the levy and so on. My colleague from Louisiana is correct when she says let's not do something that is one size fits all. Again, I will use the example I think is clear. If you just finished a new flood control program that you have worked on for 10 years with a 250-year flood protection, which is more than double the protection normally required to protect against a 100-year flood, at least understand the difference between what you have done there with public funding and what might exist somewhere else, where there is higher risk. It is hard to tell somebody, by the way, you have a new flood control plan, it works, it is terrific and it is new and it costs a lot of money; it will protect you against a 250-year flood, but you must buy some flood insurance, please, because we are worried that you are going to be hit by a 100-year flood. That is the kind of thing I hope we can avoid. Earlier, I used a word I don't ever use. I don't know why I used it. I used the word ``daft.'' I wasn't applying it to anybody who wrote this legislation. I should quickly explain that. It appears to me that, if this would pass, we may have to explain to some people something that is not able to be explained. You now have terrific flood protection, but we want you to buy flood insurance, even though we protected you with public funding, with a first-class flood protection system. It is not difficult for me to go to someone in a circumstance where there is risk and say I understand why you have to have flood insurance. You have to have a large number of people paying in. You have risk and you are going to have to buy flood insurance. I understand that. The Senator is correct that sometimes levees do fail. We should not, it seems to me, with this small section in the bill, on page 9, subsection 2, under (b), we should not say, anyplace in America where you have a levee, a dam, a manmade structure, you are all in the same boat. That is not the right thing for us to do. I hope that with the concurrence of the Senator from Connecticut, perhaps, we can talk through this as we move along and make some changes to that, which are thoughtful and address the issue of risk. I thank my colleague from Louisiana, and I thank my colleague from Connecticut for his patience. As I conclude, I am going to visit with the Senator from Louisiana to see whether my amendment is sufficiently similar to hers so maybe we can deal with one amendment. If so, I will not add my amendment. I have filed it, but I will not call it up. If it is not sufficiently similar, I will call up my amendment later today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is the pending business is on the FAA reauthorization bill; is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I hope no one is out of breath this week as a result of working on this bill. We had one vote on Monday at 5:30 p.m. and have not voted since. With legislation this important to this country, why are we not able to move ahead and cast votes and finish this legislation? This is about FAA reauthorization which includes the issue of modernization of our air traffic control system, which is very important. We read in the newspapers these days about the additional inspections that are required of airlines. We read about airlines going bankrupt because of fuel costs. We read that the FAA system for air traffic control is archaic. We are told that the GPS system in your car is more sophisticated than the system by which we move airplanes around this country in the air traffic control system. We hear the problems with the air traffic controllers, the contract problems they have had with the FAA, the shortage of air traffic controllers, the number who will retire in the near future, and the need for training of additional controllers. We read about all these things in the news. We read about systems that still use vacuum tubes in the air traffic control system because it is that old. The question for this Congress is, can we pass legislation that reauthorizes the FAA functions and then provides the funding to modernize this system of ours? We have a lot of people who visit this Capital city, and most of them fly in by airplane. This country moves back and forth quickly from coast to coast using, in most cases, commercial air transportation. They don't think very much of it, frankly. You can fly from one coast to the other in 5 or 6 hours. It is not unusual to leave one part of this country and end up in another part before lunch. It is a wonderful thing to have this system of commercial air travel. The fact is, this system will not survive for a number of reasons under the current circumstances. As I indicated the other day, I believe there are four airlines that have declared bankruptcy in recent weeks. We also understand, in addition, what high fuel costs are doing to the airlines, and we are talking now about the airlines in this legislation before us. But I could talk about the trucking industry, or I could talk about families and farmers. I can talk about what the high fuel prices are doing to all of this country. There is no heavier user of fuel than an airline. What is happening is the fuel prices are undermining the opportunity for many of these airlines both to continue operating, in some cases, and, in other cases, to continue operating serving smaller areas or less populated areas of the country. So fuel prices are a serious problem. The other issue is the modernization of the air traffic control system, the system by which we provide for the safety of the American people. There is going to be a catastrophe one of these days, and then everybody is going to stand around thumbing their suspenders, scratching their heads, and saying: Why didn't we do something about it? We have a bill on the floor of the Senate right now to try to address this situation, to try to modernize this system, and we have been at parade rest since Monday because we are not allowed to move forward. Everything is blocked. Everything is plugged up. This is unbelievable. This is important. Some people around here treat the serious things far too lightly and then treat the light things too seriously and never understand the difference. Why is it on a Thursday that legislation as important as this, that should have been passed in previous years, cannot even get amendments up and cannot get votes off because we have people who have decided they are just going to block everything? I told a group in North Dakota a while back about Mark Twain. Mark Twain once was asked if he would engage in a debate. He said: Oh, sure, as long as I can take the negative side. We haven't even told you the subject of the debate. He said: It doesn't matter, the negative side is going to require no preparation. The negative side never requires preparation. Those who are out here saying, no, you can't, they want to block it. That requires no preparation. What requires preparation is to advance public policy that is in the interest of this country. Does anybody really think modernizing our air traffic control system is somehow a back-burner issue? We see what is happening in the skies in this country. They are absolutely clogged. In fact, because of fuel prices and other reasons, we have airlines now switching to smaller planes, these little regional jets skirting around the sky, hauling as many people but just takes more planes to do it. So that puts an unbelievable strain on the air traffic system. The question is, Are we going to modernize it? Are we going to do what is necessary? Are we going to provide the funding? Are we going to finally get off this delaying nonsense that is going on and allow legislation to move forward that is essential for the safety of the air traveling public? I hope the answer at some point soon is yes. This includes items such as the Airport Improvement Program, what is called the AIP, investing in infrastructure in this country. That is very important. Land at some of these airports and take a look at the infrastructure and ask yourself whether we need this investment. It is interesting, if you travel around the world. If you go to Tegucigalpa, Honduras, and then get in a car and drive to Juticalpa. Take a look at the roads and ask yourself whether infrastructure matters. Land in some of the airports in some of these remote areas and take a look at what you are landing on and the infrastructure needs of that airport. Then ask yourself whether infrastructure is important. We have always prided ourselves in this country on the investment in infrastructure. When you come to America, you see infrastructure that is maintained. We have always prided ourselves on that until recently, and now somehow infrastructure doesn't matter. It takes a back seat. In my little subcommittee on appropriations that I chair, the President says: Let's cut water funding by $1 billion from last year's levels for the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. These agencies fund much of the nation's water projects and were cut by $1 billion, even as we have 950 water projects in this country which we are paying for in Iraq. Think of that. Let's cut water projects in this country and investment in the future of this country by $1 billion, the President says. However, let's have 950 water projects that the American taxpayers will pay for in Iraq. I think it is time to start taking care of a few things at home. One of them is the legislation on the floor of the Senate right now, and that is the FAA Reauthorization Act and the investment and the modernization of the air traffic control system. If we do not pay attention to that, we are going to run into very serious problems. I might also say, tragic problems because there is going to be some sort of spectacular tragedy, and then we are all going to sit around and say that somebody should have done something. We are trying to do something. The fact is, we cannot even get a vote on an amendment on the floor of the Senate. It is unbelievable. As I said in the Mark Twain example, the easiest thing in the world is to oppose. It takes no talent, it takes no time to prepare, just oppose, oppose everything. My hope is in the next couple of hours, perhaps there will be some here who wish to move ahead. I know Senator Reid has been on the floor offering unanimous consent requests. He has talked with the minority to see if there are conditions under which we might be able to move forward and get something done on some legislation. I understand it takes a while to get things done. I understand we should be deliberative. I understand there should be enough research so we don't have unintended consequences to what we do. Nobody has ever accused this body of speeding, ever, But this is ridiculous. This makes a glacier look fast. My hope is that those of us who are elected to come here, who try to make some improvements in this country, who do what is necessary for the health and safety of the people of this country will soon understand that the FAA reauthorization bill is not just some other piece of legislation, that it is an optional piece of legislation. The modernization of the air traffic control system is not some option that we ought to consider like any other bill. This is urgent and necessary and timely, and we ought to do it now. Energy

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to talk about energy. Several colleagues have spoken about energy prices, and I related energy prices to the airline industry a few moments ago. I mentioned several bankruptcies that have occurred recently, intensive heavy users of energy in the airline industry, and what it might mean. This country needs a commercial airline industry that works. Without it, there will be devastating consequences to our economy. The question is, What do we do here? My colleague from Alaska made a point with which I agree. He talked about the speculation in these markets with respect to energy. I wish to talk about that issue. I have some charts. This is a chart that shows the speculator activity in the oil futures market from January 1996 to April 2008. This is the activity by speculators in the futures markets. These are not people who want to buy oil or hold oil. They have no tanks in which to put oil. They are not interested in oil. They want to buy what they will never get from people who never had it. This is what speculating is about. Here is the increase in speculation in the commodities market for oil. It is an unbelievable ramp-up, an orgy of speculation, having nothing to do with the fundamentals of oil supply and demand. There is no justification for the current price of oil if we simply look at supply and demand. Supply is up a bit; demand is down a bit. There is no justification with the current fundamentals of supply and demand that would seriously justify the current price of oil. So then what has changed? What is different? Why is this price $115 or $120 a barrel for oil, acting like a yo-yo at the upper end? A couple issues have changed, especially this. We have hedge funds that are now neck deep in the commodities markets speculating on oil. We have investment banks that are speculating on oil. For the first time in history, I believe, investment banks are actually buying oil storage capacity to buy oil and take oil off the market to sell it later when it is more expensive. This is speculation, raw speculation. I suppose everybody is making money. The brokers are making money, the investment banks, the hedge funds--they are all wallowing to the bank full of cash, driving up the price of oil beyond what the fundamentals would suggest the price should be. We know those people who are winning, but who are the losers? Well, our country. This is something that is providing great damage to our country's economy. Families drive up to the gas pumps, and it hurts to fill the tanks. Farmers, heavy users of energy and fertilizer that comes from energy, are losers. It is an unbelievable burden on family farmers. Airlines, they just cannot fly through this storm. They go belly up. The list goes on and on. If this is what is happening with the ramp-up of speculation and it is causing an increase in prices, here is what has happened to oil prices. No one needs a chart to know this, but oil prices doubled in just over one year. Speculation goes up, up, way up, and oil prices have doubled in one year. Let me cite some folks who have talked about this issue. Stephen Simon, senior vice president of ExxonMobil, April 1, a month ago: ``The price of oil should be about $50-$55 per barrel.'' This from an executive in the oil company. I do not think his company is complaining about where the price is. He is just being candid. According to him, the price of oil ought to be about $50 or $55 per barrel, assuming current fundamentals. Clarence Cazalot, CEO, Marathon Oil, October 30, 2007: $100 oil isn't justified by the physical demand in the market. Experts, including the former head of ExxonMobil, say financial speculation in the energy market has grown so much over the last 30 years that it now adds 20 to 30 percent or more to the price of a barrel of oil. Think of that. Speculation in the energy markets has grown so much over the last 30 years that it now adds 20 to 30 percent or more to the price of a barrel of oil. I understand the need for a marketplace futures market. It is required for hedging. It is required for liquidity. I understand it is necessary, and I understand we want one that works so there needs to be a futures market, but I also understand that when the futures market becomes something much more than just something that provides for hedging and liquidity. When it becomes an object of intense speculation, then there is a requirement for some intervention. No one quite knows what that intervention should be, but everyone ought to know that it is unhealthy when you have an unbelievable amount of speculation. There are books written about bubbles in speculation. We have been through recent speculations. The tech bubble that occurred almost a decade ago. The bubble in housing prices is occurring. We have seen and understand about bubbles. This is a bubble of speculation. Go back 500 years and read about tulip mania. If you have not read about it, I encourage to you do it. Yes, tulip mania. There was a time you could buy a tulip bulb for $25,000. With the hindsight of 400 or 500 years, we can understand how unbelievably absurd it was, but it was a bubble, a financial speculative binge that was almost indescribable. What is happening in this marketplace now--and most experts will agree--is we have this unbelievable amount of speculation in the futures market that does not justify the current price. The American people and American industry deserve to have a government, in those cases, that steps in and says: There is something wrong here, and we are going to find a way to set it right. This is one of the areas. This man--in fact, I talked to this man last evening--Mr. Fadel Gheit, the top energy analyst for Oppenheimer Company. He has been there 30 years, he has testified before the Congress, and he is a very interesting fellow. There is absolutely no shortage of oil . . . I'm absolutely convinced that oil prices should not be a dime above $55 a barrel. . . . Oil speculators include the largest financial institutions in the world. He said further: I call it the world's largest gambling hall . . . it's open 24/7 . . . unfortunately it's totally unregulated . . . this is like a highway with no cops and no speed limit and everybody's going 120 miles an hour. That is pretty well said, it seems to me. It describes this bubble of speculation that does damage to our economy and needs to be addressed by this Government. It is not the case that everybody hurts as a result of this. This is a Wall Street Journal article of February 28, 2008. This is Andrew Hall. I wouldn't know Andrew Hall from a cord of wood. I just see his picture here. Over the past 5 years, Mr. Hall's compensation has totaled well over a quarter of a billion dollars. What does Mr. Hall do? He makes money by speculating in the commodities market, according to this article. He is not alone. I pulled this because it is an article about him and he has made a lot of money. He has made a lot of money as someone who speculates in these commodity markets. Is speculation something that is good for these markets? Absolutely not. When you have a speculative binge that drives these prices way out of sight, well above that which would be justified, it can be devastating to the country's economy. That describes what is happening with respect to speculation. To address the issue of energy, it requires a lot of things. We must do this. If we do not address the issue of speculation, we are not going to solve the problem. We are just not. But there are other things to do. For example, this administration is putting close to 70,000 barrels of oil a day, every single day, underground. It is being put in something called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a pretty good idea because it saves some oil for a rainy day. But just not for any rainy day, for an emergency, strategic emergency, something unanticipated, so we developed it for this purpose. That makes sense to me. But should we take oil when it costs $115 or $120 a barrel and stick it underground, 70,000 barrels? Of course not. That is absolutely nuts. Why would you take the highest priced oil in history, take it out of the supply, stick it underground and by doing so increase the price of oil and increase the price of gasoline? A man named Dr. Philip Verleger testified before the Congress. He is an economist and energy expert. He said that, by taking a disproportionate amount of oil, a subset of oil called sweet light crude, out of the supply chain, it has increased the price of oil by 10 percent. You know, with more than $100 a barrel oil, that is at least $10 a barrel for light sweet crude. It is the most Byzantine thing one can imagine. I have a piece of legislation to stop it. There are now 67 U.S. Senators who have declared themselves to be in support of my approach. There is also a very similar bill that was introduced just the other day by some in the minority, and John McCain running for President out in the country said he supports it. So I have 51 who have signed a letter saying they support suspending the SPR fill for 2008. On top of that, some Republican Senators numbering 15, led by Senator Hutchison, also sent a letter to the President. That takes it to 66. John McCain is out there saying he doesn't believe we should do it, so there are at least 67. That makes it a veto-proof margin. So I say let's do it. End the speculation, and there are ways to do that. Second, stop putting oil underground. That ought to be important. In addition to all of that, let me just say the other menu of issues is not really very complicated either. Should we produce more? My colleague from Alaska says you have to produce more. I don't disagree with that. I was one of four Senators here in the Senate who introduced legislation, now law, that opens up Lease Sale 181 of the Gulf of Mexico. It opens up an opportunity to substantially increase our production of both oil and natural gas in a new region of the Gulf of Mexico. Frankly, if you look at the offshore capability of the Gulf of Mexico and compare it to the offshore options off the West Coast, East Coast or in Alaska, by far the most significant reserves that are achievable by us are in the Gulf of Mexico. We have not even tapped the potential of the Eastern Gulf either. I and three others initiated the legislation that opened up a portion of the Gulf of Mexico, Lease Sale 181. But there is a lot more to do because it got too narrow. Ought we go back there and produce? You bet we should. There is more production to be had. In addition to that, conservation is unbelievably important and so is efficiency. Production, conservation, efficiency, and then renewable energy. Again, we have new technology that allows us to take energy from the wind. I come from a state that has the most wind potential in America. My state has a distinction of being No. 50 in trees, so we are last in America in trees, and we are first in wind. I am not sure where the merits are there, but all of us who live there lean to the northwest because it blows almost every day. We are the Saudi Arabia of wind, as the Department of Energy suggests, and with the new modern wind turbines, we will continue to take energy from the wind and produce electricity. We have a great experiment going on in which we produce electricity from wind energy and use that electricity in the process of electrolysis, separating hydrogen from water and storing hydrogen for vehicle fuel. It all makes a lot of sense and helps contribute to our energy future. There are a lot of things we can and should do. This is not some mysterious illness for which we do not know the cure. This is not some strange disease for which we have no cure. We understand what is happening here, and with a little common sense, perhaps a deep reservoir of common sense, we could begin to fix it. At the very least, we ought to begin to take immediate action to stop putting oil underground, and stop it now. It is time to take some action to stop the unbelievable orgy of speculation in the futures market, and do that soon. Those are the first two steps, and they will reduce the price of gasoline. There is much more to do beyond that, but those are the first two sensible steps we ought to accomplish now. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?