Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday the Government released the second quarter performance of the U.S. economy, and I am sorry to say the report looks dismal. I, along with the rest of Americans, am outraged that Congress will depart shortly for a 5-week recess without addressing the most pressing issue of this Congress: our ailing economy and in particular energy. During this past month, we have passed bills to provide $50 billion for support of international programs to combat HIV/AIDS, for Medicare, and to improve FISA. This past week, we finally passed a bill that addresses a sector of our economy by revamping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I certainly believe we can and should have done more than that. In November of 2006, my party lost the majority in Congress, in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate. The Democrats ran on a platform of change, what they called ``A New Direction For America.'' The Democrats pledged to push forward a 100-hour agenda that touted a change in ethics, an increase in the minimum wage, and a rollback in subsidies for the oil and gas industry. Look where that ``direction'' has led us. The price of energy has skyrocketed, the housing market has deteriorated, and the unemployment rate is on the rise. Across the Nation, we are feeling the effects of the crumbling economy. Yesterday, Bennigans and Steak & Ale restaurants have filed for bankruptcy, and Starbucks has recently announced the closing of 600 stores across America. It is time for the majority to wake up and smell the coffee. Viewing this chart, it is no wonder why the congressional approval ratings are at an alltime low, at 12 percent. Congressional approval: 12 percent. Congress has failed to act when Americans need it the most. At the end of 2006, when the Republicans controlled Congress, the average retail price of regular unleaded gasoline, according to the Energy Information Administration, was $2.59. Look where it is today. In June of this year, the average price of regular unleaded gasoline hit an average of $4.06. Our friends on the other side have done absolutely nothing to address the rising costs of energy, and we are going home without having done so. We have proposed increasing the supply off our coasts, extending the expiring energy tax incentives, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil by providing alternative energy resources. The majority refuses to provide any solid bipartisan solutions because they keep insisting on their perverse let's-grow-the- Government, pay-as-you-go rules and combating the oil and gas industry as though they are the evil cause of everything. The fact is the Government does not produce one drop of oil. It does not drill one exploration well. It does not refine even 1 gallon of gasoline, and it doesn't build 1 foot of pipeline. Somehow, though, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think every answer to dropping gas prices is more Government--more Government moratoria on drilling, more taxes on energy companies, more regulation of the commodity markets, more moratoriums on the development of oil shale, where we have somewhere between 800 billion and 2 trillion barrels of oil that can be recovered. It is doable. Estonia has been doing it for the last 80 years. Brazil has been doing it for the last three decades. We can do it, but there is a moratorium that doesn't expire until September, and now the Democrats want to put another moratorium on it--just on preparing the rules pursuant to which we can develop these vast resources that would help bring prices down. It wouldn't happen overnight, but I tell you one thing, if we went and tried to do all these things and we announced we were going to do them, I believe gas prices would automatically come down quite a bit more than they are right now. This past week, the majority leader brought a bill to the floor to curtail oil price speculation, and while this was a start, my party tried to amend this bill to provide real solutions, ranging from expanding offshore drilling to boosting oil shale production. We were prevented from offering these various amendments, which was an opportunity to increase energy supply and to send the rest of the world a message that we are going to get serious about helping ourselves instead of sending $700 billion every year off some shore for offshore oil. Across the Capitol, the House refuses to even bring up legislation involving offshore drilling. I do not know how I can return home to my home State of Utah and explain to constituents such as Bill Howard, a farmer who has to increase the price of his cattle and hogs to combat fuel costs, that we cannot do anything about the soaring gas prices unless it is paid for and hurts the oil and gas industry. Americans need affordable energy now. If we look at the results of Democratic policies on job growth in our country, we are met with the same disappointment. Here is where we are. The unemployment rate in 2006 was 4.4 percent. Today it is up to 5.5 percent. Less jobs means people spend less. When we spend less, companies start cutting back, laying off employees, and reducing employee salaries. This causes us to spend even less and the vicious economic cycle continues. We need to put more money back into the taxpayers' pockets over a long period of time in order to create a virtuous economic cycle. Among the tax extenders bill, which has failed to pass the Senate again and again, is the research tax credit. Seventy percent of research tax credit dollars are used for wages of R&D employees. That is creating jobs. I have been the champion of the R&D tax credit, along with Senator Baucus, for years. We should provide tax relief not through economic stimulus packages or on a year-to-year basis but over a long period of time so the taxpayers can depend on this relief. That is why it is so important that when we talk about economic stimulus, we should look at solutions rather than rebate checks and bailouts, such as repealing the alternative minimum tax and making certain tax cuts permanent such as the research tax credit. Looking toward the housing market, we still are puzzled why the majority has not provided solutions to help the economy. We have been hit hard by the housing market in my home State. St. George, in the southwestern part of Utah, and Provo, UT, were among the top ten fastest-growing metro areas in the United States between 2000 and 2006, with a growth of 39.8 percent and 25.9 percent respectively. As you can see, our economy has all kinds of foreclosures; in Utah we are up to 141 percent. That is twice the national increase from a year ago. Last week, my friends on the other side of the aisle pushed through a housing bill that some estimate will provide a temporary financial housing lifeline by benefiting only 13 percent of the estimated 300,000 homeowners who will likely lose their homes in the next year. I supported earlier versions of the bill, but as it moved through the process and took on new provisions, my reservations grew. There is more to be said about the bill than I have time for now, but I have a statement in the Record on the subject. Let me say I think too many people and organizations that do not deserve it will be bailed out by what is now housing law. I am also concerned that some of the provisions in the bill are shortsighted. For example, we created a new regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which is fine, but then we created what could possibly become a huge taxpayer-funded backstop, to put it nicely. Some have proposed that we cut the Government's ties to Fannie and Freddie, make them truly private companies, and incentivize more competition. Maybe we need to start the discussion now so taxpayers are not on the hook should future crises arise. We are on the brink of a recession and we need leadership. The Democrats' ``New Direction For America'' has led us down a road to economic hardship and Americans deserve to have the economy driving on all cylinders. With the government-sponsored housing enterprises, high energy and food prices, and the instability of financial institutions, we are in a state of economic slowdown. But there is hope. Much like today, when I came to the Senate over 30 years ago, the unemployment rate was rising, inflation was accelerating, and the GDP was beginning to decline. The economy was a major problem facing Americans. In response, we provided long-term solutions to our ailing economy by lowering taxes and increasing investment and growth. While the economy today is bleak, I believe there is hope because we have been here before. However, I do not know why the majority has not addressed this dire situation before adjourning. There are some real problems facing the American economy, and together we can deal with them.

Mr. HATCH. Thank you, Mr. President. Most of these problems are self-inflicted, due to some major financial mistakes in our country. Congress has passed some legislation aimed at improving our economy, but these short-term, bandaid solutions will eventually exacerbate the increasing deficit, and we will find ourselves back in the same situation. More spending certainly is not the answer. When we return from our August recess, I encourage Congress to debate how we can fix our ailing economy. I believe we can take steps toward reducing unemployment, slowing inflation, and increasing investment and growth. I also believe we need to look at reforming our Tax Code. Our tax system has become burdensome and overly complicated. It discourages investment at a time when we desperately need it most. For too long we have delayed addressing our economy, and we owe a lot better service to our fellow Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, through an oversight of our two offices we neglected to add Senator Dole as an original cosponsor to this act when we introduced it last night. Senator Dole is a leader on disability issues and should be commended for her and her husband's commitment to individuals with disabilities.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008. I am pleased to have worked with my colleague, Senator Christopher Dodd, on this legislation which will help to address barriers to pain care by enhancing coordination of research, improving healthcare provider education and training, and elevating public awareness of pain and pain management. According to the American Pain Foundation, an estimated 75 million Americans suffer from either chronic or acute pain. Pain is the most common reason that people access the health care system and persistent pain can interfere with everyday life and make ordinary tasks seem impossible. Severe chronic pain also can hinder sleep, work, and social functions. Due to its very nature as a prominent feature of many chronic conditions, pain is said to affect more Americans than diabetes, heart disease and cancer combined. Most pain can be relieved with proper treatment. This simple fact implies that the pain problems of these countless Americans can be easily fixed. Unfortunately, many people in pain face considerable barriers to accessing proper diagnosis, treatment, and management of their pain. Health care professionals are, more often than not, inadequately trained regarding pain assessment and management, making it difficult for them to treat their patients' pain safely and effectively. As such, providers may be unfamiliar with current research and guidelines for appropriate pain care. Further, health care professionals may be hesitant to prescribe pain medications for pain management due to lack of knowledge regarding regulatory policies. To make worse the problem, the National Institutes of Health, NIH, our country's premier institution for biomedical research, currently dedicates less than 1 percent of its research budget to pain research. Worse yet, this research is spread across multiple Institutes and centers without efficient coordination. Effective education is contingent upon adequate research. Patients may also create for themselves barriers to pain care and management. As impractical as it seems, patients often do not tell their doctor about their pain because they do not want to complain or appear to be a nuisance. They also may avoid taking pain medicines because of addiction or dependency concerns which may be based on misinformation due to lack of education. The National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008 will help to identify these barriers by authorizing an Institute of Medicine, IOM, Conference on Pain Care to evaluate the adequacy of pain assessment, treatment and management. The conference will establish an action agenda by which to address barriers and improve education and training. The bill also authorizes permanently the Pain Consortium at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, to establish a coordinated clinical research agenda and promote pain research across NIH institutes, centers, and programs. The Consortium will convene annual conferences to make recommendations on pain research and activities at the NIH. The legislation also establishes a multidisciplinary Advisory Committee The National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008 addresses the lack of pain care education by creating a grant program for the development and implementation of programs to educate and train health care professionals in pain assessment and management. It also requires the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ, to collect evidence- based practices regarding pain and disseminate such information to the pain care community. This bill also will break down barriers to pain care access by raising awareness among people who suffer from pain, and helping them and their families find the proper information about pain management. A national pain management public outreach and awareness campaign will be developed and implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to focus on the significance of pain as a national public health problem. The National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008 contains provisions that will help the millions of Americans who live everyday with pain by heightening awareness, enhancing coordination of research, and advancing education. Similar legislation was introduced in the House by Representatives Lois Capps and Mike Rogers last year. The House bill is supported by more than 100 organizations in the pain care community, including the America Pain Society, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, and the American Cancer Society. I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership on and interest in this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support our bill.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am proud to rise today, as I did 18 years ago, and stand beside my good friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin, to introduce legislation advancing opportunities for our disabled fellow citizens. Our commitment to that cause never ends. We must always remain open to learn from experience, to observe and evaluate how laws we put on the books work in practice, and to be ready to do our part with appropriate legislation. We are doing our part today by introducing the ADA Amendments Act. The Americans with Disabilities Act is perhaps the most comprehensive piece of civil rights legislation we have ever enacted. It prohibits discrimination based on present, past, or perceived disabilities. It affirmatively requires accommodations in the workplace and modifications and assistance to ensure that persons with disabilities can access and enjoy places of public accommodation. That combination of the negative prohibition and the affirmative obligation makes the ADA truly unique and able to make such a positive contribution to the lives of so many across our great Nation. This legislation responds to Supreme Court decisions that have had the effect of narrowing the ADA's definition of disability and thereby restricting its coverage. Its goal is to once again broaden the definition of disability in a way that maximizes bipartisan consensus and minimizes unintended consequences. I am sure that my friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin, joins me in thanking so many people and organizations who have been part of this process, offering countless suggestions and ideas and input about how to achieve this goal. This effort has been neither simple nor easy. Because the ADA is such a comprehensive statute, virtually any change we make can have effects in areas beyond where a problem might have occurred. In addition, Members on both sides of the aisle, with liberal or conservative perspectives, equally want to help the disabled but have very different views about how to do it. And so the bill we introduce today is really the third phase in a process that began more than a year ago with introduction of the ADA Restoration Act and continued with passage last month of the House ADA Amendments Act. I am glad to say that it enjoys the support of the broad coalitions of disability and business groups that have provided valuable input and analysis along the way. It also takes steps to address concerns expressed by the education community. While the problems this legislation addresses arose in the employment arena, the solution this legislation represents will certainly impact the education arena. Finally, let me say that like the original ADA, this bill is the result of negotiation and compromise on all sides. That is the nature of the legislative process and the more important the goal, the greater the effort to continue the process until we reach a good result. We have done that here and I hope and trust that when this legislation passes here and in the other body that the margin of the votes will reflect the breadth of the consensus behind this new effort to advance opportunities for the disabled to participate in all that this great country has to offer.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008. I am pleased to have worked with my colleague, Senator Christopher Dodd, on this legislation which will help to address barriers to pain care by enhancing coordination of research, improving healthcare provider education and training, and elevating public awareness of pain and pain management. According to the American Pain Foundation, an estimated 75 million Americans suffer from either chronic or acute pain. Pain is the most common reason that people access the health care system and persistent pain can interfere with everyday life and make ordinary tasks seem impossible. Severe chronic pain also can hinder sleep, work, and social functions. Due to its very nature as a prominent feature of many chronic conditions, pain is said to affect more Americans than diabetes, heart disease and cancer combined. Most pain can be relieved with proper treatment. This simple fact implies that the pain problems of these countless Americans can be easily fixed. Unfortunately, many people in pain face considerable barriers to accessing proper diagnosis, treatment, and management of their pain. Health care professionals are, more often than not, inadequately trained regarding pain assessment and management, making it difficult for them to treat their patients' pain safely and effectively. As such, providers may be unfamiliar with current research and guidelines for appropriate pain care. Further, health care professionals may be hesitant to prescribe pain medications for pain management due to lack of knowledge regarding regulatory policies. To make worse the problem, the National Institutes of Health, NIH, our country's premier institution for biomedical research, currently dedicates less than 1 percent of its research budget to pain research. Worse yet, this research is spread across multiple Institutes and centers without efficient coordination. Effective education is contingent upon adequate research. Patients may also create for themselves barriers to pain care and management. As impractical as it seems, patients often do not tell their doctor about their pain because they do not want to complain or appear to be a nuisance. They also may avoid taking pain medicines because of addiction or dependency concerns which may be based on misinformation due to lack of education. The National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008 will help to identify these barriers by authorizing an Institute of Medicine, IOM, Conference on Pain Care to evaluate the adequacy of pain assessment, treatment and management. The conference will establish an action agenda by which to address barriers and improve education and training. The bill also authorizes permanently the Pain Consortium at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, to establish a coordinated clinical research agenda and promote pain research across NIH institutes, centers, and programs. The Consortium will convene annual conferences to make recommendations on pain research and activities at the NIH. The legislation also establishes a multidisciplinary Advisory Committee The National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008 addresses the lack of pain care education by creating a grant program for the development and implementation of programs to educate and train health care professionals in pain assessment and management. It also requires the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ, to collect evidence- based practices regarding pain and disseminate such information to the pain care community. This bill also will break down barriers to pain care access by raising awareness among people who suffer from pain, and helping them and their families find the proper information about pain management. A national pain management public outreach and awareness campaign will be developed and implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to focus on the significance of pain as a national public health problem. The National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008 contains provisions that will help the millions of Americans who live everyday with pain by heightening awareness, enhancing coordination of research, and advancing education. Similar legislation was introduced in the House by Representatives Lois Capps and Mike Rogers last year. The House bill is supported by more than 100 organizations in the pain care community, including the America Pain Society, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, and the American Cancer Society. I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership on and interest in this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support our bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am proud to rise today, as I did 18 years ago, and stand beside my good friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin, to introduce legislation advancing opportunities for our disabled fellow citizens. Our commitment to that cause never ends. We must always remain open to learn from experience, to observe and evaluate how laws we put on the books work in practice, and to be ready to do our part with appropriate legislation. We are doing our part today by introducing the ADA Amendments Act. The Americans with Disabilities Act is perhaps the most comprehensive piece of civil rights legislation we have ever enacted. It prohibits discrimination based on present, past, or perceived disabilities. It affirmatively requires accommodations in the workplace and modifications and assistance to ensure that persons with disabilities can access and enjoy places of public accommodation. That combination of the negative prohibition and the affirmative obligation makes the ADA truly unique and able to make such a positive contribution to the lives of so many across our great Nation. This legislation responds to Supreme Court decisions that have had the effect of narrowing the ADA's definition of disability and thereby restricting its coverage. Its goal is to once again broaden the definition of disability in a way that maximizes bipartisan consensus and minimizes unintended consequences. I am sure that my friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin, joins me in thanking so many people and organizations who have been part of this process, offering countless suggestions and ideas and input about how to achieve this goal. This effort has been neither simple nor easy. Because the ADA is such a comprehensive statute, virtually any change we make can have effects in areas beyond where a problem might have occurred. In addition, Members on both sides of the aisle, with liberal or conservative perspectives, equally want to help the disabled but have very different views about how to do it. And so the bill we introduce today is really the third phase in a process that began more than a year ago with introduction of the ADA Restoration Act and continued with passage last month of the House ADA Amendments Act. I am glad to say that it enjoys the support of the broad coalitions of disability and business groups that have provided valuable input and analysis along the way. It also takes steps to address concerns expressed by the education community. While the problems this legislation addresses arose in the employment arena, the solution this legislation represents will certainly impact the education arena. Finally, let me say that like the original ADA, this bill is the result of negotiation and compromise on all sides. That is the nature of the legislative process and the more important the goal, the greater the effort to continue the process until we reach a good result. We have done that here and I hope and trust that when this legislation passes here and in the other body that the margin of the votes will reflect the breadth of the consensus behind this new effort to advance opportunities for the disabled to participate in all that this great country has to offer.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I was told to be here at 5:40. I thank my dear colleague for his kindness and understanding of the situation. Senate leaders on both sides have tried to make progress on the extenders bill but have repeatedly failed. The distinguished majority leader has chalked up this failure to Republican obstructionism, as he has with almost every other failure of his party to pass legislation this year, or legislation they desire. Contrary to the accusations of our leader on the other side, the reasons for Republican opposition to the Democratic extender bill are grounded in principles of solid tax policy and fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, our position has been grossly distorted by many on the other side and many Democrats on the outside. The Democratic extenders legislation has failed because it contains fundamental flaws. The other side is insisting on raising taxes to pay for the loss in revenue from extending the expired tax provisions. Their so-called pay-as-you-go or pay-go rules call for all revenue losses to be matched with revenue increases or certain spending decreases. While I continue to be a strong believer in fiscal responsibility, there are three basic reasons why Republicans have rejected the false fiscal responsibility of the Democratic extenders bills. First, it is wrong to raise taxes on one group of taxpayers in order to prevent another group of taxpayers from suffering an increase in taxes. Second, it is wrong to offset temporary extensions of current law with permanent tax increases. Finally, it is wrong to increase taxes at a time when the Federal Government is already collecting more revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product than the 40-year historic average. This is particularly true at a time of slow or no economic growth. Our friends on the other side are ignoring a solution the Republicans have offered that would finance the tax extenders bill in a fiscally responsible way. We believe we should reduce the explosive growth in Federal spending instead of raising taxes in order to offset the revenue losses. Just during this Congress, Democrats have passed billions of dollars of new spending without bothering at all to offset the effect of these increases on the deficit. Billions more of new spending has been approved through the Democratic budget resolution. Among the tax provisions that have already expired is one the business community relies on to keep products and processes flowing, innovations that are the lifeblood of our economy. Businesses across the country are, once again, anxiously waiting to see if we will reinstate this important incentive for innovation, the research tax credit, which I have championed for decades. The purpose of the research tax credit is to encourage investment in technological innovation. Companies generally cannot fully recover R&D expenditures, thus discouraging companies from investing in innovation. The Federal Government provides tax incentives in order to support business R&D, and the business community is depending on us to continue to support R&D. We cannot wait until the end of this year to commit to this vital investment, this vital tax policy. The time is now. At a time when we are looking for ways to spur economic growth, I know of no thoughtful person who does not believe research and development is vital to our economy and to our future prosperity. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to create ridiculous permanent offsets in order to pay for temporarily extending the research tax credit which I argue we cannot afford to lose. Many U.S. companies are looking elsewhere to establish their R&D activities. Testifying before the House committee on Science and Technology, Dr. Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, testified that ``eight of the top ten [research and development]-spending companies in the world have established R&D facilities in China.'' They could just as easily have been established here. If we are not careful, we will soon not only be dependent on foreign oil but also dependent on foreign research and development. The result would be a tragic loss of American jobs, economic growth, world leadership, and prestige. We simply cannot allow this to happen. Here we have a tax incentive that has been around for almost 30 years, which enjoys wide acceptance by the business sector, the academic community, economists, and which has very broad support from practically every corner of the political spectrum. Yet this tax credit provision has been allowed to expire 13 times. Each time we play the extension game, Congress seems to get a little more cavalier about the expiring or expired provisions in general and the research credit in particular. While we play this extension game, our business community loses out on chances of innovation that could spur economic growth at a time when we need it to be spurred. Now is not the time to create tax uncertainty for employers. A retroactive or, even worse, lapsed research credit will cost American jobs. There is no way you can avoid it, if we don't get this done. Seventy percent of research tax credit dollars are used for wages of R&D employees. It is estimated by the Information Technology Association of America that the lapse of the research tax credit will cost the economy $51 million per day. Are my friends on the other side of the aisle willing to risk losing American R&D jobs and severely impact the already difficult U.S. economy in the name of a perverse and wrong-headed sense of fiscal responsibility? We cannot drive our economy into the ground in the name of false fiscal notions such as a pay-go rule that is used only to grow Government and to add more taxes to people. Tax increases are not the prescription to what ails our economy. But extending these expiring tax cuts and making the research tax credit permanent will help our economy grow. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider their opposition to spending cuts as a way to responsibly pay for the cost of extending the expired and expiring tax provisions. I wish we could make the research tax credit permanent. If we would, it would help our economy. It would help companies to have some sense of what is going to happen in the future. It would help them in their planning. It would help create jobs. It would help to create more and more innovation. My gosh, it makes sense. I hope my colleagues will reconsider and that we can get this tax extenders bill passed as soon as possible. Having said all that, I thank my friend, the majority whip, for his graciousness in allowing me to make this statement, especially since I have been picking on him to a degree, only in good nature but also in seriousness. We have to work together. We have to start solving some of these problems. We can't do it by always increasing taxes. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Not more than 10 minutes.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to express my growing alarm over the current state of the expired and expiring tax provisions, and to express what I see as real problems in getting these important provisions taken care of before Congress adjourns this year. My office is increasingly being contacted by businesses and individual taxpayers, not only from my home State but around the Nation, who are asking what the delay is in taking care of the so- called extenders. I am sure this is true of all offices of all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It is already way past the time when Americans should have been able to expect a reasonable Congress to take care of what in prior years has been a fairly routine issue. While the almost annual rite of passing a tax extenders bill has never represented an ideal way of governing, the Congress has generally exercised a modicum of responsibility in getting this chore taken care of within a reasonable time. That is, until recently. Over the past several years, Congress's ability to take care of what is the least common denominator in our duty to ensure a stable tax system has eroded. We are now bordering, in my opinion, on gross negligence. No wonder the Congress's approval ratings are so incredibly low.

Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will kindly yield, this is the issue. This is one we could both march arm in arm on. We both agree. The question is, How do you pay for it? Frankly, we are not going to go with the pay-go rule. We have to find some other way. I would like to make it permanent. I would like to get rid of the AMT that is hurting so many, 24, 25 million people. I believe my colleague wants to do these things as well. But we have to find a way of getting together and doing it. I think my good colleague knows where I stand on these issues.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am aware of and sympathize with families and individuals in Utah and around the country who, through no willful neglect or bad intentions of their own, are in very difficult circumstances as a result of turbulence in the housing market. Others in the housing industry who have also acted with prudence and good faith have also been caught up in the difficulty. We have had many votes on housing legislation over the past several months, and I have supported measures that I thought would help improve the current situation. I also understand that housing is a significant sector that affects the broader economy. A stable housing market would go a long way to instilling confidence. My expectation is that the housing sector will stabilize and I hope that it does so with as little exposure as possible to taxpayers. Our last vote on the substance of the Foreclosure Prevention Act took place on July 11. The bill then went to the House of Representatives, and the House made a few changes and one major addition to the bill. It added what some have called a bailout for the government sponsored enterprises, GSEs. Before the addition of the GSE provisions, we had a comprehensive bill that was the product of lengthy, bipartisan negotiations. It had provisions aimed at correcting some of the current problems, avoiding future problems, and providing incentive for positive activity in the housing market. Given the bipartisan nature of the bill, it contained many provisions that I support, including tax deductions and incentives. However, this last addition to the housing bill, which we voted on for the first time today, combined with my other reservations, was more than I was willing to support. The CBO estimates that there is ``a greater than 50 percent chance that the government would provide no financial assistance to the GSEs over the next 17 months.'' I hope the chances are greater than that, but this section of the bill accounts for well over half the cost of the bill. It has the potential, perhaps slight, of costing well into the hundreds of billions of dollars. To touch on a couple other points of concern, this bill will delay the allocation of worldwide interest expensing rules that I championed in 2004. The delay was included to ``pay'' for other provisions of the bill. I am not sure that the tradeoff is static, and the same can be said of so many other efforts to offset spending by delaying or suspending tax incentives. Finally, this bill will help some people who deserve it, but it will likely also help many irresponsible lenders, brokers, borrowers that do not. The bill now appears to be headed to the President, and he appears to be ready to sign the bill, in spite of his own reservations. The housing market will recover. Again, I hope that it does so sooner than later and at the least cost possible to taxpayers. I expect that we will come away from the current situation better able to avoid similar problems in the future.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senate has voted on a motion to proceed to a vote on S. 3186, a bill to provide funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. I have a long history of supporting the LIHEAP program and have voted for almost every increase in the program that has been proposed in Congress. This vote was different. It was not a vote about making sure our low income citizens have the heating and cooling assistance they need because they already do under the existing program. There is $100 million still left in the program, and most of that money was for heating last winter. So what's the emergency here? On top of the existing surplus in the program, the program will also be fully funded for the coming winter when we pass a continuing resolution which will keep all the government programs running at the level they were funded last year. So let's not pretend that LIHEAP is not in place or that it won't be funded for the coming year. Each year the Congress appropriates the Government funding needs through 13 appropriations bills. Each bill is handled by separate subcommittees of the full Senate Committee on Appropriations. I applaud the Appropriations Committee and its subcommittees, because they have done a good job of preparing and marking up their various appropriations bills. But there's just one problem. Our majority leader has announced that we will not be passing any of those bills this year, and instead will be passing the continuing resolution I just referred to. Why this announcement? Why can't we pass any appropriations bills this year? Well, I can tell you Mr. President that the Republicans have many amendments prepared for those bills that would allow our Nation to produce more domestic oil, but the anti-oil extremists calling the shots in the Democrat Party cannot allow votes on finding more oil because they know such votes would succeed. Unfortunately for the Democrat Party, the poor are beginning to wake up that the liberals they have always looked to are behind the war on the poor. By war on the poor I refer to the movement by the anti-oil extremists to close off every good domestic oil resource, which is a direct cause of the high energy prices Americans face. Democrats in Congress have been forced to choose between the very well funded extreme anti-oil interests and the poor because on energy prices there is no compromise between the two. The Democrats have begun to recognize the position they are in, and were trying to have it both ways with this vote. Let's be honest about why the Senate brought up this amendment. It is because the Democrats are trying to please the anti-oil extremists by not allowing any votes on oil drilling or on appropriations bills. At the same time the Democrats must pretend that they haven't really sold out the poor by their policies that force high gas prices. I am not inclined to play their political game and support their effort to shift the debate away from unlocking our nation's energy potential. And I particularly was not inclined to support this vote, because the proposal busted the budget without providing any additional benefit to LIHEAP.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been watching the debate over the intervening time this week and, frankly, I am appalled that we cannot address energy prices at this time, because we cannot get together from a bipartisan standpoint. Today the Senate voted on a motion to proceed to S. 3186, a bill to provide funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or what is commonly referred to as LIHEAP. I have a long history of supporting the LIHEAP program and have voted for almost every increase in the program that has been proposed in Congress. But today's vote is different. It is not a vote about making sure our low-income citizens have the heating and cooling assistance they need, because they already do under the existing program. There is $100 million still left in the program. Most of that money was for heating last winter, but we had that much left over. So what is the emergency here? On top of the existing surplus in the program, the program will also be fully funded for the coming winter when we pass a continuing resolution which will keep all the Government programs running at the level they were funded at last year. So let's not pretend the LIHEAP program is not in place or that it will not be funded for the coming year. As you well know, each year the Congress appropriates the Government funding needs through 13 appropriations bills. Each bill is handled by separate subcommittees of the full Senate Committee on Appropriations. I applaud the Appropriations Committee and its subcommittees because they have done a good job of preparing and marking up their various appropriation bills. But there is one problem. Our majority leader has announced we will not be passing any of these bills this year. Instead, we will be passing a continuing resolution that I referred to. Why this announcement? Why can't we pass any appropriations bills this year? There is still plenty of time. I can tell you that Republicans have many amendments prepared for those bills that would allow our Nation to produce more domestic oil. But the anti-oil extremists calling the shots in the Democratic Party cannot allow votes on finding more oil because they know those votes would succeed. That is what this is all about here. That is why we have had a very difficult time and have had to vote against cloture. If we could do what is normally done in this great legislative body, and that is bring up our amendments and vote them up or down or move to table them if they want to, we could get this matter over in a very short period of time. But our friends on the other side know it would be a considerably different bill than the Band-Aid bill they have had on the floor, the speculation bill. We need a comprehensive approach to it and, as Members on both sides, we need to vote on these important amendments. Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, the poor are beginning to wake up that the liberals who they have always looked to are behind the war on the poor. By the ``war on the poor,'' I refer to the movement by the extremists to close off every good domestic oil resource, which is the direct cause of the high energy prices we Americans face. We have heard of the $700 billion we are spending overseas when we have oil right here in America that would alleviate this type of expenditure and keep the money home. Democrats have begun to recognize the position they are in and are trying to have it both ways with today's vote. Earlier this month a group of protesters came to Capitol Hill, calling on Congress to stop the war on the poor--some of that is obscured by signs, by groups, and Congressmen--who are closing off America's energy resources. Included in this group were pastors and civil rights leaders, calling on this body to unlock America's oil resources for the benefit of Americans, and especially for the benefit of lower income Americans. One of the participants was Bishop Harry Jackson. I wish to quote some of his remarks for the Record. These are his words: I am a registered Democrat but this has nothing to do with partisan politics. Unless the public understands that there are specific people and organizations that are fueling this war against the poor, nothing will change and the poor will continue to suffer. We will unmask those behind this war, regardless of their political party or ideology. Party labels and partisan ideologies are meaningless when it comes to protecting the lives of America's most vulnerable citizens. That is Bishop Harry Jackson, a Democrat, who has been calling the bluff here. By the way, you can see more about the ``stop the war on the poor'' movement on the Web at www.stopwaronpoor.org. Democrats in Congress must choose between the very well-funded extreme anti-oil interests or the poor, because on energy prices there is no compromise between the two. To be honest, I believe Americans have put their finger on this conflict even before their Representatives in Congress have fully begun to understand it. However, the fact that this vote was scheduled today when it was not even necessary is an indication that they are beginning to catch on. Look at this photo of the protesters: My Family Needs Affordable Energy. Food or Fuel, Don't Make Me Choose. Congress Needs To Act. I think Congress does need to act. These are folks who are being hit hard. This next chart has a couple of examples of the Democrats' war on the poor. Both these examples were referred to during the war on poor protest. Here we see that Representative Henry Waxman--great friend of mine, no question, I care a great deal for him--but he passed a bill that bans the Federal Government from purchasing oil sands from Canada, unless he can prove it has a lesser greenhouse gas footprint than gasoline. In other words, we would be turning away 1.5 million barrels of oil a day from a friendly neighbor in favor of oil from the Middle East and Russia. What about the greenhouse gas footprint of shipping that oil all the way across the world and all the way over here? Representative Waxman's section 526, 2007 Defense bill bans the Federal procurement of oil shale, oil sands, and coal to liquids. It turns away 1.5 million barrels a day from Canada, our neighbors to the North, our friends to the North, in favor of oil from the Middle East and Venezuela. Let me go further here. Last year, Representative Mark Udall, who represents Aspen, CO, passed a 1-year moratorium on commercial oil shale leasing. Keep in mind, Estonia has been developing oil from oil shale for over 90 years--Estonia. I might add that Brazil has been developing oil from oil shale for decades. It can be done. We know how to do it. We have the companies willing to do it. We have people willing to put up the capital to do it. Oil shale has plenty of oil, and we can develop it, but instead we say no. Last year Representative Mark Udall, who represents Aspen, CO, passed a 1-year moratorium on commercial oil shale leasing. At first I thought he was seeking a little extra time for comments, but a year moratorium on leases is a very long time. But believe it or not, after the solid year that will expire this September, he is now trying to extend the moratorium for another year when we are sending $700 billion every year overseas to some who are not our friends, with not a dime of that coming back to benefit us. I guess there are not too many poor in Aspen. I love Aspen and the people there. It is a beautiful place, but it is no secret that it is home to very many wealthy elites and environmentalists. I have no problem with Representative Udall in choosing the elite and anti-oil crowd over the poor. That is his constituency. But let's be honest about the choices we are making around here. Ironically, the local governments in Colorado's oil shale areas support oil shale development. But it is the wealthy environmentally minded citizens like the good people of the not so nearby Aspen who are opposing it. I addressed the environmental benefits of oil shale production earlier in my remarks, but extreme views are sometimes extremely hard to change. The American people are not asking for a big appropriation or some difficult action by Congress. They are not asking us to give oil companies subsidies or environmental loopholes. All they ask is they are asking this Congress to stop locking up our domestic oil resources. They are asking us to stop relying on foreign governments who are much smarter than we are about developing their own oil resources. They are asking us to find more oil and use less oil, and that is our theme over here because it is true, it is right, and it should be followed. Let's be honest about why the Senate has brought up this amendment today, this LIHEAP amendment. It is because the Democrats are trying to please the anti-oil extremists by not allowing any votes on oil drilling or on appropriations bills or on development of our oil shale lands where we have at least 3 trillion barrels of oil--about 2 trillion of which, most experts say, are recoverable. At the same time, the Democrats must pretend they have not sold out the poor by their policies that force high gas prices. I am not inclined to play their political game and support their effort to shift the debate away from unlocking our Nation's energy potential and I am particularly not inclined to support this vote, because this proposal busts the budget while not providing any additional benefit to the LIHEAP program. As I have said before, the LIHEAP program has a $100 million surplus right now. And when we pass the continuing resolution either in September or October, it will carry the same program over for the next year. There is no problem at all with regard to the LIHEAP or the low- income energy proposal we already have in law that has a $100 million surplus. So this is a sham. And it was a shame today to see that happening on the floor of the Senate, when we could be addressing the fact that we have it within our own power to develop our own resources to bring down the price of gas so the poor will not be spending up to 50 percent of their income on gas just to stay alive. This is a joke. I hear the lamentations over there like they really care about solving the energy crisis. Come on. They are dominated by the anti-oil extreme environmentalists whom they are afraid to buck. If you look at the facts and if you look at what is going on and you look at what we can do if we were allowed to, it is embarrassing. Some of our good Democratic friends would vote for offshore oil drilling. I think a number of them would vote to develop our oil shale knowing that could mean a great future for our people. And literally, with the high price of oil today, it could very well be the answer. I know some of them really would like to develop our oil resources in our country today. There may even be some who, having thought it through, are willing to develop ANWR. Now we find that there are 98 billion potential barrels of oil up there in the Northwest. Are we going to continue to sit on our hands and spend $700 billion of our Treasury for overseas oil when we have it within our means to alleviate that? That is what they are arguing. I care for every Democrat on the floor, every Democrat on the other side. I work with them all the time. I try to bring us together. But on this issue, they plain cannot break through the stranglehold these extreme environmentalists have on them and allow us to develop our own resources so that the poor are not left holding the bag, which is where they are right now. It is not just the poor, it is everybody in America who is paying $4-plus per gallon of gas. Look at this woman's poster on this chart: ``My family needs affordable energy.'' They should have the word on there ``now.'' ``Food or fuel, do not make me choose.'' ``Congress needs to act.'' There ought to be a word ``now'' there. Frankly, while we develop the oil resources, if we are permitted to do it, if our colleagues will wake up on the other side, and let us go forward and get this done, we will develop wind, solar, geothermal, solar thermal, we will develop not only hybrids but plug-in hybrid cars. No one on this side has said no to that. We've been promoting alternatives over here. In our Utah papers today was a little company in Utah called Raser Technologies that will have a truck, and they are talking about fleets of trucks that can get up to 140 miles per gallon. These would be plug- in trucks with up to 140 miles a gallon. Tesla Motors has developed a car that gets 120 miles per gallon. My Clear Act that we passed in the 2005 Energy bill provides for an accentuation of hybrid vehicles. It gives incentives to do that--not just hybrid vehicles but alternative fuel vehicles and alternative fuel infrastructure. You have seen the ads, you have seen the Honda ad talking about a fuel-cell vehicle they have already developed. What does that mean? It is a hydrogen vehicle. Nuclear power is one of the ways we can produce a lot of hydrogen in this country. But we have stopped nuclear development for so long now that we do not have the hydrogen to be able to service those. We can put those vehicles out within the next 5 to 10 years, and Americans could be driving them. There is not one drop of pollution, not one ounce of pollution in all of those vehicles. But we cannot get the hydrogen because we do not have nuclear power and some of the other power we have to have. It is going take time to get us there. In the interim, meantime, we have to have oil. The last time I heard, as I have said many times on this floor and otherwise, our cars, our trains, our planes, our ships, our trucks-- they run on oil. Until we can get all of these other things going, we need to have oil. And we have it within our power to be able to have oil domestically so that we are not throwing $700 billion away every year and funding some people who are our enemies. That is what is amazing to me, that some are so locked up with these extremists that they cannot--they know it is true, but they cannot do anything to promote any oil development. There is something terribly sick about that in a body this important. Should not this body be brave enough to do its best in the interests of our country to create more energy and use less as we develop all of these other alternative forms? They have even distorted T. Boone Pickens' words when he said we cannot drill ourselves out of this problem. He did not mean we should not be drilling; he said we need to do all of these things. That is his pitch. That is his energy program. He happens to be right. But until we get all of those other alternative forms going, and these alternative vehicles, we have to have oil, and we will continue to need oil. Without it, the people who are left the most poor, the people who are left without, the people who will struggle the most are the poor. I do not understand why my colleagues cannot see that. I do not understand it because they claim to be for the poor. But these extremists take precedence over the poor. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, although I may not personally have an objection to this, this consent would limit the rights of Senators to offer amendments to the Defense authorization bill. This is an agreement that would need to be cleared by all Senators on both sides. Given the detailed limitations of what can be offered to this bill, I will have to object on behalf of the Members on this side of the aisle.

Mr. HATCH. On behalf of our side, I have been asked to object. I apologize to my dear friend from Nevada.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that speakers on the Republican side be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the U.S. Congress has had its ups and downs, but the way the 110th Congress has handled our energy crisis is a low point. High energy prices affect every American, whether they are Democrat, Republican, or Independent; whether they are labor unions, school teachers, or lawyers; whether they are white, African American, or Hispanic. But no group is hurt more by high oil prices than the poor. Restricting our Nation's oil supply is the most regressive policy imaginable. All we have heard from the other side is let's blame oil company profit; let's blame oil companies for sitting on the leases; let's blame speculators for responding to a very small spare capacity of oil in the world. Our citizens are begging us to drill more, but all the Democrats can do is blame more. Listening to the energy debate these past few days, I couldn't help but wonder whether the Democrats really believe their own arguments. Are they really drinking the Kool Aid the anti-oil environmentalists are serving them, or do they actually know better? I am no expert on energy, but the arguments the anti-oil environmentalists are selling to my friends on the other side of the aisle are so obviously wrong that I would like to put some of their statements to the test. Let's take a look at this chart here. The first item on this chart states that an oil lease allows an oil company to drill. The truth is you cannot drill on your own oil leases without a permit to drill, and there is a huge backlog of applications for permits to drill. It is a very long, expensive, and frustrating process. Let's take a look at this chart. This is what happens after an oil company gets a lease. First of all, the oil company must pay rental fees to hold onto its lease. Often, the detailed analysis of the actual energy resource is completed after a lease has been won. If the analysis indicates the resource is economic, the oil company must apply for a permit to drill, and that kicks in the NEPA process requiring the environmental studies. And then there is still no guarantee the oil company will get a permit to drill. But if they do, there are still serious hurdles to overcome. They must comply with hundreds of State and Federal environmental rules, seasonal restrictions due to wildlife patterns, and very, very often, they must overcome protests and lawsuits by anti- oil environmentalists. So let's go back to our first chart. We can see that this first statement is not true, so I'll put an ``F'' there for false. The next line on the chart states that companies don't want to drill. The irony here is astounding, because the Democrats have been fed this line by the very same anti-oil extremists that are putting up all the lawsuits against drilling permits. Let's take a look what the trend has actually been with oil permits and drilling. The data on this chart shows what's been happening at the BLM Office in Vernal, UT. This is very representative of the rest of the country. Since the year 2000, applications for permits to drill have doubled, permits granted by the government have doubled, and new wells completed since the year 2000 have doubled. And even with a doubling of efforts by the government and the oil companies, there is still a very large backlog of applications for permits to drill. Mr. President, these are facts, so I hope we can stop all the innuendo about oil companies not wanting to drill. The last line is based on data the BLM just gave me yesterday, and this number applies to all oil and gas permitting in the Nation. Since the year 2000, environmental protests against oil and gas permits have gone up 700 percent. It is an insult to the American people to mislead them this way. Is it any wonder that Americans are getting completely fed up with this Congress? Anyway, let's go back to our chart and put a big ``F'' on the line that says oil companies don't want to drill. And that leads us to the third line on the chart, which states that the release of final commercial lease regulations on oil shale would lead to a ``fire sale'' on oil shale leases. It is an argument I have heard more than once, but a very quick review of existing oil shale law proves it to be false. I was the sponsor of the Oil Shale and Tars Sands Development Act. It is now Public Law and referred to as Section 369. Senators Pete Domenici and Wayne Allard were heroic supporters of the proposals, and we consulted with Senators Jeff Bingaman and Ken Salazar on the legislation. It is worth taking a look at the actual language in the law, and I am paraphrasing to save time, but the law states it very clearly: ``The Secretary shall consult with the Governors of the States . . . to determine the level of support and interest in the States in the development of tar sands and oil shale. . . .'' Even after final commercial lease regulations are published, not one lease can be put out to bid until after the Secretary of the Interior consults with the relevant Governor to determine the level of State and local support for such activity. Then the law states that: ``If the Secretary finds sufficient support and interest exists in a State, the Secretary may conduct a lease sale in that State.'' Notice that the Secretary may move forward only if there is support from the State. Anyone who reads the actual law, Mr. President, will see that issuing final regulations on commercial oil shale leases will not lead to a fire sale. This chart shows the five major steps the law requires before the final regulations are released and then another set of major steps that must be taken after the final regulations are published, but before a single lease can be put up to bid. A fire sale is when a business sells damaged goods at basement bargain prices. The public auction of oil shale leases is just the opposite. The auction would offer up valuable leases of only to the highest bidder. The winners will be paying a premium price to the Government with the goal of getting a return on their investment, and the Government wants them to be successful, because everyone wins when energy production occurs. The oil shale law specifically ensures that no company will just sit on commercial oil shale leases. The law reads that ``The Secretary shall, by regulation, designate work requirements and milestones to ensure the diligent development of the lease.'' So let's go back to our original chart, and put a ``F'' on the third line. Oil shale leasing is, in every way, the opposite of a fire sale. I am the sponsor of the FREEDOM Act, which provides strong tax incentives for plug-in electric vehicles. I also sponsored the CLEAR Act, which is the existing law giving tax credits for hybrids and alternative fuels. I understand that there are alternatives to oil, but I also choose to deal in the real world when I make policies. Just as with oil shale, each alternative will take years to fully develop, but we must work on them today if we want the benefits tomorrow. Today, alternatives make up only about 3 percent of transportation fuels, and most of that is corn ethanol. I hate the mandate on ethanol, but I am on record as a strong supporter of incentives for ethanol. But let me remind my colleagues of some of the points I made on the Senate floor earlier this week. And these facts are based strictly on Government data and science journals. If ethanol production were expanded to make up 20 percent of our fuel supply, it would move into drier areas and require irrigation. This chart shows a comparison of how much water would be required to make that much ethanol, compared to the amount of water for the same amount of oil shale. The idea that oil shale needs huge amounts of water is an absolute myth, but the media keeps repeating it. This chart shows us how much land would be required to produce enough ethanol for 20 percent of our fuel supply. As you can see, it would take the equivalent of Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, and South Dakota combined to grow that much ethanol. This is calculated based on data from the Energy Information Administration which shows it would take about 353,000 square miles to make that much ethanol, which is represented by the green area on the map. Now, you probably cannot see it from your chair. But this red arrow on the chart points to a tiny dot on the map, which is the smallest county in Kansas. It is about 156 square miles, and that is all the area it would take to produce enough oil shale for 20 percent of our fuel supply. It is important to remember that after an acre of oil shale is used up, the law requires that it be restored back to nature. If you look at this large green area on the map you can recognize that ethanol requires a lot of land cultivation. The February issue of Science magazine published a peer-reviewed article which states that when land is cultivated, it releases gigantic amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The Science article determined that because of the land disturbance associated with corn ethanol production, ethanol emits 93 percent more carbon than gasoline. And switchgrass, even when grown on existing corn lands, emits 50 percent more carbon than gasoline. On the other hand, the Department of Energy calculates that oil shale, without using any carbon capture technology, emits only 7 percent more carbon than gasoline. Whether you are talking about water, land use, or greenhouse gases, oil shale is certainly an improvement over ethanol. I continue to support ethanol production, but I know it is limited in what it can do. On the other hand, as you can see by this chart, we have between 1 and 2 trillion barrels of recoverable shale oil in the United States. That is a pretty important number, because it is about the same of amount of the entire world's proven oil reserves. All government has to do is get out of the way. Unfortunately, Congress has been exceedingly dysfunctional when it comes to energy. On one hand they complain about oil companies sitting on oil leases, which we know isn't true, and on the other hand they ban development of our Nation's biggest oil resource, oil shale. I wish they would make up their mind. And so do the American people, especially those Americans who fall well under the poverty line. Let's take a look at the last item on our energy quiz today. It states that our poorest citizens spend about half their income on energy costs. A book written by one of our Nation's civil rights crusaders, Roy Innis, shows how the poorest of the poor spend up to 50 percent of their income on energy needs. Can you imagine the impact the anti-oil agenda has had on these Americans? So, for this final item, I will be marking it with a ``T'' because it is a true statement. Historically, the poor have looked to the liberals to promote their needs in Congress, but on energy, they have been sold out. Earlier this month, a group of protesters came to Capitol Hill calling on Congress to stop the war on the poor by groups and congressmen who are closing off America's energy resources. Included in the group were pastors and civil rights leaders calling on this body to unlock America's oil resources for the benefit of Americans and especially for the benefit of lower income Americans. One of the participants was Bishop Harry Jackson. I would like to quote some of his remarks for the record. These are his words: I am a registered Democrat, but this has nothing to do with partisan politics. Unless the public understands that there are specific people and organizations that are fueling this war against the poor, nothing will change and the poor will continue to suffer. We will unmask those behind this war regardless of their political party or ideology. Party labels and partisan ideologies are meaningless when it comes to protecting the lives of America's most vulnerable citizens. Democrats in Congress must choose between the very well funded extreme anti-oil interests, or the poor, because on energy prices, there is no compromise between the two. To be honest, I believe Americans have put their finger on this conflict, even before their representatives in Congress have fully begun to understand it. Representative Henry Waxman passed a law that bans the Federal Government from purchasing oil sands from Canada, unless it can be proven that it has a lesser greenhouse gas footprint than gasoline. In other words, we are turning away 1.5 million barrels of oil a day from a friendly neighbor in favor of oil from the Middle East and Russia. What about the greenhouse gas footprint of shipping that oil all the way over here? Last year, Representative Mark Udall, who represents Aspen, CO, passed the one-year moratorium on commercial oil shale leasing. At first, I thought he was simply seeking a little extra time for comments, but a year moratorium on leases is a very long time. Now he is trying to extend the moratorium for another year. I guess there are not too many poor in Aspen. I love Aspen and the people there, but it is no secret that it is home to plenty of wealthy elites and environmentalists. I have no problem with Representative Udall choosing the elite anti-oil crowd over the poor. But let's be honest about the choices we're making around here. Just a couple months ago a local Aspen newspaper reported about how the city of Aspen has been besieged with building permit applications. The article states that new building permits every day equate to about $2 million. From what I know about Aspen, I am sure there are some very nice brandnew homes, stores and restaurants going up, and more power to them. Ironically, the local governments in Colorado's oil shale areas support oil shale development. But it is the wealthy environmentally minded citizens like the good people of the not so nearby Aspen who are opposing it. I addressed the environmental benefits of oil shale production earlier in my remarks, but extreme views are sometimes extremely hard to change. The American people are not asking for a big appropriation or some difficult action by Congress. They are not asking us to give oil companies big subsidies or environmental loopholes. All they ask is that this Congress stop locking up our domestic oil resources. They are asking us to stop relying on foreign governments who are much smarter than we are about developing their own oil resources. They are asking us to find more and use less.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about former Senator Jesse Helms, who passed away on July 4, 2008, at the age of 86. I knew Senator Helms well, and I am sure I am joined by many of my colleagues in saying that he will be missed. Senator Helms was born in Monroe, NC, in 1921. His first full-time job was as a sportswriter for the Raleigh Times. After serving as a recruiter for the U.S. Navy during World War II, Senator Helms became the city news editor for the Times before moving on to do journalistic work in both radio and television. In 1960, he began working at the Capitol Broadcasting Company in Raleigh as the executive vice president, vice chairman of the board, and assistant CEO. He became famous in his home State for his daily CBC editorials, which featured his now-famous southern anecdotes occasionally laced with his sometimes provocative political views. Prior to coming to the Senate, Senator Helms' only political experience consisted of two terms on the Raleigh City Council. However, in 1972, Senator Helms became the first Republican Senator elected from North Carolina in the 20th century, replacing the retiring Senator B. Everett Jordan. During his three-decade tenure in the Senate, Jesse became known as one of the Chamber's staunchest conservatives. His refusal to compromise on his beliefs was the source of both his greatest strength as a legislator and, as I am sure some would argue, his greatest weakness. Indeed, I don't think there are any of us who served alongside Senator Helms who did not, at one time or another, find themselves in a disagreement with him. However, while I didn't always agree with Jesse, I do have a number of fond personal memories of him. For example, when I first came to the Senate in 1977, Senator Helms was nearing the end of his first term. About 3 months into that first session, still becoming acclimated to life in the Senate, I took a few moments to write down some of my early impressions of my fellow Senators. About Jesse, I wrote that he was ``one of the dearest people in the Senate,'' and that he had always treated me with kindness and respect. I also noticed that, despite having a reputation for being an unmovable conservative, he had a knowledge of parliamentary procedure and tactics that was virtually unmatched. A couple years later, I witnessed this knowledge first-hand when Senator Helms and I found ourselves on the same side of the debate over what was being called a ``labor reform'' bill. Sadly, as I was working with a number of my colleagues to sustain a filibuster against this unabashedly radically liberal pro-union legislation, our friend Senator James Allen passed away. While we were all saddened by the loss of our dear friend, at the back of our minds we were worried that, without Senator Allen's mastery of Senate procedure, our efforts might fail. However, Senator Helms stepped up and provided much needed insight, helping us to block this harmful legislation. At one point during this debate, while many of us were worried about the strength of the filibuster, Senator Helms assured us, saying that we would keep the necessary Senators on the floor ``if they have to wear their pajamas and bedroom slippers.'' I believe we were all surprised during the latter part of Senator Helms' tenure when he coauthored the landmark 2002 legislation authorizing funds that were, at that time, unparalleled for international AIDS relief. Many of his colleagues, including myself, had sparred with Jesse over providing support for AIDS relief and research. But, in those last few months of his Senate career, I believe he showed the world that, while he wasn't always the most agreeable of politicians, he was a compassionate man who was committed to doing what he thought was right. Mr. President, I want to extend my deepest sympathies to the Helms family. As I said, Jesse and I did not always agree on the issues before the Senate, but I can say, without reservation, that he was a dedicated public servant and dear friend to those of us who knew him well.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague and thank him for his leadership in this matter. Back to the nuclear thing, I drove a hydrogen vehicle not too long ago. If we had these nuclear powerplants, we would have enough hydrogen. We could do it. The problem is we only have 9 million tons and we need 150 million tons just to start it. But having raised the hybrid and plug-in hybrid issue, let me say Americans are looking to Congress to address our current energy crisis, and we should be pursuing every reasonable option to reducing our addiction to foreign oil. The distinguished Senator from Tennessee may be aware that I was the sponsor of the CLEAR Act, which was signed into law as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and as part of the transportation bill which passed the same year. The CLEAR Act has been providing tax credits to consumers who purchase alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles, including battery electric and hybrid cars. It has also been providing incentives for new alternative fuel stations and for the use of alternative fuels in vehicles. Our transportation sector is 97 percent dependent on oil. I am all for oil. We certainly need more of it, but we also must find ways to diversify our transportation fuels. I have heard some argue we must promote solar, wind, and geothermal as an answer to high gas prices. Well, obviously, cars and trucks don't run on electricity. It is going to take us a little while to get there. But what if we changed that? Why not use plug-ins to apply hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear to our transportation sector? Talk about adding diversity to our transportation fuels. Immediately after the CLEAR Act was signed into law, I began working on legislation to promote plug-in hybrid vehicles. It was a bipartisan effort, and I received strong and early assistance from Senators Maria Cantwell and Barack Obama, of all persons. We introduced S. 1617, the FREEDOM Act, which would provide four strong tax incentives promoting plug-in hybrid vehicle purchases, and also the U.S. manufacture of these vehicles and their technologies. I am pleased that the plug-in hybrid idea has remained bipartisan. I know that portions of the FREEDOM Act have been included in both the Republican and Democrat energy extenders bills. I believe we will see the day when the electric grid becomes a significant new alternative transportation fuel. We should keep in mind that our electric grid is a domestic resource. You won't see our President flying to the Middle East begging the Saudis to send us more electrons. We can do it right here. Electrons are not only domestic, but they are much cheaper and much cleaner than gasoline. Best of all, the United States is well positioned to be the world leader in the development of plug-in hybrid vehicles. We have already seen the California-based Tesla Motors plug-in electric vehicle. Raser Technologies based in Utah, has developed a very powerful and efficient AC induction motor, and A123 Systems, based in Massachusetts, has developed a very advanced lithium ion battery that has been configured specifically for electric-drive vehicles. Also, General Motors will soon offer a plug-in hybrid Saturn vehicle, and that will be followed by the plug-in hybrid Volt. The Volt will be one of the most exciting vehicle innovations of our lifetimes. It will allow the average commuter to drive to work and back without using one drop of oil. Our friends on the other side will be delighted. The problem is we cannot do it right now. We have to have something to power our trucks, planes, trains, and cars. The volt will run entirely on electricity for up to 40 miles. For longer trips that exceed the range of the battery, the vehicle will switch into a very efficient hybrid vehicle. The U.S. is truly on the cutting-edge of technology in developing commercial, electron powered vehicles. Mr. President, I am aware that my good friend Senator Alexander has also shown a great deal of leadership in promoting plug-in hybrids. And I would ask him if it isn't true that our Nation is in position to lead the world on the potential of shifting some of our transportation needs over to the electric grid? Perhaps we are not quite willing to lead it because it takes time to get that accomplished?

Mr. HATCH. Can I mention to my colleague this little company, Raser Technologies in Utah, now has developed an electric motor, not very large, that has more thrust, more--I do not know what to call it, but more actual energy than the gas combustion engines. They are about to put one of those motors on a pickup truck that will get, according to them, around 120 miles per gallon of gas. We can get there, but it is going to take us a number of years to get there. In the immediate future, we have to find more oil so we quit sending $700 billion or more every year--and that is going to go up every year--overseas that does not do us very much good. Because that is all gone once it is gone. We should keep that money here so we can do all the things we need to do for the American people. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the other side will not get together with us and help us to put all these elements together and recognize it is going to take oil to get us over the next few years to where these wonderful things can explode. They are doable. We can do them now, except we cannot manufacture them fast enough or get the manufacturing lines up in a short period of time. But if we can, it will be amazing. I remember when I got into the hybrid car business in the CLEAR Act. We found that hybrid cars could be driven on HOV-2 lanes during the rush hour. Automatically, they sold out. We knew just on that one little incentive, so we put incentives in to develop hybrid cars in the CLEAR Act, we have them in the Freedom Act as well, plus incentives for all kinds of other things. Frankly, they have worked amazingly well. But in the interim time, we are going to have to have oil. I hope we can find more and use less through these other mechanisms.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I sat and listened to this exchange, and it is amazing to me after 32 years in the Senate that they want to bring up a bill and allow their bill and one substitute amendment that they know will fail, where there are components of that substitute amendment that they know will pass and will help us to find some oil and alleviate some of the pressures we have in this country. I wish to address the legislation under consideration in the Senate today, the speculator bill. Here we are, the Congress of the greatest Nation in the world, facing a national energy crisis, a crisis that affects every single American, the American economy, and America's place in the world, and this is the best we can do, this speculator bill? This is our answer, another proposal that will not produce one drop of oil or hardly any energy? It will not produce any energy. Frankly, I am embarrassed for this body and for the people we represent. At some point, I wonder when the leaders of the Democratic Party will wake up and realize that blaming and taxing the energy industry does not equate to an energy policy. It is an anti-energy policy. Finding someone to blame is no substitute for finding more oil. And the answer to getting America to use less oil is not always more taxes and more mandates. We are a country of addicts in that sense. The seeds of our addiction to foreign oil have been sown here by an anti-oil Congress. If Members of Congress are hunting for some of the blame, they are in luck because the blame begins and ends right here under the Capitol dome. It is very clear that the most extreme environmental groups have an anti-oil agenda, and it is just as clear that the Democrats have adopted that agenda as their energy platform. It is a recipe for disaster, and America is reaping the whirlwind as a result. Some are arguing for more solar, wind, and geothermal as an answer to high gas prices. I sponsored the current tax incentives for renewable electricity, and I hope my actions speak to my support for renewables. That is law now in the 2005 act. I know enough about energy to recognize trains, planes, automobiles, and ships do not run on electricity. They run on oil right now. This first chart is solar, wind, and geothermal. They are not transportation fuels. Biofuels is still only 3 percent of transportation fuels, and yet that is the only other major alternative to oil at the present time. We rely on oil for 97 percent of our transportation needs, and the other 3 percent is made up mostly of biofuels, especially corn ethanol. I have strongly opposed the current ethanol mandate, but I have long supported free-market incentives for ethanol. In fact, I sponsored the CLEAR Act, as I mentioned, which is the current law giving tax incentives for E85 fuel and E85 infrastructure. We need as much ethanol as we can make, and I am all for it. But I also recognize that ethanol has so many inherent limitations that it will not be able to break us free from our dependence on foreign oil. The fact is that we will have to tap into our Nation's gigantic resources of oil shale or we will remain addicted to foreign energy traffickers for the long haul. They are afraid to have a separate amendment up on oil shale because we should win that amendment. Anybody with brains would vote for it. There are 3 trillion barrels of oil in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, in oil shale, about 2 trillion of which is estimated recoverable--more oil than all the rest of the world combined. If we don't tap into those resources, we are going to remain addicted to foreign energy traffickers for the long haul. When the Republicans controlled Congress in 2005, we passed a very bipartisan energy bill which promoted each of these very necessary unconventional oil resources, along with alternatives, renewables, and conservation. When the Democrats took over Congress, they immediately began dismantling every effort to develop oil from oil shale, oil sands, and coal-to-liquids even though they knew full well that we have more oil in those resources than all the rest of the world combined. Chart 2 says world oil reserves are 1.6 trillion barrels. Recoverable U.S. oil shale is between 1 and 2 trillion barrels of oil. In most cases, an addiction brings about financial ruin. Democrats in Congress have made a lot of noise about the tens of billions of dollars we spend each year on the war on terror, but apparently it does not bother them as much that our citizens send more than $700 billion every year to foreign governments to feed our addiction, some of which are not even friends; in fact, some of which are enemies. Congress's lamebrained anti-oil actions have put our people at the mercy of foreign governments that are smart enough to produce their own energy-- something we could do if they would open this bill to amendment. We are selling away our Nation's place in the world and funding the rise of our most aggressive competitors and even our enemies. Of the major world oil shale resources, we hold 72 percent of the total. We can see Israel, Estonia, China, Australia, Morocco, Jordan, Brazil, United States, and the total world. Did you know, Mr. President, that China and Brazil have been smart enough to produce their own oil from oil shale for decades--China and Brazil--and that Estonia has produced oil from oil shale for over 90 years? We act as if we cannot do it. My gosh, of course, we can do it. Did you know the United States controls more than 70 percent of the world's known oil shale resources? Yet we are stopping its development because of their anti-oil agenda over there, and that is what is involved here, trying to cover it up with a so-called speculators bill that all of us will be glad to have in a final bill, but that does not produce one drop of oil to help our problems. Is it because our industry cannot compete or is it unwilling to invest in oil shale production? They most definitely are willing, but the sad fact is that our own Government owns most of the oil shale in the United States and our own Government has said no because of these people over here. The biggest argument I keep hearing against oil shale development is we cannot allow the Government to even establish rules for oil shale development because we just plain don't know enough about it yet. Think of Estonia: For 90 years, they have been producing oil from oil shale. Think of Brazil: For decades, they have been producing oil from oil shale. You think the greatest Nation in the world can't do it? We don't know how much water it will use; we don't know how much wildlife habitat it will use, they say; we don't know about the greenhouse gas footprint. Guess what. The Department of Energy has been studying oil shale for decades, and we have a pretty good idea about each of those questions. Why do the Democrats say no to oil shale production? I hear some say they are concerned about water use. Let's take a look at water use compared to ethanol. Mr. President, did you know oil shale uses less water than ethanol, no more than gasoline? Right now, corn does not rely on irrigation, for the most part. However, if we hope to increase ethanol's share of the fuel supply, we will have to move into drier areas that require irrigation. Look at the water use. Ethanol takes 4 to 5 barrels of water and 1,000 barrels of water on irrigated lands. Oil shale, for the entire process--processing, upgrading, and land restoration--three barrels of water. A September 2007 article in Southwest Hydrology states that irrigated corn requires well over 700 barrels of water for each barrel of ethanol. A barrel of ethanol has about 30 percent less energy than a barrel of oil. In other words, to make just 1 oil-equivalent barrel of ethanol, it would take over 1,000 barrels of water. The Department of Energy reports that oil shale, for the entire process, including land restoration, would require just three barrels of water for every barrel of shale oil, about the same as gasoline. Let's compare how much water it would take to make enough ethanol to produce 20 percent of our fuel with the amount of water it would take to produce the same amount of oil shale. Look at what it would take. Look at the red, ethanol. We can hardly see the red of the water required for oil shale. We would need about 64 cubic miles of water to produce that much ethanol and only .17 cubic miles of water to produce the same amount of oil shale. It is time we stop confusing oil shale with Canadian oil sands. They require completely different processes. Canadian oil sand production uses a lot of water and a lot of steam to produce oil from oil sands. With oil shale, you apply heat directly to the rock. The last thing you want in your process is water. They are very different, so let's stop pretending they are the same thing. And let's remember Estonia and Brazil. Isn't this country as good as them? The other red herring often raised against oil shale is concern about land use and wildlife habitat. Mr. President, did you know that oil shale uses much less land than either ethanol or gasoline? One acre of corn produces 7 to 10 barrels of ethanol. One acre in the oil patch produces about 10,000 barrels of oil. One acre of oil shale produces between 100,000 and 1 million-plus barrels of shale oil. That is right, on average, 1 acre of oil shale will produce around 500,000 barrels of oil. So those who are truly concerned about land use and wildlife habitat, let's look at how much land it would take to make enough ethanol for 20 percent of our fuel supply compared to the same amount of oil shale. With regard to that green spot in the middle of this chart, it would take those five States to produce 20 percent of our energy needs from ethanol. Think about that. Producing 20 percent of our oil from oil shale would take the equivalent of the smallest county in Kansas being in production at one time, and as each oil shale acreage is used, it would be restored to nature, according to the very strict mining and gas laws already on the books. It is environmentally sound as well. We are learning that land use is very important, and not just in terms of wildlife habitat and watershed protections. Scientists have determined that disturbing land for activities such as cultivating corn and switchgrass, or any other crop, releases a giant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. Look at this chart. Oil shale without carbon capture, 7 percent more than gasoline, but switchgrass for ethanol, including land use, is 50 percent more than gasoline. Greenhouse gas emissions for corn ethanol, including land use, is 93 percent more than gasoline. Oil shale is much more environmentally sound from the get-go. Even taking into account that burning ethanol is an improvement over gasoline, the researchers discovered that when land disturbance is calculated, corn ethanol emits 93 percent more greenhouse gases than gasoline. Thank goodness for switchgrass, our new hope for the future of biofuels. The problem is that the same study calculates that switchgrass, even when grown on existing corn land, produces 60 percent more carbon emissions than gasoline. The Department of Energy calculates that oil shale production emits only 7 percent more greenhouse gases than gasoline, and that is without any carbon capture technology, which many in the industry plan to use. Whether your concern is carbon emissions, water use, or wildlife habitat, oil shale is a better answer than ethanol. And when it comes to transportation fuels, ethanol is the only alternative of any real significance today. The fact is that I am for it, but let's not get confused on which one is more efficient and better. I am certainly not here to bash ethanol. I still believe we should produce as much as possible, but ethanol is the only current significant alternative to transportation fuels available today. It is important that we start dealing in realities around here and not just political puffery, is what we are hearing from the other side. To be honest, when it comes to energy policy, it is like never-never land on Capitol Hill. On the one hand, we pass a giant mandate on top of giant incentives to produce ethanol, with all its limitations. On the other hand, we ban oil shale production which would give our people access to almost unlimited amounts of cheap energy. The oil shale industry is not asking for any mandates, environmental loopholes, or subsidies. They simply ask to have access to the Federal Government's vast oil shale resources. I have no problem with debating the impact of speculation on oil prices. It is something we ought to be discussing. I have no problem with that. But it is not going to produce one drop of oil. It is no substitute for providing our people with the transportation fuels they need, and we will never accomplish that goal until we find more and use less. Our goal as Republicans is to amend this bill so we can find more oil and use less of it so that we can solve our problems as we go into the future, where we get into not only hybrids but plug-in hybrids, electric motors, fuel-cell motors, hydrogen cars and, of course, nuclear, wind, solar, thermal, and geothermal. We have to do all of that. But until we can really move down that line, we have to have oil to run our transportation needs. I yield the floor.