Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on Friday, June 20, 2008, Ukraine's Ambassador to the United States, Oleh Shamshur, appointed Scotty Colson, assistant to the mayor of Birmingham, AL, as an Honorary Consul of the Government of Ukraine. This designation acknowledges in gratitude the work that the city of Birmingham and its citizens, under the leadership of Scotty Colson, have done to assist the people of Ukraine, especially in the cities of Krasnodon and Vinnytsia since 1997, and in helping to build the U.S.-Ukraine strategic partnership at the grassroots level. This Birmingham-Ukraine relationship began in 1997 within the U.S.- Ukraine Foundation's U.S.-Ukraine Community Partnerships Project, which was funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, with the strong support of Congress. It is almost impossible to comprehend the positive impact the U.S.- Ukraine Foundation's Community Partnership Program has had all across Ukraine and the amazing collateral benefits it has brought to U.S.- Ukrainian relations. And, with Scotty Colson's leadership the Birmingham-Krasnodon partnership exemplifies the very best of what America has to offer--American volunteers, Americans giving of a helping hand, and Americans demonstrating their commitment to a better world. Through the relationship fostered by the Community Partnership Project, Birmingham and Krasnodon worked together to enhance citywide development. Birmingham shared its health experience with Krasnodon enabling the city to make substantial improvement to its outdated medical system. Due to the installation of mini-boilers in city buildings, the city of Krasnodon significantly reduced costs during the 2000-2001 winter season. Coming from the top-down control model of the Communist system but learning from citizen participation in Birmingham, Krasnodon established public committees on health care and city beautification, public hearings on government performance and future plans and a roundtable discussion on housing and neighborhood communities. Transparent government with genuine citizen involvement flourishes. To help enable future growth Krasnodon established a one- stop office to register businesses. Through Scotty Colson and the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation's relationship with Birmingham, other associations and contacts developed for the foundation in and out of Alabama for the purpose of developing U.S.- Ukraine related technical assistance projects. These associations have all assisted the foundation in its mission to aid Ukraine in the development of democratic institutions, economic development and human rights. It is my understanding that one of the favorite slogans within the U.S.-Ukraine Community Partnerships Project, which was officially funded from 1997 to 2007, came from Birmingham's neighborhoods: ``You don't have to move to live in a better neighborhood.'' Thirteen other cities across the United States partnered with Ukrainian communities to work on strategic planning, economic development, citizen participation, and communal services. There are many success stories. Hundreds of citizen diplomats from the U.S. communities, who volunteered their professional services at a value of over $5 million to aid Ukraine, represented their own communities and offered the best of America through this program. Four mayors from Birmingham, as well as many other community citizens, and officials, actively participated in this program during the period of 1997-2007. As I have said, these personal and voluntary efforts represented the best of America. The people of Birmingham, AL, who continually develop their own community, are sharing their experience and giving confidence and hope to cities and towns in Ukraine, that they too can have a better future and that they don't have to move to live in a better neighborhood. I am proud to call the recognition Scotty has received from Ukraine to the attention of my Senate colleagues. This recognition of Scotty, really on behalf of the fabulous contributions of the volunteers from Birmingham, AL, has contributed greatly to the advancement of our country's foreign policy interests and specifically to our strategic interests with Ukraine.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for raising some important issues with regard to the way our Medicare system works--and Medicaid, too, for that matter. In many areas of the country at least half the health care that is provided goes through those programs. I would like to associate myself with what I understood to be one comment that he made about rural health care and wage index problems. Hospitals in America are reimbursed at different rates. If you are a hospital in a smaller area, the Federal Government calculates how much you should be reimbursed based on what they call a wage index, and that wage index pays substantially less or results in a payment substantially less than is given to hospitals in urban areas for the very same procedure and the very same care. We tried to make some progress, and did make some progress, a few years ago under the leadership of Senator Grassley. He understood the issue. He believed it was adverse to some of the smaller communities in Iowa. We had some discussion about it. We made some progress, but it is still very dramatic. Let's say the average is $100 for a procedure; this is what a hospital would be paid. If your wage index is 80, then you would be paid $80. If your wage index were 120, you would be paid $120. If you have two hospitals, one of them with a higher wage index, it gets paid $120, and a poorer, rural hospital would get paid $80. This has some ramifications that go beyond common sense in that the equipment that a rural hospital needs to utilize may be utilized less often, and therefore is more expensive per procedure, than one that will be utilized in a wealthier hospital in a wealthy area. I think this is a big issue. In response to the concern about the bill, I understand there is a firm view of Members on this side, and the President, that the Medicare Advantage program not be eliminated in this bill. That is basically what has happened. We want to see many, if not all, the reforms in here, or most of these reforms, but there are one or two matters that this side of the aisle feels very strongly about. If we could work those out, I think we could pass that legislation in prompt order. Some would say it has been blocked by those on this side, and some on this side say it has been blocked by the unwillingness to discuss the concerns that we have, and therefore it is blocked on the other side. I see our distinguished majority leader. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, I think some Senators who have concerns about this are not here at this time. I am not at liberty, therefore, to agree to the plausible scenario for moving this bill forward that the majority leader proposed. I note the House has gone out of session, so without their consent the bill would not clear and become law in any case before we get back from our upcoming recess. But I would note that some fabulous progress has been made as a matter of policy in this bill. I feel far better about it from what I learned this morning--although that was the first time I heard about it--than I did previously. For those reasons, I will object.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, a request for unanimous consent means that the bill passes the Senate without debate, as written. Each Senator should honestly evaluate that before they give their consent. Senator Coburn was raising a number of concerns, and I think he has been satisfied in them.

Mr. SESSIONS. For example, one of the things he and I felt strongly about was the rule that more than half the funding should be used for medical care. That has a lot of science behind it. And AIDS groups in Africa pleaded with us. That was changed. That is now in there. So I was very pleased with that. Another change also affirmed abstinence-only programs. Another reform Senator Coleman asked for and has received would prevent funding from going to more wealthy nations such as Russia, China and India than would have been available under the original bill. It would now prevent substandard medicines from being used and would treat faith-based groups that are working hard in Africa now in a fair way. So some real progress has been made on this legislation. I would certainly be the first to acknowledge that. I have not had a chance to fully look at all of it. But I do think President Bush and the majority leader and others who have worked on this have made the legislation better.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, may I be recognized?

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we heard a good bit recently and there has been some discussion in the Senate about the competition for the tanker aircraft that was decided by the Air Force in favor of the Northrop Grumman team. The Government Accountability Office team of lawyers--not technicians--conducted a review of the procedures utilized in that selection process, in light of 111 objections filed by the losing Boeing team. They concluded that eight objections were merited against the procedural conduct of the competition by the Air Force. Now the ball is back in the lap of the Air Force to review those objections and to take appropriate steps to make sure this is a fair and just competition. I will just say that I was committed in the beginning and throughout this process that it should be a nonpolitical decision, a decision made by the U.S. Air Force based on the criteria set out in law, based on the fact that the Congress, after an attempt had been made to carry out a sole-source lease agreement for the Boeing aircraft--after that was rejected and after great embarrassment to the Air Force and Boeing, we ordered that a bid take place. I want my colleagues to understand the posture we are in. At the end of the bid process, the Air Force concluded this: While [the] KC-767 offers significant capabilities, the overall tanker/airlift mission is best supported by the KC- 30. The Northrop team. They go on to say: [The] KC-30 solution is superior in the core capabilities of fuel capacity/offload, airlift efficiency, and cargo/ passenger/aeromedical carriage. On the most important factors, the core capabilities, they found that the Northrop team's aircraft was superior. GAO did not overrule those findings. In fact, the contrary is the case. What GAO said was in this very long, complex RFP request for proposal--and legal requirements of bidding processes, the Air Force made some errors. Mr. President, 111 complaints were raised against the Air Force, but 8 were found to be worthy of objection. In the course of GAO's evaluation of the procedural conduct of the bid process, they reached these conclusions that I think have been overlooked as people have discussed this issue. For example, the GAO stated and did not dispute this: Northrop Grumman's proposed aircraft exceeded to a greater degree than Boeing's aircraft a key performance parameter objective to exceed the RFP's identified fuel offload to the receiver aircraft versus the unrefueled radius range of the tanker. In other words, GAO concluded and agreed that the KC-45 is more capable at refueling than the Boeing aircraft, which is what the Air Force found. They did not object to that point. In addition to carrying more fuel, which clearly the Northrop team's aircraft does, the GAO also agreed with the Air Force's professional conclusion that it would be easier--and this is important--it would be easier for pilots to refuel their jet fighters, for example, from the Northrop KC-45. This is an important issue. The GAO said: Boeing also protests the Air Force's conclusion in the aerial refueling area that Northrop Grumman's proposed larger boom envelope-- The spread of the refueling booms-- proposed larger boom envelope offered a meaningful benefit to the Air Force. From our review of the record, including hearing testimony on this issue, we do not find a basis to object to the Air Force's judgment that Northrop Grumman had offered a larger boom envelope and that this offer provided measurable benefit. Further, the GAO also supported the Air Force's conclusion that Northrop's KC-45 was a better airlifter. GAO said: Boeing also challenges the Air Force's evaluation judgment in the airlift area that Northrop Grumman's proposed aircraft offered superior cargo, passenger, and aeromedical evacuation capability than did Boeing's aircraft. From our review of the record, including the hearing testimony, we see no basis to conclude that the Air Force's evaluation that Northrop Grumman's aircraft was more advantageous in the airlift area is unreasonable. That is a big issue. Every combatant commander with whom I have talked and who has had to move troops, cargo, personnel, and equipment to the battlefield knows the critical need for as much airlift capability as they can have. These refueling tankers can also serve as a cargo aircraft and a troop movement aircraft. Clearly, the Northrop Grumman aircraft is more advantageous, according to the Air Force's professional finding. And that was approved by the GAO's analysis. The GAO also found and upheld the Air Force's holding that Northrop Grumman had a higher ``fleet effectiveness'' rating. Fleet effectiveness--also called IFARA--reflects ``the quantity of an offeror's aircraft that would be required to perform the scenarios in relation to the number of KC-135R aircraft that would have been required.'' Put simply, to boil that down, the Air Force judged that one Northrop plane could do more refueling more efficiently than one Boeing plane. And the GAO upheld that finding. GAO found no fault with the Air Force's conclusion that Boeing's proposal was more risky in certain areas and that their past performance on similar contracts was ``marginal.'' The GAO said: We find from our review of the record no basis to object to the Air Force's past performance evaluation, under which both firms' past performance received a satisfactory confidence rating. We also find no basis to question the SSA's judgment that, despite equal confidence ratings that the firms received under this factor overall, Northrop Grumman's higher ``satisfactory confidence'' rating, as compared to Boeing's ``little confidence'' rating, under the program management area, was a reasonable discriminator. The Air Force evaluated Boeing's past performance as marginal in this area . . . We have no basis, on this record, to find the Air Force's judgment unreasonable. What that means is they evaluated how well both of the bidders, Northrop Grumman and Boeing, have performed in other contracts in the past and found that Boeing's record was less sound. They were less reliable in performing the contract once they had been awarded it, and they gave extra points for that. That was affirmed by the GAO. Amidst all the discussion of procedure and KKPs, RFPs, and dotted i's and crossed t's, what did the GAO say in this matter? They said the Air Force picked a plane that could carry and offload more fuel more efficiently and in a more desirable way for the pilots. They also found that the plane's secondary mission, airlift, that can be very critical in a national emergency when we have to move cargo and personnel rapidly around the world would be accomplished more effectively by the Northrop aircraft. Finally, GAO agreed that the Northrop plane was lower risk and that Boeing had marginal past performance. So as we allow this process to proceed, as it should, as we expect the Air Force to take seriously the matters raised by the GAO, we will adhere to one overriding principle; that is, Congress ordered that the Air Force conduct a bid of which would be the best aircraft. This bid process was conducted by the Air Force as we as Members of Congress directed. I, as a lawyer, am not capable of flying an aircraft. Nor am I capable of analyzing aerodynamics and validating how much weight or wingspan or how much boom coverage is needed to safely refuel multiple aircraft at one time. I cannot fully evaluate how valuable the ability to carry large amounts of fuel is as compared to an aircraft that carries less, but the Air Force is. What we need to do is make sure the Air Force does its job and selects the best aircraft. I strongly object to any attempt to politicize this process. Finally, I note that this aircraft would be constructed in Alabama, my home State. It is not going to be built around the world in some foreign land. It is a team headed by Northrop Grumman, also the EADS team. It will be an aircraft constructed in our country, with tens of thousands of jobs created in our country. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to share these remarks. I hope my colleagues will allow this process to proceed in a professional, lawful way and respect and honor the professional decision of the Air Force, which will have to live with this choice of tanker for perhaps another 50 years, like the current tanker. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for a few minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I wish to discuss the Government Accountability Office decision to sustain the Boeing protest of the KC-X tanker award, which I have followed closely. The Northrop Grumman/EADS proposal would have resulted in a fabulous new construction facility in my home State and would have created thousands of jobs within the United States. I confess that I am disappointed by the decision. I do think it is important that we continue to follow this process and to recognize the appropriate roles of the different Government actors involved. It is, of course, not the GAO's job to pick aircraft for the Air Force. GAO used to be called the Government Accounting Office. Now it is the Government Accountability Office. It is fundamentally the accounting arm of our Government. As they said themselves when they made this decision in which they found flaws in the process for making this selection: Our decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms' respective aircraft. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet governmental needs is largely reserved for the procuring agencies, subject only to such statutory and regulatory requirements as full and open competition and fairness to potential offerors. In other words, it is the job of the war fighters, the people who will use this aircraft, the U.S. Air Force and those who benefit from the U.S. Air Force refueling capability, it is for them to make a decision about which aircraft best meets their needs. The GAO has to make sure that all appropriate processes and procedures are followed in doing this. Both the Air Force and DOD have been unequivocal in their statements that they believe the Northrop/EADS aircraft is a superior aircraft for their needs. As Air Force Assistant Secretary Sue Payton said upon announcement of the decision: Northrop Grumman clearly provided the best value to the government when you take a look at, in accordance with the RFP, the five factors that were important to this decision: in mission capability, in proposal risk, in the area of past performance, in cost price, and in something we call an integrated fleet aerial refueling rating. They had a complex but serious evaluation procedure that they utilized. Last Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Geoffrey Morrell said the selection of the Northrop KC-45 ``provided our war fighters with the most capable aircraft and the taxpayer [with] the most cost-effective solution to this very real need of replacing the tanker fleet.'' The GAO found procedural flaws, according to their analysis, but they have not overturned this fundamental conclusion, the evaluation made by the Air Force personnel. The people who actually have to fly tankers and those who utilize them to refuel at high altitudes and high speeds over the Atlantic, over the Middle East, or wherever in the world, still favored and chose the KC-45. Still, it is important for the Air Force to consider the GAO's objections and to take them into account. They have 60 days to do so. However, the GAO also acknowledged it is the Air Force's decision about what final action they are to take. They have not, as some suggested, been ordered to start over again. My colleague, Senator Cantwell, whom I recognize represents the State of Washington where this work would be done if Boeing were the winner, had this to say: The Air Force will have no choice but to rebid this project. That is not true. That is not an accurate statement, frankly. We need to be sure about how we think about this as we go forward. Even more inaccurately, some of our colleagues have suggested that the GAO's decision means the award should be given to Boeing. Senator Brownback's press release, my good friend from Kansas, who would love to get some of the work in his home State, said that as a result of yesterday's announcement: This contract should be overturned and awarded to Boeing. That is not right. They didn't order that at all. There is no basis for that whatsoever. Congressman Norm Dicks, of Washington, who until recently was telling people he didn't care what the GAO had to say, issued a press release yesterday touting the GAO decision and declaring as a result of it: I believe the Air Force should set aside the agreement it improperly reached with EADS/Northrop Grumman and we should proceed expeditiously to build the best aircraft--the Boeing KC-767--here at home. ``At home'' meaning in his home State of Washington, not in my home State of Alabama. That is a misreading completely of the GAO's decision and demonstrates a misunderstanding of GAO's role. They analyzed the process. They found some errors, they said. They said nothing about giving any award to the other competitor, Boeing. The military still adheres to its belief, as they noted, as to the superior aircraft. Some of my colleagues also seem to misunderstand Congress's role in this, or at least to interpret their responsibility to the American military differently than I do. Senator Murray announced yesterday: It is Congress's job to determine whether major defense purchases meet the needs of our war fighters and deserve taxpayer funding. I tell you, I am a lawyer. I know our Presiding Officer is. Schoolteachers, accountants, veterinarians are not equipped or able, nor do we have the responsibility and the intense interest, to make these kind of decisions that the U.S. Air Force does. They have a long history of aircraft purchasing and managing. They know something about what it is like to refuel in the air, why an aircraft that can fly further and carry far more fuel may be a superior aircraft to one that does not. This is not a political decision to be made by people who spend a few hours looking at it and think they now are capable to reverse the decision made by the one agency in our Government that will have to live with the result. I believe it is the brave men and women of the Air Force who fly these planes and depend on them who should be making the decisions about their needs and what they think is best. We need to protect that. If they change their mind after this, so be it. But I hope and believe strongly this Congress should encourage the Air Force to consider the objections raised by GAO, to fairly evaluate them, and then to select, without political influence, the best aircraft for the men and women in uniform. That is the way we will serve our country. To politicize this process would be dead wrong, and I object to it. There has been too much of it. Great progress was made when some of my colleagues including Senator McCain objected when the Appropriations Committee slipped language into an appropriations bill that leased 100 aircraft, $23 billion, sole source from Boeing. There had been no hearings. It was a sole-source contract for about $235 million per aircraft to just lease 100 of these aircraft. As a result of these questions that were raised, eventually, one of the top procurement officials, a civilian in the Air Force, went to jail. Members of the leadership of Boeing resigned and investigations were conducted. It was quite a scandal. It was wrong, and it was corrupt. When that was discovered, people went to jail. So what did Congress do then? Congress, in my committee, the Armed Services Committee, had hearings about it. We discussed it. It was raised in the Airland Subcommittee, a subcommittee of which I was a member and that I at one point chaired. We directed and required that the Air Force conduct a competitive bid process for this contract. No more sole-source. You pick the best aircraft in the world to serve our men and women. That is what we directed--no ifs, ands, or buts, no qualifications. Not one amendment was offered to object. Everybody knew at the time there were two major aircraft-producing companies--only two--that could compete: Boeing and the Northrop Grumman-EADS team. So we ordered a bid. We have all kinds of joint operations--the Joint Strike Fighter, where parts come from European and American sources. We and our European allies have come together to make the Joint Strike Fighter. So we said we are going to bid this. The question came up during the debate: Well, is this just a joke? Is this just a game? Is it going to be a real, fair bid? Will everybody get a fair chance? I remember I asked them: Is this going to be a political decision? Aren't you required to do it on the merits? They assured me they would do it on the merits. As part of the bidding process, the Air Force produced and released a request for proposal. It is a detailed statement of what the Air Force is looking for. They request the bidders--in this case, there were just two--to respond to that request for proposal. They also allowed the bidders an opportunity to make suggestions and criticisms about the proposal. Otherwise, it would go out as proposed by the Air Force. The Boeing team made no official or formal objections, no written complaints about the details of that proposal. They did not request certain WTO provisions that might tilt the scales away from what is the best aircraft or not the best aircraft. They agreed to proceed under that process. The Air Force believed they had the most open process in their history of any major contract of this kind. They were required to follow their procedures, and it is easy to make a mistake. So maybe they made some mistakes. Maybe they have a perfectly good explanation for some of the criticism GAO has raised. But that is where we are today. They found some procedural flaws. But I have to tell you, the GAO did not say it was time for a bunch of politicians, a bunch of lawyers, accountants, prosecutors, schoolteachers, to start picking which is the best plane available to the Air Force. We should not be substituting our judgments for those of the military. So I am sorry we did not get a firm confirmation on this process. I fully acknowledge the Air Force will need to review the complaints that have been made. I hope they will move forward with the process quickly because it is a critical need. This Nation is really 8 or 9 years behind our timeline to get started with producing the aircraft. It is the No. 1 procurement priority for the U.S. Air Force. Many of the planes are 50 years old. I saw one being refurbished with a serial number of 1960 not long ago. The cost of operating these aircraft is rising. I hope we can work through this process and make sure each bidder has a fair opportunity to bid. It is critically important that the Air Force treat all bidders fairly, that politics not interfere with the process, and that they select the best aircraft for the military. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have had some unusual developments in the Senate in recent days. No sooner had the majority in the Senate moved to the cap-and-trade bill, for which they were demanding the debate be limited and utilizing a procedure by the Democratic majority leader to basically fill the tree, which eliminates free debate of amendments on the bill--this was a piece of legislation that was claimed to be one of the most important to be offered in the Senate. In the early 1990s, when the clean air act amendments were passed, 131 amendments were disposed of during that debate, and it took 5 weeks on the floor. This bill has more far-reaching and pernicious ramifications than the Clean Air Act Amendments. Yet they were going to end the debate and begun to spin the issue as if the Republicans were filibustering the bill. That is what they said repeatedly: Republicans were filibustering the bill. But in truth we wished to talk about the bill. We asked to be able to do so and use the 30 hours which Senate rules allow to discuss the legislation, and our request was treated with great horror, as if this were somehow a plan to reject a discussion of the legislation. Well, no sooner had we done that and gotten through that, and the majority leader filled the tree to limit real amendments on the bill-- amendments he did not approve--then, the majority leader came forward and moved to move off the bill, to move away from cap and trade--the centerpiece of their philosophy about what is happening in energy in America today--and he wanted to move to their Energy bill, which I think can legitimately be referred to, in utilizing senatorial license, as a no-energy bill. I will talk about that in a minute. It is not an energy bill. It is not going to produce any energy. It is weak to a degree that is breathtaking. It is not what the American people are upset about. It would not come close to helping us deal with the serious problems we face. So I would say, this is a weird kind of event here. The no-energy bill I understand they would like to move to--and wanted to move to-- would authorize the U.S. Government to sue OPEC nations that are withholding and reducing supplies of oil on the world market in the way we would sue an American company that was manipulating the market by withholding products or otherwise colluding to fix prices. Now, that is exactly what OPEC is doing. What they are doing is unacceptable, and it needs sustained, relentless leadership by this administration and this Congress to stand up to OPEC and confront that because they are effectively raising the price of oil by restricting supply. I understand other nations are seeing declines in production as well, including Mexico and Russia. So we are creating shortages in the marketplace, allowing people to make large amounts of money-- corporations and others--but the people who are primarily making the money are oil-producing nations. Go look at the skyscrapers they are building in the desert, the billions and billions of dollars they are receiving from us as a result of these high prices, as a result of tripling the price of oil on the world marketplace from the forties just a couple years ago to now over $130 a barrel. So you were getting $40 for each barrel of oil one year, and a couple years later you are now getting $130 for each barrel in your small country. The bigger countries, of course, make more money because they produce and sell more oil. We are sending overseas each year from our Nation $500 billion a year to purchase the oil that comes into our country. It is half the trade deficit we have--half of it--just to purchase this oil. It is not getting better, and we have no policy before us to legitimately do something about this other than the one Senator Domenici and Senator McConnell and the Republican leadership offered a few weeks ago, which was rejected. Let me explain what this no-energy bill and its NOPEC provision would do. We would sue OPEC nations for refusing to increase their production. Now, how you get jurisdiction over a sovereign nation--the Presiding Officer, a former attorney general, as I have been in a previous life, knows jurisdiction may sound like a little thing. It is not such a little thing to get jurisdiction over a sovereign nation to order them to produce more oil out of their ground. But I would submit to you, the idea is so weak and so implausible and so unenforceable that it would be a laughable thing if it were not so serious because we do have a problem with OPEC nations and others who are fixing the price of oil. See, oil production is an essential part, I would suggest--and I think most any court would conclude--of sovereignty. A sovereign nation can produce as much of its oil as it wants to produce. You cannot make them produce more oil because you would like them to. They are not like an American corporation, subject to the jurisdiction of the court. Part of the protections of the laws of America, they become subject to lawsuits--but not a foreign nation. We do not want them suing us to say: You ought to open ANWR--or perhaps we might. Open Alaska. Open offshore. Now, that has, perhaps, a lawsuit that might have some merit. Or maybe sue the Congress for voting not to produce more oil and gas off our shores over the years. At least you could get jurisdiction over Congress. So this is not a serious response, I will say to you. It is not. Now, in addition, they propose in this Energy bill to tax the oil companies, but taxing the oil companies will not produce more energy. You can take this to the bank. It is a concept of universal acceptance. When you tax something, you get less of it. What we need in this country is more energy, not less. We need more cleanly produced, clean American energy. That is what we need more of. That is what people are complaining to me about. When I go back home and talk to my constituents, they are upset. They are outraged. According to the national reports that came out yesterday, the people in my home county in Alabama--the citizens there--pay a larger percentage of their income to buy gasoline than any other county in America. It is because they are rural, they have low wages. They do not compete with the big-city wages, and they have to travel so far to work. That is a very painful thing. It brings it home to me personally. I filled up our smaller car this weekend, and it cost $61. People have larger cars. They bought them years ago. They cannot just go out and sell their SUV today--what price would they get?--sell it so they could buy some Prius. Where are they going to get the money to do that? We would like them to. We would like them to move to those kinds of vehicles in the future, but it is not possible today. So the ``masters of the universe'' who think we can pass a bill and allow the price of energy to be exceedingly high and that the people will adjust their habits so they can reduce the price of oil, are not in the real world. Let's get with it. I tell you, my constituents are unhappy, and they want us to do something to confront, in a realistic way, the surge of prices that are impacting their budgets very seriously. They also understand these rising prices that are taking money out of their budget are also impacting the businesses they deal with and see and, perhaps, work for and it is making us less competitive in the world marketplace and it places us in a position to see our economy sink in general and it puts at risk their job. It affects how many hours they might work a week and whether they can get overtime or whether they get a bonus. That is what people are worried about. So what do we have before us? A cap-and-trade bill that is guaranteed, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, to drive up the cost of gasoline $1.40 a gallon to meet Kyoto-type agreements we did not sign and we have not approved. That is not what people are telling me they want us to do. They want us to produce more clean American energy. Well, I hate to be partisan about this, but I think we need to talk about how we got here, what happened in this country to get us in as bad a shape as we are. The trends have not been good in terms of a rising demand for oil and energy and a not-rising-so-fast supply, but there are things we could and should have done and some things we did 2 years ago that are being reversed. In 2005, for example, this Congress, when Senator Pete Domenici chaired the Energy Committee, recognized the potential of oil shale in the Energy Policy Act that became law. The act identified oil from the shale rock out in the West as a strategically important asset and called for its development. Yet, last year, the Democratic-controlled Congress, led by the House of Representatives, put in language that blocked and reversed the development of this abundant resource despite the surging price of oil and gasoline. In the recently passed Energy Independence and Security Act, the House-sponsored section 526 prohibits any Federal agency from contracting to procure any alternative or synthetic fuel that produces greater life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than those produced from traditional fuels. This language prohibits the Federal Government from contracting to produce and use oil shale and coal-to-liquids. This provision is misguided and should be repealed immediately. Now, let me tell my colleagues--I know the Presiding Officer is familiar with a number of these issues--a representative of U.S. Air Force was in my office a few weeks ago discussing a contract they had with a company that would take coal--we have 250 years of coal in America. It is an American energy source. You can heat that coal and off comes a gas which can be converted through a known and proven process to a liquid, and they were going to use it in their airplanes to fly U.S. aircraft with it. But the Air Force representative told me the language in section 526 had blocked them. Coal-to-liquids derived fuel is a fabulously clean fuel. It actually cleans the engine, so when you use this fuel, the pollutants and waste products have been taken out, and it is a very pure fuel they burn, and the Air Force was expecting to be able to bring this fuel into the U.S. Department of Defense for around $85 a barrel. That is well below the more-than-$130 a barrel cost that is on the world marketplace today, and it is a source of energy that does not leave the U.S. Air Force dependent on foreign sources of oil to fuel our Nation's aircraft in the defense of America. But this effort has been blocked by the Democratic majority. The 2005 Energy Policy Act, which Senator Domenici led when he was chairman of the Energy Committee, also directed the Bureau of Land Management to lease Federal lands for oil shale research projects. There are approximately 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in oil shale rock, but it is hard to get out. It is not easy to get out. It takes some effort to produce that, but some major companies are prepared to invest billions of dollars to prove that it can be brought out well below the current world price of oil. I would have thought we would have been delighted to see this go forward--at least in an experimental way--and see how that would work out. But oh, no. This Congress, again with a Democratic majority, acted to block the development and the carrying out of this provision that would promote oil shale. The Senate- sponsored section 433 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act--this was the monumental appropriations bill that was about this thick. They slipped language in, in conference, to take care of that. It would prohibit funds from being used to implement any leasing program directed to the Bureau of Land Management, as had been approved in 2005, effectively stopping this program. I will just say that is frustrating. We are sort of in a manner of disconnect here to an extraordinary degree. The American people want us to do something. Oil shale: Well, it is not going to be easy, but this is not a dreamland idea. It absolutely can work. One company is using the same technology that was used by the oil sands industry in Canada that has proven to be quite commercially feasible. We need to be testing this because 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in oil shale would be enough for 100 years of oil--actually, 200 years of oil at our current rate. So oil shale, if we could make that breakthrough, would make us completely independent of foreign oil. We have huge reserves offshore, as the Senator from Louisiana knows. He is out there. He is in Louisiana, and he sees the production that survived Hurricane Katrina, and as a result, we were able to get those systems back on line with no oil spills or damage to the environment. I thank the Chair for letting me share this frustration. I don't know where we are going now, but I know one thing: This Congress does not need to leave this energy debate without creating some policies that allow for more production of clean American energy. We can do that. We are going to continue using oil and gas for many years to come. Why in the world would we want 60-plus percent of it to be foreign oil? Why wouldn't we want to at least produce what we can at home--and really we can produce quite a lot at home. It is very frustrating that attempts to do that have been blocked by persons whose thinking, I believe, on this issue is confused and not in the public interest. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. There is objection. I object.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the American people are very frustrated with the failure of Congress to act on the great problems facing our country, a lot of problems, but I believe they are especially concerned about surging gasoline and energy prices. They are angry. They do not believe we have done enough in this Congress, and I think when they find out the leadership of this Congress, the Democratic leadership, is proposing legislation that will raise, not lower gas prices, they will not be happy. Indeed, I received a note today from my staff that an experienced reporter at the Birmingham News, Mr. Tom Gordon, today wrote that my home county in Alabama, Wilcox County, again leads the Nation in the percentage of income that its citizens spend monthly on motor fuel, 16 percent, because the county has low incomes and people drive long distances to work. It is a big deal. It is absolutely a real matter of importance. I think we need to do something about it. They want us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to produce more clean American energy, to show we are taking steps to contain and I think maybe even hopefully reduce the surging prices. These prices are threatening the family budget. They are threatening American jobs and the American economy. Turn on any news program and read any news magazine. We are on track to spend $500 billion abroad this year to purchase 60 percent of the oil we consume; 60 percent-plus is being imported. This balance-of-trade deficit weakens our dollar, requiring even more dollars to purchase the same amount of oil. With the dollar getting weaker, you need more dollars to buy the same amount of oil. We are creating jobs and wealth in nations around the world with our money when this missing wealth in our country that we send abroad reduces our own jobs. Families are routinely paying $50, $75, $100 more a month for the same or even less gasoline than they were a few years ago. When this added expense reduces the ability of hard-working middle-class Americans to purchase what they need to get by on, or to take care of their families, and when this reduction in spending on oil reduces spending on things other than oil that the American people need, is it any wonder the economy is struggling, I ask? Is it any wonder millions of American are struggling to get by? Is it any wonder Americans from the suites in New York to the rural roads of Alabama are worried? What is it our constituents are asking us to do? I think they want us to get busy doing what we know works. What works does not mean this $6.7 trillion cap-and-trade plan that has been introduced here that will burden the American economy by driving up the cost of gasoline by another 50 cents in the next number of years, 20 years; driving up the cost of electricity by 44 percent; driving up the price of gasoline three times that 50 cents in the years to come in the distant future; and drive business away from America. It will make our manufacturing industry less competitive than the global marketplace at a time when we are already struggling to compete and stay up. As I have noted, it will drive up unemployment, and we unfortunately saw a very large surge in unemployment last week, to 5.5 percent. First, it is not a horrible rate of unemployment, but a horrible increase in unemployment of five-tenths of 1 percent. As one economist said, I would not have been surprised to see 6 percent unemployment over the next 12 months. I did not expect to see half of that occur in 1 month. People know we have a problem and they understand it. I guess the question is, is there anything we can do about it or are we hopeless? Is there something we can do to bring down the price of oil and make more sense in our economy to confront the danger that high energy prices, gasoline prices pose to America's well being? Yes, there is. There is. Fundamentally we need to do what works, and we know a lot of things work. It is past time to get started in taking the long road back to a sound energy policy that can and will bring down or at least contain the price of crude oil and gasoline. I propose that we work together on common ground, liberals, conservatives, Republicans, and Democrats. It is within our grasp and the people are ready for our leadership. We have an opportunity to address our Nation's crisis. The challenge is truly bipartisan in every way. After all, high energy prices affect Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all in the same way. While conservation and increasing the production of American oil and gas in an environmentally sound way can help contain the surge in prices, we need to do that. We must seek common ground further to develop and deploy technological breakthroughs necessary to solve our Nation's energy crisis. We must commit ourselves as a nation to the production of clean and affordable energy sources. We must commit to policies that will move us beyond oil in a financially and prudent way. Only by championing national interests over any special interests will we be able to secure the common interests and lower energy prices and have a cleaner environment, both of which I believe are possible. But we are far behind. Business-as-usual policies crafted to benefit favored constituents are no way to develop sound energy solutions to our Nation's needs. That is why I am proposing legislation to direct the Department of Energy, which I think can do more and should do more, to evaluate the host of national incentives we have now on the books to create alternative sources of energy, some of which have worked well, and to recommend changes based on what is in the national interest. The national interest is to utilize those incentives to the maximum amount possible to create the most amount of clean American energy. Frankly, there is too much in some areas and not enough in other areas. We need to utilize incentives to jump-start industries that can help build a source of clean American energy. For example, we did succeed in creating an ethanol industry through a very sizable incentive. That has worked. We have drawn it down some now. The Agriculture bill that passed the Senate reduced some of those incentives. Perhaps they should have been reduced more since it has been such a healthy enterprise. That money could have been applied to other areas and other aspects of alternative energy that could jump-start those sources. Congress also suffers too often from a short-term focus on the pressing issues of the day. Too often, we fail to adequately plan for the future needs of the country. That is why I propose that the Department of Energy develop a comprehensive, long-term energy strategy to anticipate unforeseen needs and to promote continued development of innovative energy sources. In order to achieve these goals, the Department would have to report its recommendations to Congress frequently. I am not ashamed to say that I have a lot of issues on my plate. I am on the Armed Services Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and the Energy Committee. The Department of Energy has a huge staff, a large number of personnel. They spend all their time every day working on energy issues. We should have leadership from them. They should tell us what is working and what is not. They should help Congress set good policy. They could do more in that regard. They should not be timid about it. They should help us, step forward, make some proposals, and be more aggressive. There are many things we can do now to lower the price of gasoline and promote clean American energy. Indeed, progress will be made by a thousand steps, large and small, but they must be smart steps. They don't need to be steps that cost far more than they will ever return in terms of energy per cost. They don't need to be political pork. In 2005, Congress directed the Department of Interior to study the oil reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf. That is the deep waters off our coast, not right on the beaches. The study found that 8.5 billion barrels of oil are currently known to exist off our Nation's shores. In addition, the study estimated that approximately 86 billion barrels of oil exist in these waters. We spend maybe $5 billion a year on oil. That includes the 60 percent we import. The U.S. Geological Survey and private industry also estimate that approximately 25 billion barrels of oil exist on shore in the lower 48 States and Alaska. This totals approximately 119 billion barrels of oil alone and would be enough to power millions of automobiles for a century--not every automobile in the country for a century, but it would carry us a long way until we continue to work hard to have those breakthroughs that get us off oil maybe completely. The sooner the better for me. These are not the only reserves known to exist from studies. These are reserves estimated from studies made 30 years ago. Further exploration and modern seismographic work will certainly locate far more reserves. The question fundamentally is, to the American people and my colleagues, do we import more and more of our oil and gas from places that produce it in the North Sea and the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea off the coast of Africa and South America or do we produce it safely off our own shores, where the money stays at home, where we are not sending $500 billion of American citizens' money to people who build palaces in the desert with nothing more than basically money they have taxed us with? The price of oil today is set in large part because OPEC has reduced production, creating a shortage in the whole world. That is the fundamental problem. There are a lot of others, but that is the fundamental problem. We need to fight back. The way we fight back is to keep more of our money at home and send it less to these countries. How simple is that? But the policies we are having here go the opposite direction. They are not allowing us to produce more oil and gas in America, safely and cleanly. We have and can move forward a lot of other sources of oil. One could be oil from oil shale. Some estimate those reserves to be approximately 1.8 trillion barrels of oil--a lifetime of oil in oil shale. There are a lot of things that have to happen to make that be produced. We have to be sure it is done in an environmental way. But we have major corporations that are willing to spend billions of dollars to see if they can produce it in that fashion. We blocked them from doing that last year. When I say ``we,'' I didn't agree to it, but the Congress slipped that in in conference committee and basically blocked that in the dead of night without any hearings to discuss the merits. For example, Saudi Arabia, which has the largest amount of oil known in the world, has only approximately 267 billion barrels of oil, whereas we have 1,800 billion barrels of oil in oil shale. It is primarily located in the West in governmental lands. What about coal? We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have 25 percent of the world's coal reserves, which is enough to last approximately 250 years at the current rate. Surely long before then, we will have developed alternatives to carbon fuels. Converting this tremendous resource into liquid transportation fuel using proven technology can bring down the price of gasoline. It really can. At this very moment, private companies are prepared to convert coal to liquid fuel and sell it to the Air Force for aircraft, sequestering the carbon so it is not emitted into the atmosphere, at approximately $85 a barrel. That is $40 less than the world market price of oil today, which is over $130 a barrel. They are prepared to do that. Somebody slipped in language to block that from occurring, so the Air Force now is in limbo as to whether they can enter into a long-term contract necessary to guarantee domestic sources of clean fuel made from American coal, all the money staying in the United States, helping enhance our national security. We need to repeal that provision. We need to let the Air Force go ahead with this. It would mean tremendous opportunity to affirm the Air Force's initiative and to verify as a practical matter whether this large amount of fuel can be converted from coal. The way they do it, they heat the coal, and off comes the gas, and then you can reconvert that back to a liquid. It comes out cleaner, just spotless clean. It cleans the engine instead of making it dirty. It is a fabulous fuel. Diesel fuel--let me share this with you. These are some things we can do and get busy now, that we should already have done. Diesel fuel is more efficient than other fuels. According to Popular Mechanics magazine--recently they did a comparison; I can't guarantee everything they said because the numbers are pretty astounding, but in a sense it is good news--the next generation already in existence of clean diesel engines runs approximately 38 percent further on a gallon of fuel than a similar size automobile that is a hybrid automobile. The magazine found that a 2007 Volkswagen Polo Bluemotion diesel automobile travels 38 percent farther on a gallon of fuel than a 2007 Toyota Prius hybrid. We know for a fact that diesel gets 30, 35, 40 percent better mileage than a gasoline engine. In fact, Europe has 50 percent of its automobiles diesel. Why? Because it gets better gas mileage. We have gone the exact opposite direction. We only have 3 percent of our fleet diesel. Why are we not creating policies that will help Americans move to more fuel-efficient diesel engines and do something about this odd circumstance when diesel fuel is now considerably more expensive? It is about 15 percent more expensive, but it gets at least 30 percent better mileage. It is still a buy, even at the prices at the pump today for diesel. In addition to being fuel efficient, diesel-powered vehicles release fewer CO2 emissions than similar hybrids or gasoline engines; CO2, the global warming gas, less of that from a diesel engine. It is so much cleaner today than people's memory of smoky diesels in the past. It is an entirely new engine, an entirely new procedure. According to the Popular Mechanics field test, the Volkswagen model tested by the magazine emitted 5 percent fewer greenhouse gases per mile than a Toyota Prius. I was able to drive a Prius the week before last around Alabama. It was very impressive. Why are we not thinking about diesel as we seek to clean up our air and reduce our importing of foreign oil? Diesel engines today run on ultra-low sulfur diesel that is 97 percent cleaner than older diesel fuel. It is the cleanest fuel in the world. It is cleaner than the European fuel--the Europeans are environmentally conscious--and our own regulations require that. New diesel technology, the Mercedes BlueTec engine--I visited their Alabama facility last week--reduces carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulates. According to the EPA, if 33 percent of American drivers switched to diesel vehicles, oil consumption would be reduced by approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, which would cut our imports 10 percent. They say if you drill in ANWR in Alaska, an area the size of the State of South Carolina--and they would like to explore for oil and gas in an area the size of Dulles Airport--if it comes in and it is only a little over a million barrels a day, that is about 10 percent of our import amount. So if we had more diesel and production in Alaska, that would reduce our imports 20 percent. Already Americans are conserving more. They have reduced consumption at least 5 percent this year. So now we are down 25 percent. That is the kind of thing we can do that will make a difference in the price of oil and help make this a stronger country. Now, ethanol represents a viable alternative energy source, I am convinced. According to the Congressional Research Service, 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol were produced in the United States last year. This amounts to approximately $19.5 billion--let me be sure I get this correct because my mind is probably like some of my colleagues. That is 6.5 billion gallons as opposed to barrels I was talking about earlier. Mr. President, 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol were produced in the United States last year. It amounts to approximately $19.5 billion that stayed in our country to create American jobs and pay good wages here. It did not go to buy oil from some foreign country so that the wealth goes there. It is estimated that we are on track to produce 9 billion gallons of ethanol this year. So we go from 6.5 billion to 9 billion gallons this year. We are soon reaching the maximum production, I think, for most ethanol that comes from corn, which most of this does. But that has been helpful to us, I submit to you. So this would result in approximately $36 billion that will be invested in America, paying wages to American citizens, who pay taxes to our cities and counties, for schools, and to the Federal Government. We want them to have good jobs with good wages. According to Renewable Fuels Association, the price of gasoline would rise approximately 31 percent if ethanol was eliminated. Is that right? That is an advocacy group for renewable fuels, but this week Barron's Magazine had an analysis and quoted figures similar to that and noted that consumers were saving several hundred dollars a year as a result of ethanol. Whether it is a great benefit to us in net reduction of CO2, we do not know. Originally, the environmentalists certainly believed so and advocated it. Some now question that. Regardless, as an economic matter and as a matter of national security, it has reduced our dependence on foreign oil, kept wealth at home, and helped protect our national security and create jobs. But there are limits on ethanol, so that is why we need to seek technological breakthroughs that will allow us to produce cellulosic ethanol on a commercial scale. Cellulosic fuel can be produced from sources that do not place strains on other end users. There is tremendous potential in our country to utilize waste wood from sawmills, paper companies, waste wood that is left in the forest from when the timber is cut and hurricane recovery. I talked to a FEMA hurricane emergency response official today about the potential of utilizing cellulose that is downed and thrown away in landfills after a hurricane, where thousands and millions of trees are blown down, to create energy. I think it is a realistic possibility. Every city and county in the country is constantly hauling out large amounts of wood and trees from their city. It cannot be utilized effectively for lumber or other uses. Instead of going to landfills, this could create energy. I think there is a great potential here. Auburn University has spent a lot of time on switchgrass, another cellulosic form. They will be bringing up, June 19, to Washington their gasification unit that is portable. It is the size of a tractor-trailer rig. You put wood chips in one end, the wood is heated, a gas comes off, and that gas is converted to a liquid fuel. It is proven it can be done. This is not impossible. What we need to do is accelerate the science to prove whether it can be commercially feasible. I think it can be. I am proud of Auburn. They have won a national award for that. They are No. 1 in the country in that area of research, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The next is the plug-in hybrid technology, which holds exceedingly great potential. By utilizing and improving current battery technology, plug-in hybrids will be able to travel father using less gasoline-- perhaps dramatically less gasoline--than conventional hybrids or any other kind of automobile. In addition to greatly displacing imported oil, plug-in hybrids can reduce the amount of pollutants and greenhouse gases in the air by relying on clean nuclear energy to recharge their batteries. Let's just talk about this briefly. We will talk a little more about nuclear energy. But if you have a commute each day of 10 or 15 miles and you can create a battery that will run 30 miles without any hybrid engine having to be turned on to charge and recharge the battery, a person could commute back and forth to work every day if that car would only run 30 miles. When they come home at night, they can plug it in and recharge the battery from the power socket. And particularly charging it from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m., it will use base load power, often not even being fully utilized. If the power source is nuclear power, it emits no pollutants into the atmosphere whatsoever, and that will completely eliminate the need to utilize any oil or gasoline in the car. Now, that is close to being reality. Certainly, we will produce more wind and solar power. We support those energy sources. The Congress has provided incentives for that. Few would dispute that large increases in clean American base load electricity in large amounts is essential, and we cannot get there by conservation only because a number of things happen. No. 1 is that our population is going up. By 2050, we will have a substantial increase in the American population. So even if every American used less, the Nation is projected, by every expert I am aware of, to utilize more energy. Another thing that happens: You may well develop new lightbulbs, which I hope every American will utilize and turn off lightbulbs when they are not using them, but we have other things that come up. For example, how many of our people want to give up plasma TVs? They use a lot more electricity than the old kind. And computers. When we projected the increase in the cost of the utilization of electricity in the 1970s and early 1980s, we did not expect the size of the computer revolution and the amount of energy that would add. So there is always something out there. That is all I am suggesting. It is just not smart for us to project in a way that is contrary to the experts that we are going to utilize less electricity. So after much study--and I have spent a good bit of study on this--it is clear to me that nuclear-generated electricity is the serious solution for a clean energy future and an alternative to a future filled with ever-increasing regulations and more regulators and more lobbyists and more political fights such as this cap-and-trade bill-- all of which produce no energy but drain our American economy. Nuclear power is American based. It is a proven technology. It helps enhance our national security. It is competitive cost-wise. It is not outrageously expensive like some of the ideas that are being floated. It emits no pollutants into the air, neither NOX nor SOx nor mercury nor particulates. And it 100 percent meets our global warming goals, which is to reduce CO2, carbon dioxide--zero, zilch. Twenty percent of our electricity today is nuclear, and we have not built a plant in 30 years. France produces 80 percent of its power from nuclear power, and Japan is over 50 percent. They are heavily committed to nuclear power, and it is paying off for them. Britain just announced five new nuclear plants. So we are running behind. But the good news is that after the Energy bill Senator Domenici worked so hard on and the legislation he offered, 30 new applications for nuclear powerplants have been submitted. That is 30--up from zero just a couple years ago. But we must strive to ensure this nuclear renaissance continues and completes. There is this tremendous possibility that base load nuclear power, particularly in the night, offpeak time, could be utilized to charge automobile batteries so we could run our automobiles without any fossil fuel being burned. Nuclear power is the one energy source that could create large amounts of hydrogen, the hydrogen necessary if we are to develop effectively fuel cell hydrogen automobiles that also favor a clean concept. Both of these are postoil, postcarbon energy sources that can power our automobiles, which is where our crisis is today. Renewable energy sources also have an important role to play. According to the Department of Energy, renewable energy provided approximately 9 percent of the total U.S. electricity generation in 2005. While this is not large, there is significant room for growth. Wind energy has led this growth, increasing from approximately 3,500 megawatts in 2001 to almost 17,000 megawatts today. Solar power has also increased, although cost and storage remain serious issues. Geothermal energy has not expanded as rapidly as wind has, but it has potential. According to MIT, the United States has approximately 100,000 megawatts of enhanced geothermal capacity which can be developed by 2050. A few weeks ago, this Senate voted on a plan that would have taken the first steps to produce many of these untapped energy resources by allowing more energy exploration off our coasts and in Alaska. But we do need to move beyond petroleum-based transportation fuels. We need to do some other steps, such as enhancing the batteries for electric cars, as this bill would have done, which could have allowed us to move to plug-in hybrids. I think that is within our grasp right now, and it would help clean up our environment. Mr. President, I see the majority leader on the floor. I will just conclude by noting that with prices at record highs, I think the American people can be excused for wondering what their Congress is doing. They expect us to get busy--to get busy now--to produce more clean American energy. That will be the only thing that is going to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and our ability to be hijacked by prices driven up by OPEC nations that are restricting supply. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to my chief counsel on the Judiciary Committee, Cindy Hayden, who is with me today. We all depend so much on our staff. They give of themselves, they give of their time, they are committed to their beliefs, and serve America, and we are never able to say thank you to all of them, but on special occasions, I think it is important to do so. In saying my thanks to her, I am saying thanks to all my staff, and to all the staff of the Senate, who serve us so well, often without ever receiving credit. I am pleased for her because she will be starting a new chapter in her professional life, though her departure will be a tremendous loss to my staff and the Senate at large. I am glad she will be in DC, working close by, so we can call on her when we need her help. Cindy Hayden is an exceptional person. I feel a great loss at her departure. Each day that we have worked together, she has shown an unwavering dedication to our shared values, to her State, and to her Nation. Her passion for the law is unmatched, and her commitment to the rule of law is unwavering. I trust her judgment, her political instincts, and her values. I have relied on her to manage my Judiciary staff and the multitude of important issues that committee handles. With so many issues arising on a daily basis, it is sometimes not possible for me to personally be aware of them all. In everything from judicial nominations, immigration, and any number of constitutional issues, Cindy has exhibited an intellectual capacity, a tenacity to principle, a strong work ethic, and a professional integrity that is above reproach. Before joining my staff, she had a distinguished academic career at my undergraduate school, Huntington College, and the University of Alabama School of Law. At Huntington, Cindy had an outstanding record of academic excellence, receiving degrees in both chemistry and political science. I think chemistry is pretty impressive and would certainly get your attention when you looked at a resume. She then went to law school at the University of Alabama, where she graduated cum laude and served as managing editor of the Journal of Legal Profession and was a member of the moot court board. While in law school, she clerked in the office of the Alabama Attorney General under my successor, now Eleventh Circuit Judge Bill Pryor, a brilliant legal mind himself. Immediately after taking the bar, Cindy started working as counsel on my staff, and for the past 6 years worked her way up to chief counsel. Her work on the Senate Judiciary Committee has been extraordinary, and I believe the committee is a better place for her service. The committee takes on an enormous number and wide variety of complex and sometimes controversial issues. It is one of the most demanding committees in the Senate. To be successful as an attorney on that committee you must not only be hard working and intelligent and someone who works very long hours, but you must also be a strong negotiator, able to frame arguments in a passionate, respectful, and intellectually honest way. She has done all that with seemingly effortless skill. I would note that the Judiciary Committee has attracted, and has right now, a host of superior attorneys who serve all of us. They are an excellent team, indeed. I would be remiss not to mention her stellar work on immigration. Since she arrived in my office, Cindy has worked tirelessly to protect the rule of law in this country, and as it turned out, she found herself at the center of a national debate on how to fix the broken immigration system in our country. Those of you who have worked on either side of the issue have certainly had to deal with Cindy and her relentless advocacy as she became the go-to person on immigration, providing a wealth of information and knowledge for all involved. Indeed, her ``alerts'' that were sent out--always meticulously accurate--were picked up routinely all over the country by media outlets as accurate depictions of developments, as they were occurring so rapidly during that intense debate. So whether you were for her or against her in principle, everyone can certainly agree she handled herself with dignity, courage, tenacity, and capability during that debate. Evidence of her dedication and influence on the committee and its staff can be seen by what some of her colleagues have had to say about her. And this is a good team, indeed. Ed Haden, my former chief counsel, who hired her, said: Cindy immediately made a difference when she started on the committee. Her intelligence, work ethic, initiative, and willingness to stand up and defend her position made her a great asset. Her unflinching integrity and solid core values made her a success as a lawyer and as a friend. And I would add that she was raised right. She has great values, as a product of Cullman, AL. She grew up in the heart of Alabama and was raised in an outstanding way. William Smith, my former chief counsel and current executive director of the Americans for Limited Government Research Foundation, said the following: I have met and worked with a number of great lawyers. Cindy Hayden is in a category more select than great. She is one of the few superior lawyers I have met. I was privileged to serve with her on the Judiciary Committee and I count her a true confidant. Our motto in the office was, ``we work from sun to sun; our work is never done.'' Cindy has lived up to and surpassed that calling. On top of this, she is a great American. The only group I know that will truly celebrate her departure will be illegal aliens. That is what William Smith said. Brian Darling, director of Senate Relations for the Heritage Foundation said this: Cindy has been a hero to conservatives nationwide who believe in the rule of law. Without Cindy and ``Team Sessions''' tireless efforts to educate the American public on the contents of the secretly drafted amnesty bill, the bill may have become law. Wendy Fleming, General Counsel for the Senate Steering Committee says: Cindy Hayden is a great American, a smart lawyer, and a wonderful friend. During her time on the Judiciary Committee, Cindy has displayed unwavering devotion to Senator Sessions, the people of Alabama, and her conservative principles. I am honored to have had the opportunity to work with Cindy. Brooke Bacak, former Counsel for me and current Chief Counsel for Senator Coburn says: I have had the privilege of knowing Cindy for 10 years. Having first met in College Republicans, I learned about her conservative convictions very early in our friendship. Cindy has proven to be a true patriot, and I am grateful for the role that she has played in the U.S. Senate. But beyond our political and professional association, Cindy has become a true friend. She and her husband, Matt, are two of the most generous people I know. From birthdays to illnesses, the Haydens always make time to be with their friends. Their kindness has made a difference to me and many others. I wish Cindy the very best in her new job and hope she knows how much she will be missed. Joe Matal, Counsel for Senator Kyl says: If you look closely at the corpse of last year's immigration bill, you will find a series of small squares holes in its back. Those holes were produced by Cindy's heels, stomping that bill to death. Rita Lari Jochum, Chief Counsel for Senator Grassley, says: Cindy Hayden has served Senator Sessions, Alabama and our country extremely well. A committed advocate for conservative principles, Cindy has been tenacious in her drive to do what is right. We all are going to miss a great friend and skilled colleague. Lauren Petron, Chief Counsel for Senator Brownback, says: Cindy is a principled conservative, a tireless advocate, a talented lawyer, a trusted colleague, and a dear friend. She is truly a person who lives out her values and beliefs. I feel privileged to have worked with her on the Judiciary Committee, and I am certain that she will be a great success in all her future endeavors. John Abegg, Counsel for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: Cindy continued a long line of outstanding chief counsels for Senator Sessions. She is smart, principled, and tough, but has a kind heart as well. She worked tirelessly to serve Senator Sessions' Alabama constituents and the people of the United States, and she did so with distinction. Alan Hanson, my Legislative Director says: Cindy is a serious and accomplished professional with a big heart and disarming wit. While I will miss being her colleague in the Senate, I know Cindy will do well in all her endeavors and wish her the best. Ajit Pai, Deputy General Counsel for the FCC says: Staffers on both sides of the aisle would agree that Cindy Hayden brings to the table a welcome combination of intelligence, dedication, and likeability. It was my privilege to have worked with her on Senator Sessions' staff, and it will always be my privilege to call her a friend. Bradley Hayes, my Senior Counsel says: I have had the honor to work with both talented professionals and close, personal friends. In Cindy Hayden, I've had the rare privilege to work with an individual who encompasses both. I have had the pleasure to work with Cindy since the day I started in the Senate almost three years ago. On a daily basis, I have been able to battle liberals with a person whom I not only respect and admire, but someone whose friendship I will value long after her departure. From her first day in the Senate, Cindy has worked tirelessly to promote conservative principles and has been a tremendous asset for both Senator Sessions and the U.S. Senate. The State of Alabama and the nation as a whole are better because of her selfless work these past six years. Though she leaves us to carry on the fight, the lessons she has taught me, and others who have worked with her, will ensure that Cindy's legacy of fidelity to the rule of law and conservative principles will continue for years to come. These are just some of the statements from the staffers whom Cindy has worked with that reflect their respect for her. I will just conclude personally by saying I never had a staffer to be more involved than Cindy in as sustained and intense a period of debate as we find ourselves in on the immigration debate. It was a constant every day struggle, and things were always rapidly changing. We believe the bill on the floor, though it had a lot of support and many good things in it, was not the right approach to solving our illegal immigration problems in America. We decided someone had to be active in that and raise those issues. Cindy was just fabulous, and I depended on her. Day after day, her work and the respect she engendered throughout the country played a big role in the final result, in which the bill was pulled down without passage in that form. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to share these words. As I speak about her, again I want to note I share my thoughts and these comments about so many of our staffers who serve America in the Senate. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish today, June 6, 2008, the 64th anniversary of the Allied Powers' invasion of Normandy, to pay tribute to Henry and Homer Montgomery, two brothers who answered their Nation's call to duty. These brothers, like so many of their peers, gave up the comforts of home to go to an unfamiliar land to fight in defense of our Nation. Henry Montgomery, now 92, hit the beach at Normandy on June 7, 1944. He served in the European theater as an artilleryman and motorcycle courier, walking much of the way between Normandy and Berlin. This journey of nearly 1,000 miles was so arduous that when he arrived in Berlin, he was medically discharged and returned to our shores on a hospital ship. Homer Montgomery, now 82, served in the Pacific theater toward the end of World War II halfway around the world from his brother. He was a Military Police officer who served through the end of the war. The contributions made by these two brothers are an excellent example of the sacrifices made by our greatest generation. They were able to see our nation and our allies emerge from the war victorious and return home unlike so many of their brothers in arms. Their commitment to this struggle and that of their comrades was critical to securing our liberties, and our nation is forever indebted to them. And so, Mr. President I am honored to pay tribute to these two great American patriots. May they greatly enjoy the freedom they have secured for all of us.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senator Cornyn is a fabulous and important Senator. He knows what has been happening here on all the important issues and he knows the importance of certain actions on the floor. Senator Reid, last night, as I understand it, stood and filled the tree. As I understand it, that impacts directly the ability of persons on this side to freely offer amendments; is that correct, I ask Senator Cornyn?

Mr. SESSIONS. And so that act was a knowing and deliberate leadership act by the majority leader that fundamentally says unless he approves an amendment, whether it is offered by those who favor the legislation or oppose it, that is a significant event that constricts free amendments on this bill; is that not correct?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, what is the time agreement?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I appreciate Senator Corker for his hard work and bringing his capable mind to this incredibly complex piece of legislation. He has been able to explain, in simple language, some of the fundamental flaws that exist. I also agree with him, having traveled my State hard in the last month or two and talking to a lot of people who are concerned about gas prices. They want us to do something. My belief, and what I have said for some time now, is let's get busy and let's do the things that work. Let's not make a mistake and take wrong steps. Let's do things that work. We need to accelerate biofuels. We have seen progress with wind, and maybe more could be made there. Solar is not right and hasn't proven itself as a major source yet, but maybe we can see that. And there are fuel cells and hydrogen. A lot of things are possible. This past week, I visited a Mercedes plant in Alabama that has a diesel engine that runs 35 to 40 percent better for mileage than a gasoline engine. I visited, in Huntsville, AL, a plant that incinerates garbage and creates steam to provide to the military base, and it has been doing so since 1984. Yet not another city in Alabama has such a steam plant. I visited an Alabama power company incinerator, where switchgrass and wood chips are blown in with coal, reducing the amount of coal used, burning more biofuels. I visited the transport center at the University of Alabama, which is working on a more complete combustion of our fuels, fuel cells, and plug-in hybrids. I visited Auburn University, where they are converting wood products, biofuels, to gases and then to liquids we can burn in our automobiles. All that is happening in my State right now. I say, let's get busy and see if we cannot accelerate those things. Let's not create a monumental bureaucracy. As a former U.S. attorney, I am familiar with the Code of Federal Regulations. I am not sure a lot of people are. But this 400-plus page statute that we are about to pass has within it 35 direct requirements that various agencies of the U.S. Government will issue regulations on, and the regulations frequently are far more extensive, more complex, and detailed than the laws we pass. But every business in America will be bound by them. If they violate them, they can be fined $25,000 a day. Somebody will have to enforce them. Who is going to do that? The EPA says they know they will need perhaps 400 new people right off the bat to keep these programs up and going. But the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Treasury, and Department of Commerce have requirements, and they are going to have to have people, among other agencies. But who will have the most? What area of our economy will be required to hire the most people to comply with these regulations? I submit it is the private businesses that are going to have to hire accountants, technicians, have monitoring stations, hire people to figure out what credits to buy and what credits to sell and try to project the market and see what the future is going to be on credit and where to get these credits. It is going to be an incredibly complex thing. This 492-page legislation has 35 different specific directions to various agencies to issue regulations. My time has expired. I thank the Chair and point out that this has huge ramifications throughout our economy. I am pleased to listen to Senator Domenici, our fabulous leader for so many years on these issues.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I miss Craig Thomas. I loved him, and I wish I had told him that more explicitly. He is worthy of the ultimate comment and praise given in my area of the country: He was a good man. And he truly was. He combined strength and genuine modesty. He was wise and insightful on important issues without any show of pride or pomposity. He had integrity. He was a man's man. He was comfortable in his skin. He was a man of courage. Most especially, he was a man of principle, much like one of his heroes, Ronald Reagan. Craig was truly also a man of the West. It was in his bones. And he had in his very being a love for America and a deep understanding-- intellectual and intuitive--of its uniqueness, its exceptionalism, and why this country is so great. He understood that. His love for America caused him to dedicate his life to her, just as our soldiers and his fellow marines place their lives at risk this very moment in service to our country. I think that is why he undertook as part of his duties on this side to promote a policy principled message each morning in morning business on the floor. He did that for a number of years. He believed we ought to talk about the issues that made America great. Craig Thomas loved his country, he loved his wife Susan and his family. He loved Wyoming. Truly, he was a good man, and we do indeed miss him. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will add my thoughts that it is an important issue for us to deal with, global warming, and energy security and elimination of pollution and a healthy economy not being damaged by excessive imports of oil or high prices of oil. We wish to deal with that. This bill is a tremendously large bill that dwarfs the prior Clean Air Act of 1990 in significance. I wish to say what happened tonight was the majority leader, utilizing the power of his recognition, has now filled the tree and not one amendment can be offered, as I understand the procedures, he does not agree to. When we did the Clean Air Act, some 200 or more amendments were offered, 5 weeks was spent on it, and 130 amendments, as I recall, were disposed of in some fashion. So we have this tremendous bill we want to talk about. I would suggest it is as plain as day that as people learn more about it, they are going to be even more concerned than they are today and less supportive of it and hostile to it. That is why it looks to me like an effort is under way to put the Republican Members who would like to offer amendments and discuss the bill in a position where they have no realistic possibility to do so in a meaningful way. This will end with a whimper. The bill can be withdrawn because the majority does not want to stay on it because they can't defend the massive nature of it, the incredible intervention into the economy by Washington bureaucracies that will be created, the trillions of dollars that will have to be raised through this cap and trade, which is nothing more than a way to tax carbon. I wish to protest a moment. We know what is happening. Anybody who is sophisticated here knows this bill is not going to pass. It is losing what support it had. An effort is underway by the Democratic majority to figure a way to pull the bill and then blame the Republicans because we want to talk about it, and we want to entertain a discussion about it. We wish to offer amendments to make it better. That is the truth. It disturbs me a little bit to hear the comments that have been made earlier. I know we have had a long day. But I wish to make clear this is not an itty-bitty issue. This is a tremendous issue of great importance, both to the world, our economy, and to the environment. We need to do better. We can do better. I hope maybe in the morning things will be in a better posture. I don't think, with regard to the cap-and- trade bill, that the majority is going to want to see it go forward. That indicates a lack of confidence in their own legislation. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.