Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I will be using some of the first of the Republican minutes. I thank the leader for his comments on energy. I too think we can get together and solve a huge problem for this country. I do want to make a clarification on the Republican bill that was put up. I do not want anybody to think that was comprehensive. The leader mentioned some things that were left out. I have got a number of matters that were left out of that bill that should be in there, except what we have a tendency to do in this body is to lump everything into one big bill. If a few people do not like this part and a few people do not like that part, then pretty quickly we cannot get a majority. So we need to do things in a smaller way. This will make a huge difference in the price of gasoline. The Republican bill would make a huge difference in the price of gasoline. But it is a package that we thought everyone could come together on. And somehow we are going to have to do that in this body if the United States is going to progress. We can bring down the gas price Goliath if Democrats and Republicans will work together to pass legislation that will help America find more oil as we use less. Actually we have to do both. If we increase the supply and we cut demand, we will beat this giant problem. If we use less and we find more, we will beat this giant problem. I had the privilege of traveling around Wyoming last week during the July 4 home work period. There is no question that gas prices are the No. 1 topic on everyone's mind. In Wyoming the rising price of gasoline and diesel fuel hits us hard, because our cities and towns are spread out and we are often forced to drive tens if not hundreds of miles to get groceries and to go to work. I am personally as concerned as are my constituents with the rising price of gasoline. I get angry when I fill up my vehicle and I am charged more than $4 a gallon for gas. I am skeptical when I hear the oil industry is making record profits and CEOs are taking home huge pay packages. Well, what can we do about that? Increasing taxes will not produce any more oil. It would raise the price of gas further, and probably drive production off our shores, so we would be paying for oil from other places. We do have a plan that would reduce gas prices. I have cosponsored S. 3032, the aptly named Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008. It recognizes that the biggest problem we face is the problem of supply and demand. Right now America does not produce enough energy to meet our Nation's energy needs, but with increased efforts and innovation we could. We need to produce more domestic energy while we use less in the future. We need more American oil from American soil. By developing more American energy as we work to conserve our usage, we will secure America's energy future. In order to do that, though, we have to have agreement from the other side of the aisle that we do want to develop more energy sources. We do not have that agreement yet. I do not know how much longer those on the other side of the issue can hold out against their constituents who are hurting from the higher gas prices, but I hope it is not long. We need to get something done now. The bill I am cosponsoring is not perfect. It does not include everything I would like it to include. But it is a start. That is what we need, a start. We need to start doing something now to improve our Nation's energy situation. We need to stop playing ``gotcha'' politics and start coming together to start finding solutions. Congress should be addressing high energy prices by looking for solutions that produce more American energy while we reduce our usage. That is what those in control of both Houses of Congress do not seem to understand at this stage. The continued rise of gas prices is going to put an end to the dog- and-pony show eventually, and when the dog-and-pony shows ends, and we stop playing ``gotcha'' politics, we need to start to take a look at our Nation's energy policy. We need to come together to increase our energy supply. We need to look at the energy situation in steps. Instead of trying to pass massive bills that have provisions a number of Members can't support, we should work on passing smaller, consensus bills. We need to put partisan differences aside to figure out what we can do to improve our energy situation. How do we lower gas prices? We find more, as we use less. We increase our oil supply, as we each seek to cut back the amount of gas we use. Increasing supply by getting more American oil from American soil while at the same time conserving will lessen our demand and bring prices down. We have choices to make. Do we meet this challenge head-on by finding more oil, using less, putting our back and our brains into the task of developing better ways to use what we have, or do we do what many would have us do and say it is too late or that it is the oil companies' fault or they blame the Government and look to lawyers to solve our problems? I have listened to my colleagues criticize the speculators who are, in theory, driving up oil prices. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, Congress always needs a political villain and speculators always end up tied to the whipping post when people get upset about prices. We have an energy problem, but instead of looking at what we can do to fix the problem, we continue to play the blame game. My colleagues don't mention that the so-called speculators are often pension funds or airlines that want to stay in business and stabilize future fuel prices. My colleagues often fail to mention that for every person who is making money in the futures market, there is a person losing money. Major oil consumers need some certainty in this volatile market so they use the futures market to hedge their bets. They can't get certainty from Congress that we will produce more energy, so they need to find it somewhere. I am cosponsoring the Gas Price Reduction Act. I am cosponsoring clean coal measures. I am advocating American oil production and refining. I am also pushing to renew important tax credits for wind and solar power so that we can use more renewable energy. I am not ready to let the greatest Nation on Earth sink into poverty because we were not willing to help ourselves. I am also counting on the innovation of the American people. Americans are the most innovative people in the world. If they face a challenge, they will come up with solutions. I was part of the rocket generation. Sputnik went up when I was in junior high. Our generation figured out how to get a man on the Moon. We had the computer generation, and we have led the computer world. Then cell phones were the next generation. Now we need the energy generation. We need the kids to invent clean ways, better uses, and more production. It can be done in a good way. We are in the situation we face today because we haven't acted for years. We did not get in the situation overnight, and we won't get out of it overnight. What we can do is work to make the situation better. I am committed to working with colleagues to do just that. Let's stop playing the blame game and start working together to get things done. Moving forward with the Gas Price Reduction Act or, if not that specific bill, then parts of it, is what we have to do to bring prices down. If we don't move now, we may not be able to afford the gas so we can move into the future. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. To my friend from South Dakota, I ask whether this legislation would interfere with the current status of trade with product from countries with a presence of FMD?

Mr. ENZI. Another point of clarification would be why it is necessary to specify that no product or live animals should be imported until Argentina is free of FMD without vaccination. Can the Senator from South Dakota also discuss the intention of that prerequisite?

Mr. ENZI. I am pleased to support this bill with my colleague from South Dakota. My friend has done an excellent job of explaining how this legislation is an important safeguard for our livestock producers, and I would like to add a few comments about the continued need for vigilance when it comes to animal health threats. A wide range of veterinary professionals and livestock producers recognize the threat that Foot-and-Mouth Disease poses to the U.S. livestock industry. If the United States is to continue producing and selling the highest quality meat products in the world, our country must be free of the most dangerous ailments that affect the livestock which enter the market. The economic threat Foot-and-Mouth Disease poses to our country cannot be underestimated. Disease outbreaks threaten the livelihood of our nation's ranchers and undermine foreign markets for our meat products. One can only look to the economic damage Foot-and-Mouth Disease caused to Britain in 2001 to gauge how significant this threat is to the United States. The highly contagious nature of this disease and the growing international trade of livestock equate the regionalization of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Argentina to mixing fire with gasoline. I am glad that my colleague mentioned how Foot-and-Mouth Disease is unique and that regionalization would not work with this disease as it has with other animal ailments. Our cattle, sheep, and swine already face a number of animal health challenges and now is not the time to open up our country to new diseases. Requiring Argentina to be FMD free without using vaccination is not asking too much. This is the same condition the United States and our neighbors already operate under in the trade of livestock. This bill, respected by a large number of state veterinary officials, recognizes this threat and ensures that the proper safeguards remain in place to prevent Foot-and-Mouth Disease from reaching our shores. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I am pleased to support this bill with my colleague from South Dakota. My friend has done an excellent job of explaining how this legislation is an important safeguard for our livestock producers, and I would like to add a few comments about the continued need for vigilance when it comes to animal health threats. A wide range of veterinary professionals and livestock producers recognize the threat that Foot-and-Mouth Disease poses to the U.S. livestock industry. If the United States is to continue producing and selling the highest quality meat products in the world, our country must be free of the most dangerous ailments that affect the livestock which enter the market. The economic threat Foot-and-Mouth Disease poses to our country cannot be underestimated. Disease outbreaks threaten the livelihood of our nation's ranchers and undermine foreign markets for our meat products. One can only look to the economic damage Foot-and-Mouth Disease caused to Britain in 2001 to gauge how significant this threat is to the United States. The highly contagious nature of this disease and the growing international trade of livestock equate the regionalization of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Argentina to mixing fire with gasoline. I am glad that my colleague mentioned how Foot-and-Mouth Disease is unique and that regionalization would not work with this disease as it has with other animal ailments. Our cattle, sheep, and swine already face a number of animal health challenges and now is not the time to open up our country to new diseases. Requiring Argentina to be FMD free without using vaccination is not asking too much. This is the same condition the United States and our neighbors already operate under in the trade of livestock. This bill, respected by a large number of state veterinary officials, recognizes this threat and ensures that the proper safeguards remain in place to prevent Foot-and-Mouth Disease from reaching our shores. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Another point of clarification would be why it is necessary to specify that no product or live animals should be imported until Argentina is free of FMD without vaccination. Can the Senator from South Dakota also discuss the intention of that prerequisite?

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the emergency supplemental bill that we are considering in the Senate. This new version of the emergency supplemental bill represents a change from the previous version. It is less expensive--$3 billion less in domestic, nonmilitary spending that didn't belong in this bill in the first place. The bill is also better for overall defense than the last version. I am speaking of the GI bill provisions in this legislation. Changes have been made to try and address the transferability of benefits. These changes also attempt to deal with the concern the Department of Defense raised about the retention of our servicemembers by requiring extended service for extended transferable benefits. It does not fully address the concerns, but it is a step forward. Congressional leaders have sat down with the administration and developed a bill that President Bush can sign. I recently had the opportunity to address Wyoming's American Legion convention in Riverton, WY. They support improvements in the GI bill but never want to see any veterans, from World War II to our current operation, be used for gotcha politics. I think they will be pleased that changes and improvements were made. This isn't a perfect bill. There is still some overspending on non- military matters. The bill was force fed through the process. Amendments that could improve the bill further were shunned by the majority leadership. The fact remains, however, that we need to fund our troops. We need to provide our men and women in uniform with the best possible equipment and the funding they need to do their job fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a responsibility to make this happen in an expeditious manner. Sending this legislation to President Bush is the only way that will happen and so I will support the supplemental bill.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I will return the discussion to housing. I do thank the Senator from New Mexico for his comments on energy. I know from traveling around Wyoming last weekend, the biggest thing on everybody's mind is $4-plus gas. I got a lot of comments on ways it could be fixed. What we are working on right now, of course, is fixing housing. I am going to discuss the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform of 2008. That is what we just had the vote on. I do not support this legislation. I opposed this legislation in the Senate Banking Committee and I continue to oppose it today. As the national housing market continues to suffer from falling home sales, housing starts, and skyrocketing foreclosure rates in some parts of the country, the Senate has an opportunity today to restore confidence in the principles of good government to our economy. These principles include limiting taxpayer liability, ensuring a sustainable housing market in the future, and preventing a Federal Government bailout of big banks that made unaffordable loans or investors who made bad investments. Unfortunately, the bill ignores these principles and ignores irresponsible actions at the expense of responsible homeowners and hard-working taxpayers. This bill contains a title called ``The HOPE for Homeowners Act.'' The program included in this title would create a $300 billion taxpayer loan guarantee program. Let me repeat that. It would create a $300 billion taxpayer loan guarantee program--taxpayer guarantee program--doubling the size of the Federal Housing Administration. This expansion will be accomplished by taking the worst performing and the most risky loans made by banks, shifting 100 percent of the liability of foreclosure onto the American taxpayer. The loans I am talking about have made a lot of press in the past few months--adjustable rate, interest only, low documentation or no documentation; loans that in many cases the lender made with no regard for the borrower's ability to repay. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 35 percent of these loans will default, placing a huge liability on the FHA and ultimately the taxpayer for guaranteeing these loans. Even FHA Commissioner Brian Montgomery believes this is a dangerous proposition. On June 9 he stated: The FHA is not designed to become Federal lender of last resort, a mega-agency to subsidize bad loans. But that is exactly what this bill does. In past years, banks continued to make record profits by pushing these unaffordable mortgages. Investors, homeowners, bankers, and realtors bet heavily on the tidal wave of ever increasing home prices. If a rate adjustment made monthly mortgage payments unaffordable, homeowners and mortgage investors could count on home equity to bail them out. In other words, the value of the price of the home would go up sufficiently to cover the costs homeowners could not. As the Senate's only accountant, I can tell you this practice does not make good financial sense. It is completely unsustainable. However, most of industry ignored the warning signs and continued to make record profits from unaffordable loans. Now these same banks and investors are in trouble. They have discovered that unaffordable mortgages can be, shockingly, unaffordable. Complicating this matter is that the housing market cycle is now on a downswing and people can no longer rely on home equity loans to bail them out of a mortgage rate hike. Banks and speculators now expect Congress to reward this irresponsible behavior with a taxpayer bailout. They expect the Federal Government to turn its back on responsible lenders and borrowers and renters waiting to become first-time homeowners, and support those groups that have pushed our housing market into decline with bad loans and bad investments. This bill is a Federal Government bailout and that is why I oppose it. I will also note there are separate provisions of the legislation I do support. A separate title of this bill would create a new regulator for the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. This world-class regulator will have the authority necessary to ensure that these entities are adequately capitalized and are operating safely within the secondary mortgage market. The GSEs, government-sponsored enterprises, are the most important factors in our mortgage market and play an increasingly influential role in our global credit markets. The regulators created by this legislation must support the housing market by allowing Freddie and Fannie to buy and securitize mortgages, thereby increasing credit at lower rates and restoring investor confidence. While I continue to oppose the affordable housing trust fund included in the bill, I support a strong regulator that will allow the secondary mortgage market to operate more effectively, to the benefit of our economy. I support the deliberate and safe conversion of the GSEs into the jurisdiction of the new agency included in this legislation. It is past due. As these massive entities are brought under new supervision, I trust the transition will be done in a way that ensures that no disruptions occur in our housing and our credit markets. There are also several tax provisions that are important to Wyoming and the Nation. Currently, Wyoming receives approximately $2 million per year in low-income housing tax credits to encourage developers and contractors to develop affordable rental housing projects. This bill will provide a temporary 2-year increase of approximately $50,500, a 2.5-percent increase to the Wyoming Community Development Authority. It will also increase access to the Mortgage Revenue Bond Program, another helpful tool for Wyoming housing infrastructure development. Unfortunately, the good provisions of this legislation are not enough to outweigh the bad ones. Pushing liability onto the Federal Government by bailing out irresponsible lenders and investors is not good government. I cannot support a bill that puts reckless investors and lenders ahead of hard-working Wyoming taxpayers. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to honor the Boy Scouts who recently lost their lives at the Little Sioux Scout Ranch in Iowa. As the Midwest continues to experience devastating storms that have shocked us all, I would like to take time to remember four young boys from that area who were recently laid to rest. Josh Fennen, Sam Thomsen, Ben Petrzilka, and Aaron Eilerts were all Boy Scouts of America. These young men were remembered as boys who were loved by their families, on their way to becoming young men, and above all Scouts. As an Eagle Scout myself, I share a deep connection with these boys from Iowa and Nebraska, along with all Scouts throughout America. The path to becoming an Eagle is much like the path our future leaders should take, and although the lives of these four young boys were ended abruptly, they were on that path. As I recall the Scout motto of ``Be Prepared,'' I can't help but to think of the emergency drill these Scouts practiced the day before the tornado or how the Scouts moved swiftly to assist with their first-aid skills the 48 who were injured. The Scouting community has suffered a great loss. My thoughts and prayers go out to the families, friends, and Scouts whose lives were touched by these four boys.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today, we will continue to discuss the political exercise surrounding the Medicare ``doc fix'' bill. I am hopeful that after the vote this afternoon, bipartisan discussions can resume so that we can get a bill to the Senate floor that we can all support. While others have fully outlined all of the problems with the process and content of S. 3101--the Democrats version of the bill--I want to take the time to discuss a small aspect of the Republican version of the bill. Just last week, I came to the floor to discuss Senator Thomas, acknowledging that just over a year ago the State of Wyoming and our Nation lost one of the great cowboys ever to ride this land. Although a year has passed since Craig left us, his spirit is alive and it is felt by all of us within this body. Work he championed on behalf of Wyoming residents and all Americans is ongoing today. In fact, we continue to acknowledge his great work to improve health care in rural areas within the Grassley Medicare bill--the Preserving Access to Medicare Act. There is a whole subtitle named after Senator Thomas with provisions to assist providers and patients in rural areas. These provisions will help keep the doors open for rural hospitals so that critical care is available. In addition, they will ensure that individuals in rural areas have the emergency transport services available to get them from the scene of an accident to immediate care, to expand access to laboratory services so one can quickly obtain test results for a potential cancer diagnosis, and to ensure greater access to telehealth capabilities at skilled nursing facilities and dialysis centers. These are just to name a few of the key rural health provisions. Given the work of Senator Thomas, I do hope that these provisions can be maintained in future bipartisan discussions.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, over the past few weeks I have had the opportunity to come to the Senate floor to speak on a No. 1 issue I am hearing about as I travel around Wyoming, and that is the high price of gasoline and diesel fuel. I want to continue to address that issue today. I listened to the debate on S. 3044, the so-called Consumer- First Energy Act. It might as well be called the No Energy Act because the bill does nothing to improve our Nation's energy situation and will actually do damage to it. One of the targets of S. 3044 is energy speculators. Their role in the high price of energy has been brought up time and time again, and my colleagues in the majority have been especially vigilant in their desire to rein in this group as if they were the big bad wolf. If you listen to their arguments, they are persuasive. Unfortunately, they don't tell the whole truth. An editorial I recently read from the Wall Street Journal pointed out the flaws in their argument. The article stated: The first refuge of a politician panicked by rising prices is always to blame ``speculators.'' So right on time for this election season Congress has decided to do something about rising oil prices by shooting the messenger known as the energy futures market. Apparently this is easier than offending the Sierra Club by voting for more domestic energy supply. Futures markets are not some shadowy, dangerous force but are essentially a price discovery mechanism. They allow commodity producers and consumers to lock in the future price of goods, helping to hedge against future price movements. In the case of oil prices, they are about supply and demand and the future rate of inflation. Democrats now argue that these futures markets are generating the wrong prices for oil and other commodities. And who are these ``speculators'' driving up the prices? The futures market operator Intercontinental Exchange says that an increasing share of customers are not financial houses but are commercial firms that need to manage oil-price risks--[that means] the refiners, the airlines, and other major energy consumers. Another term for these [energy] ``speculators'' would be ``American business.'' The article continues: If Democrats won't believe futures traders, maybe they'll heed their biggest political funder. When . . . hedge fund billionaire George Soros testified before Congress on this issue, he noted, ``Regulations may have unintended adverse consequences. For instance, they may push investors further into unregulated markets which are less transparent and offer less protection.'' The article concludes: Democrats will find that moving jobs to Dubai from New York and Chicago will not end commodity inflation that they themselves have helped to create. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Do we need an open and transparent market? Yes. Is there more that could be done? Probably. Which is why the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced, on June 10, that it was forming an interagency task force to evaluate developments in the commodity markets. Rather than sitting here in the Senate Chamber spending our time criticizing commodities traders, we should be working together to pass legislation that we can agree on to improve our Nation's energy situation. The problem we face is a problem of supply and demand, less American-made energy and more demand for that energy. That is the problem that Congress should be addressing. That is what those in control of both Houses of Congress don't seem to understand at this stage, even though 2 years ago they complained about the price of gasoline and promised they would bring the price down. The continued rise of gas prices is going to put an end to this dog- and-pony show eventually. Unfortunately, we are not at that point yet where the majority will seriously deal with this issue. The bills we are debating will do nothing to improve our Nation's energy situation. The substitute to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act would have cost us money, at a time when we are paying record energy prices. The so-called Consumer-First Energy Act would lead to less investment in energy; therefore, less supply and, therefore, higher prices for consumers. As bad as these bills are, the process by which they get here is even worse. They don't go through committee. They won't be signed by President Bush, and yet we still waste the time of the Senate talking about them, as if they will be made law and they will improve the Nation's energy situation. That is not the case. It is also not how we do things around here. I have heard complaints that Republicans are stopping progress on important legislation. I have heard complaints that the majority is unable to legislate. ``Unwilling'' would be a better term. We are paying record prices at the pump. Those record prices are connected to specific actions or inactions by those in control of Congress in the recent past and years ago. Recently, on May 13, the Democratic majority defeated the American Energy Production Act by a vote of 56 to 42. The measure would have expanded domestic oil production as well as opening the potential of oil shale and coal-to-fuel technology. In 1996, President Clinton vetoed a bill that would have enabled us to get 1 million barrels of American oil a day. That is what we are demanding that Saudi Arabia give us. I remember in 1973, when we made some demands on Saudi Arabia, and they cut us off entirely. Some of us are old enough to remember the gas lines and the shortages we had then. But he vetoed a bill that would have enabled us to get a million barrels of American oil a day from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area about a sixth the size of Dulles Airport. The entire refuge is considerably bigger, but we are talking about drilling on a very small portion of it. On May 22, House Democrats voted down a measure sponsored by Congressman Mike Conaway that would have expanded the use of coal to fuel, oil shale, and tar sands, as well as expediting the permitting process for new refineries on three closed military bases. In December, Democratic members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee debated a proposal to ensure development of nuclear energy to meet emission goals. That is this year. The list goes on and on, as does the majority's theatrics of inaction. When they got the majority a year and a half ago, the Speaker promised lower gasoline prices. How have they delivered? Their answer for our need to produce more American energy is to always say no, and their solution is always, let's tax the oil industry, a plan we know won't work because, under President Carter, we tried that, and we drove a lot of business overseas, which is where we have to ship our money unless we can get oil production in the United States. A lot of people don't realize--maybe they do--that Saudi Arabia is the biggest producer and that the Soviet Union is the second largest producer. What they don't realize is that the United States is the third largest producer, and we could solve a lot of our own problems if we were to do some of the things suggested here. Like most of my colleagues, I support developing more alternative energy. I support the use of wind energy and the development of better solar energy technologies. Wyoming is the perfect place for a lot of that development to happen. We have, most days, the sunshine, and we do get some wind. While we need to develop those technologies for the long term, we need all the energy we can get today. We need more American oil from American soil, we need more domestic natural gas, we need more nuclear energy, and we definitely need more clean coal. More taxes and lawsuits are not going to get us there. I emphasize again that I have a lot of faith in American ingenuity. For the long term, there is some research that could be done that would work with coal to make it cleaner, greener, and meet the needs, because that is the biggest resource we have. We have more Btus in coal than Saudi Arabia has in oil, and we have that in one county in Wyoming. But for the shorter term, yes, we do need to conserve, and, yes, we need alternative energy sources. We cannot abandon the sources of energy we have right now. I am going to end with a story. A while ago, I had to go out to California for a meeting. I was supposed to speak in the evening, and my plane got into California at rush hour. I thought: I am probably not going to be able to make this speech. I rented a car. My wife was with me. I found out they have these high-occupancy vehicle lanes. Well, there was one lane for high-occupancy vehicles. I have never seen so many lanes. I am pretty sure there were six more lanes besides the one lane for high-occupancy vehicles. I made that speech on time. I zinged right through that high-occupancy-vehicle lane because it only required two people in the car--only two. Out here, there are a lot that require three, but in California it was only two. Now, what about the other six lanes of traffic? Stalled out. Six lanes--cars stopped dead, idling their motors, putting carbon in the air, one person to a car. Now, that is a State with 34 million people and huge concentrations of people. So I would like to encourage California to carpool a little bit. Now, I would encourage the people in Wyoming to carpool too, but I spend a lot of time trying to teach the East and the far West about the Midwest, and most of the people we have are driving because they have to and because they are going to a single site where they are the only worker. And we only have half a million people, to begin with. But a lot of trucks come through our State that are delivering produce and other things to the rest of the Nation, and that is important to have happen. But when people talk about gasoline and trying to reduce its use, they have to remember that a lot of that is to provide services and products that we in the United States have grown very accustomed to. We do not rely on everything coming from our own county; we rely on it coming from not only the rest of the United States but the rest of the word. The only way we are going to get out of this dilemma is to work on the short term, which is to get people to conserve; work on the medium term, which is to do some things with alternative energy but to put some research into the future so we can handle the kinds of things we need to provide for the energy we need for this country. Increasing the supply is the only thing that is going to bring down the price. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Javits-Wagner- O'Day and Randolph-Sheppard Modernization Act of 2008. This legislation was drafted after thousands of hours were spent listening to the concerns of persons with disabilities and other affected parties. The Randolph-Sheppard Act, enacted in 1936, gives persons who are legally blind training, support and contracting priority to fulfill certain Government food service contracts. The Wagner-O'Day Act, enacted in 1938, required the Federal Government to make certain commodities purchases from organizations, 75 percent of whose direct laborers were blind. In 1971, Senator Jacob Javits fought to include individuals with other severe disabilities in the law. The amended law--the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act--now requires the Federal Government to purchase over 11,000 commodities from organizations, 75 percent of whose workers have a severe disability. Javits-Wagner-O'Day and Randolph-Sheppard are the two main Federal employment and training programs for persons with significant disabilities. Congress has paid them little attention, and has not revised them, since their creation. Beginning in 2003, Randolph-Sheppard and JWOD stakeholders approached Congress to seek our attention and help. Each group complained the other was getting too big a share of lucrative military dining contracts. In 2003 and 2004, the offices of Senators Gregg, Kennedy, Ensign and Dodd tried to informally mediate. Neither the blind vendors nor the JWOD vendors would budge. The dispute intensified in the courts and in Congress, with each side accusing the other of waste, fraud and abuse. When I assumed the chairmanship of the HELP Committee in 2005, I decided to honor the stakeholders' longstanding request, and investigate their claims. My staff's initial findings were troubling, so I worked with my good friend Senator Kennedy to hold a bipartisan oversight hearing. Our hearing, in October 2005, documented several troubling facts. First and foremost, we discovered that the programs had produced bad quantitative results for persons with disabilities. There are about 15 million unemployed persons with disabilities between the ages of 16 and 64. Javits-Wagner-O'Day and Randolph-Sheppard together had created only about 48,000 jobs. Clearly we can--and must--do much better. Second, the programs had stayed the same while the law, technology, commercial customs and social norms had changed dramatically over the past decades. Since JWOD was enacted, Congress, through the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA and Rehabilitation Act reauthorizations of 1992 and 1998, had mandated equal access, inclusion, choice, anti-discrimination and control by individuals with disabilities over their own lives. The Supreme Court in its Olmstead decision held that the unnecessary segregation of individuals with disabilities was an impermissible form of discrimination. Corporate good citizens such as Marriott had taken a leadership role in the community to employ persons with severe disabilities in integrated work settings. New technologies made it possible for persons who were legally blind to use the Internet. These and countless other examples highlight how Randolph-Sheppard and JWOD had become ancient statutes. The world had changed dramatically since 1971. Persons with disabilities needed and deserved better treatment than the law was providing. Third, regulatory neglect had given rise to waste, fraud and abuse. The Randolph-Sheppard program was supposed to create good jobs and increased opportunities for the many persons who are blind. Instead, we found that 38 blind vendors were taking the lion's share of profits from huge military cafeteria contracts with an approximate total dollar value of $1.203 billion. Just as troublesome was the fact that less than 5 percent of the employees hired to fulfill those contracts were actually blind. In addition, we found nonprofit executives were using JWOD to exploit persons with disabilities for improper financial gain. The FBI and other Federal law enforcement officials raided a Texas JWOD nonprofit and discovered some shocking abuses that underscored the need for Congress to act. In 2006, I worked with Senators Kennedy, Ensign, Dodd, Burr, Clinton, Isakson, Reed, Hatch, Harkin, Roberts, Mikulski, Coburn, Bingaman, Collins, and Obama to develop solutions to these problems. The HELP Committee staff spent thousands of hours meeting with hundreds of stakeholders, and listening to their ideas about how to fix these programs. Then we drafted this legislation. In 2007, the momentum we had set in motion for a reauthorization bill stalled and other priorities began to take precedence. I continued to talk to and work with all of the stakeholders we could find, including those representing small business. Recent events put these issues back on the front burner where they belong. On April 15, the Department of Defense and Department of Education Inspectors General collaborated on a report, ``Assessment of Contracting With Blind Vendors and Employers of Persons Who Are Blind or Have Other Severe Disabilities.'' In addition, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled--the principal regulator of the JWOD program--proposed modest tweaks to its authorizing statute. I sincerely applaud the Committee for their hard work in coming up with consensus fixes, but its proposal does not go nearly far enough. As an alternative, I have updated the bill that the bipartisan HELP Committee produced in collaboration with stakeholder groups in 2006. It fulfills the promise I made to the disability community to try to solve the problems we found. The bill vitalizes and expands both programs. It creates much more flexibility to provide real job training and real skill development so persons with disabilities can develop marketable skills and make meaningful career choices. The bill also empowers a strong regulator to police both programs and make sure workers are no longer exploited. Finally, I have tried to stay out of the military dining facility debate for years. But it has become a significant distraction to our military. Accordingly, this bill establishes an even playing field in a way that will be clear and easy for the military to administer and participants in the process to understand. Our main goal here is to create more and better jobs for persons with disabilities. My bill moves us in the direction Congress should take to modify these two important programs. I look forward to continued discussions with my colleagues and the stakeholders on all these issues.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Javits-Wagner- O'Day and Randolph-Sheppard Modernization Act of 2008. This legislation was drafted after thousands of hours were spent listening to the concerns of persons with disabilities and other affected parties. The Randolph-Sheppard Act, enacted in 1936, gives persons who are legally blind training, support and contracting priority to fulfill certain Government food service contracts. The Wagner-O'Day Act, enacted in 1938, required the Federal Government to make certain commodities purchases from organizations, 75 percent of whose direct laborers were blind. In 1971, Senator Jacob Javits fought to include individuals with other severe disabilities in the law. The amended law--the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act--now requires the Federal Government to purchase over 11,000 commodities from organizations, 75 percent of whose workers have a severe disability. Javits-Wagner-O'Day and Randolph-Sheppard are the two main Federal employment and training programs for persons with significant disabilities. Congress has paid them little attention, and has not revised them, since their creation. Beginning in 2003, Randolph-Sheppard and JWOD stakeholders approached Congress to seek our attention and help. Each group complained the other was getting too big a share of lucrative military dining contracts. In 2003 and 2004, the offices of Senators Gregg, Kennedy, Ensign and Dodd tried to informally mediate. Neither the blind vendors nor the JWOD vendors would budge. The dispute intensified in the courts and in Congress, with each side accusing the other of waste, fraud and abuse. When I assumed the chairmanship of the HELP Committee in 2005, I decided to honor the stakeholders' longstanding request, and investigate their claims. My staff's initial findings were troubling, so I worked with my good friend Senator Kennedy to hold a bipartisan oversight hearing. Our hearing, in October 2005, documented several troubling facts. First and foremost, we discovered that the programs had produced bad quantitative results for persons with disabilities. There are about 15 million unemployed persons with disabilities between the ages of 16 and 64. Javits-Wagner-O'Day and Randolph-Sheppard together had created only about 48,000 jobs. Clearly we can--and must--do much better. Second, the programs had stayed the same while the law, technology, commercial customs and social norms had changed dramatically over the past decades. Since JWOD was enacted, Congress, through the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA and Rehabilitation Act reauthorizations of 1992 and 1998, had mandated equal access, inclusion, choice, anti-discrimination and control by individuals with disabilities over their own lives. The Supreme Court in its Olmstead decision held that the unnecessary segregation of individuals with disabilities was an impermissible form of discrimination. Corporate good citizens such as Marriott had taken a leadership role in the community to employ persons with severe disabilities in integrated work settings. New technologies made it possible for persons who were legally blind to use the Internet. These and countless other examples highlight how Randolph-Sheppard and JWOD had become ancient statutes. The world had changed dramatically since 1971. Persons with disabilities needed and deserved better treatment than the law was providing. Third, regulatory neglect had given rise to waste, fraud and abuse. The Randolph-Sheppard program was supposed to create good jobs and increased opportunities for the many persons who are blind. Instead, we found that 38 blind vendors were taking the lion's share of profits from huge military cafeteria contracts with an approximate total dollar value of $1.203 billion. Just as troublesome was the fact that less than 5 percent of the employees hired to fulfill those contracts were actually blind. In addition, we found nonprofit executives were using JWOD to exploit persons with disabilities for improper financial gain. The FBI and other Federal law enforcement officials raided a Texas JWOD nonprofit and discovered some shocking abuses that underscored the need for Congress to act. In 2006, I worked with Senators Kennedy, Ensign, Dodd, Burr, Clinton, Isakson, Reed, Hatch, Harkin, Roberts, Mikulski, Coburn, Bingaman, Collins, and Obama to develop solutions to these problems. The HELP Committee staff spent thousands of hours meeting with hundreds of stakeholders, and listening to their ideas about how to fix these programs. Then we drafted this legislation. In 2007, the momentum we had set in motion for a reauthorization bill stalled and other priorities began to take precedence. I continued to talk to and work with all of the stakeholders we could find, including those representing small business. Recent events put these issues back on the front burner where they belong. On April 15, the Department of Defense and Department of Education Inspectors General collaborated on a report, ``Assessment of Contracting With Blind Vendors and Employers of Persons Who Are Blind or Have Other Severe Disabilities.'' In addition, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled--the principal regulator of the JWOD program--proposed modest tweaks to its authorizing statute. I sincerely applaud the Committee for their hard work in coming up with consensus fixes, but its proposal does not go nearly far enough. As an alternative, I have updated the bill that the bipartisan HELP Committee produced in collaboration with stakeholder groups in 2006. It fulfills the promise I made to the disability community to try to solve the problems we found. The bill vitalizes and expands both programs. It creates much more flexibility to provide real job training and real skill development so persons with disabilities can develop marketable skills and make meaningful career choices. The bill also empowers a strong regulator to police both programs and make sure workers are no longer exploited. Finally, I have tried to stay out of the military dining facility debate for years. But it has become a significant distraction to our military. Accordingly, this bill establishes an even playing field in a way that will be clear and easy for the military to administer and participants in the process to understand. Our main goal here is to create more and better jobs for persons with disabilities. My bill moves us in the direction Congress should take to modify these two important programs. I look forward to continued discussions with my colleagues and the stakeholders on all these issues.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Cloture means the desire to cut off debate. It can be used, but it is a very lengthy process, very time consuming, and usually results in about 3 weeks of debate even if everybody wants the debate.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the price of gasoline is the biggest issue in this country, and I appreciate the comments the Senator from Delaware made. However, the one-size-fits-all law is a little tough for this country. He probably doesn't realize we don't have any passenger trains or commuter trains anywhere in Wyoming. We used to, but they showed there wasn't enough use by changing the schedules so it always showed up 12 hours late, and most people weren't willing to wait 12 hours for a train. Then when you don't have the use, you can take the train out. A lot of people in our State don't just drive their car to be able to get to work. Driving their truck or their car is their work. And we have these huge miles between places. One of my experiences recently is that I was driving between some towns and I, unfortunately, didn't have enough gas to make it to the next town. So I started to fill my tank and the pump stopped at exactly $75. Now, I can't tell you the last time I got a pump to stop right on the numbers. It used to be pretty easy because you could squeeze the handle and get it to an even number. But now you squeeze the handle a little bit and it goes zap and up quite a few cents. But it cut off right at $75. I thought, I don't think that is enough to fill this tank. When I checked, it wasn't. So there are some limits the credit card companies or the pumps are not used to, where they cut off, and that is making it a very important issue in Wyoming and the rest of the Nation. Because it is making it more expensive to take a vacation, it is making it more expensive to cool our houses, and it is making it more expensive to go to the grocery store. Unfortunately, at a time when the American people are begging us to take constructive action, the Senate refuses to have a serious debate on this important topic. Instead of working together to find sensible solutions we can agree on, the Democratic majority insists on playing ``gotcha'' politics and bringing up policies that have not been through any committee. So they know they will not pass. They do it to score cheap political points. That is not how we are supposed to operate. That is how we have been operating now for several months. I think the farm bill is the last one that seriously went through a committee and followed the whole process. Earlier, there was a chart up that showed 75 filibusters. Well, the blame for 75 filibusters shouldn't all be placed on the ``other'' side of the aisle. That count of filibusters is anytime that a cloture motion is filed. I have noticed it has been very convenient for the Democratic side of the aisle to put in a bill on a Friday and file a cloture motion that we would vote on Monday or Tuesday morning. So far as I can tell, the purpose of that, with the 51-to-49 split and 2 Presidential candidates gone on one side and one Presidential candidate gone on the other side, is they couldn't assure they would win a vote. So if you file cloture and you happen to win, it is going to be 30 hours before there can be another single vote, which takes us to at least Wednesday night, and that means you don't have to get your candidates to come in until Wednesday night. So it has been very convenient to have this kind of process on the Senate side. That process was designed so the majority would have a say in what was happening and so the minority could put amendments on. Now, we have this little thing over here, it is a little parliamentary procedure, where you can file a couple amendments at the same time you file the cloture motion, and that prohibits any amendments, so you don't have to worry about the other side having anything difficult to vote on. The minority almost always, I think through the history of the Senate, has stopped debate on that kind of a process. The 40 in the minority stop the debate. That is what we have been going through. We had a perfect example of that yesterday. The Senate voted on a tax package that included an extension of wind and solar production tax credits. Democrats and Republicans both agree we need to extend those important tax credits. We came together to support the provisions to extend those credits by a vote of 88 to 8 in April. But instead of working together, working with our colleagues in the House to move the provision that had the support of the 88 Senators forward, the majority forced us to vote yesterday on an extension we all knew wouldn't pass. Now, I am mad about the price of energy, just like everybody else. I don't like going to the gas station and paying $4 for a gallon of gas. I look at the profits the oil industry is making, and I do find them shocking. They are big numbers, until--until--you compare them with the dollars we are shipping to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and other countries every day. We are shipping money out of this country to get energy in much bigger numbers than we are paying to any American companies. But I also look at the situation we face, and I wish to do something that will improve it and not harm it. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle obviously don't have the same desire. How can you tell, you might ask? Because their proposal we voted on yesterday imposed a windfall profit tax on energy companies and increased the level of regulation on the energy industry, making it easier to sue them. As usual, their answer to a problem is, let's increase the taxes and let's hand the situation over to the trial lawyers. Now, we have tried the windfall profit tax before, when Jimmy Carter was the President. While it may have made people feel good for a few days, because they could say they were punishing those big oil companies for making profits, it didn't improve the situation. It made it worse. Businesses, to stay in business, reinvest profits. Most reinvest in what they know best. I wish to see a monthly report of the oil company investments. We do keep making it harder and harder for them to invest in America. In Wyoming, I know there was a powerplant that decided to do a little bit of wind energy. We had the proposal out there that all of them would have to get a certain amount of their power from alternative energies, so they planned and started building a wind power field. They were a little surprised at some of the environmental groups saying: You can't do that; you can't own that. You have to buy it from other people. We have to make up our mind if we want it and how badly we want it and who we will let have it. I don't know why anybody with the dollars to invest in wind power should not be able to invest in wind power. It is an alternative source of energy. It is something we can use, something we need. Hopefully we can get some better battery storage so when they are operating, and when people don't need it, we store it for when people do need it. There are a lot of inventions we need. I have a lot of faith in American ingenuity to know, whatever problems are out there, we can solve them. We have people with minds who can come up with creative ideas that can solve them. That is happening with energy. I was talking about the windfall profits tax. I can't sum it up any better than former Democratic Senator John Breaux from Louisiana did. He said: A windfall profits tax is not going to produce a single barrel of oil. A windfall profits tax will produce less energy and not more. The Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan researcher for Congress, agrees. A windfall profits tax doesn't improve our energy situation but it does score a cheap political point, and that is why we voted on it once again yesterday instead of having a serious energy debate. The problem we face is the problem of supply and demand: less American-made energy and more demand for that energy--prices go up. That is the problem Congress should be addressing. That is what those in control of both Houses of Congress do not seem to understand at this stage. The continued rise of gas prices is going to put an end to this dog- and-pony show eventually. Then maybe the majority will be more open to responsible, limited oil production off our shores in States that want to have the production off their shores, such as the Commonwealth of Virginia, or we could open less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area smaller than Dulles Airport, to energy production with the most stringent environmental controls ever imposed. Maybe we could have a serious debate about using our Nation's most abundant energy source, which is coal, to produce diesel fuel or jet fuel that can be moved in our existing transportation infrastructure and can be made here in America. Wyoming passed some new laws that deal with carbon sequestration, so there would be a goal for people to shoot at. It is the first State to ever do that. The companies are responding. Of course, part of the use of that carbon is to inject into oil fields because the average oil field is able to recover about 20 percent of its product. With it they can get 30 percent of the product. It appears as though my time has expired. I still have quite a bit more I will say at a later time.

Mr. ENZI. Certainly.

Mr. ENZI. If you impose cloture, you cut off a lot of amendments and a lot of debate and limit the amount of time that anything can be talked about. It is a parliamentary procedure. That is correct.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sara McElroy from my staff be allowed floor privileges for the rest of the afternoon.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his comments. He is well aware of the spirit of community in Wyoming, which relies on jobs, like everywhere else. He makes points about how important all of the energy sources in Wyoming are, and particularly coal, and the opportunities we have for the American people to make coal even better, even the clean coal we have in Wyoming. Tribute to David Trowbridge of Lingle, Wyoming Mr. President, I rise today to talk a little bit about some of that spirit of community in Wyoming. It also has to do with the spirit of community in Mississippi. Shortly after Hurricane Katrina, I went to visit down there and see what had happened. I definitely had to admit that Louisiana had been drowned. Then I got to see Mississippi, and I saw they not only were drowned but they were blown away. I saw one place where there were oak trees that were easily 2 feet in diameter that had been snapped off about 6 feet above the ground from the wind. The devastation down there is almost impossible to imagine. I always say a picture is worth a thousand words, but being on the ground is worth a thousand pictures. We got to see that. It still is an area that is in recovery. Today, I wish to recognize the actions of one Wyoming man who left his home out West to go help his fellow Americans down South. He has done more than simply lend a hand to a small Mississippi town devastated by Hurricane Katrina. He lent his heart, and he is an example for all of us to follow. David Trowbridge of Lingle, WY--one of our small towns--is quite a hero. Shortly after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the gulf coast in 2005, he joined a group of volunteers from his church on a trip to Bay Saint Louis, MS, where they provided aid to storm victims. There, David witnessed firsthand the utter destruction of the hurricane--the lost loved ones, the wrecked homes, and the destroyed livelihoods. Upon returning to Wyoming, Mr. Trowbridge vowed to go back to Mississippi and help as many people as possible. I have learned from members of his small church in Lingle that Mr. Trowbridge is a man of his word. He did go back, and he is still there helping. In June of 2006, he purchased a motor home, loaded his tools and moved from Wyoming to Bay Saint Louis indefinitely. I have to tell you, we hope he comes back before the census because Wyoming can use the population. Since then, Mr. Trowbridge has spent his time working with First Baptist Church to help others rebuild their homes and their lives. In all, he has worked on 62 houses in the Bay Saint Louis area. From roofing and laying tile to painting and plumbing, Mr. Trowbridge has provided critical building repair services to many grateful families. He has also played an integral role in training the thousands of volunteer teams that flocked to Bay Saint Louis to assist with the rebuilding process. He teaches the volunteers the skills they need to repair homes. Then he works side by side with them, helping the volunteers to finish their projects and achieve their goals. Mr. Trowbridge has changed countless lives through the giving of his time and labor, and he has done it all without asking anything in return. His work is completely volunteer. Aside from a few donations here and there, Mr. Trowbridge has funded this journey through personal savings. He has reached into his own pockets to give new hope to people who lost theirs in the storm. That goes to show the depth of his selflessness. Mr. Trowbridge represents the true spirit of giving that we in Wyoming know so well, and I am proud he is sharing that Wyoming sense of community with those affected by Hurricane Katrina. He is an inspiration of hope and generosity, and his effort serves as a testament to what just one man can accomplish when he sets out to make a positive impact on other people's lives. Mr. Trowbridge is a man of faith and heart, and we can all learn from the example he set. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in thanking him for all the work he has done and the hope he has brought to Bay Saint Louis, MS. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for joining me in this tribute today for David Trowbridge. We do this as a reminder that there are still problems that need to be fixed from August 2005. The people down there are very appreciative of the help they get. Of course, we are reminded, as there are tornados hitting all over the United States, that there are people in other parts of the country who need help as well. It is the American spirit to reach out and help other people. Often it is done without any kind of a call, any kind of notice. People hear about these needs and they show up and they do the work. We need to keep them all in our minds and our prayers and, when we get the opportunity, to give a little bit of special mention of somebody who goes out of their way, takes money out of their own pocket to help out. That is what America is about--people helping people. David Trowbridge is an outstanding example of that. I thank the Senator from Mississippi, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I too ask unanimous consent that I might be allowed to speak for as much time as I might consume.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank my fellow Senator from Wyoming for his comments and thank him for the way he has filled in and followed the legacy Senator Thomas began and the work he has done on the issues that were undone when Senator Thomas left us, his work on the Wyoming range and his work on the wild scenic rivers and also on our joint effort to make sure Richard Honecker gets a vote as a judge. That is a nomination Senator Thomas offered well before he left. In fact, he has been waiting around--not that I am keeping track--443 days. There has been no vote on him yet in committee, so we cannot vote on the nomination on the floor. This is an outstanding person, rated highly by everybody and letters of recommendations from both Democrats and Republicans in Wyoming who would really like to have a vote. So his life has been in suspension. I thank Senator Barrasso for the work he as done on that issue and the kind words about Senator Thomas, and I thank Senator Barrasso for filling in. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I will want to sympathize with the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley. Two weeks before Hurricane Katrina, a tornado came through the town of Wright, WY, which is 30 miles south of the town I live in. It happened to be during a recess so I got to go out there and see what had happened and see what kind of response there was and see what the Government is supposed to do and what they do do. What I was most impressed with is the spirit of community, the way the people got right after it and started cleaning up and helping each other out. People poured in from towns and other States to help. It is a great country we live in, where people will do that and help out where it isn't any concern of theirs. But they recognize that is what we do in America. I think that is a difference from many other countries, too. I appreciate your sharing that with us.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the legislation we have been debating and that we are going to be precluded from debating, should cloture happen tomorrow. The reason I say precluded from debating is we are not being allowed to do any amendments. The whole stage has been set: One amendment so far; it is a take-it-or-leave-it amendment. My experience in the 11\1/2\ years I have been around here is that bills that come to us that way do not pass. That is what the whole Senate was designed for, to see that take-it- or-leave-it stuff doesn't make it through here, that the opinions of 100 people get to be reflected in legislation. The longer we are here, the quicker we think we ought to be able to get bills done. The longer we are here, the more complicated the issues. This is a very complicated issue. There are things people are doing. There are things people need to be doing. But to make it very prescriptive and to not allow the opinions of 100 people who could point out some of the flaws and some ways it could be better is wrong. The majority leader and a number of Members on the other side have called climate change the ``greatest environmental threat facing our world.'' I am not hearing big arguments against that. But if that is the case, we should put our heads together and come up with a plan to protect us from this massive threat. We should spend time amending it, ironing out any problems, and determining what we will have to pay. There is a huge disconnect in America, thinking that we can solve this problem and it will not cost the consumer anything. We are actually promulgating that myth here, now. I heard the fuel economy we are going to get is going to offset any of the costs. I know a few guys out there who are getting ahold of me on a regular basis because they drive trucks. They do contract work. I am pretty sure they didn't put a little clause in there that gave them a fuel escalation break. Some of the big companies might have thought of that. The little companies didn't. So far as I can tell, they are not planning on trading that truck in for a more fuel-efficient truck because they can't afford to do that. New trucks cost more money. They have a contract that limits what they can do. So the offset is not going to pay to the person who is paying the bill. It may go to somebody else. We do need to encourage better mileage. We need to encourage less travel--although somebody the other day pointed out to me that if we have less travel--for instance, if I rode my bike back and forth from home to work, although I usually walk, that consumes calories. And to replace those calories, I have to eat food. And that food probably is transported in somehow, so I am still adding to the climate problem. It is not solving it just by doing some alternatives. I hadn't thought about that. But what I am talking about tonight is that the debate has been shut down; the amendment tree has been filled. That means a little parliamentary procedure around here has already put some amendments, with relatively insignificant changes in them, so nobody else can bring up an amendment and have it voted on. It is getting to be a very common thing around here. Now, I understand partly why it is being done. The majority has had two people out on the Presidential campaign trail, and now Senator Kennedy is not able to be with us. That is the loss of three votes. It is a 51-to-49 Senate. So I sympathize with the leader in trying to control votes when some of the people are not here, because with our one Presidential candidate gone and three of their people gone, it winds up with a tie. I have noticed the Vice President usually votes with me. But what we are trying to do, I think around here, is get bills done and get them done in a logical process and actually finish them. But I do not think that is what we are doing. The amendment tree got filled. The greatest threat of our time, the greatest deliberative body is not allowed to deliberate, to be deliberative. Something is wrong with that picture. Now, I have some amendments that are important. I think they are important to anybody who might be listening, especially my colleagues. Do not think that not paying attention to or being interested in politics is going to shield anyone from the consequence of this bill if it were to pass. It could change our way of life. The bill is going to cost money, and you have a right to know how much it is going to cost you. I filed an amendment that requires utilities to include on the bill they send you, the consumers, the amount it is costing to comply with this legislation. I would like to take a look at a part of the bill that is very significant for Wyoming residents; that is the coal portion. Coal is our Nation's most important and abundant energy source. Wyoming's coal is the cleanest coal in the Nation. We ship to every State in the Nation. They mix it with their coal to meet the clean air standards. I want the lights to stay on in Wyoming and the rest of the Nation. California relies heavily on electricity from Wyoming. Without coal, that is not going to happen. Now, China understands energy. China understands that the future economy of the world depends on energy. They have already bought all the oil supply, they have bought up gas supplies, they are in the process of buying up coal supplies. How do I know about that? They are buying coal in Campbell County, WY, and shipping it to China. Now, a lot of it is in the test burn stage, and I suspect they may be burning that in the powerplants right around Beijing, which will clean their air for the Olympics. I do not know how long the contracts are, and I do not know how expensive it will be. But I suspect that coal will be sold, and I know, by the way, because of rotation of the Earth, the direction the wind blows. The powerplants in Wyoming do not put anything in California, but the powerplants in China, of which they are building one a week, it takes longer, but they are opening one a week, that air will blow to California. China is not going to be part of this. I have had an opportunity to sit down with some of the Chinese delegation who are at the global warming conferences. They do point out they are a developing nation. I have asked them, as a developing nation, is there any point in the future at which they would do something to cut down their pollution? They have assured me they will always be a developing nation and will always come under those provisions. So do not count on China to help out in this. Now, I filed another amendment with my colleagues from Missouri, Ohio, and Oklahoma that is an approach to making cleaner coal. I have also cosponsored another amendment with my fellow Senator from Wyoming, an amendment, that was filed by Senator Dorgan from North Dakota taking another approach to greening up coal so we can more efficiently harness its power while minimizing its impact on the environment. I have cosponsored multiple approaches because it is vital we improve the bill by improving the way we use coal. Half our electricity comes from coal. There is no short-term substitute for coal. We need to come together and come up with a real solution, hopefully one that does place a little bit of confidence in the ingenuity of the American people. If there is a problem, they can solve it; not always immediately and not always without some kind of incentive. There are a number of ways of providing that incentive. We have not gotten to discuss those, and the majority is not going to let us do that today. I cannot even call up my amendments to let other Members debate them because the majority leader has used a parliamentary tactic to prevent us from offering changes to this bill. The majority leader has decided we cannot fully debate what he calls the greatest environmental threat facing the world. Is he serious? Well, I am. But apparently the proponents of this bill are not. If they were, they would be working to come up with a solution to this problem rather than playing another inning of ``gotcha'' politics. This is a complex piece of legislation. I am not sure anybody knows exactly how it works. The bill we originally talked about came through committee. The substitute we are doing now did not come through committee, so it hasn't had the same look everything else had. Anytime we go to a bill that hasn't been through committee and we invoke cloture so amendments cannot be done, the bills do not make it here. I appreciate my colleagues' approach on that. I have seen it happen, though, regardless of who was in the majority. That is the way it works. People get upset when they cannot do amendments. Now, I do know people who buy coal from my State say this bill will be a real punch in the gut. I do know the vast majority of studies say this bill will take money out of your pocket because you will have to pay higher energy prices. These are issues that need to be addressed. But we are not being allowed to address them. There is this sudden urgency that if it does not pass this week, the world will not exist next week. I think that is a lit bit of an exaggeration. I have a list of people who were supporting this legislation apparently as it is. I think they were generally supporting the concept of cleaning up the environment. But I did notice the list of supporters included those who have figured out a way to make some money off this. That is how it works in America. But it does leave out those who are currently having a job in these areas. Now, it is baffling to me that we are being precluded, that it is being cut off early. I hope my Senate colleagues will not do that. When the Senate considered the Clean Air Act amendments in 1990, and it was very important for them to consider that, because prior to that time we had a one-size-fits-all approach in the United States. It needed to be corrected. Those clean air amendments of 1990 passed, and they made corrections to it. They made a system that worked, or at least worked better. There is no such thing as perfect legislation. We spent 5 weeks on the bill. There were 180 amendments that were considered, and 130 were processed. Usually, we are asked if we cannot get our amendments down to two or three or five. No, you cannot. The reason you cannot is that if you have a series of amendments that deal with the smaller topics, people understand them better. You will have one section 3 people will object to, another one 11 people will object to, another one 4 people will object to, and pretty quickly you are at 51. It is a pretty good philosophy if you do not want an amendment to pass, you cram them all together, so you can generate enough animosity over each of the parts so it adds up to 51 votes against and it never makes it. On the other hand, if you are serious about making changes, then you do it such as we did with--I was not here at that time--the Clean Air Act of 1990, where there were 180 amendments and 130 were processed. We have been debating this bill for less than a week at this stage, with lots of interruptions. We have considered exactly one amendment, and that is the substitute amendment from the Democratic chair of the committee that dramatically changes the bill from what came out of committee. That is not the way to conduct business in the Senate. It is not the way to get anything done. But, then again, that is probably apparent that if there was a real desire to get something done, this bill would be debated in the regular order. When the Senate was less polarized, it was because there was more debating in the regular order. The bill we were debating had gone through committee, S. 2191; but the bill S. 3036 did not. I do not know anyone who believes this bill is going to be signed into law. I am not even sure anybody wants it signed into law considering the process it is going through. I think it is an effort by the majority saying: Oh, woe is us. We need to have 60 on our side of the aisle so we can cram these ideas down the other side's throat. That is not the Senate. The majority, in fact, is saying, until we have 60 votes on our side, we are not going to let anything pass. They take this approach, even though the energy crisis is the main concern of the American people. Oh, but that is right, this bill is not going to do anything for energy prices, particularly in the short run. I am disappointed with the situation the majority leader has put the Senate in today that will actually happen tomorrow morning--it is happening at 9 o'clock--which means there is going to be debate before the vote, it will be rather limited, probably between the two leaders. I do not think this bill is ready for debate, so I voted against proceeding to this bill. However, now that we are on the bill, we do have to consider its merits. That is what I have done on all this. That is why I filed two amendments to it. Unfortunately, we are not truly debating the bill because the parliamentary procedure, the parliamentary tactics are going to cut off all the amendments. Oh, there will be some conversation about how there will be 30 hours to do things after cloture is done. I follow the proceedings around here. Now, you can stall through 30 hours and make sure not a single vote happens. So anybody who votes for cloture means voting to preclude amendments, and anybody who says: Oh, there will be an open debate on it and an opportunity for amendments, ought to check the history on this and see if they have actually talked to anybody who would allow that to happen because it will be a new one on me. So the whole purpose right now is to do ``gotcha'' politics, avoid the committee to bring it to the floor, have a motion to proceed introduced on Friday, we vote on Monday followed by 30 hours, while we are waiting for people to show up to vote during the week because they are out on the campaign trial, and then filing a final cloture motion to make it be a one-size-fits-all, take-it-or-leave-it bill. I think it is very unfortunate that we have come to this point. I will oppose further tactics designed to shut Senators out in the cold while the proponents are inside making their own global warming plan. The ``take it or leave it'' has never been a successful approach around here. I am willing to bet it will not be a successful approach tomorrow. I yield the floor.