Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I see there is another Senator left to speak here. I have a lot left to say. This is a very important issue. A lot more needs to be said when we are faced with a proposal to take away away the right to a secret ballot in a bill deceptively called the Free Choice Act. It should correctly be called the Union Intimidation Act. I will reserve the remainder of my remarks and speak again a little later. When I speak later, I will ask the Record not show an interruption.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss my opposition to a few of the provisions in the Finance Committee-passed energy tax package. Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley for their work on this amendment. I know they have exerted an incredible amount of energy to get this legislation to the floor so that we can debate it as part of this Energy bill. The package we are debating includes a number of important provisions. It includes additional funding for clean renewable energy bonds, which are important to rural electric cooperatives who seek to build clean generation. It includes accelerated depreciation for carbon dioxide pipelines, which will encourage more carbon sequestration. It also includes a carbon capture credit that will make it more economical for some carbon dioxide to be used in enhanced oil recovery and for some carbon dioxide to be sequestered. These are important provisions, and I am pleased to see them included in this package. Although that is the case, I have grave concerns about the impact of this tax package. I am specifically concerned about its impact on consumers. When taken as a whole, I believe that the package will lead to increased gas prices and will have a detrimental impact on our country's quest to become energy independent by discouraging domestic energy production. The amendment contains approximately $28.6 billion in ``revenue raisers'' over the next 10 years. The phrase ``revenue raisers'' is Washington speak for tax increases, and I find it hard to believe that we can increase taxes by $28.6 billion and have no impact on the price of gasoline at the pump for the average American. Businesses are in business to make money, and when we increase their taxes, they pass that increase along to the consumer. It is not ExxonMobil or Shell or BP that will pay for these tax increases. It is the senior citizen on a fixed income who fills up her station wagon. It is the soccer mom who drives her children to school. This tax title is not punishing the companies. It is punishing the American people who rely on energy to fuel their daily lives. Specifically, I am concerned that three provisions of this bill will increase gas prices and will discourage energy production at a time when our Nation's supply does not meet our Nation's demand. Last week, I joined a number of my colleagues in a letter to the Senate Finance Committee that urged the committee not to repeal the section 199 manufacturing deduction, and I am disappointed to note that this was included. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that the repeal of the section 199 deduction will raise $9.43 billion over a 10-year period. That is $9.43 billion that will be passed along to the American people. I am also disappointed that the legislation includes a new 13-percent severance tax for oil produced in the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS. The OCS represents one of America's greatest energy sources, and raising taxes on those who hope to produce in the OCS will most certainly not encourage the domestic energy production that we all believe is so important. Finally, I am concerned that this legislation changes what is known as the foreign tax credit. This change, which amounts to double taxation, will increase taxes by $3.2 billion over the next 10 years. Someone has to pay for that tax increase, and I am concerned that it will be the American people. While I appreciate the work of my colleagues, at the end of the day, I am extremely concerned that this legislation will slow domestic energy production and increase the prices paid by consumers. There are a number of good provisions in this bill that I do support. However, at the end of the day, raising taxes is not the way to increase energy production and decrease energy prices. I would urge my colleagues to oppose cloture on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007. This legislation is a bipartisan effort by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to reauthorize the Head Start Act. The Head Start Program was established in 1965 as part of the war on poverty by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The purpose of the program was, and remains, to provide educational and other developmental services to children in very low-income families. Since its creation, Head Start has been a comprehensive early childhood development program that provides educational, health, nutritional, social, and other services to low-income preschool-aged children and their families. Head Start currently provides services to over 900,000 children and their families through a network of over 1,600 public and private agencies. The legislation before us today builds on work started last Congress by the HELP Committee under my leadership. The Head Start for School Readiness Act ensures that low-income children receive the educational and developmental services they need to be ready to learn and be successful in school. I want to thank Senator Kennedy for his ongoing commitment to working on a bipartisan basis, which has resulted in legislation that meets the needs of children and families who participate in the Head Start Program throughout our Nation. I would also like to thank our colleagues, Senators Alexander and Dodd, for their fine work and dedication to this important program. Head Start was created to level the playing field for low-income children by providing them with education and development activities. This program recognizes that children do not start school with the same set of experiences and knowledge and helps provide low-income children with some of the experiences and knowledge their more affluent peers have as they start their elementary school experience. The Head Start Program also recognizes the important role that families play in a child's development and encourages their regular participation in the program. This legislation helps ensure that children in the Head Start Program will be better prepared to enter school with the skills necessary to succeed. It is well documented in early childhood education research that students who are not reading at grade level by the third grade will struggle with reading the rest of their lives. Head Start provides early education for over 900,000 children each year, most of whom would not have the opportunity to attend preschool programs elsewhere. The future of these children is why we have all worked so hard to improve and strengthen this act. The legislation before us today will help Head Start Programs provide children with the early learning skills and early childhood development activities they need to be successful. Head Start introduces many of these children to books, the alphabet, numbers, as well as how to play and share with their classmates. Head Start provides the building blocks children need for success later in life. The Head Start for School Readiness Act builds on what many great Head Start providers are already doing. Working from recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences, this bill adds educational standards related to language skills, literacy and numeracy skills, as well as cognitive, emotional, and physical development. Steps are also taken to ensure that limited English proficient children are provided assistance in acquiring the English language. I am particularly pleased with the accountability provisions put forth in this legislation. The legislation before us today includes important changes to the Head Start Program related to the evaluation and review of grantees. The timeframe for Head Start grantees to appeal decisions made by the Secretary to terminate grants is now limited. In some instances, Head Start grantees have been found to be operating programs that are unsafe or misusing Federal funds--and are often continuing those bad practices for months--as long as 600 days in some cases--during the termination process. This equates to children not receiving quality services, and instead of being prepared for success, they fall further behind. Additional steps have been taken in this legislation to increase the quality of Head Start Programs, including providing the Secretary the authority to terminate a grantee that has multiple and recurring deficiencies that has not made significant and substantial progress toward correcting those deficiencies. This legislation provides greater clarity for grantees as to what constitutes a program deficiency. Many of us have heard from grantees across the country who expressed frustration with the lack of consistency with which the provisions of the Head Start Program is enforced. For that reason this legislation includes provisions related to interrator reliability--this will help ensure consistency in the review of Head Start Programs across the country. Changes were made to the distribution of grant funds to ensure that programs maintain their funded levels of enrollment. We understand that families served by the Head Start Program tend to be more migratory and that full enrollment at Centers is often difficult to maintain. However, we also know that many programs have waiting lists and that thousands of eligible children are not currently being served. This legislation balances those needs by providing flexibility in meeting full enrollment, but also requiring funds to be moved from chronically under-enrolled programs. Senator Dodd has provided valuable leadership as we worked to develop a clear policy on the roles and responsibilities of the governing bodies and policy councils. We have worked together to clarify and strengthen the roles of the governing body and policy councils while preserving the important role of parents. After careful review, the committee found that many of the important fiscal and legal responsibilities of Head Start grantees were not explicitly assigned. Unfortunately there have been too many examples of programs that have failed the children, families, and community they were funded to serve due to appalling financial mismanagement. Cases were brought to the committee that detailed excessive and inappropriate expenditures, lost funds, and reduced services to children because proper financial management techniques were not in place. Too often the truth was hidden from governing bodies and policy councils alike. The bill clarifies those responsibilities leading to more consistent, high-quality fiscal and legal management, which will ensure these programs are serving children in the best possible way. Changes in this legislation address the concerning situations mentioned earlier by placing fiscal responsibility with the governing body. It is absolutely necessary and vital that one entity maintain fiscal and legal control of the Federal grant dollars. That said, we maintain the equally vital and necessary role of the policy councils in setting program priorities, classroom activities, and personnel changes. We believe this careful balance will help ensure the continued integrity of the Head Start Program for years to come. We recognize that a vast majority of the Head Start agencies provide high quality, comprehensive services for children in the Head Start Programs. However, the provisions in this bill will create an important incentive for programs to operate at their best and in the best interest of the children they serve. I want to particularly note emphasis we have placed on the role of parents in Head Start Programs. It is vital to remember that this program provides services to children and their families. Parents provide valuable insight and experience as to what a Head Start Program should do for children. In fact, this legislation increases the presence of parents in Head Start Programs, strengthens services for families, and provides training and development opportunities for parents that do serve on the policy councils and governing bodies. This legislation also increases the coordination, collaboration, and excellence of early childhood education and care programs. It enhances the role of the State director of Head Start collaboration to ensure that Head Start Programs are maximizing their potential by stretching dollars, promoting partnerships to meet State and local needs, and developing strategic plans to meet future and current goals. This legislation also allows each State to apply for funds to support a State advisory council on early care and education to conduct a statewide needs assessment, identify collaboration opportunities, and support additional data collection. Additional encouragement of coordination and collaboration will stretch Federal, State and local resources to provide additional resources to disadvantaged children across the country. Finally, this legislation requires the Department of Health and Human Services to cease any further development or implementation of the National Reporting System. While I believe that the assessment of children in the Head Start Program is important, I believe that the assessment must be both age and developmentally appropriate. This legislation requires a review and update of the assessments, standards, and measures used in Head Start Programs by the Panel on Developmental Outcomes and Assessments for Young Children of the National Academy of Sciences. Once the panel completes its recommendations, the Secretary is then allowed to revisit the issue of assessment in Head Start Programs. The members of the HELP Committee, and in particular Senators Alexander, Kennedy, and Dodd, have worked tirelessly on this legislation. The final product before us today is a comprehensive and bipartisan reauthorization of the Head Start Program. I wish to thank Senators Kennedy, Alexander, and Dodd and the other members of the committee for their assistance in moving this legislation to the floor. Passage of this legislation will ensure that low-income children are prepared not only for success in school but for later success in life. Finally, I would like to thank the staff of members of the HELP Committee who have spent countless hours preparing this legislation for passage by the Senate. In particular I would like to thank Roberto Rodriguez with Senator Kennedy, Catherine Hildum and Sharon Lewis with Senator Dodd, David Cleary and Sarah Rittling with Senator Alexander, and Beth Buehlmann and Lindsay Hunsicker of my staff. It is my hope that our bipartisan efforts will continue to produce results as we move to final passage of this legislation and on to a conference committee with the House of Representatives. We must all work together to get a bipartisan product to President Bush for his signature as soon as possible.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the newly constructed Grand Teton Visitors Center is August 11, 2007. It will be a day that will be long remembered by all who come to honor the memory of one of the park's greatest champions. By passing this legislation, we are making that day possible and ensuring that those who attend that special ceremony will be the first to enjoy all the Craig Thomas Discovery and Visitor Center will have to offer. This is an honor which I know would have pleased Craig and made him very proud. I can also see him riding tall in the saddle of a horse, taking it all in under the brim of his favorite cowboy hat. Naming the visitors center for Craig Thomas will also mean a great deal to everyone who knew and loved him. It will be a tribute to a special American that will last for a long time to come. Many years from today, when people come to the park and stop by the visitors center that bears his name, they will know that Craig Thomas was so many things in life--a marine, a Senator, a rancher, and a dedicated father and husband. But most of all, they will know Craig loved Wyoming and the West and fought with everything he had to maintain our precious resources. I always said God saved some of his best handiwork for Wyoming. We are fortunate that he also gave us the best champion to fight to protect and preserve it all. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration Calendar No. 41, S. 277.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it was just a few days ago when we heard the news that we had lost our dear friend and colleague, Senator Craig Thomas. We lowered our flags and joined together as a family to say goodbye to someone who fought for what he believed in and worked to the end to make Wyoming and the West better places to live. Craig is now gone, but the work he began lives on. That is why I am pleased to offer an amendment to S. 277, the Grand Teton National Park Extension Act of 2007. My amendment builds on the work begun by Craig and the efforts of Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici who worked so hard to shepherd this bill through the legislative process. In addition, I also thank Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell for bringing this bill to the floor so we can make one of Craig's legislative goals a reality. It is no surprise that Craig worked so hard to develop, draft, and introduce this legislation. No one understood the needs of Wyoming and the West better than he did. Craig was a cowboy from the top of his hat to the tip of his boots. There was nothing he enjoyed more than riding a horse through our national forests and spending time in the great outdoors. Craig's love for the wide open spaces of our State led him to introduce the Grand Teton National Park Extension Act of 2007. When it is signed into law, it will allow the Secretary of the Interior to accept the donation of approximately 50 acres of private land that will be added to Grand Teton National Park. In addition to Craig, we have the Halpin family to thank for their generosity. It will truly be a gift enjoyed by the people of Wyoming and the West, and the whole country, by all who come to visit our national parks every year. When that land is added to Grand Teton National Park, it will have another little addition to it. That addition is to rename the visitors center the Craig Thomas Discovery and Visitor Center. It will provide the people with a place to stop and visit during their trips to Grand Teton where they can learn about the history of the park and the life of Craig Thomas. I cannot think of a better way to remember Craig's life than to share it with all who benefitted from his many years of hard work and public service. Craig dedicated his life to protecting and preserving our State's natural resources, especially our parks. He was a tireless and true advocate for those important and precious facilities, and he fought for their protection when he served as chairman and later as ranking member of the National Park Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Craig had a proud history on the committee and in the Senate as he constantly and consistently advocated for the best administration and management of our park system. He authored legislation that provided critical funding and mandated management reforms that were necessary to keep our parks pristine and ensure they would be available for future generations to enjoy. He worked with all of his colleagues, regardless of their party affiliation, to increase funding for our parks so they could better deal with the maintenance backlog that exists. Now that he is gone, our parks have lost one of their best friends. Renaming the visitors center will ensure Craig's legacy will continue and never be forgotten. As noted in a letter by the Grand Teton National Park Foundation: Senator Thomas championed this project since 1997. His leadership in securing an $8 million appropriation inspired the Foundation to raise $13.6 million in private funds for the project. For his efforts on this and so many issues of importance to our national park system, the Grand Teton National Park Foundation supports the naming of the center after Senator Thomas. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of their letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Enzi amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Six to eight minutes.

Mr. ENZI. Apparently, there are objections on our side. I have no objection to you going ahead and speaking to it, but they want to look at the amendment.

Mr. ENZI. I have no objection to someone talking on it, but I would like to take a look at it, whatever it is.

Mr. ENZI. I object.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I think the objection was on the basis that we just got the file. We haven't looked at it at all.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I have listened for the past week as my colleagues have discussed the importance of domestic fuels. They argue that it is essential for us to reduce our dependence on foreign energy barons and that the mandate that this bill lays out for 36 billion gallons of biofuels is an important step in being energy independent. I agree with my colleagues and their assessment that we need to produce more domestic fuel, and the amendment I am speaking in support of does just that. By mandating that we use 6 billion gallons of fuel derived from coal, we will use our Nation's most abundant energy source to help break America's addiction to oil. Coal to liquids technologies are not new. The technology has been around since the 1940s. There is no question that it can be used today in transportation markets that currently exist. It can be transported in pipelines that currently exist. Because it comes from coal, our Nation's most abundant energy source, it can be produced at home by American workers without some of the international interference. Coal to liquid plants are being developed in China. They understand the need for the economy to have the fuel to operate on. They are buying up resources. In Canada, they tried to buy resources in the United States. They know the future of their country depends on having sufficient fuel, particularly for transportation. Coal to liquid plants are already being developed in China. They are being developed in other major industrialized nations. But they are not being developed in the United States. I am concerned that as we sit on the sidelines, other nations will take advantage of our inaction, and our economy will suffer. That is why I am speaking in support of the amendment offered by my colleagues from Kentucky and New Mexico. The amendment they have introduced is the right approach to moving this issue forward in a way that will truly help the coal to liquids industry. In doing so, it will truly benefit the American people. There is a competing proposal from my colleague from Montana that I will discuss in a moment, but I first want to discuss why this is the right approach, if we are to spur investment in the coal to liquids industry. Simply put, if our goal is to create a market for a new energy source, mandates work. We have seen it with other current renewable standards. Since passage of the RFS as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we have seen a dramatic rise in the number of ethanol plants that exist, and there is no sign that industry is slowing down. That was the mandate we placed. It is being met. We have an opportunity to do so today for coal to liquids. However, we will do so on a smaller scale, requiring just 6 billion gallons of coal-derived fuel as opposed to 36 billion gallons mandated for biofuels in the bill. We will do so with additional environmental standards. Like the underlying legislation, we require the 20-percent life cycle greenhouse gas reduction language. However, unlike the underlying bill, the amendment requires coal to liquid plants to operate with technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions. In general, I am not a fan of mandates. I have struggled with this issue. However, if our goal is to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy sources and to produce more fuel domestically, the current renewable fuels mandate has proven that it is an approach that works. In direct contrast to the success of a mandate is the failure of the loan guarantee programs which have issued exactly zero loans almost 2 years after the program was created in the Energy Policy Act. The approach of the Senator from Montana of a direct loan program is different than the approach taken in the Energy Policy Act. Although that is the case, I am concerned that his legislation will simply create another loan program that never happens. A direct loan program requires that the Federal Government loan taxpayer money to private companies to move forward. In the very tight appropriations climate we are currently experiencing, my colleagues are kidding themselves if they think we will spend the kind of money it takes to build one of these plants through a direct loan. How do I know about that? There is one proposed in southern Wyoming. The company is a coalition of companies to put the money together for one of these plants. It is a huge refinery. That is what a coal to liquids plant is. It changes our low-sulfur coal into diesel, and that is what we are requiring trucks to use now, diesel without coal. It is going to be between the little town of Hannah and Medicine Bow. Hannah was a coal mining town. The coal was deeper so it wasn't useful or economical for them to mine it anymore. It shut down. People are there with houses they can't sell and jobs they don't have. They are retired. But this plant is coming into that area. The reason it is coming to that area is, first, there is the coal resource but, more importantly, there is a pipeline there. This is one of the fuels, unlike ethanol, that can be put into a pipeline and transported. They have already sold all of the fuel they can build. They put $2 or $3 billion worth of money together to build what will be the first refinery built in the United States in 30 years. It will solve a huge economic problem in that part of the State. I have to say, the requirements in the amendment of the Senator from Montana will probably stop this because the technology isn't there. People aren't going to venture $2.3 billion on the possibility that the technology might be there. I would hope we would put some research money into technology on carbon sequestration and carbon capture. I have encouraged the University of Wyoming to do that with some of the abandoned mine land money. But that is down the road and should be phased in so that plants like this can be built. In addition to my concerns about the loan program, I am also concerned that the amendment of the Senator from Montana sets forth environmental standards that are technologically unachievable. We have devoted an entire title of this bill--title III--to the research and development of carbon sequestration technologies. I have faith that this research will help us to advance carbon sequestration efforts, but I don't believe we are there yet. As such, the Tester amendment's requirement for 75 percent sequestration--and it is not phased in-- seems unreasonable. I am not a technical expert. I have spoken to the people who are planning the coal to liquids facilities. None of the developers I have questioned have suggested they can achieve the 75 percent mandated by the Tester amendment. Both of the Democratic and Republican proposals will reduce greenhouse gases in a major way. Both of these amendments require a 20-percent improvement, but the Democratic proposal goes too far and sets standards that aren't technologically achievable. My colleagues are faced with a choice. The amendment offered by Senators Bunning and Domenici takes a proven approach of mandating that we use a domestic fuel. It adds responsible and reasonable environmental standards, and it will work to spur development of a domestic coal to liquids industry. I wish the bipartisan group could have gotten together and actually worked out something, but there are some other things playing in this whole process. Sometimes we get so wrapped up in making a political point that we wipe out progress for the United States. I hope that something can be done on that yet, but we will vote on two different amendments. The Bunning-Domenici one has the potential for actually providing some facilities and additional fuels. If we truly want to see coal to liquids plants built in the United States, only one of the approaches before the Senate works. That approach is the one offered by Senators Bunning and Domenici. I hope all of us will support that amendment and see that coal to liquids and fuel independence happens. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the two amendments before us. I have some grave concerns. I am afraid this Energy bill could easily turn into an antienergy bill. If it does, we will have decreasing supplies of fuel and ever-increasing prices. I don't think that is where we intend to go. I rise to give strong support to amendment No. 1628 offered by my colleagues, Senator Jim Bunning and ranking member Pete Domenici. The amendment establishes a fuel mandate program for coal-to-liquid fuel that is identical to the renewable fuel standard we are implementing with this legislation. I know originally the two amendments had some similarities and were being worked on as one with a bipartisan group. That is what we ought to do. But somehow it got polarized and shifted into two separate amendments. One could have phased into the other and wound up with much stronger requirements. That was where I was hoping it would go, on a phased-in basis, so that we could actually have coal-to-liquid technology and that infant industry could then grow into one that would meet the strict standards that technologically cannot be met at the present time. If we discourage all development of coal to liquids, we will not have clean coal to liquids. We will not have an adequate fuel supply or we will have a fuel supply that is very expensive, and that will curtail the economy. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Governor of my State, Dave Freudenthal, who talks about a glidepath we need to get the infant industry started and into place.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I do agree with the chairman and would be happy to join him, Senator Dodd, and Senator Murray in further clarifying these points as the conference committee considers S. 556 and begins its work on the reauthorization of the Head Start Act.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Another article I refer to is from Denver's Rocky Mountain News for April 9, 2007, ``Not bad for a much-maligned economy.'' We keep talking about how bad the economy is. Well, it isn't bad. Just when your mind may have been grappling with the disturbing news that Circuit City stores had fired 3,400 of their highest-paid hourly salespeople--not to trim the workforce, as you might expect, but to replace those let go with lower-paid workers--along comes the Labor Department with equally startling news, but of a positive bent. In March, the U.S. economy added 180,000 jobs; the unemployment rate declined again, to 4.4 percent; and average hourly and weekly earnings advanced, with weekly income up 4.4 percent . . . The article goes on to read: But after six years of fairly steady economic growth despite a costly war, Katrina, a housing slump and other body blows, fair-minded people should at least entertain the possibility that current policies must be getting something right. It ends by saying: After all, what exactly is it about the March economic figures that [you] don't like? I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I listened to the conversation that has gone on this morning. I have to say I am a little bit disappointed in some of the negative comments about our country. I always thought you had to be an ultimate optimist to serve in this body. Things go slowly, which is probably fortunate, but we just can't keep trying to make ourselves look better by running down our country. I often remind people that I am not aware of anybody trying to get out of our country, but from the past 2 weeks' discussion, I know there are a lot of people trying to get in. I will cite an article from the Wall Street Journal of Wednesday, May 23, 2007, that says, ``The Poor Get Richer.'' It reads: It's been a rough week for John Edwards, and now comes more bad news for his ``two Americas'' campaign theme. A new study by the Congressional Budget Office says the poor have been getting less poor. On average, CBO found that low-wage households with children had incomes after inflation that were more than one-third higher in 2005 than in 1991. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, what I really came to address is an issue of utmost importance to the American people. When I visit my home State and read the mail I receive from constituents, I am consistently reminded of the fact that we are seeing record-high energy prices. High energy prices affect almost every American. They affect the parent who drives his or her kids to school. They affect the college student who wants to make it home for the weekend. They affect Members of the Senate as we travel to and from our States. But we have to be careful with what we do. A lot of the time, something that we think is going to be a positive move turns out to be a negative. I refer to a Wall Street Journal article of May 16, 2007. It is titled ``Green But Unclean.'' It reads: Remember those water-saving toilets that Congress mandated a few years back? Yes, the ones that frequently clog and don't flush, causing many Americans to resort to buying high- performance, black-marketed potties in Canada and sneaking them into their homes like smugglers. Well, get set for Washington's latest brainstorm. I ask unanimous consent to print this article in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. As prices continue to escalate, some would say we are in an energy crisis. We are at a point where we continue to see the global demand for energy increasing as countries such as China and India develop. At the same time, the demand increases, the Democratic Congress is not taking the steps to increase our domestic supply. Some of the policies we are seeing will have a detrimental effect on that supply. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included a number of important incentives for the domestic exploration of many new natural resource supplies. It aided in the production of affordable domestic energy. We are now seeing a number of proposals from the other side to repeal these important provisions. In the 109th Congress, we attempted to pass important legislation to streamline the bureaucratic process that made it impossible to build an entirely new refinery, and that is what has been happening for the last 30 years. That legislation was repeatedly blocked at the expense of the American people, who continue to suffer as refiners struggle to keep pace through expansion. Supply and demand--you can buy the oil, but unless the oil becomes gasoline, you cannot use it, and unless it is in enough of a quantity of gasoline and enough of a supply, the price will go up. It will provide complications. Since November, gasoline prices have increased almost 50 percent. The price of gas averaged $2.20 a gallon at the last election. Now the average is $3.15 a gallon. Part of that is the cost of a barrel of oil, but more of that is a reflection on the future and how unstable some of the world situations are. That is what fluctuates the price of a barrel of oil. But the price at the pump is affected by the number of refineries we have and the number of regulations Congress puts on the gasoline we use. We saw a spike last month in the price of gasoline. That is the point at which the refineries had to shut down some of their production in order to change over to the requirements we put on for the summer fuel. When that happens, there is less supply, and prices go up. Since the changeover has been made, prices have come down slightly. These are not positive trends and, unfortunately, there is nothing to indicate the Senate will be acting in a way to increase supply and improve the price of energy for the American people. My State of Wyoming is an energy-producing State. We produce about a third of the Nation's coal. We produce a million tons of coal a day. We also have large natural gas fields. We are the only State in the Nation that is showing an increasing supply of natural gas. We also produce some oil. We have a significant amount of wind power. We have uranium. Because of a lot of Sun, I am seeing an increasing amount of solar power with each visit to Wyoming. We have a diversified energy portfolio. We have an energy portfolio that recognizes that coal is the Nation's most abundant resource. In fact, my county has more Btu's in coal than Saudi Arabia has in oil. Our energy portfolio recognizes you can produce natural gas in an environmentally efficient manner. At the same time, our State's portfolio recognizes there is an increasingly important place for wind and other renewable resources. We are trying to do them all, but we cannot neglect the one we have the most of. The policies on the other side of the aisle do not reflect this need for diversity. While they talk about the need to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, they repeatedly block efforts to produce our domestic resources. As they talk about the need to lower prices for consumers, they advocate policies that will make it more expensive to produce energy. As they talk about the need to increase our Nation's energy security, they vote against policies that will increase the use of our Nation's most abundant domestic energy source. We are currently debating an energy bill. I want to commend Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici for their work on this legislation. There is no question there are some positive provisions in the legislation. I do appreciate that it actually came through committee. I have not seen a bill that has just been brought to the floor, such as the immigration bill, that has ever made it through the process. So this one has a chance of making it through, and I am glad for that. The legislation will help develop biofuels technologies which will allow us to displace some of our Nation's traditional energy supply. However, the legislation has many flaws, most clearly illustrated by the decision of Senate Democrats to block efforts by members of the Energy Committee who worked to incentivize a technology that can truly reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign sources. That technology is known as coal-to-liquids, and it is the process of turning our Nation's most abundant energy source--coal--into liquid fuels--incentives instead of stopping the process. Coal-to-liquids technology is not new. The technology has been around since the 1940s, and there is no question it will be used today in a much better way than even in the 1940s. It would be used in the transportation markets, which is our biggest difficulty. It can be transported in pipelines that currently exist. And, because it comes from coal--our Nation's most abundant energy source--it can be produced at home by American workers. Coal-to-liquids plants are being developed in China. They are being developed in other major industrialized nations, but they are not being developed in the United States. I am concerned that, as we sit on the sidelines, other nations will take advantage of our inaction and our economy will suffer. The amendment offered by Senators Thomas and Bunning that was blocked in the Energy Committee offered a tremendous opportunity to move coal- to-liquids forward. It was a tremendous opportunity to place more of our energy security in the hands of Americans and to take it out of the hands of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and other oil barons who seek to do economic harm to the United States. Unfortunately, on a party-line vote, that effort was blocked and instead of debating a more comprehensive energy bill, we are debating one with a glaring weakness. In addition to the decision to keep coal-to-liquids language out of the legislation, I am concerned that a number of other sections included in the bill make for good talking points, but not for good solutions. Although I understand and sympathize with the problems that high energy prices create for families, creating a federal price gouging law is not the answer. The authority already exists for investigations into price gouging, and I am concerned that price gouging is simply a code word for ``price controls.'' Such a policy failed in the past and will fail in the future. I also have concerns about the sections of the legislation that increase corporate average fuel economy standards, and I have concerns that this bill does nothing to address our lack of domestic energy production in areas where production is possible and environmentally responsible. We are in a situation where our Nation's energy supply does not meet our Nation's energy demand, and, while we must work to reduce our consumption, we should also work to produce as much energy domestically as is possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Price increases are for a number of reasons, but the simplest explanation is that we lack the supply to meet the demand for energy. At the same time, prices decrease when we see strong supplies that are capable of meeting the demand that exists. We have to be careful that we reduce the demand--and that is what part of this bill does--but we also have to figure out a way to increase the supply. I am a little disappointed in what the bill does with that. On June 12, 2007, there was an article in the Casper Star-Tribune. The title is ``Official warns of energy crisis; Growth in demand for electricity in West exceeds generation capacity.'' Of course, for years we have been hearing about rolling brownouts in California and even blackouts in part of the country. It says: Construction of new electrical generation in the West is projected to grow by 6 percent, while demand for electricity is projected to increase by 19 percent over the next 10 years, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FERC Commissioner Suedeen Kelly, speaking on her own behalf, said the situation is nothing short of a crisis. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to talk about the Inhofe amendment, which would increase the possibility that we could have increased refining in the United States. Refining of oil produces more gasoline, and more gasoline will bring down the price of gasoline. We can't have a serious discussion about energy without discussing the fact that it has been more than 30 years since the last oil refinery was built in the United States. There has to be a reason for that. Although a number of our Nation's refiners have worked on expansions, they simply can't keep up with the growing demand. It is clear that something is wrong with a permitting process when it is so burdensome it prevents the construction of that which is so vital to our Nation. Because energy fuels our economy, we need to stop with the rhetoric and take some real action. I have to tell my colleagues that I have faith in America. I have faith in the young people of America. I have faith in the inventors in America, who are of all ages. I am aware of a company in Sheridan, WY, named Big Horn Valve. They have been working on some refinery problems, including leaks in refineries, and they came up with a valve that doesn't have a knob that you turn on the outside of the pipe. Everything is internal in the pipe, and it has a special venturi nozzle in there that doesn't take up the entire inside of the pipe but can still flow as much oil as a flow pipe. The way it works is to turn it off magnetically; it twists and the two spots don't line up. Since it is completely internal to the pipe, there can be no leakage. It is just one small solution to some of the problems that can be solved. I would mention that with the National Institutes of Health, we have faith in the inventiveness of people. We doubled the budget for research for the National Institutes of Health. I can tell my colleagues that today we have 654 cancer treatments in clinical trials. That is what happens when we incentivize people to come up with solutions. We need to do that with energy. We are in the midst of a huge energy crisis. China recognizes it. China is buying every available fuel source they can get their hands on. My colleagues probably saw where they tried to buy a company in California. You have probably seen where they bought supplies in Canada. They know the future of the economy is requiring--requiring--energy, particularly fuel to transport things. Senator Inhofe's amendment recognizes this fact, and it improves the permitting process for new refineries. It establishes an opt-in program for State Governors, requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate all necessary permits for construction or expansion of refineries. It provides participating States with technical and financial resources to assist in permitting, and it establishes deadlines for permit approval. These vital changes will make it possible for new refineries to finally be built. They make those changes in a way that is environmentally sound. Opponents of this legislation suggest that is not the case and that environmental laws will be pushed aside. Those claims are false. The Environmental Council of States, which represents State departments of environmental quality, clearly stated in a letter that ``the Gas PRICE Act does not weaken environmental laws.'' That act is the one that is in Senator Inhofe's amendment. In addition to this, the council, along with the National Association of Counties, acknowledged that the Gas PRICE Act streamlining provisions are in compliance with State and local governments. If this were the only positive section of the Gas PRICE Act, it would be worthy of our support, but this legislation also addresses a second aspect that I believe is missing from the underlying bill. That aspect is the incentivizing of coal-to-liquids technologies. As drafted, the legislation does nothing to advance the development of coal-to-liquids plants. That is the overall bill, not the amendment. As a member of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Craig Thomas and Jim Bunning worked hard to move this issue forward and offered an amendment during the committee's consideration of the biofuels legislation to set a blending requirement for coal-derived fuels at 21 billion gallons for the year 2022. Is it possible? Absolutely. Unfortunately, this amendment failed by one vote, and so it wasn't included in the bill. The Gas PRICE Act addresses this vital issue by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a demonstration to assess the use of Fischer-Tropsch, diesel and jet fuel, as an emission control strategy. Furthermore, it provides incentives to the Economic Development Administration to build coal-to-liquid refineries and commercial scale cellulosic ethanol refineries at BRAC sites and on Indian land. These important steps will help jump-start an industry that will help reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy barons. Coal is our Nation's most abundant source. As I mentioned earlier, we have more Btu's in my county in Wyoming alone than all of Saudi Arabia. Using coal to produce diesel and jet fuel will take our energy security out of the hands of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and others who seek to harm our economic interests and put it back in the hands of American citizens. I am pleased Senator Inhofe has offered this important amendment. It addresses two areas in which the legislation could be improved, and I urge my colleagues to support this approach. The two areas are to make it possible to actually expand the number of refineries in the United States, and there are places in the United States where those can be built, and safely built. I also think there can be some inventions, such as I mentioned with Big Horn Valve, that will make the refining process much more capable and also environmentally better. But unless we can get rid of that single construction of refineries, we are going to have shortages of gas twice a year immediately, and more often in the future. I do have a lot of confidence that there can be not only coal to liquids, but coal to liquids with a little bit of invention can be done even better than other kinds. We need to worry about the natural gas supply for this country. A lot of States are placing a huge emphasis on natural gas as the cleanest fuel, and it is. But there is only one State that is producing more natural gas than in previous years, and that is the State of Wyoming. That will not go on forever. If we use it to produce electricity, we are going to run out of natural gas. So those people across the country who are using natural gas to heat their homes should be particularly concerned. I know one company was looking at having some peaking power for Rapid City, SD, and they were going to do it with natural gas. But the board of directors, as they looked at it, found out that the time they needed the peaking power was in the middle of winter when it was cold because people there use some electricity to heat with. But what they discovered was that the amount of natural gas to provide peaking power in winter in Rapid City would be an equivalent amount of gas to what the whole city of Rapid City uses to heat homes during that same cold spell. A lot of natural gas has to be used if it is used to produce electricity. We can invent better ways to do that. We can come up with coal to liquids. We can increase our refineries. I hope we will find ways to encourage that rather than discourage that if we are going to truly have an energy policy. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Inhofe, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, when my plane touched down last night, I received an e-mail that told of the fate of a great man. It was a tremendous surprise to me. I just completed a week in Wyoming of explaining to people that he even timed his chemotherapy so he didn't have to miss votes, and what a tough and strong man he was. Craig Thomas was a marine at heart, but he was a cowboy in his soul. He was quiet, he was focused, he was independent, he was hard-working. He loved the Senate and he loved the Marines and he loved his horses. The flags have been lowered, and there is a great deal of sadness in our hearts today as we mourn his loss and celebrate his life. I have had a lot of thoughts, but I haven't had a chance to put them together. They come gushing back, together with a lot of tears. For those of us from Wyoming, Craig Thomas was more than just our Senator. He was our voice in the Senate, and he was never one to back off from a fight, especially when he was battling for two things most dear: what was best for Wyoming and what was best for America. Craig had long Wyoming roots, and he was very proud of them. He grew up in Cody and became friends with Al Simpson. Later on the two of them would serve together in the Senate. After he graduated from the University of Wyoming, he immediately began his service to the country he loved. He joined the Marine Corps. I am convinced that experience helped to shape his character and molded his destiny. I think his steely resolve and firm will took shape during those days that helped guide him and prepare him for the battles that would come later in his political life. When Craig's service in the Marine Corps was through, he began what was to be his life's work, which was serving the people of Wyoming to ensure their best interests were taken care of and their needs were addressed. His first efforts for Wyoming brought him to the Wyoming Farm Bureau and the Wyoming Rural Electric Association. He was proud of his service with both of these organizations. It kept him actively involved in issues that meant a great deal to him and, more importantly, it kept him in touch with the people of Wyoming and their day-to-day problems. It also set him on the road to doing anything and everything he could to make life easier for his fellow citizens in Wyoming. I remember the days we served together in the Wyoming House. I was a mayor and had municipal electrical experience. He was with the rural electric association. We worked a lot of electrical bills together at that time. We could bring in both perspectives, find the middle ground, and make sure all of the people, rural and urban--I use the term ``urban'' for Wyoming rather loosely, but urban--would be able to have low-cost and consistent electricity. Nobody knew energy or electricity better than Craig. That led him to run for the Wyoming House. Dick Cheney was appointed Secretary of Defense, and Craig ran for it and won his seat. It was not an easy victory, but it showed what a fighter and battler he was as he took on that challenge, which was done in a relatively short period of time. The executive committee just has a few days to select candidates, and then there is a very short time for an election for the position in the Wyoming House. He used his usual toughness, went around the State, talked to everybody, and won that election. Incidentally, the person he ran against in the primary, Tom Sansonetti, became his chief of staff, which shows how people get along in Wyoming. To no one's surprise, Craig focused on Wyoming issues in the House and he was reelected. Then when Malcolm Wallop decided to retire, Craig was such a popular choice he didn't have any opposition in the primary. He did face another battle in the general election, but once again his fighting spirit prevailed and he found a way to win. Interestingly enough, the person he defeated in the general election was a very popular Governor of Wyoming who was just ending his term. That Governor was later appointed Ambassador to Ireland by President Clinton. To Craig Thomas's credit, the hearing was scheduled for that ambassadorship before the papers ever got to the Capitol. Ambassador Sullivan did a fantastic job in Ireland. He won the Senate seat, and 2 years later I ran for the Senate and serve. He is one of the few Wyoming residents who ever served both in the House and in the Senate. It has not been a tradition in Wyoming to move from the House to the Senate. I was elected and then got a chance to work with him again. He was a remarkable man of vision on how to make Wyoming and our country better places to live. He spent a good deal of his time traveling Wyoming. He was one of the most ardent travelers we have ever had in the Senate, going back virtually every weekend, traveling to a different part of the State, talking to people and trying to get their vision for the future. One of his efforts on that was called Vision 2020. He challenged the people of Wyoming. He stretched the people's imagination on what our State ought to be like in the year 2020. That was in 1998, but we are getting a lot closer to 2020, and I think the State is moving toward the vision that he predicted at that time. It was a goal he cherished and fought for. Many of the things he envisioned, or the people of Wyoming envisioned, have been achieved through his efforts on the Senate floor. Craig Thomas will long be remembered as one of Wyoming's toughest and fiercest advocates. Craig knew that much of our work gets done in committees, so he pursued those committees that would help him fight for Wyoming in the Senate. He served on the critical Finance Committee. He was a staunch fiscal conservative, and he believed very strongly that people in Wyoming and across the Nation know better how to spend their hard-earned money than does the Federal Government. He used his position on the committee to lighten the tax burden and to make our Tax Code more fair. He was the ranking member on the Indian Affairs Committee. He served as chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee where he was a tireless advocate for our park system. I think he visited most of the parks. Earlier, when our Republican leader was talking about horseback, it was even possible sometimes to see him with the park policemen on horseback taking a look at the parks of the Capitol. I would mention also that usually when you saw him on horseback you also saw his wife Susan on horseback. She was a tireless traveler and an outstanding campaigner and another person who searches for the visions of Wyoming. In parades, they always rode horses. They had special saddle blankets that helped to say who they were--as if people in Wyoming wouldn't know who they were. I would mention that she was thrown from a horse a couple of times, too. Bands and horses don't always go well in hand. But, as Craig always said, she was the real campaigner in the family. She actually liked it. She does a marvelous job for our State, as well as did Craig. Craig was very active on all of the agricultural issues and international trade, particularly country-of-origin labeling. He supported our cattlemen with grazing rights and responsible environmental quality incentive programs for runoff issues. He has worked tirelessly to get changes in the Endangered Species Act. He realized that was a national program with national goals and it should not punish individuals or counties or even the States, and that there ought to be responsibility at the Federal level. With energy, he was the lead sponsor of our soda ash royalty relief bill. He was the lead sponsor on the recreational fee demonstration program that allowed the national parks to keep a higher percentage of the receipts that were received on public lands where they were collected, and he specifically made efforts to include section 413 of the Energy Policy Act, which authorizes Federal cost-share for the building of a coal gasification project above 4,000 feet. That would help get a clean coal plant built in Wyoming, which would prove the technology with Wyoming coal at high altitude. We have huge resources of coal. We ship over one-third of the Nation's coal--over 1 million tons a day. The reason we ship so much coal is because it is very low sulfur. He was providing a mechanism to be able to have some assurance that coal gasification of this clean coal would be included in projects that we did in the United States. It would help to prove the technology at high altitude and show its viability and would make a difference for all the United States in all their energy in the future. He was also instrumental in writing the electricity title of EPAct. Recently, his efforts to get a coal-to-liquids section of whatever Energy bill we will be debating, although unsuccessful thus far, advanced the debate to the furthest point it had moved. During the last FAA reauthorization, Craig was very instrumental in radar upgrades for the Jackson airport, which was imperative for the growth of the city and airport, especially related to tourism. I think Jackson is the only city in Wyoming that has long distance direct flights. Most of them come through Salt Lake or Denver or Minneapolis. But Jackson actually has flights that come from Houston and Atlanta direct. He also did a lot for Wyoming with two big transportation authorization bills to ensure that the large land area, low-population States, received a fair amount of highway funding. As I mentioned, on fiscal issues he was a staunch conservative who believed the people knew how to spend their money better than the Federal Government. A few months ago, Craig shared his medical situation with us. He was in for another difficult fight, but he was used to them. He has been a battler all his life. He took the fierce determination that he learned as a marine and brought it to this latest battle against leukemia. Unfortunately, it was a battle this great fighter was not to win. Although that last battle of his life was lost, there were so many victories in his life that we will long remember. Craig died as he lived, with his spurs on, fighting for Wyoming to the very end. I am sure we all have our favorite instant replay memories of Craig and his unique style. I have always believed you can get a lot done if you don't care who gets the credit. That was Craig--never one to seek the limelight or to draw attention to himself. He was the one working in committee to assure that the voices of the Wyoming people and America were heard and heard clearly. For me, I will always remember Craig's spirit, for his spirit in life was a great illustration of the spirit of Wyoming. His life became a living portrait of the American West. He saw the world from the saddle of his horse and from under the brim of his cowboy hat. He was proud of Wyoming and Wyoming was proud to be represented by him. Craig was my senior Senator. He was my confidant and mentor. But most of all, he was a very good friend. Diana and I will always feel appreciation for the fact that Craig and Susan made us part of their family. Our prayers are with Susan and their family during these difficult times. I will miss him. But because he was such a special presence in my life and the lives of so many others, I have a long list of instant replay memories I will always cherish of him: the times we were out on the campaign trail, the legislation we worked on together and, more importantly, the impact he had on my life personally, as he had on so many others. Wyoming is a different place today because of this great loss of ours. There is great sadness in the State and also great joy as we celebrate the life of one of our special citizens. He was with us for all too short a time, but he will never be forgotten. I received a book called ``give me Mountains for my Horses,'' by Tom Reed. But what I always ask for is that they give us men to match our mountains and our horses--and that would be Craig. I want to share just a little piece of this because I know that Craig is already riding in a far better place. It says: There is a taste to this place, this time. Nothing is behind you. Everything is ahead. But you don't really think about what is ahead, you only think of now, for this partnership you have entered into is one of the moment, of now. Now has you in a saddle on a bay horse, heading up a trail of pines and spruce and mountain, of stream and meadow. Behind you, connected by only your hand and a lead rope but carrying everything important to you, is another bay horse, an almost identical match to the one you are riding. You call them nicknames as if they were human compadres, drinking buddies. You cluck and coo and talk to them as if they give a damn about what you have to say. You think they do and maybe, just maybe [they do]. Right now they are stepping out, heads nodding, down the trail and through the stream and all you have to do is ride. So you ride. That evening as dusk brings the mosquitoes out of the willows--the same dusk that put the horse flies to bed--you choose a camp. It is a good place, save for the bugs, with room for the horses in the broad, deep green meadow and camp back against the lodgepoles and your kitchen down a ways. So you ease off the bay's back and stretch your muscles with that stiff-good, worked-hard feeling, and you begin to unload the packhorse, talking to him, thanking him. In a while he has on his hobbles and is out there with his buddy, snorting contentedly in the tall grass and swishing a long, coal-black tail at the mosquitoes. It goes like this for days, the ride, the squeak of the saddle leather, the smell of dust, the taste of it on your tongue. The smell of horse sweat and your own and the soft muzzles nuzzling you after a long day. Good camp after good camp. Muscles turning hard. Eyes becoming sharp for wildlife. And riding, always riding. One evening a big sow grizzly and her cub cross a broad meadow far out there. A tough gal, rambling, giving you and your horses a wide berth. But still the binoculars sweat in your hands and your mouth is dry. ``Boy, what a beautiful animal.'' The next morning a moose walks the same path. You have not seen another human in days but there's a jet contrail reminding you that yes, this is the modern world. You ride. Craig loved the modern world. He worked hard in this body. He would have liked to have been out there in those mountains on those horses enjoying the smell and the sounds. Now he is riding. Ride on my friend, ride on. I yield the floor.