Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I guess I am a little surprised at the objection. The first objection to your first amendment was that we did not have a comprehensive approach. Now you suggested another approach; we would add to a comprehensive approach that appears to be objected to. The gravamen of the objection appears to be that we do not know if we can produce oil shale, oil from oil shale; that the technology and the location of the oil shale is not necessarily far enough along to be able to produce, and therefore we should not even look at it. As I understand the leader's amendment, it says simply remove the regulation which was put in place last year which barred the Interior Department from putting out regulations which allow us to find out whether the oil is there and whether we can remove it. So there seems to be an inconsistency here on the reasons why people would object to taking off that regulation which was put in place last year by the Democratic leadership. Secondly, the known reserves from oil shale are projected to be two to three times the known reserves of Saudi Arabia. That is a huge amount of oil, potentially. I do not think we want to not look there and say we are going to throw a sheet over our head and not look at this potential reserve which would give us as a nation more potential oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, that we are not going to allow the Department of Interior to begin the process of developing regulations that will, if the oil is there and if it can be used, expedite the production of that oil. That makes no sense at all. As I understand, the proposal that came earlier from the Democratic Party was to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That is 3 days' worth of oil. If there is 2 trillion barrels of oil in oil shale, that is 40,000 days of oil. Well, I do not know. I would think the American people would like to have the opportunity to find 40,000 days of oil in the United States rather than have to buy it from Iran or from Venezuela, places that do not like us very much, even from Saudi Arabia. I think they would like to have the money kept here in the United States. Yes, the oil companies are making some big profits. They are spending it to look for oil also. But when they are not spending it to look for oil, they are actually paying some dividends. Who gets those dividends? Well, if they are American companies, I suspect that many Americans are, Americans who invested in pension funds, Americans who have 401(k)s. Are we to say they shouldn't get those profits and we should, rather, send them to Saudi Arabia or to Iran or to Venezuela so Hugo Chavez gets the profits? How absurd. On its face it is absurd. We have 2 trillion barrels of oil sitting there, and all the leader has asked for is to lift the regulation which will let us find out whether we can look for it and whether it is there.

Mr. GREGG. I was propounding a question to the leader.

Mr. GREGG. If I may ask the Republican leader a further question: Have we not been on the floor now for 2 weeks, asking for the right to offer a series of amendments to address these issues that could be voted up or down, that would be fairly presented, where the minority would have the right to present its amendments so we could present to the American people the case for Outer Continental Shelf oil, oil shale, nuclear power, electric cars, for a variety of other options that might get us out from underneath this severe issue which is the price of oil? Have we not been asking for the opportunity to present those amendments in a fair and open manner in the tradition of the Senate and been denied that right? Are we not being denied that right one more time here today?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I was wondering if the leader could explain to me how the Democratic assistant leader could object to something the Senator didn't object to?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe I am recognized for 10 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. GREGG. I ask the Chair to advise me when I have spoken for 10 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, I wish to congratulate the Senator from Oklahoma for bringing some facts to the floor of the Senate which need to be stated over and over, one of which is that we as a nation have a significant supply of oil and natural gas which we are not using and which, if we did use, would significantly reduce the price of gasoline and home heating oil for Americans. If we produce more American energy and we conserve more American energy, we will reduce the price of gasoline and home heating oil for Americans. As the Senator from Oklahoma has so appropriately pointed out, there is a huge amount of available resources which are locked up now because of language in legislation which was placed there by the Democratic leadership of this Congress--language which limits our ability to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf, which we can do in a safe and environmentally sound way, and language which limits our ability to use oil shale, of which there is 2 trillion barrels of reserve, which is twice the reserves of Saudi Arabia. So the resources are there, but we can't get to them because we have legislative language at the Federal level which locks down those resources. What we have asked for as a party is the ability, first, to debate that fact, and secondly, to have a vote in this Senate of the United States on the issue of whether we should be able to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf and explore on the Outer Continental Shelf, to use oil shale, to use more nuclear power, to create electric cars, to conserve energy, to have renewables. But we are being barred from having that vote. The Democratic leader, for the 15th time in this Congress, has done what is known as ``fill up the tree,'' which means he has essentially locked down the floor so that only one person, one person in this body, gets to decide what is voted on, what amendments are allowed to come to the floor, and what the debate will be about, and that becomes the majority leader of the Democratic Party of the Senate, the leader of the Democratic Party. That is not the way the Senate was supposed to function. We are on a serious slippery slope to destroying the integrity and the purpose of the Senate. This continual action of barring Members of the Senate from coming to the floor and offering amendments in what has been the regular and typical order of the Senate for over 200 years is truly undermining the character of the Senate and, as a result, it undermines the character of democracy in this country. You don't have to believe me. Let me quote from a little pamphlet that is put out called ``Traditions of the U.S. Senate.'' It is actually published by the Senate, and I think the majority leader's office may pay for this. Let me quote from the leading authority in the history of the Senate on the issue of the way the Senate works--on its history, its prerogatives, and procedure--a Senator who has served in the Senate longer than any other Senator and who has cast more votes in the Senate than any other Senator. He has held the position of majority leader. He is the senior Senator from West Virginia, and he still serves here. Let me quote. He was giving a lecture or a speech or a set of comments to a new group of Senators who had come to the Senate in 1996. Robert C. Byrd said to those Senators: Few, if any, upper chambers in the history of the western world have possessed the Senate's absolute right to unlimited debate and to amend and block legislation passed by a lower House. Let me read that again because it is very important because it really does go to the essence of what the Senate has for its power: Few, if any, upper chambers in the history of the western world have possessed the Senate's absolute right-- Absolute right-- to unlimited debate and to amend and block legislation passed by a lower House. He goes on to explain why this is the situation: The Framers recognized that a minority can be right and that a majority can be wrong. This is Robert C. Byrd, the leading authority on the Senate, its purpose within the context and the constellation of American democracy. The essence of the Senate is the ability of Members to bring amendments to the floor--especially minority Members of the Senate--to bring amendments to the floor and have them voted on, have them discussed, and have unlimited debate if that is what is needed. Without that right, the Senate no longer functions as set up by the Framers. The Senate becomes an institution like the House of Representatives, which is dominated by the majority to the point where the minority essentially has no rights. It is not minority Senators who are being denied their rights when the Senate rules are changed so fundamentally by one individual--the majority leader--when 200 years of precedence is thrown aside, and when the majority leader decides to take an autocratic position here in the Senate. It is not minority Members whose rights are being lost; it is all the people of this Nation who are represented by those of us who are sent to the Senate to speak for them in the American people's forum. Where they get to be heard and they cannot be muzzled is here in the Senate. It is not in the House of Representatives because in the House of Representatives, Members can be muzzled. In the Senate, for 200 years, Members and the rights of Members have never been trampled on to the point where Members have been muzzled, but that is exactly what is happening under this Putin form of democracy which is being placed on the Senate. What we have occurring here is a situation where power--the desire for power by the majority party--is taking absolute precedence over the ability of the people to present policy, have it debated, and have it voted on. In this instance, of course, where the right of the people, through the amendment process, to be heard on whether we should have drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, on whether we should use oil shale, on whether we should use more nuclear power, on whether we should have electric cars--the denial of the right of the people to be heard on those issues is doing the people fundamental harm because we are not being allowed to bring up those issues, as the price of gasoline is really having a staggering impact on Americans. I can tell you that in New England and in New Hampshire, the fear of having home heating oil prices triple this winter has a lot of folks very scared--and rightly so. Those people whom I represent and whom others represent in this body have every legitimate right to expect that the Senate will debate and will vote on the issue of whether we should expand America's supply of energy. They have every right to expect that the Senate will vote on whether you can reduce the price of energy in this country by bringing more supply to the market and have it be American supply. The American people have every right to expect that amendments will be taken up on the floor of this Senate and will be voted on that address the issue of whether we should be paying Americans to produce energy or whether we should be giving our money to Venezuela and to Iran, nations which have expressed a deep resentment of us. The American people have every right to expect that amendments can be brought up on the floor of the Senate and can be voted on that deal with conservation, that deal with renewables, that deal with a whole panoply of ideas as to how you can better deliver energy to the American people. But those rights are being trampled on here. They are being trampled on in a way that has never occurred in the history of the Senate. That is what is important to focus on. This has never happened before. Fifteen times, on major pieces of legislation, the majority party has filled the tree, so the minority does not have the right to bring forward an amendment. And then the majority says we are obfuscating, delaying or in some way impeding progress--when they are pursuing such a clear autocratic approach. Well, I hope to come back to this issue a few more times, since this appears to be the policy of the leadership on the other side of the aisle. But it flies in the face of the essence of the purpose of the Senate, as defined by one of America's great Senators, the historian of the Senate, when he said: Few, if any, upper chambers in the history of the western world have possessed the Senate's absolute right to unlimited debate and to amend and block legislation passed by a lower House. . . . The purposes of this right is that: The Framers recognized that a minority can be right and that a majority can be wrong. I will add that the minority should be heard from and should be allowed to offer amendments, and those amendments should receive a vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I wish to pick up on what the Senator from Vermont is saying because I feel very strongly that we do need to move forward with additional funding for LIHEAP, the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program. In fact, I have offered an amendment to this--or I have filed it. I haven't offered it, because no amendments have been allowed by the majority party, but I have filed an amendment to the Energy bill, which is the logical place that we should put the LIHEAP language, which would do three things. It would double the amount of funding for low-income energy assistance, increasing it by $2.5 billion, which is the essence of the bill of the Senator from Vermont, which is exactly what we need to take care of the increased prices for energy according to the Energy Office in New Hampshire. Secondly, it would add $25 million to the weatherization program. I think weatherization makes a lot of sense because it takes homes which lose a lot of their energy through lack of adequate windows or adequate insulation and helps those homes, especially low-income individuals. Further, it does something else which is important. LIHEAP is directed to low-income people, but middle-income families today, with the cost of energy doubling and tripling, have a serious problem. Folks who are working for a living but are still on a fairly tight budget or a fixed income are going to get hit hard this winter when their energy bills double and triple. So this bill sets up a tax credit dealing with the first $1,000 for an individual who is purchasing energy at fairly moderate income levels, so it doesn't benefit high-income individuals, and allows people, to the extent they buy oil to heat their home, to take that tax credit to assist them in the effort of reducing the cost of that oil. All of this is paid for. My bill is entirely paid for. I think that is also a critical element because what we are talking about here is buying a consumable product for today--oil to heat your home--and then, unfortunately, if you don't pay for it, you are passing the bill for that oil on to our children and our grandchildren by adding to the debt of the United States, and that is not fair. Our children and our grandchildren are going to have their own tough time heating their homes; they don't need to have the debt that is included in paying for that program. So my bill is entirely paid for by eliminating a tax--what I consider to be an inappropriate tax break for basically large, integrated oil companies known as section 199. This tax break was not directed at those companies originally when it was passed--and it should be--but it is being taken advantage of, and it is certainly not needed when oil is selling at $120 or $130 a barrel, and the incentives to produce oil are significant enough by the cost of the marketplace. I feel very strongly--and I think this is an important point to make--that we need to have a comprehensive approach relative to people who are going to be impacted this winter, and it needs to be a paid-for approach, and that is why I made this suggestion. I also feel strongly that if the majority leader calls up the bill which he filed, which is the bill from Senator Sanders, in an attempt basically to take down the Energy bill so that we are not going to debate it any longer, that is not the right approach. Because the real way you get to the issue of energy and the cost of energy for low- income people in New Hampshire this winter--or for moderate income people in New Hampshire this winter--is to reduce the overall cost of energy, to bring the price of energy down. How do you do that? You produce more and you consume less. We on our side of the aisle have a series of ideas as to how you should produce more. Use the oil that is in the Outer Continental Shelf, drill in the Outer Continental Shelf. Use shale oil. We have 2 trillion barrels of shale oil sitting there--more reserves than in all of Saudi Arabia and many of the Middle Eastern countries combined. Use those resources. Bring them on the market. Take away the impediments which we as a Congress--the Democratic Congress specifically--have put in the way of using Outer Continental Shelf oil. There is language which has passed this Congress which was put in by the Democratic Congress that says you can't drill in the Outer Continental Shelf. There is language which says you can't use oil shale from Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah--this huge reserve of energy. That language should be removed so that those sources of oil can be used. Once you show the world we are willing to bring on line as a nation additional production from our resources, that will reduce the price of energy, because these prices which we are seeing today are speculative prices based on what they expect to occur in the future, and they expect demand to go up, but supply to stay stable--to not go up. Well, if we prove we are willing to bring more supply on line, and we are willing to use other sources such as nuclear power to reduce our reliance on oil, that will cause these prices to come down. That is the most significant thing we can do. If we could bring the price of a barrel of oil down to $100, even, that would dramatically take pressure off of people buying home heating oil this winter in New Hampshire. So this bill we are debating right now, this energy bill, has to be completed before we move on to Senator Sanders' bill. In the debate of this bill, we should take up the LIHEAP amendment which will be offered, I suspect, from our side of the aisle--probably by Senator Sununu or myself. At the same time, we should take up these other ideas of expanding the use of our reserves as a nation on the Outer Continental Shelf, in the shale oil reserves, using nuclear power. We should be expanding these reserves. Why? Because that will cause the price of oil to come down. In addition, the secondary benefit of this, of course, is that we won't be buying energy from people who don't like us. We won't be buying as much energy from Venezuela if we are producing American oil. We won't be buying energy from Iran if we are producing more American oil. So clearly this is what we should do. We should produce more and we should consume less. At the same time, we should be promoting--and there will be an amendment from our side of the aisle on this bill-- promoting the use of electric cars and development of electric batteries, promoting more conservation ideas, promoting more renewable ideas. These are initiatives which need to be pursued. More importantly, they need to be discussed and a genuine bill needs to come out of this Congress. A bill such as the majority leader has presented--or the Democratic side has presented--which deals only with one small sliver of the problem, which is the potential for speculation, does nothing to increase supply and it does nothing to increase conservation, the two things we need to do in order to get the price of oil down. The simple fact is this bill should be available and open to amendment. In an attempt by the majority leader to basically sidetrack this bill, to throw it in the ditch, so we can't go forward with amendments which deal with addressing drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, which deal with bringing on more shale oil, which deal with nuclear power, which deal with more conservation--I am not going to vote for something that tries to accomplish that. I am going to vote to try to make sure we come out of this debate with a comprehensive policy, something that drives this country toward creating more supply that is American-created while at the same time using less. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GREGG. I believe I have 10 minutes. If the Chair would advise me when I have completed 10 minutes, I would appreciate it.

Mr. GREGG. On another topic, we are going to take up tomorrow hopefully the housing bill. This is an extraordinarily important piece of legislation. It is a big leap for those of us who are fiscal conservatives to say the Government should step into this arena as aggressively as this bill suggests we do but, unfortunately, it is a necessary step. It accomplishes two things which are absolutely critical in the present context of our economy. Today there are a lot of people losing their homes through foreclosure as a result of taking part in what was known as the subprime lending process and having their ARMs reset, their mortgage rates reset. This bill sets up a process where people who live in their primary residence who have the wherewithal, the ability, to pay a reasonable mortgage can restructure that mortgage so they can afford it and so they don't lose their home, and so there isn't a foreclosure. That is very important. It is important not only to those individuals, but it is important to the marketplace to start some activity in the marketplace in the area of mortgage lending and home sales. Secondly, and equally important, this bill addresses the fundamental strength of our financial institutions. We have some financial institutions in this country which are a bit unstable--unstable. We need to make sure they are stable. Why? Because these institutions, such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, are essentially at the center of the strength, whether we like it or not, of our banking industry. We need to set up a process so the marketplace knows these institutions, specifically Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, are going to survive and are going to be stable and are going to be able to have the capital and the wherewithal to continue to lend and to continue to have the market, to turn over mortgages so you can have liquidity in the lending markets. This is critical. Some will argue it may be expensive. My argument is if we don't take this step, we know it will be expensive. We know from the FDIC----

Mr. GREGG. Insurance that we will incur--as a result of bank failures that we will be paying a massive price. So although I don't like the idea from a concept as a matter of practice, this is something we are simply going to have to do in order to assure the fiscal solvency and resilience of our credit markets. Madam President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, would the Republican leader yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. As I understand the proposal from the Democratic leader, it would not allow an amendment, for example, on oil shale. As I understand it, the Democratic proposal suggests that we use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That would give us an estimated 3.5 days of oil. Were we to be able to extract oil shale, as I understand it, we would have the potential for 40,000 days of oil. I guess my question to the Republican leader is if we are going to have a comprehensive energy policy, shouldn't we at least take up the issue of whether the restrictions which have been placed on the ability to use oil--which restrictions have been offered by the Democratic Party--shouldn't an amendment on that issue be allowed, as well as an amendment on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf?

Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the Republican leader's answer on that. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG. I was wondering if the Republican leader would entertain another question.

Mr. GREGG. The Republican leader has made the point that we need to have a good piece of legislation, something that can be bipartisan in the area of drilling. Hopefully, we can also have an equally bipartisan effort in the area of oil shale. Isn't it also likely we could probably have a bipartisan amendment on the issue of how we bring more nuclear power online, and shouldn't that be considered as part of any energy solution, because it addresses the environmental concerns which the Democratic leader spoke of so well relative to making sure we have clean energy? Shouldn't that also be part of any package such as this? Isn't it also totally reasonable that we could allow these types of amendments and do it in a fairly orderly way and in a quick way within this week, and certainly within next week, which is a small amount of time and certainly a reasonable amount of time, considering the fact that the American people continue to pay such extraordinary fees at the gas pump and expect us to act?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, will the Republican leader yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, it seems to me that the Republican leader has outlined the process for getting this bill completed. He has listed seven amendments which are reasonable and which are significant because they involve--well, in the area of oil shale, over $2 trillion of potential reserves, in the area of offshore oil, literally years of reserves, and on the issue of nuclear power, a chance to produce a clean energy that does not pollute the environment and addresses the issue of clean energy. I presume the Republican leader--certainly, one of those amendments might be my amendment, and I would certainly be agreeable to a time limit. Would the Senator agree that we on our side would be willing to agree to reasonable time limits for debate on each of these amendments so there could be an orderly process which would have a time certain for completion of this bill sometime early next week?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I first congratulate Senator Sununu, my colleague and friend from New Hampshire, for his excellent statement, and I agree with everything he said, especially the part about cosponsoring the bill I introduced. But Senator Sununu brings a unique perspective to this issue because he is the only engineer in the body, having graduated from MIT, and he understands the physics and the chemistry and the technology issues of getting more production. Thus when he speaks on those issues, we all need to listen. I rise, as he and many of my colleagues do today, to ask about why we aren't taking up a more in-depth energy bill than just one that deals with speculation--and speculation being at the margin of the problem, according to the leading experts on this. When I was home this weekend, I filled up my wife's car and it cost almost $70. Now that is what you call painful. The people in New Hampshire and across this country, when they pull into that gas station, are asking themselves whether they can afford the price of this gas. People in the Northeast and in the colder parts of this country are worried about what is going to happen this winter when the price of home heating oil has to be met. It is a scary time, and we, as a Congress, have a responsibility to do something about that. It doesn't take a lot of expertise to know there are two ways you can address this problem: You can produce more energy--hopefully American energy--and you can consume less energy through conservation. This bill that has come to the floor here today basically does neither. It doesn't produce more and it doesn't conserve more. It simply attacks speculators, who, according to most of the experts, haven't been the major problem in this runup in the area of the cost of energy. The problem is pretty obvious. There are 2.5 billion people between China and India who are starting to use significant amounts of energy as they move into a better lifestyle. That has created massive new demand, and supply has not gone up because there has been no significant increase in supply across the world, especially supply here in the United States. So the price has gone up and gone up dramatically. The solution isn't, as has been proposed from the other side of the aisle, to not export American energy any longer, which would give us half a day of savings in oil; or to go into the Strategic Oil Reserve and use that all up, which will give us 3.5 days of additional oil. The solution is to look for major new production sources in the United States, as well as conservation initiatives. For example, if we use oil shale, we have, between 3 States--Utah, Colorado and Wyoming--2 trillion barrels in reserves of oil shale, and it can be withdrawn from the ground in an environmentally safe way. What does that represent? That represents 40,000 days of oil that could be produced--American oil. It is only common sense that we should pursue American oil production, when we can do it in an environmentally safe way--which we can--and when it is sitting there. The American people understand that. On the Outer Continental Shelf, we have billions of barrels of oil sitting there available, and we know we can produce it in an environmentally safe way. Why do we know that? Because we have had examples of it. Hurricane Katrina, a force 5 hurricane, came right up the Gulf of Mexico and destroyed one of our greatest cities. It was a horrific event. But one thing that didn't happen as a result of Hurricane Katrina was that we did not lose a barrel of oil from the production sites, from the drilling sites in the Gulf of Mexico. So we have proof beyond doubt that oil can be extracted in a safe way, and we should be extracting it. Why should we be sending billions of dollars annually overseas to governments and individuals who have no use for us--whether it is in Venezuela or Iran--when we can be buying American oil and producing American product here in the United States in a safe and environmentally sound way? It is common sense that these opportunities which sit there should be taken advantage of for the American people, and that we conserve more and we create more renewables. Yet when a bill comes to the floor which is supposed to involve the major energy debate of this Congress, what happens? The other side of the aisle says they are only going to allow one issue to be discussed: speculation. They are not going to allow the issue of drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, producing more American energy, to be discussed or voted on or policies to be pursued. They are not going to allow oil shale and the extraction of oil shale to be discussed or voted on or addressed in a way which will allow us to pursue that course of activity. There is no initiative that is going to be allowed to be brought to the floor and no amendment on the issue of expanding nuclear power, which is the cleanest form of energy we have and that doesn't create more environmental hazard in the way of greenhouse gases. All of those issues, which common sense tells you we should be addressing, are taken off the table. All that is wanted from the other side of the aisle is a political vote to give them cover in the next election. Well, the American people aren't interested in cover for the election, they are not interested in the politics of the next election, they are interested in doing something that has an immediate and long- term effect on the price of energy and makes our Nation stronger. Now, why does action in the area of production--which may, as the Senator from New Hampshire said, take 5, 10 years to bring on--have an immediate effect on the cost of energy? Because the price of a barrel of oil is based on what is the expected supply in the outyears. And if the international community knows America is going to step up and start producing energy, the price of the barrel of oil goes down. The world community knows we are sitting on 2 trillion barrels of reserve in oil shale--three times the amount of oil Saudi Arabia has. If we say to the world we are going to access that oil, the price of oil will be affected significantly today, even though it may take a few years to get it on line. We are sitting, as I said, on billions of barrels of oil on the Outer Continental Shelf. If we say to the world we are going to use that oil, we are going to take advantage of that oil, the price of oil on the world market will adjust to reflect that. And equally important, we will be keeping those dollars in the United States. These are hard-earned American dollars. People spend their weeks working hard to produce that income, and they want to have that income reinvested here in the United States. They do not want to send it to Iran or to Venezuela to be reinvested there. They want it to be reinvested here. And the way you reinvest here is to buy product here. So we need to produce more, but most especially we need to have a debate on this floor which allows us to discuss these issues in a formal, constructive way so we can have amendments and people can decide what is the best policy, not shut off debate, as is being proposed. What is the fear that pervades the other side of the aisle that they are not willing to discuss the issue of the Outer Continental Shelf? I am willing to take on the issue from an environmental standpoint. I think I have a pretty good environmental record. I am willing to defend the idea of going on the Outer Continental Shelf to produce energy from an environmental standpoint. I know it is good policy from the standpoint of production. The same is true of oil shale. The same is true of nuclear power. Let's bring those issues forward here, put some policies in place that allow us to use those type of energy resources so we can reduce the cost to the American people of the price of their energy and also keep those dollars in the United States. At the same time, we do need to pursue an aggressive course in conservation and in renewables. That is why I am supporting, along with Senator Ensign, Senator Cantwell from Washington, a bill to reauthorize the renewable tax credits so energy sources such as wind and biomass can be aggressively used and effectively used. Unfortunately, that bill has also been stopped on the floor of the Senate. It should not be. We should be pursuing that course of action as aggressively as we are pursuing alternatives which give us more production. You know, my experience in Government is that when you confront an issue, and there is a commonsense solution to that issue, most people usually get it. I think most people, at least in New Hampshire, get it, that this issue of energy, which is so huge and so important to everybody's lives, especially as we head into the winter, requires an aggressive response in the area of more production and more conservation. They also understand, and most people understand, you cannot produce more unless you actually go out and look for it. I mean it is common sense that you cannot produce more unless you look for it. The way you look for it is you look where it is. Where it is is in the oil shale of the West and in the Outer Continental Shelf. We have proven beyond any doubt that both of those resources can be used effectively and in an environmentally sound way. At the same time, we know that there are other sources of energy that are available to us, such as nuclear, and that there are ways to conserve, such as advancing the electric car and advancing other initiatives in the area of renewables. So it is a degradation of our responsibility as a Congress, in my opinion, to not take up this issue and address it across the board; take on all the different elements of it so the American people have some confidence that we are actually moving forward and we are not simply trying to dot a political ``I'' for the next election or to cross a ``T'' for the next election so we can claim we did something here on one item of the overall problem. This is a time to take some action. I certainly hope we do not leave, that this Congress does not recess without having done something constructive in this area and something that meets the commonsense test of the American people, which is we need to produce more American energy and we need to conserve more American energy. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 10 minutes to speak as in morning business?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to participate in this discussion on energy. I agree with the Senator from Alaska, and I agree, in part, with the Senator from North Dakota, that there has to be an addressing of the issue of speculation. I think any deal that takes shape on this floor will help if we do that. In addressing the issue of speculation, there are a lot of different factors, however. One of them is that we make sure to maintain control over these commodity markets, and we not create an atmosphere where these commodity markets move offshore and therefore we lose any regulatory control on our part. But, in addition, I do not think we can repeal the laws of common sense. The essence of the law of common sense is that you have India and China moving toward fairly developed nations and creating massive increases in the demand for oil. There are 2.5 billion people in those two countries. We have 300 million people in our country. We still use the majority of the world's oil. But the simple fact is that demand for oil has radically increased, and we are not going to be able to reduce our energy costs in this country unless we produce more American resources, and also conserve more. That is the simple fact. It is a function of supply and demand. And part of producing more means that we have got to look at those places where we have sources of energy. Two of the key places we have sources of energy are offshore and also oil shale. Both of those resources and, in fact, in the case of oil shale, those resources, the reserves of oil there, exceed the reserves of Saudi Arabia by a factor of two or three. In both of those instances we can recover energy by exploring and drilling in a manner that is environmentally safe. We have proved that beyond any question relative to offshore drilling, when you see that Hurricane Katrina came right up the gulf coast and destroyed one of our great cities but at the same time there was essentially no oil leak or no gas leak from any of the production facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. We have proven we can produce this energy in a safe and environmentally sound way, and we need to produce it. If you want to see the price of energy drop in this country, you have got to show the world community that we as a nation are willing to step forward and produce and conserve more energy. The way you produce more energy is by drilling, drilling offshore and using the underground resources of oil shale which exceed the reserves of Saudi Arabia. So if we want to address the cost of energy, we should do it, and we should do it now. We should not be waiting. That is why I congratulate the President for lifting the moratorium. The Senate should lift the moratorium that was put in place by the Senate, by the Congress, on both oil shale and offshore drilling. (The remarks of Mr. Gregg pertaining to the introduction of S. 3279 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe Senator Stevens is going to speak, but I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized on the completion of my statement.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, obviously the issue of energy is at the center of everybody's concern. Does the Senator from Alaska wish to go forward?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I want to talk about the specific reason I have come to the floor, which is to talk about the fear, quite honestly, in colder States in this country about how we are going to get through the winter. The price of home heating oil, which is the dominant form of energy in our State, the way people keep their houses warm and habitable in the winter, has tripled. People who are working for a living, and low-income individuals, have no idea how they are going to meet the cost of their energy bill this winter. It is going to overwhelm us as a region. We need to do something about it. There are a couple of levels where we need to act. We do need to increase significantly the funding for low-income energy assistance. This is a crisis. The simple fact is we should increase that funding. At the same time, we do need to do that in a responsible way, by paying for that increase in funding so we do not end up putting the cost of buying energy to heat homes today on our children and our children's children tomorrow. That is not fair to them. So we ought to come forward with a proposal. What I am going to do today is introduce a bill which increases home heating oil assistance by $2.5 billion, which will double that program, but pays for it in a reasonable way, essentially by repealing the section 199 regulation that gives certain deductions to energy production companies which they no longer need with oil being at $130 a barrel. It is a significant increase in funding. It is a level that Senator Sanders has introduced in a bill, freestanding, that is not paid for, which I have also cosponsored, because I hope when that bill comes forward, I will be able to offer my pay-fors to it. But it is the number we need and we clearly have to have in order to have any chance this winter of making sure that low-income people in New Hampshire and throughout the Northeast and the country can survive this winter in a reasonable way. Secondly, we need to address the issue of middle-income Americans, people in New Hampshire who are working for a living and who do not meet these low-income thresholds, who have an equal amount of fear about how they are going to pay for the energy to heat their home, when they see the cost of their energy bill double or triple or maybe even quadruple. I hope to have next week a tax credit that will be available to those working families who are of moderate income, who have an income which they cannot adjust enough in order to be able to absorb the huge cost of this event of the runup in the cost of energy. I hope to be able to introduce that in the near future. But today I am introducing this bill, which increases home heating assistance, the LIHEAP program, by $2.5 billion and pays for it, which is the responsible way to do it. In addition, I am strongly supporting Senate initiatives which will increase our commitment to the production as a nation and conservation. Because by doing that, we will draw down, we will significantly reduce the price of gasoline and the price of oil in our country. Because that speculation, which is legitimate, which is based off the projected demands and the lack of supply, will adjust to the fact that greater supply is going to come into the market. That will reduce the forces which are forcing the price demands up and as a result have a positive impact on reducing the cost of a barrel of oil. We need to do a lot around here. We do need to address speculation when it is there and when it is inappropriate and when it is driving up the price in an arbitrary and unfair way. We also need to address the issue of more production and create more production. We are looking for energy where we can do it safely and energy efficiently and also in an environmentally sound way, such as offshore or with oil shale. We have more oil shale reserves than Saudi Arabia--three times Saudi Arabia's reserves we have in three States: Wyoming, Idaho, and Colorado. And we should not be sending our hard-earned money to countries, which in many instances do not even like us to purchase their oil products. We should be buying it here in the United States where we can produce it. In addition, of course, we need to aggressively pursue a course of conservation and renewables. I wish to note that the title of this bill is the Home Energy Assistance Today Act, or HEAT. Obviously, the purpose of this bill is to make it possible for citizens throughout the country, but especially in New England, who are of low income, to be able to heat their homes this winter and to afford the cost of the energy it takes to heat their homes.