To change the enactment date.

FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007--Continued

Amendment No. 4587

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Durbin's
amendment.
The debate is not about an arcane, technical pension funding rule.
The issue before us is about whether thousands and thousands of airline
employees are allowed to keep hard-earned defined benefit pensions or
if we are going to regulate them or throw them out to the underfunded
PBGC, which has so much debt that you cannot count the zeros. This
issue is about whether we are going to send additional major carriers,
who have so far avoided bankruptcy in these brutal financial
circumstances, into a downward spiral. My premise is to hold the main
carriers harmless. They are up against it, at the cliff. We should hold
them harmless.
Adding this pension provision to the FAA bill would defeat the whole
purpose of this compromise brokered by the Finance and the Commerce
Committees, which was done with the underlying principle that we should
hold the commercial airlines harmless during these turbulent economic
times, which are expected to last. That is sacred. That is why it would
be unwise to load up an additional liability on airlines trying to do
the right thing for their employees.
It would be especially wrong to cause that result in a misguided
effort to put the preservation of regular order before common sense--in
other words, going around a committee. It happens. Airline employees
will pay the unnecessary price for this change from current law. It
cannot happen.
During these tough times of rising fuel prices and mounting financial
losses, this is not the time to impose tougher, unrealistic pension
funding requirements upon the airline industry. To do so would risk
more bankruptcies and force carriers to dump their pensions into the
woebegone PBGC. That would put in danger the economic security of
workers who would prefer to stay employed and not have their pensions
frozen.
In 2005, when the Senate was considering the Pension Protection Act
on the Senate floor, we passed an amendment by voice vote that I
cosponsored with Senator Isakson and Senator Lott. The amendment would
have given all airline carriers substantial pension relief. The
amendment did not pick winners or losers within the airline industry.
It is not our business. Rather, it focused on keeping their defined
benefit pension plans solvent.
Unfortunately, as Senator Hutchison pointed out, the final product
that came out of conference in 2006 limited the pension relief the
Senate sought to give all airlines. Led by--and I will say he is gone
and I am not sad--the Ways and Means Committee chairman, Bill Thomas,
the conference report chose winners and losers. It gave some carriers
more pension relief than others, creating a competitive advantage for
some carriers.
A number of Senators were not happy with the airline provisions bill,
including Senators Durbin, Reid, Obama, Harkin, Menendez, Lautenberg,
Bill Nelson, and a lot of the rest of us. They entered a colloquy on
the floor arguing that this disparity needed to be dealt with.
That is why in last year's Iraq war supplemental appropriations
legislation Dick Durbin did the only thing that he had available to him
to do, and with the strong support of Senator Hutchison, he sought to
right this wrong and inserted a provision that brought the airlines up
to par and gave them the necessary pension relief that they deserved. I
understand this was perhaps not the best process. We are not a body
known for our meticulous protocol. We are trying to get something in
that is lifesaving for the Nation.
As a senior member of the Finance Committee myself, which has
jurisdiction of pension legislation, I agree with Senator Baucus that
it would have been more ideal to go through the regular order and have
the Finance Committee review and vet the provision. The problem is that
it wasn't going to happen.
However, airlines need and deserve pension relief. We cannot adopt
the pension provision of the Finance Committee tax title and impose
higher pension burdens upon five domestic airlines, which has been
discussed by various people, during these tougher economic times.
Remember, hold legacy commercial airlines harmless. So we would be
turning our backs on American, Continental, US Airways, Hawaiian, and
Alaska Air. To do so would risk more bankruptcies and more job losses.
I pointed out earlier that one out of every six jobs in the airline
industry has been lost in the last 6 years.
In 2005, while we were debating the Isakson-Rockefeller-Lott
amendment that brought all airlines equitable pension relief, I stated
on the Senate floor that my goal was to protect the employees and
retirees who worked so hard to earn retirement benefits, and that
remains my goal today.
To deny disadvantaged airlines the relief they rightfully deserve in
the Pension Protection Act and which the Senate voted to give them
would be unfair.
I have the utmost respect for Senators Baucus and Grassley. They are
a superb team. They did their very best and did a very good job on the
whole on the Pension Protection Act. But the Finance Committee in the
Senate should not have received the dicta of the now thoroughly retired
former Ways and Means Committee chairman. The former House majority
succeeded with their desperate efforts to achieve questionable policy
goals by holding long-awaited pension reform legislation hostage. But
that was then and

[[Page S3561]]

this is now, and we should not give the former House majority the
satisfaction of achieving their desired objective over a jurisdictional
squabble, and that is all it is. It counts. I understand that. It
counts. People lie on the floor to protect it, but in this case, we are
dealing with something much larger.
We can do better, and that must begin by us stepping back and
invoking the ``do no harm'' principle. America cannot afford another
major bankruptcy to cripple our aviation system.
With all of my respect to the Finance Committee leadership, we just
cannot do one more thing to jeopardize the health of our domestic
aviation industry, particularly the commercial sector. The rest of it
is doing very well. For that reason, I will support Senator Durbin's
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I take a view opposite what was just
spoken by Senator Rockefeller on the amendment that is before the
Senate, the Durbin amendment, No. 1, because of a very carefully
crafted compromise that was worked out when the pension reform bill was
passed, and No. 2, the purpose of that legislation was to protect the
pensions of the workers of the corporations of America, including the
workers who work for our airlines.
What we are trying to do is stay within the realm of that compromise
and the protection of workers' pensions. This effort detracts from it.
I am trying to make sure workers' pensions are protected.
I am going to ask my colleagues to be against the Durbin-Hutchison
amendment. The amendment before us seeks to keep in place a policy that
is wrong from a pension policy standpoint. The amendment also would
preserve a process followed against two committees with jurisdiction
over pension policy--the Finance Committee and the Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee. These two committees worked arm in arm
for all of 2006 to get a pension reform bill together that would
protect workers' pensions.
If the proponents of this amendment succeed in their effort, it will
taint the legislative process with respect to one of the most important
policy challenges before Congress, and this is strengthening retirement
security.
The provision the proponents seek to strike is not only justified
from a policy perspective--but the way in which the original provision
of the Pension Protection Act was modified should raise the eyebrows of
some of my Senate colleagues.
I would first like to walk my Senate colleagues through the yearlong
conference negotiations of the Pension Act which occurred less than 2
years ago. But let me first remind my colleagues that the underlying
intent of the Pension Act is to require defined benefit plan sponsors
to fully fund their pension plans; in other words, keep their promise
to their employees.
In nontechnical terms, the Pension Act makes sure plan sponsors are
not digging a deeper hole by requiring plans to pay off their unfunded
liabilities.
The Pension Act requires defined benefit plan sponsors to make
contributions, one, to cover benefits accrued in the current year and,
two, to pay off any unfunded pension liabilities or past liabilities
over a 7-year period of time. A lot of people think we were not doing
justice to the workers of America by giving these companies 7 years to
pay off these past liabilities, but at least we have a plan in place
that two committees of this Senate worked on that was a compromise that
would bring us to the point where even after 7 years, workers' pensions
would be protected.
There is an interest rate issue with a lot of pensions--the interest
rate used to determine these past liabilities based on the yield curve
of high-quality corporate bond rates. Currently, the corporate bond
yield curve rate is approximately 6 percent. The Pension Act provided
two exceptions to this general rule. The exceptions were specifically
provided for certain commercial airline carriers that may have had
difficulty meeting the general requirements within the bill. In other
words, we were taking into consideration 2 years ago the very critical
and--how would I say it--very unpredictable future of airlines. That is
something that was legitimate at the time.
There were exceptions for these commercial airline carriers. Under
the first exception, carriers that froze their pension plans were
permitted to pay off any past pension liabilities over 17 years--that
is instead of 7 years--and use in the process an 8.85-percent interest
rate to calculate past liabilities. And that would be instead of
current law, which is a 6-percent rate. Under the second exception,
carriers that did not freeze their pension plans were permitted to pay
off liabilities over 10 years instead of 17 years, if they chose the
other course, and use the current 6-percent rate instead of the 8.85-
percent interest rate.
During the Pension Act negotiations, those airline carriers freezing
their plans were permitted to take advantage of the first exception. We
were aware at that time that these carriers pledged to make new 401(k)
contributions on behalf of current and new employees in their union
negotiations.
Those airline carriers that did not freeze their plans did not need
to make the same pledge for a 401(k)-type retirement because these
carriers continued their pension plans. The workers for these carriers
continued to accrue benefits under the pension plan.
The opponents of section 808 do not understand or maybe they choose
to ignore that this was a carefully crafted compromise which was
intended to place workers of each of these carriers in a similar
position from a retirement perspective. Workers of carriers that did
not freeze their plans continued to accrue their usual pension
benefits. Workers of carriers that froze their plans received
retirement benefits under 401(k) plans. Under each approach, the
carriers remain obligated to pay their retirement benefits that accrue
in the current year.

This was a proworker, proparticipant approach that recognized the
financial distress the airline industry was experiencing. It also
recognized the differences in the financial health of the carriers that
froze their pension plans and the financial health of carriers that did
not freeze their retirement plans.
The amendment's proponents are now saying they want the same set of
rules that were offered to carriers that froze their plans.
What is on the books that we in the Finance Committee are trying to
correct in this legislation is that we gave maximum flexibility to
airlines to choose one plan or another, the one that fit, whether they
wanted to freeze their pension plans or not freeze their pension plans.
And if they froze their pension plans, they chose a future 401(k) for
their employees. It was maximum flexibility because these union
agreements were much different among the airlines and the financial
conditions of the airlines were very much different. We wanted to give
choice for flexibility for the financial management of the corporations
to keep their promise to their workers, and we wanted to keep our
promise that Congress made under our laws that workers' retirement
ought to be protected. So there was maximum flexibility.
OK, everybody agreed to this, and then later on, people wanted to
change the rules in the middle of the game to benefit one airline over
another airline. So the proponents of the present law, the present
distraction from our compromise that was made less than 2 years ago,
will tell you that just before passage of the Pension Act, an agreement
was reached with Senate leadership that the Senate would take the first
available opportunity in the next Congress to offer the same set of
rules to carriers who do not freeze their pension plans. If that is
true, then why did we worry and try to make this compromise over a
period of 7 months during 2006? We wouldn't have had to spend the time
to do that.
On January 4, 2007, Senator Hutchison and Senator Cornyn introduced a
bill that loosened the rules for those carriers that did not freeze
their plans. The bill increased the current interest rate of 6 percent
to 8.25 percent, which, in their view, is closer to the 8.85-percent
rate given to frozen plans.
The bill was referred to the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee. I don't recall Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Enzi
considering the Hutchison-Cornyn bill in

[[Page S3562]]

the normal course of the committee process. I know for a fact that
neither Chairman Baucus nor I considered the Hutchison-Cornyn bill in
the Finance Committee.
Language that was identical to Hutchison-Cornyn was slipped into the
war supplemental conference agreement. This action was taken without
consideration by the two committees of jurisdiction over pensions, the
very same two committees that worked for several months during 2006 to
work out this carefully crafted compromise that took into consideration
the financial conditions of the various airlines, the desire of some
airlines to freeze their pensions and substitute 401(k)s and those
airlines that wanted to keep their pension system going as was, without
any consideration to the people who worked on this for so long.
It was slipped into the conference agreement of an appropriations
bill. Isn't that the process we here in the Senate are trying to put an
end to? No promises were broken. The promise to make the rules the same
was taken up in this Congress. Specifically, the Senate Finance
Committee included the provision we are debating today and the
modification of the chairman's mark of the Federal Aviation
Administration authorization bill. The mark was considered by the full
Senate Finance Committee in September of last year. The full committee
overwhelmingly supported that provision and favorably reported it out
of committee. Proponents of this amendment cannot stand on the Senate
floor and cannot in good conscience argue that promises made to them
were not kept.
Let me remind my colleagues that we here in the Senate have a
committee process which enables Members to debate and dispense with
issues in an orderly process. Without this orderly process, the
democratic process our Founding Fathers gave us breaks down. I didn't
serve as chairman and now ranking member of the Finance Committee to
let an orderly and democratic process break down, particularly
considering the months of compromise the House and Senate took to work
out what that pension bill was all about.
For my Senate colleagues to suggest that a provision that was not
considered during the normal course of the committee process is making
good on a promise that was made to them--I think that is not
acceptable. For my Senate colleagues who, alternately, contend that the
promises that were made to them were not kept, I ask them why they did
not speak up during the full and open deliberation that occurred in the
Finance Committee in September. Why are they now opposing a provision
that was out there in the clear light of day for over 7 months and, if
they had problems with the provisions, not speak to us about them? Or
is it that the airline carriers that oppose this provision finally woke
up? I don't know. Did they wake up to the fact that their blatant end
run around the committee process would not go unnoticed and they wanted
to find some way to undo the careful compromise of 2006? I am
skeptical, of course. ``Skeptical'' is an understatement.
But let me turn to the policy in the Finance Committee bill. As we
have established, opponents of that provision successfully increased
the interest rate for nonfrozen plans to 8.25 percent. They say the
8.25-percent rate levels the playing field. I admit that and agree with
them. But it only levels the playing field in the context of
calculating past liabilities. So I agree it is equitable to allow all
the carriers to use the more favorable interest rate to calculate past
liabilities, but it is not equitable to allow carriers that did not
freeze their plans to underfund benefits earned in the future and maybe
get us back to the position we are still in somewhat, even regardless
of the law that is now on the books. This is what is going to happen if
we do not do something about it right now.
I would like to correct the manner in which my distinguished
colleague from Illinois--and he is here on the floor--refers to the now
infamous 8.25 percent, versus the 8.85 percent. These are not
``earnings rates.'' The rates are not used to determine the value of
plan assets. Instead, the rates are discount rates that actuaries use
to determine the present value of pension liabilities. Basically, the
rates are used to determine how much a company has to contribute today
to make good on the promised pension payments that would be due when an
employee retires.
This is an important distinction because when a company uses a higher
interest to project the present value, the company is able to
understate--or I would use the word ``mask''--the promised pension
payments. This understatement allows the company to contribute less
money to the plan. Less money to the plan is an important distinction
because we are talking about protecting workers and their pension
rights.
Why would a worker support a policy that places the full value of
their promised pension payments in jeopardy? My colleague from Illinois
contends that the workers of the carriers in question support this
practice and, of course, the Durbin-Hutchison amendment. Most workers I
know ask for bigger payments or at least want to make sure they are
secure in retirement. It is usually management that wants to short the
worker. That is why we get into the trouble we are in and why the
Pension Act of 2006 was necessary.
But let me get back to what the war supplemental actually
accomplished. Carriers that are currently using the 8.25-percent
interest rate are now permitted, No. 1, to mask the pension plan's
unfunded liabilities and, No. 2, contribute less money to a pension
plan. The greater extent to which a pension plan is underfunded, the
greater the risks to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the
Federal insurer of the pension plans. Then, obviously, if that comes up
short, the taxpayers pick up the bill.
Opponents of the Finance Committee provision argue that the most
important risk factor for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is
the financial health of a plan sponsor. This is not entirely true.
Whether a plan is underfunded is an equally important risk factor.
Specifically, if the company goes into bankruptcy and pushes the
pension liabilities onto the PBGC, guess who is holding the bag for
those unfunded liabilities--it is the PBGC. In the most extreme cases,
then the taxpayers might be left holding the bag.
My opponents cannot tell half of the story. Yes, the financial health
of the plan sponsor is important, but so is the funding status of the
plan. What we have here is an issue of underfunding. I told you that
from an actuarial perspective, higher interest rates mean lower plan
liabilities. When a plan's sponsor uses a higher interest rate to
determine its liability, the sponsor is effectively masking the plan's
liabilities. In other words, the plan's liabilities are artificially
understated. I want to emphasize the word ``artificial'' because what
we have here is a case where the carriers that oppose the Finance
Committee provision are trying to take advantage of a special funding
rule based on an artificial funding status.
I went to great lengths to say to my colleagues during 2006 how we
tried to take into consideration--between the two committees, the Labor
Committee and the Finance Committee--considerations of the different
financial conditions of the various air carriers and to give them some
choice. Specifically, if a plan sponsor using the normal 6-percent rate
is 100 percent funded, the plan sponsor is only required to contribute
money to cover the current year's costs. If the plan is, say, 115
percent funded, the plan sponsor may use the excess to cover the
current year liabilities. In some cases, the plan sponsor will not have
to contribute any money because the excess would cover the current year
costs. Carriers that are using the 8.25-percent are contending that,
because their plan is 116 percent funded, they do not have to make the
current year contribution. The problem here is that the 116-percent
funding status is artificial. It is artificial because the 8.25 rate
effectively masks the underfunding of the plan.

So I ask my Senate colleagues, should a plan that is artificially
funded be permitted to avail itself of a rule that is only available to
plans that are adequately funded? Or put another way--this is fuzzy
funding math. It is fuzzy in the way it puts the plan at risk. Should
plans that are artificially funded be allowed to skip making their
current year contributions? In that case, are they not just digging the
hole deeper?

[[Page S3563]]

The Finance Committee provision says that if these carriers use the
8.25-percent rate, which results in an artificial funding level, these
carriers cannot skip their current year's contributions. So the Finance
Committee provision makes good on the promise that was made to Senators
during the year 2006; that is, that we are allowing carriers that did
not freeze their plans to use a more favorable interest rate to
determine their past liabilities--the same deal that was given to
frozen plans. What we are also saying, however, is that if you are
using the more favorable rate, you have to contribute the current
year's cost. That is the grand compromise of 2006.
Again, the same deal was given to the other set of airlines and/or
other corporations--to freeze their plan. To do otherwise would, No. 1,
adversely affect active workers and, No. 2, allow these carriers to dig
a deeper hole by allowing pension liabilities to continue to grow.
Moreover, taxpayers can end up being on the hook for these unfunded
liabilities.
It all comes down to this bottom line: Workers, retirees, and
taxpayers are in better shape if there is more money in the retirement
plans. Workers, retirees, and taxpayers are in worse shape if there is
less money in the retirement plans. Management wins if the company puts
less money into the plan and workers, retirees, and taxpayers lose.
A vote for this amendment is a vote to put less money in the
retirement plan. A vote against this amendment is a vote to put more
money in.
Let me make sure I said that right. A vote for the amendment is a
vote to put less money in the retirement plan. A vote against the
amendment is a vote to put more money into the retirement plan. If you
vote for the amendment, you are putting workers and retirees--and you
ought to be concerned about taxpayers, most of all--at risk.
I hope my colleagues join me in opposing this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I greatly respect the Senator from Iowa. I
know he may have to leave, but I do have to tell him I disagree with
several things he said.
First, the point he raised: Why wasn't I in the Finance Committee
stating my position? I am not a member of that committee and I do not
know the procedure that was followed by the committee.
I will tell you, in this Federal Aviation Administration
authorization bill, this is the only pension provision. To think this
is a pension bill and we should have been forewarned that airline
pensions would be part of the discussion about keeping America's skies
safer and air travel safer came as somewhat of a surprise.
I learned of this amendment last week. I have known for a long time
the position of the chairman and ranking member in opposition to my
position on this issue, and I knew the day would come when we would
revisit it.
But there are several things here which I think have to be said:
First, freezing a pension plan might not sound like much unless you are
a retiree. A frozen pension, which is what we are talking about with
some airlines, would disqualify new workers from qualifying for the
pension and restrict the airline from expanding any benefits under the
retirement plan.
That is a frozen plan. That is what happened with several airlines as
they faced and went into bankruptcy. They froze their plans. They said
to their retirees: Times are tough. We cannot cover new employees. We
cannot give you anything more; it is frozen.
Now, they were given pretty good treatment by the Finance Committee.
In fact, they were given the most preferred treatment of any
corporations in America. They were allowed to fund their pension plan
over a longer period of time than any company in America, 17 years, and
they started with an imputed assumption of 8.85 in terms of--as the
Senator from Iowa called it the discount rate or others, the interest
rate. But they were given this preferred position. It applied to two
airlines, Northwest and Delta.
Now, what about the rest of the airlines? They were put in a
different category. In their situations, airlines such as American
Airlines did not freeze their pension plans; new workers came into
their pension plans; benefits could be improved in their pension plans.
They were told: You will not be given the preferred treatment given
to those that freeze their pension plans. It seems like it is upside
down. You would think we would be benefitting those companies that are
trying to do better by their employees. But, instead, we went the other
way and said: We limit their catchup funding and liability to 10 years
and the imputed interest to 8.25 percent, not as good a deal, and in
the world of hundreds of millions of dollars, a very expensive
difference between frozen pension plans and those that still have
active defined benefit plans.
So now comes the argument with this new amendment in the Federal
Aviation Administration authorization bill, that we have to freeze the
current level of contributions being given by the airlines. Well, let
me give you an example of what that means. In the instance of American
Airlines, they have not only funded their liability to 100 percent,
they have added more, despite the tough economic times.
Their funding level is 115 percent. It is not as if they are trying
to pull anything over on their workers and retirees, they are putting
more money in than they are required, even in these tough times.
The effect of this amendment, if it is not removed, is to hold them
at that 115 percent contribution. What does it mean to the airlines
such as American? It means $1 billion over 5 years. It means $200
million each year to keep the funding level way beyond the 100 percent
that is necessary.
Now, if these were prosperous times, and these were companies that
were making money, having record profits, you might be able to make
that argument. I am not sure how, but you might be able to make it. But
exactly the opposite is true.
I think the Senator from Iowa knows as well as I do how many airlines
have gone bankrupt. The first time I met the Senator from Iowa, we were
flying together on Ozark Airlines. That goes back a few years. Then we
were flying together on TWA. That goes back a few years. And these
airlines are gone. In the last few weeks, another five airlines are
gone. This is a very risky business with the cost of jet fuel.
To say: Well, this will not hurt the airlines, another $200 million a
year, just have them keep overfunding their pension liability is to
ignore the obvious. As dangerous as it may be to have an unfunded
pension plan, it is even more dangerous to be working at a company that
goes into bankruptcy. I have been with companies that have gone through
this PBGC. They do not always come out whole at the end of the day.
There are limits on what the PBGC will pay, in terms of outstanding
benefits to workers. They can end up with less.
So what we have is a circumstance where the Finance Committee is
wanting to roll the dice. They want to bet that American airlines in
general, not the American Airlines but American airlines in general,
that do not have frozen benefits plans are going to start making a lot
of money. They seem to think the price of a barrel of oil is going to
go down; they think the cost of jet fuel is going to go down; they
think these airlines are going to be flush with cash and be able to
overfund their pensions.
Well, that is one possibility, but you would have to say, looking at
what has happened over the last several weeks, not very likely; it is
more likely that airlines will continue to face the pressure of
increasing energy and fuel costs, more airlines will be flirting with
bankruptcy, they will be struggling to meet the bottom line.
United Airlines laid off 1,000 workers last week, a $500 million loss
in the first quarter. I think it is the largest they have ever
sustained. Things do not look that rosy.
What Senator Hutchison and I are saying is be careful. Do not toy
with the pensions of so many workers. Do not bet the farm, even an Iowa
corn farm, on the possibility that things are going to get better for
the airlines. Be conservative. Be careful. But protect the workers in
the meantime. So as you listen to the Senator from Iowa close and say:
Well, if you want to put more money in the pension system,

[[Page S3564]]

vote against this amendment. If you want to take money out, vote for
it.
I would say to the Senator, there is only one problem with his
argument: 150,000 of the 180,000 workers affected by your amendment
support the Durbin-Hutchison amendment. They believe it is far better
to maintain the current system of funding, not jeopardize these
airlines so they might go into bankruptcy, have fair funding that makes
sure these retirement benefits can continue to be paid. That is a fact.
When Senator Baucus, the chairman of the committee, came to the floor
earlier, he said he wants to level the playing field. Well, the current
law is already unfair. The field is far from level. And section 808
makes this inequity even worse, even worse.
It tips the playing field heavily on the side of Delta and Northwest
at the expense of the other airlines, the five that would be hit by
this. I urge my colleagues, if we are going to err, let's err on the
side of caution. Caution tells us: Good funding of the pension
liabilities in a difficult economic climate, with airlines going into
bankruptcy, listen to the workers whose pensions are at stake and vote
for the Durbin-Hutchison amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Durbin and
Senator Hutchison, the senior Senator from Texas, along with Senators
Brown, Voinovich, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, and Senator
Lautenberg from New Jersey in support of this amendment which would
strike section 808 of the FAA reauthorization bill.
I would like to explain why. The 30,000-foot view is, if enacted, it
would impose a significant and unfair burden on airlines that have done
the most to provide for secure retirements for their former employees
or their employees who will retire.
This amendment will make sure Congress does not jeopardize the
pensions of 50,000 of my constituents in Texas who depend on the
airline industry for their retirement, their nest egg, that they will
retire on when they leave active duty.
Also, if this amendment is passed, it will relieve a significant
competitive disadvantage some airlines, not coincidentally a couple
headquartered in my State, American and Continental, would operate
under, if the Finance Committee proposal would prevail.
That is why I support striking section 808 of the FAA authorization
bill. Section 808 would undermine the ability of some airlines to
maintain their commitments to their workers at a time when our economy
is becoming softer and more questions than answers are apparent with
regard to what our economic future, at least in the short term, is
going to look like. It would reduce the financial flexibility of
airlines, precisely at a time when they need it the most.
Now, I think a little refresher on recent history is important.
Because what has actually happened is, in 2006, the Pension Protection
Act was passed, and to be blunt about it, what happened is it
benefitted airlines such as Delta and some others around the country,
while American and Continental were basically told to wait, there will
be an opportunity later on to come back to take care of your concerns
and level the playing field and to eliminate the preferential treatment
that was given to some other airlines during the Pension Protection Act
of 2006.
So patiently we waited. Last year's supplemental appropriations bill
was the vehicle we used to correct the inequitable treatment created
for airlines such as Continental and American in the Pension Protection
Act of 2006. The act included language that is in the supplemental
appropriations bill, language out of S. 119, that I introduced with
Senator Hutchison. As I said, it corrected the inequity that was
earlier created in the Pension Protection Act of 2006.
But now, section 808 in the Finance Committee provision would simply
undo the corrective action that Congress undertook in the supplemental
appropriations bill I mentioned a moment ago. It should not be a part
of the bill, I would also say, that is about improving and modernizing
the air traffic control system in this country. Why would we be messing
with the pensions of 50,000 Texans who depend on those two major
airlines for their retirement benefits in this bill? It makes no sense.
I believe it is unfair and would reverse the corrective action we
were able to accomplish in last year's supplemental appropriations
bill. I have worked hard, along with my colleagues I mentioned, to make
sure those folks who work in the airline industry will have a pension
when they retire. I will continue to do so. I sincerely believe that
passing the Finance Committee provision, section 808, would jeopardize
their retirement benefits; could, in all probability, result in more
airlines becoming bankrupt with tremendous uncertainty injected in
terms of how their pensions would be protected.
At a time when airlines and their employees are facing enormous
challenges, Congress should not pull the carpet out from under their
feet and get in the business of picking winners and losers by giving
some airlines preferential treatment over other airlines.
I wish to extend my gratitude to the Senator from Illinois, Mr.
Durbin, and my colleague, Senator Hutchison, for their leadership on
this issue. I am proud to join them in this bipartisan amendment, which
would strike section 808 of the FAA authorization bill, as I have
described, and would, I think, make sure that what we do is keep the
level playing field, not jeopardize the pensions of thousands of
airline workers and would comport with fundamental fairness and equity.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15
minutes as in morning business on the energy crisis taking place in our
country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Energy Crisis

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I think virtually everyone in America
understands our country is in extremely difficult straits; that the
middle class is collapsing; that poverty is increasing; and that one of
the immediate factors that is driving so many Americans over the edge
is outrageously high energy prices.
This impacts every community in America, but it especially impacts
rural States such as the State of Vermont, where workers are forced to
drive long distances to work and end up spending an inordinate amount
of money at the gas tank.
It is not uncommon in my State for people to travel 100 miles a day
to work and back. If you do the arithmetic, you will find that in many
cases, as oil prices and gas price have risen, people today are paying
$1,000 a year more than a year and a half ago to fill up their gas
tanks.
If you are a worker earning $30,000 or $35,000 a year, and you got a
3-percent increase in your wages, that is pretty good; in some cases
all of your wage increase is going down that gas tank. You have to pay
higher health care costs, higher educational costs, higher property
taxes, and you are in a lot of trouble, which is why the middle class
in America is, in fact, shrinking significantly.
Not only is this a major crisis in terms of what is happening at the
gas pump, there is also severe worry about what happens next winter
when people have to fill up their home heating oil furnaces and stay
warm in the winter in States such as Vermont.
I can tell you that all over my State, a lot of senior citizens and
other people are extremely worried about how they are going to stay
warm next winter with the price of home heating fuel soaring to the
degree it is.
Meanwhile, while prices at the gas pump are soaring, while home
heating oil and diesel fuel are soaring, the profits of huge oil
companies are going up to recordbreaking levels; hedge fund managers
make billions speculating on oil futures, and OPEC continues to
function as a price-fixing cartel in violation of World Trade
Organization rules.
The average price for a gallon of gas recently hit a record breaking
$3.60 a gallon, which has more than doubled since President Bush has
been in office. The price of diesel fuel is now averaging over $4.17 a
gallon, which is a $1.36 more than a year ago, and the price of oil is
well over $114 a barrel. These prices say it all. What they say is we
have a national emergency on our

[[Page S3565]]

hands. It is absolutely imperative for the Congress to begin to act in
order to lessen this onerous burden on tens of millions of families.
These record-breaking oil and gas prices at the pump are impacting not
only consumers of oil and gas but, obviously, our entire economy. They
are impacting family farmers, small businesses, airlines, grocery
stores, restaurants, tourism and, of course, the price of food. This
national oil emergency demands both short-term and long-term solutions.
One of the issues that concerns me is, I hear people getting up and
saying: Long term, we have to transform our energy system away from
fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. There is
nobody in the Senate who believes that more than I do. We are on the
cusp of a major transformation of our energy system. We need an Apollo-
type project to invest heavily in wind, solar, and geothermal energy
efficiency. We can do that. In the process, we can create millions of
good-paying jobs. We have made a start in that direction, but we have
not gone far enough. But to say we must focus on long-term solutions
does not mean we can ignore the immediate crisis. Yes, we have to break
our dependency on fossil fuel, but that is not going to solve the
problem for a worker in Vermont who is paying $3.50 for a gallon of gas
today. We have to address his and her problem as well. So it is not
either/or. Yes, we break our dependency on fossil fuel and move to
sustainable energy, but we also address the crisis of today. We tell
workers all over this country that we understand they cannot afford to
pay outrageous prices for gas.
There have been literally dozens of ideas from both sides of the
aisle, good ideas, an understanding of the crisis as to why oil prices
are soaring and also good ideas as to how we might solve the problem. I
applaud all of those Senators who have come up with ideas. But it seems
to me if we are going to be successful in helping the average American,
we have to come forward with a comprehensive package. It is not good
enough to say: I have an amendment in this bill and I have some
language in that bill which may come about in 2 years or may never come
about, and I have something over there. What we need is a comprehensive
piece of legislation which understands the cause of this crisis is not
just one thing--it is a multipronged problem which is causing oil
prices to soar, and we will not solve this crisis through one simple
action. We need a series of actions, but we have to bring our solutions
together in a comprehensive package which says to the American people
if that package is passed, oil and gas prices are going down. That is
what we need to do.
I have been working with a number of my colleagues in order to do
that. Let me briefly talk about what I believe should be in that
package. It is about four provisions that could play a major role in
lowering gas prices today. First, we need to impose an excise tax on
the profits of the oil and gas industry. The American people simply do
not understand why they are paying record-breaking prices at the pump
while ExxonMobil has made more profits than any company in history in
the last 2 years. Last year alone, ExxonMobil made $40 billion in
profits, and they rewarded their CEO with a $21 million package in
total compensation. A couple of years ago, they rewarded their former
CEO, Lee Raymond, with a retirement package of $400 million. But it is
not ExxonMobil alone. We have seen BP come in the other day with a 63-
percent increase in their profits. Shell made a huge increase in their
profits.
Since President Bush has been President, the five largest oil
companies have made over $595 billion in profits, and that number is
only going to go up as the oil companies report last quarter's profits.
Last year alone, the major oil companies made over $155 billion in
profits. People are sitting at home saying: I can't afford to fill up
my gas tank to go to work, and ExxonMobil and Conoco and Shell, all the
big oil companies, are making huge profits. What is the Congress doing
about it?
Well, up to now, the truth is, the Congress is doing nothing about
it. Obviously, the President is not doing anything about it. But I
think most people understand the President and Vice President are never
going to do anything to represent the interests of ordinary Americans.
The question is, what do we do about it? The time is now that we should
move forward with an excise profits tax. If we enacted a 23-percent
excise tax on oil company profits, that would bring in about $35
billion this year. That sum of money would be enough to provide a 6-
month suspension in Federal gas and diesel taxes and would also allow
States to suspend all or part of their gas and diesel taxes as well. In
other words, we are not just talking about Federal taxes; we are
talking about State taxes. That would lower gas prices at the pump by
almost 37 cents a gallon and up to 48.8 cents for diesel during the
next 6 months. Is that going to solve all of the problems? No. But if
you can't afford to get to work right now, it will help. Having an
excise profits tax on the oil companies is only one of the things we
should be doing.
Congress has to also address another area where there is strong
evidence that speculators, both in hedge funds and in other financial
institutions, are driving the price of oil to outrageously high levels.
What we have to address is undoing the so-called Enron loophole. This
loophole was created in 2000, as part of the Commodities Futures
Modernization Act. At the behest of Enron lobbyists, a provision in
that bill was inserted in the dark of night with no congressional
hearings. Specifically, the Enron loophole exempts electronic energy
trading from Federal commodities laws. Virtually overnight the loophole
freed over-the-counter energy trading from Federal oversight
requirements, opening the door to excessive speculation and energy
price manipulation. Of course, nobody knows exactly what the impact of
the Enron loophole is. But we do know huge amounts of money are being
made, not simply in the production of oil but in driving oil futures
prices up.
Let me quote Stephen Simon, a senior vice president of ExxonMobil, on
April 1, 2008, in recent testimony before the House:

The price of oil should be about $50 to $55 per barrel.

Right now it is more than double that. He attributes the addition,
the almost doubling of the price, to speculation that is taking place.
Closing the Enron loophole would subject electronic energy markets to
proper regulatory oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation. I applaud
Senators Levin, Feinstein, Dorgan, and others who have focused on this
issue. In addition to an excise profits tax on the oil companies, we
must go after the speculation on the part of people within hedge funds
and in the financial institutions industry who are simply playing
games, making money, and driving the price of oil up. Those are two
important steps we must take to lower the price of gas and oil.
Thirdly, the Bush administration must stop the flow of oil into the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and, in fact, release oil from this Federal
stockpile. At a time of record-breaking prices, it makes no sense to
continue to take oil off the market and put it into the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. This is not just my opinion. We have seen staff at
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve recommend against buying more oil for
the SPR in the spring of 2002. This is not a new idea. The truth is,
this is an idea that has been used before under Democratic and
Republican administrations. For example, when President Clinton ordered
the release of 30 million barrels of crude oil from the SPR in 2000,
the price of gas fell by 14 cents a gallon in 2 weeks. When the first
President Bush released 13 million barrels of crude oil from SPR in
1991, crude oil prices dropped by over $10 a barrel. This is an
approach which has been used in the past. It has worked in the past,
and it is something we should do right now. That is the third provision
I believe we should undertake.
Further, and in terms of where I think the comprehensive package
should be, we must begin to address the OPEC cartel. I hear a lot of
folks around here talk about the wonders of the free market and
capitalism and free enterprise. But every single Member of the Senate
understands that by definition, OPEC is a cartel. That is what they
are. They are a group of oil-producing nations that come together

[[Page S3566]]

to control oil production, to limit oil production, and, therefore, to
artificially raise the price of oil. That is what a cartel is, and that
is what OPEC is doing.
In that regard, we have to do two things. No. 1, the President must
file a complaint with the World Trade Organization. The truth is, OPEC
itself is a violation of the rules of the WTO which is presumably about
creating the free flow of goods and free trade. On the surface, OPEC is
in violation of those rules and agreements. The second thing we must do
is to tell people in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, people whom American
soldiers died for in 1991, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait:
Friendship is a two-way street. We protected you in 1991. Now the
United States economy and much of the world's economy is in serious
trouble. What you, Saudi Arabia, have to do is increase the production
of oil.
My understanding is that right now Saudi Arabia is producing less oil
than they did 2 years ago. There are experts who believe Saudi Arabia
can produce almost 2 million barrels a day of oil more than they are
currently producing.
So that is where we are. Where we are right now is, we have a
national crisis. We have working people suffering and wondering about
how they are going to be able to afford to get to work or keep warm in
the wintertime, at the same time as oil companies are enjoying
recordbreaking profits, and at the same time as speculators are making
billions and billions of dollars in profits.
Now, it is no secret--everybody knows--that the oil and gas industry
is enormously powerful. Everybody understands these people have spent
hundreds of millions of dollars in the last 10 years on lobbying, and
we know their lobbyists are hard at work at this very moment. We know
those people have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars in
campaign contributions. That is the reality and that is the American
political system. That is the way it is. It is a system we have to
change, but that is the way it is.
I think the time is now for the Congress and for the Senate to begin
to stand up to these very powerful special interests. I think we need a
comprehensive energy approach, and I have outlined it. I think we need
a long-term approach moving away from fossil fuels to sustainable
energy. I think we need a short-term approach, and I have outlined the
four provisions I believe should be in it.
Let me conclude by saying this: The crisis we are facing as a nation
is not just an energy crisis. It is a crisis as to whether the American
people have faith in their own Government, in the people they elect. It
is no secret that the President's approval ratings are perhaps as low
as any President in American history, and the approval ratings of this
Congress are even lower. That is the simple reality.
We are a democratic society. When people have problems, they look to
their elected officials to respond to those problems and, hopefully, to
address them. If we cannot do that, I am not quite sure why we are
here. If the oil companies and the gas companies are so powerful with
all of their money and their lobbyists and their campaign contributions
that we cannot address the crisis facing working Americans, well, maybe
we should rethink about what we do here.
But I think we can do something, and I have outlined what I think is
a series of ideas that, if passed, would address, in a very significant
way, this crisis. I look forward to working with my colleagues to do
just that.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Foreclosure Crisis

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, as I come to the floor to speak this afternoon,
millions of Americans are struggling to hold on to their homes in the
wake of the foreclosure crisis. Thousands of them have lost their jobs,
just in the last couple of months. Millions more are finding it harder
just to get by because sky-high oil prices are forcing many of our
families to pay more at the pump, more at the grocery store, and more
in their power bills.
Yet while all of these working families are scrimping so hard today,
the economic downturn has not even registered for one segment of
America--big oil. The major oil companies reported their profits this
week, and they are seeing record increases.
ConocoPhillips reported first quarter profits of $4.1 billion. That
beats their previous record by $600 million. Shell and BP are also
reporting huge gains.
Americans do not have to look very hard to figure out where the
responsibility lies--why oil companies are seeing their profits soar--
while working families are watching their bank accounts bottom out.
Over the last 7\1/2\ years, Republicans have backed an energy policy
that does very little but gives big oil companies tax breaks and
special favors. Meanwhile, our middle-class families today are paying
the price, and they know it.
In the first month of the Bush administration, oil prices averaged
$29.50 a barrel. Almost 8 years later, that price has quadrupled. It is
almost $120 a barrel this week.
When President Bush first took office, Americans were paying just
$1.46 a gallon to fill their gas tanks. Last week, gas prices averaged
a whopping $3.60 a gallon.
I went home last week--like I always do--to Washington State, where
drivers are paying even more. A gallon of gas in Seattle, WA, costs
$3.70; up in Bellingham, near the Canadian border, $3.80.
Families across my State are telling me they are cutting back on
everything from shopping errands to summer vacations, and they are
pretty angry they have to pinch their pennies while oil companies are
making record profits.
When I travel around my State, gas prices are one of the first things
people come up and talk to me about. They have written me countless
letters about this.
For example, there is a stay-at-home mom from Yakima, WA, who wrote
me that she worries every single day because her husband now has
started riding a motorcycle to work instead of his car in order to save
money on their gas bill. She wrote to me, and I want to read to you
what she said. She said:

It is unnerving to think of him riding his motorcycle after
working a 10-plus hour shift. . . . It does not seem fair
that my middle class family has to choose between paying the
doctor--or putting gas in [our] car--while oil companies are
making record profits.

High gas prices are not just affecting our drivers. Industries from
shipping to trucking to commercial fishing in my State are all hurting.
Our farmers in Washington State are especially concerned. We have
thousands of farmers in Washington State. They grow everything from
apples to wheat. They have to plow their fields and harvest their
crops. Cutting back is not an option for them. They have no choice but
to absorb the cost of fuel.
One woman--from the southern Washington farming community of
Goldendale--just wrote to me that she and her husband are finding it
hard to pay for groceries. I want to quote what she said:

We, the little people, are struggling. Meanwhile, the gas
companies are still netting billions. When is it going to
stop? Something needs to be done to stop the nonsense.

That is how a farmer's wife from southwest Washington sees it.
Republicans have supported the energy policy of tax breaks for the
oil companies because, they say, oil prices would be higher without
them. But even President Bush said that was not true. In April of 2006,
he said:

Congress has got to understand that these energy companies
don't need unnecessary tax breaks like the write-offs of
certain geological and geophysical expenditures--or the use
of taxpayers' monies to subsidize energy companies' research
into deep-water drilling.

That was President Bush.
The reality is, not only have Republicans allowed oil companies to
make record profits while gas prices have soared, but their policies
have made us

[[Page S3567]]

more dependent on foreign oil than ever before. That has put our
economy and our national security at risk. The amount of money we have
sent to OPEC countries, such as Saudi Arabia, has skyrocketed from $41
billion to $140 billion since 2001. Just this week, the president of
OPEC said oil prices could go as high as $200 a barrel.
Now, I come to the floor to talk about this today because over the
last several days we have seen a parade of Republican Senators coming
to the floor complaining about high gas prices. In many cases, they
have been blaming Democrats for failing to address this crisis over the
past 16 months. They are bringing out charts that show the price of gas
when Democrats took over in Congress and the price now, and they ask
all of us to simply forget the real reason for this crisis; that is,
the misguided energy policy this administration has pursued for over 6
years.
But I have to tell you, the people in my State and the American
people are not going to forget. They are not going to forget it was
this administration that asked oil and gas companies to write that
energy plan. They are not going to forget that the only real idea
coming from the other side is to drill our way out of this problem. And
they will not forget this is an administration closer to the oil and
gas industry than any in U.S. history.
Now, we are not going to forget either, and that is why we are
fighting for change. We have already won higher fuel economy standards
and new investments in renewable energy sources. We all know we need to
do more. We know that Americans cannot rely on big oil to solve our
energy problems.
People in my home State of Washington are worried. They are worried
about the future. They want to be sure their kids are going to have
economic security. They want a solution to our energy problems that is
going to keep us safe and protect our environment for the long
term. Democrats have been fighting for policies that will help cut our
gas prices, help to create jobs, and help keep our air and our water
clean and, importantly, our Nation secure. We are going to keep up that
fight. We know it is not going to be easy. The oil companies and those
who support them are not going to give up on the status quo. Still, I
hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will see what I see
when I go home: Americans have had enough. I hope they will join us in
investing in America's future and putting our working families first
again.

Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Kennedy are located in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Presdient, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask you to let me know when I have
spoken for 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will advise.

Energy

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to address a serious issue
and that is the dramatically rising cost of energy and its impact on
American families. The problem with rising gas prices compounds the
pain felt in the American economy. Today we learned the economy had
stalled to a paltry .6-percent growth rate. If you factor out the
highest 10 percent in income, the remaining 90 percent of Americans are
clearly experiencing a recession. Only people at the very high end--the
wealthiest, the best educated, by and large--are experiencing
significant increases in income, and when you factor that out,
everybody else is experiencing decreases in income. The vast majority
of Americans are already in a recession, and they do not need any
statistic to tell them that.
It is also obvious from today's data that the entire economy has
stalled. The last time we had two significant quarters such as this, we
were battling a recession in the 1990s. Americans are being squeezed at
every possible pressure point--at the gas pump--I am going to talk
about this issue later--the grocery store, by their mortgage company,
and by their employers. Just because President Bush will not say the
word does not mean Americans are not feeling like we are in a
recession. If we look at income numbers for most Americans, that is
absolutely true.
It is long past time for the President to work with the Congress to
help get this economy and American families back on track. If President
Bush simply gives speeches and brings out the same old saws, we know he
does not want to work with us. He is simply trying to say: I am out
here talking about this, but there is no real solution. Imagine, the
solution to the oil crisis is ANWR, the Alaskan oil reserve, which has
been defeated even in a Republican-controlled Congress, which would not
produce a drop of oil for 10 years and would bring no relief to the
American driver. But I guess it is better than saying nothing, at least
if you are the President of the United States.
With regular gasoline prices in States such as mine already over
$3.75 a gallon--over $4 a gallon in many other States--and with the
entire national average threatening to surpass $4 a gallon this summer,
it is no surprise Americans are outraged as they hear about record
profits for both the big oil companies and OPEC. Sometimes I wonder if
there is any difference because OPEC and the big oil companies are
almost always in cahoots.
Gas prices are 63 cents higher than last year, more than double in
the time since President Bush took office, and they show no intention
of slowing down. Shockingly, our very own President responded with a
surprise to a question at the end of February about the likelihood of
$4-a-gallon gasoline by saying:

That's interesting. I hadn't heard that.

Well, Mr. President, I hope you hear us now because gas is at $4 a
gallon already in many places in America, and it is only going higher.
The only people who are happy about $4-a-gallon gasoline are big oil
companies and OPEC in the Middle East.
We know the reason prices keep going up, of course, is in good part,
world demand is increasing. We know, too, in the long run, we will not
be able to reverse this price increase if we do not have a real energy
policy. In fact, we have had no energy policy since President Bush took
office. If you think it is energy policy to say let the oil companies
do what they want, you are sadly mistaken. That is why we have $4-a-
gallon gasoline.
This administration's energy policy is simply of, by, and for big oil
and OPEC, of course, their partners, their buddies benefit. So in the
long run, we need a comprehensive plan. We need conservation--that is
the cheapest and easiest way to get lower prices--and we need new
production of alternatives and also, in a reasonable and sound
environmental way, new production of fossil fuels in America.
But we are also looking for some short-term ways to reduce the price
of gasoline because even should we embark on a long-term energy policy
that makes sense--and I am hopeful under the next administration, the
new President, she or he, will make sure that happens--there are things
we can at least attempt to do in the short term because people cannot
wait 4, 5, 6 years to begin reducing the price. Even if tomorrow we
were to implement a comprehensive policy, it would not be enough, it
would not happen quickly enough.
So what can be done in the short term? One of the most important
things that could be done quickly in the short term is to increase
supply in existing reserves. The one country that has ample supply and
has held back is our good ``ally''--and I use that word in quotes--the
Saudis. The Saudis should

[[Page S3568]]

begin to understand that their relationship with America is a two-way
street. They want our weapons, they want our troops to provide them
with protection, but then they rake us over the coals when it comes to
the price of oil.
The Saudis and big oil are in cahoots, and this administration has
coddled both of them for far too long. There is no better evidence of
this cozy cooperation than BP and Shell reporting record earnings this
week and ExxonMobil and others on deck to do the same.
The bottom line--the sad bottom line--is the whole Bush tax cut for
middle-class families this year will line the pockets of OPEC. Let me
repeat that. The whole Bush tax cut for middle-class families this year
will line the pockets of OPEC. People will pay out more because of the
increase in energy prices than they got back on any tax rebate. The
stimulus checks we are all so proud people are receiving, the stimulus
checks families will receive in the mail next month will, in all
likelihood, go to paying eye-popping gas and grocery bills this summer
and end up in the coffers of countries such as Saudi Arabia. Therefore,
people will pay more for gasoline this year than they will receive from
their stimulus checks. It is galling to think our stimulus checks will
be lining the pockets of OPEC.
Yet despite all this, last week, Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister said
there was no need to increase supplies by even one barrel of oil.
However, as they are saying no, no, no to U.S. consumers, the Saudis
are planning to double oil production for China.

Despite record billion-dollar profits, it seems the big oil
producers, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait,
are willing to turn a blind eye to the supply demands and leave
Americans with skyrocketing prices at the pump. In Saudi's case, they
have not produced as much oil in the last 2 years as they did in 2005.
I urge my colleagues to take a look at this chart when they get a
chance because it says it all. Here is Saudi oil production in 2005. It
is lower in 2006 and lower still in 2007. This is not new production
they have to explore for, this is not something where they have to
change things around. They can order the new production and we could
have millions of extra barrels of oil a day out there in the markets
within a month or two, and the price would come down significantly.
The countries are putting profits straight into their pockets. So
that is why I, along with four others of my colleagues, have demanded
the Bush administration stipulate that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab
Emirates, and Kuwait must increase their oil production or risk that
Congress will block their lucrative arms deals while they stick it to
American consumers at the gas pump.
The administration has proposed selling roughly $14 billion in arms
to gulf countries that are members of OPEC, and it is clear to us that
without pressure from this administration, oil prices will continue to
rise as countries such as Saudi Arabia will continue to reap the reward
of high prices.
It is terrible that this administration, after making the American
taxpayer foot the bill for its war in Iraq, is now rewarding the very
countries that are driving up the price of oil.
Congress has the authority to block these arms deals, and we want to
put the administration on notice that if they fail to deal aggressively
with OPEC countries that are not producing at their full capacity, we
will seriously consider blocking this and other arms deals.
On their face, I question the merit of these deals, $14 billion in
arms, but it is particularly egregious when Americans are paying
through the nose to put money in the pockets of the administration's
friends in the Middle East. OPEC nations may have to protect themselves
with these weapons systems, but American consumers and our economy also
need protection from high oil prices, exacerbated by OPEC's
stranglehold on supply.
The administration needs to use all the leverage it has to influence
the OPEC cartel to stop manipulating the world's oil supply to its
member nations.
Again, to those who say we cannot do anything in the short term to
reduce prices, look again at this chart. Saudi production in 2005,
Saudi production in 2006, Saudi production in the last full year we
have numbers for, 2007, it is lower and lower. The Saudis have not kept
the supply flat; they have decreased it at a time when the world is
thirsty for oil.
At a time when the world is thirsty for oil, we know they are driving
down supply, increasing the price. Yesterday, President Bush said there
is not much you can do about the price of oil. Mr. President, we beg to
differ. Get your friends, the Saudis, get your close buddy, the King of
Saudi Arabia, to begin producing more oil. If they produce half a
million more barrels of oil a day, the price would come down a very
significant amount and at the same time it would stop the speculation
that keeps driving up the price of oil. We would get a double benefit.
We need to ask ourselves what the economic consequences are for our
Nation--not only from the long and expensive war in Iraq but from this
administration's cozy relationship with the only international
organization he seems to have any high regard for--OPEC.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is
recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we have been talking about the Durbin-
Hutchison amendment during most of the day. I have heard some of the
debate going back and forth. I want to address some of the issues
raised in the debate, trying to stop our amendment from going forward.
First, let me say I so appreciate Senator Durbin joining with me to
make sure we have a bipartisan effort that stands for the companies
that are trying desperately to keep their defined benefit plans for
pensions for their employees.
These airlines that are doing this are doing it at the same time that
the price of jet fuel has gone up exponentially. For instance, since
January 2007, a little bit more than 1 year ago, the price of jet fuel
has increased 107 percent. Continental Airlines' year-over-year
increase in fuel costs is approaching $2 billion. This year, American
Airlines' fuel bill is going to be $9.3 billion. Everybody who is
driving an automobile to their job or to pick up their children from
school knows how much it costs to fill up the tank of a car. Just
multiply that for an airline whose entire business is flying back and
forth across the country and across the globe. You can imagine what
that does to the bottom line of a business.
Here we are, looking at actually three airlines that are trying to
make their benefits the most generous they can be while they are
looking at rising fuel prices that are about to sink them. They are all
showing unprofitable months and quarters. Now we have legislation
coming forward that would take away a law that was passed last year
that attempted to equalize the airlines that have benefit plans that
are defined benefits and plans that are defined contributions, which
are 401(k)s. We want to keep the playing field as level as we can. If
you put on top of that the fact that the timing of this could not be
worse because of the rising fuel costs, it is just impossible to
imagine that the Senate will do this.
The underlying provision, it has been suggested, would have no effect
on the bottom line. Of course it is going to have an effect on the
bottom line. It requires full funding of pension obligations,
irrespective of past overfunding. In plain English, the carrier must
come up with more cash, even if they have overpaid. According to one
carrier, the new cash demand would be $1 billion over the next 3 years.
Where are we going to find that amount of cash?
Domestic fare increases are not even covering the rising cost of
fuel. As compared to January 2007, the price of jet fuel was 65 percent
higher and domestic average fares have risen 9 percent. You are
beginning to see they are not going to be able to recover this at the
fare box. But if we pass this legislation requiring one airline,
instead of putting in $80 million, to put in $350 million, how is it
going to offset those higher costs? There is only one way, and that is
higher ticket prices. Are we going to pass a law that is going to raise
ticket prices at a time when the airlines--and every American--are
feeling the pinch of this economy? I cannot even imagine we would do
that.

[[Page S3569]]

I have also heard it argued that the provision in the bill that we
are trying to eliminate is fair. The truth is the current law is
equitable and fair. Changing the current law in the manner suggested
would treat two carriers differently from the other carriers that do
not have defined benefit plans. We had the equity debate. The current
law is the product of that debate. Ask the carriers if they think the
current law is equitable. They will say yes.
The carriers that are not affected by this have told me they are
agnostic on this issue. They are not pushing for a competitive
advantage because I think all the carriers know that this is not the
time that anybody wants to go into bankruptcy and they do not even want
their competitors to go into bankruptcy because we can't handle the
commerce in this country without the airlines we have operating without
a disruption.
We settled this debate. We settled it in 2006. It was undone. We
settled it again in 2007. The law we passed must be adhered to because
these businesses made decisions based on the law.
The employees of these airlines will be the biggest losers if this
bill is allowed to stand with this provision in it. Senator Durbin and
I are trying to take this provision out to protect the employees and
to, hopefully, keep the airlines from having a hit they cannot take
right now.
I have heard the argument on this floor that the amendment we are
putting forth would mean less money to employee pensions. It is exactly
the opposite. The carriers that are hurt by this provision are trying
to do the right thing by maintaining their pensions and providing their
employees with strong retirement benefits. In fact, these impacted
carriers have been prepaying their pension obligations in good years,
showing their employees they are committed to these benefits. The
excess contributions helped ensure that, in tough times, if cash
becomes tight, the pensions of these hard-working employees are
protected and funded. If the pension rules are changed to disallow the
flexibility of using past excess contributions, they will actually
discourage overfunding of pensions. The carriers will only provide the
minimum contributions in order to preserve cash in difficult times.
Some have challenged this claim on the belief that cash contributed
to pensions can be pulled out in tough times, so they wouldn't be in
any way discouraged from overcontributing to pensions. But this is not
true. Once cash is contributed to the pension plans, it cannot be taken
out. In fact, that is one of the reasons the current law allows
companies to offset ongoing pension costs with previous overfunding. If
they couldn't do it, a company would never put extra cash into pension
funds. Instead, they would put it in a bank account where they could
get it out. In the end, a carrier would never contribute in excess to
the plan because they just couldn't do it.

Employees are at risk with the underlying provision we are trying to
take out. The cash demands this language places on the carrier trying
to secure solid pension benefits for its employees will simply be too
high. If we destabilize this environment, we could very well jeopardize
the ability of these carriers to weather the current storm, and the
outcome would be devastating to employees. Bankruptcy is not kind to
employees. Ask any person who has worked for a company that has gone
into bankruptcy. Whether it is their present livelihood or their
pensions, the employees would lose. That is why they support striking
this provision with our amendment.
The current pension laws for air carriers are fair and equitable.
They do not need changes. They especially do not need changes
retroactively, after they have made decisions to overfund pension plans
based on the law as it is today. The change could lead to disastrous
consequences for impacted carriers and especially for their employees.
Why would we take such a risk? We should be doing everything to help
these companies during difficult operating environments, not
destabilizing them, not giving advantages to some in the industry.
No one in the industry is asking for this. This is something that has
come up seemingly because there were process arguments about what bill
the fix went into. The bill that the fix went into was the only
available bill where you could put an amendment, and the amendment had
been given to all of the relevant committees, so they knew what we were
trying to do. There was nothing hidden. There was nothing sudden.
Everybody knew we were going to try to correct the inequities, as we
have all negotiated at the table to do. If you ask any of the carriers
I have spoken to, no one is asking for this to be retroactively fixed
in a different way from the present law, a law that has been relied on.
The bottom line is some airlines have overfunded their pension
obligations because they had cash and that is where they wanted to put
it, to assure employees of a safe and sound pension system, more than
the law required. American Airlines is 115 percent funded. But that was
always done because, under the present law, you had the flexibility to
just catch up with the current obligations with a credit for the
overobligation as these airlines are working out their pension plans
according to the law we passed last year and the year before.
I hope we can get a vote on the Durbin-Hutchison amendment. The
members of the committee who have worked on this--the Commerce
Committee, Senator Rockefeller, the chairman of the Aviation
Committee--have been very supportive of us having our bill, which we
worked so hard in a bipartisan way to produce, which has such good
effects for the aviation industry, not to be hobbled by an extraneous
issue that has been put in by another committee that does not have the
aviation jurisdiction but is a tax committee.
I hope we will keep the underlying bill, which is very solid. Senator
Rockefeller and I, Senator Inouye, and Senator Stevens have worked very
hard. We have a great bill. It is a bill that will fund more safety
measures. It will put more inspectors in the FAA. It is a bill that has
a passengers bill of rights--Senator Boxer has worked on this for a
long time. It will assure that passengers who are stranded in a plane
that cannot take off will have accommodations for comfort or they will
be able to get off the airplane--something we have never had before.
It is a bill that will modernize the traffic control system so we
will have more service in our country. This bill has so many good
features. I hope we can pass the Durbin-Hutchison amendment that will
keep the bill intact that was hammered out by the Commerce Committee
and not have it taken down by a tax bill, most of which has nothing to
do with aviation at all.
The aviation part of the bill is great. It is a good, solid
compromise. But the pension and the extraneous provisions are going to
sink this bill, and it will be a sad day for the consumers in the
aviation system in this country if that happens.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.

Mission Accomplished

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, tomorrow we mark the fifth anniversary of
the now infamous ``Mission Accomplished'' speech which was delivered by
President Bush on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003.
Five years ago, I took issue with the President's choreographed
political theatrics because I believed then that our military forces
deserved to be treated with respect and dignity, and not used as stage
props to embellish a Presidential speech.
The President's declaration of ``Mission Accomplished'' and the ``end
of major combat operations'' proved wildly premature and dangerously
naive. The complete lack of foresight and planning by the President for
what lay ahead became tragically clear in short order. Our Nation
continues to pay the price every single day. More than 97 percent of
the more than 4,000 Americans killed in Iraq lost their lives after

[[Page S3570]]

the President's flashy declaration of victory.
Years from now, I expect that history books will feature the sorry
``Mission Accomplished'' episode as the epitome of this
administration's reckless and arrogant foreign policy, which has reaped
disastrous consequences for our Nation and the world. We have seen a
President who is eager to use American troops for a political backdrop,
yet who is seemingly indifferent when it comes to providing those same
American troops with the equipment they need, quality health care, or a
real plan for ending this terrible war.
President Bush has said that history will judge him on his decision
to go to war in Iraq. I say that history is already delivering its
verdict. It is evident in the strains of the long and multiple
deployments that are wearing down our mighty military, and in the
sufferings of the American people as they bury their fallen heroes. It
is evident in the fear and distrust with which the rest of the world
views us, and in the instability wracking the Middle East, Iraq, and
Afghanistan as a result of the Bush policies.
President Bush has recklessly squandered more than 200 years of
American leadership, American good will, and prosperity. If that is
what he was aiming for when he took office, then he can claim ``Mission
Accomplished.'' That is his legacy. As we write the next chapter in our
Nation's history, let us commit to building a new legacy that restores
the promise of America, both at home and around the world.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I wish to inform the Presiding
Officer of a quandary. We have in front of us a bill which would come
close to rescuing the aviation industry of the United States of
America. It is a bill that the aviation industry supports. It is a bill
that the general aviation community supports. But it is not supported
by a couple of Senators, with their reasons, and we find ourselves,
therefore, in a position not to be able to move forward in the short
term. It is one of those situations when the more you wait, or the
greater the disagreement, the more people dig in.
I wish to offer my feelings which are that in a big bill such as
this, which I think would be the biggest policy bill this Congress has
passed this year if we were to do it, there are always areas of
disagreement. The trick is to work out those areas of disagreement.
That is what the floor of the Senate is for. That is what negotiations
are for.
But I do want people to understand that in the interests of
protecting certain prerogatives, protocols, our aviation industry as a
whole is being ignored and thereby threatened. If we were to put up
some purportedly helpful amendments, we have no idea at this point how
they might turn out. So there are really a couple of people who control
this entire situation. As long as they remain negative, there is very
little we can do that we can count on turning into success.
The aviation industry, just in my State, as I have explained a number
of times, is a $3.4 billion industry that employs 51,000 people. That
is something almost nobody does in a State as small as West Virginia.
But we have to work this through. Everybody can't come out an exact
winner. If I were to line up one side versus another side, I think
having an aviation industry, giving them the confidence to go forward,
the passing of this bill would be like an increase in their bond
rating, certainly psychologically, and it would give them the
confidence that we are trying to do the right thing by them.
In doing that, we have held all of the commercial aviation airlines
harmless so they will not have to pay any more fuel tax than they do
today, which is about $10.7 billion, and adding a small portion of fuel
tax on to the general aviation industry so they would be paying about a
billion dollars.
We found a mechanism, being clever but correct, to actually raise
$400 million a year for the life of this bill. Of course, there would
have to be other bills to get us on our way to building a $20 billion
to $30 billion to $40 billion air traffic control system which is
sufficient for the needs of the aviation industry. I know the Presiding
Officer has an amendment which I would support, and there are others
who have--they just don't want to--I don't know how to put it, but they
just don't want to lose their position in all of this.
So the question is, What do we do? I am just here to report that we
are hard at work. Everybody is working feverishly in back rooms--that
is in a good sense--the Democratic and Republican cloakrooms. Senator
Hutchison and I are in precise agreement on all of this, and it is a
bipartisan bill. It has enormous consequences to the economy of
America, to the passengers who are held hostage by delays and
maintenance problems. Sixty-eight rural States have had airports
entirely removed from service which were previously served. It is very
painful if you are from a rural State. It sort of defines the meaning
of being cut off from the rest of the world. That is not important to
some people, but it is very important to those of us who come from a
rural State, and to be quite frank, every one of us comes from a rural
State in some part.
So what I am saying is, the stakes are extraordinarily high. It is,
in my judgment, and on a bipartisan basis, an amazingly one-sided case.
You protect your legacies; that is, your commercial airlines, you get
the support of the general aviation community which has an enormous
number of airplanes with millions more to come, and you get the
financing to start on an air traffic control system which is behind
that of, as I have said today several times, Mongolia. Landing aircraft
by ground radio and x-rays is not really the way to run a safe system.
We have had so many close collisions that have been averted only at the
last moment by air traffic control folks and very quick-witted pilots.
Hundreds and hundreds of deaths could have easily resulted.
So I think it is a choice of the people doing the negotiating or the
people who want to block the people who are doing the negotiating to
think in very clear terms about what is important. Is it pride? Is it
the future of the aviation industry? We haven't passed any bills in
Congress on our side, and this would be a major accomplishment. But
that is not important. The importance is it would save an aviation
industry, and they believe that because the bill carries on for a
number of years. They would begin to get their safe landing system.
So people must be wondering what is going on, and I just wanted to
report that people are at work, hopefully in good faith, trying to get
a parliamentary situation or an amendment situation or whatever that
works our way through this crisis.
In the meantime, we are on hold. I wanted to make that report to the
Senate.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, our Nation depends on our system of
air travel to do business, to visit family and friends, to connect us
with the world. We depend on the Federal Government to keep an eye on
that system and to make sure air travel is as safe as humanly possible.
But over the last 7 years, the American people's trust in the Federal
Aviation Administration has come crashing down. When we learned that
the FAA had allowed hundreds of flights on planes with cracks in them,
that was just the latest abuse of our trust.
It seems as if we are finding new regulatory problems in American
aviation every day. With every new headline and every whistleblower who
comes forward, we learn that something else has gone wrong--something
that could inconvenience us, at best and, at worst, claim human lives.
Meanwhile, the FAA is enveloped in a cloud of cronyism and neglect.
Whether we are

[[Page S3571]]

talking about managing delays, maintaining safety, or managing its
employee relations, the FAA has constantly let us all down and put us
all at risk.
Last month, we found out that Southwest Airlines was allowing dozens
of planes to take off without inspection. We found out American
Airlines was flying planes for weeks that had potentially dangerous
wiring problems. When the news got out, thousands of Americans saw
their flights canceled while airlines scrambled to comply with safety
guidelines they should have been following all along.
Why did it take so long for the FAA to notice?
A few weeks ago, one FAA employee testified before Congress that when
he found out these planes were flying with cracks and complained about
it, Southwest contacted the FAA, and he was removed--removed--from his
role of overseeing the airline. Other employees who complained were
encouraged to transfer or removed from their posts.
Now, what is the FAA--the Federal Aviation Administration--supposed
to be doing? Job 1, it seems to me, is to ensure the safety of the
flying public. I know they have this dual mission. I have always
wondered about that dual mission of safety and promoting the industry--
the other mission. But safety is job 1--job 1.
When they take employees who come forward and say: Look, there are
cracks, maybe we should not let this airplane take off, or a series of
airplanes take off, and because the company objects, it gets them
hauled off of the job, or when others come forth and they are told:
Well, maybe you should consider transferring, it simply undermines the
very essence of what is job 1. The message that was sent is: If you are
an inspector, don't do your job too well or you will lose it.
Those are not the only safety concerns. The people of my home State
of New Jersey have reason to be worried about safety at our airports.
We just learned that Teterboro Airport, which is one of the small but
one of the busiest airports we have in the region, has one of the
highest numbers of near-misses in the country. A few months ago, at
Newark Airport, two planes came within seconds of crashing into each
other. There was a similar incident in December and three near-misses
last May. How many serious close calls do we have to live through
before the FAA takes this problem seriously?
Not only is the FAA failing to do due diligence on behalf of the
people in the air, they have risked the well-being of people on the
ground as well.
A while back, the FAA decided to redesign the airspace around some
New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania airports. Now, I have been a big
supporter of airspace redesign since when I was first in the House on
the Transportation Committee. We live in the most congested airspace in
the Nation. We are in somewhat of a straitjacket. But the redesign
should have been done in such a way that not only did we do something
about delays, which this redesign does not do very much about, but it
should not have the pounding decibels of noise upon communities that
this new redesign does.
They decided to change the flightpaths--and it is fair to do that
every now and then--but they forgot one thing: They forgot to listen to
the people who are going to be flown over. When they rearranged the
flightpaths, the FAA simply did not account for air noise and how it
affects people's lives. I am not talking about simply being bothered by
a little noise. I am talking about the pounding and pounding and
pounding of decibel levels that actually affect hearing.
Some of the communities have populations that are least likely to be
able to be in a position to do something about it. They forgot about
people such as Ray Bennett, who lives in Westville, NJ. He has lived
there for nearly 40 years. In all those years, he could not remember a
single plane flying directly overhead, especially at low altitudes.
Now, since the FAA rushed to implement this plan, not only is there
noise, but it is noise that causes his windows to vibrate and keeps him
up at night. Imagine that. In the comfort of your own home, in a place
where you should be able to find your own peace and quiet with your
family, one day the Government decides to turn the volume level way up
by running jet planes over your house regularly. Ray has seriously
thought about moving out of his home, and it is hard to blame him. This
is not a case of one or two isolated households. Planes are now flying
directly over the center of the city of Elizabeth, NJ, affecting tens
of thousands of people.
The effects go beyond annoyance. It can cost people money by reducing
property values. In the midst of a nationwide housing crisis, in a time
when far too many New Jerseyans are facing foreclosure, skyrocketing
electricity and home heating costs, and the specter of $4 per gallon
gasoline, the last thing they need is for air noise to bring down their
property values.
It is almost no wonder that we are seeing this agency become so out
of touch, considering how toxic the working environment there has been.
In addition to the FAA's questionable safety record, there is also the
issue of its hostile relationship with its own employees. Experienced
air traffic controllers are leaving their jobs at an alarming rate, and
the FAA is struggling to attract, train, and keep new ones. But instead
of trying to work with the unions to try to finally implement a
contract, they fan the flames by publicly suggesting that if the
controllers do not like working for the FAA, they should reconsider
their line of work. With this kind of working environment, it is no
wonder we have a shortage of experienced controllers working to keep
our skies safe.
We are talking about increasingly--and I fly, obviously, quite a bit,
certainly to my home State of New Jersey through Newark International.
But in the whole region, and across the country, where we have
controllers--trainees, I should say. They are still not fully
controllers. It takes about 5 years to fully train a controller.
Trainees can only do part of the segment necessary, whether it be on
takeoffs, whether it be on landings, or whether it be about controlling
the airspace, as delays take place and aircraft are made to be put in
holding patterns.
So imagine you and your family are up in an airplane and you are
dealing with, increasingly, individuals who do not have the full
certification to do all of these elements together, which is what we
would like to see--for them to have the expertise. Because we can spend
all the money in the world--and I appreciate the bill does move us
forward in modernization and technology, and that is critically
important--but at the end of the day, we can have the best technology
in the world, but if, in fact, we do not have the human capital to make
that technology work successfully, then, in fact, we have failed. That
human capital happens to be the air traffic controllers. At the end of
the day, all the technology in the world will be used by those
individuals. Human capital in this regard is incredibly important. The
FAA has disdain for them. I believe they are the critical nexus to the
safety of the flying public. So you are seeing a system that is on a
path to becoming slower and less safe because experienced personnel are
colliding with management.
When you have problems that are so widespread and an institutional
culture that shows no sense of urgency, it is not just about one
employee or another, it is about a lack of leadership. That is why
Senator Lautenberg, my colleague from New Jersey, and I have placed a
hold on the nomination of Robert Sturgell as the FAA Administrator, and
we will continue the hold until the FAA truly addresses these and other
concerns.
We have no choice but to use every tool at our disposal to make this
unresponsive bureaucracy do what is right for the well-being of the
American public. If the public's concerns are not being addressed at
the FAA, we will have to make sure they are addressed in Congress.
Which brings me to this bill. We have an opportunity--and I salute
Senator Rockefeller and the members of the Commerce Committee who have
worked with him to bring this bill to the floor--we have a tremendous
opportunity with this authorization bill to set some things right.
This bill makes smart investments to make air traffic safer. It
upgrades our aging airport infrastructure.

The bill improves the oversight of airlines and the FAA. This
legislation makes great strides in making air travel safer not only in
the skies, but on the runways.

[[Page S3572]]

But I also believe the base bill can have some improvements, so at
the appropriate time--I want to talk about a few of them now--I will be
offering some amendments to it. The first is to strengthen the
provision with reference to the revolving door between the FAA and the
airline industry and end the cozy relationship between safety
inspectors and the airline industry. We have to have faith and
confidence in the people who are critical to making sure that when we
fly, we are flying in airplanes that are as safe as safe can be; that
they are not compromised. I appreciate what the committee did in the
bill, but I think there are some elements of it that can be
strengthened.
The second amendment will require the FAA to monitor the air noise
impacts of the air space redesign and simply provide that data to the
public. I don't even understand why the FAA has no intention--no
intention whatsoever--of monitoring air noise as a result of the
redesign. I think the public has a right to know what health
consequences there are in that redesign, and that is a minimal--a
minimal--amount of information and transparency that we should be
allowing the flying public to have and the communities that are
affected to know.
The third will help local communities coordinate with nearby airports
to plan compatible land use and mitigate air noise and to receive
grants from the FAA to do so. This is incredibly important. There are
several communities, I am sure, across the Nation, but in our State in
the city of Elizabeth, which is the third largest city in the State, it
is pounded, pounded, pounded away--schools have actually held a press
conference at one of the schools. I don't know how students learn at
that school, because all you hear is one constant drone of jet noise. I
can imagine a teacher in the classroom having to overcome that
challenge day in and day out to keep the attention of the students. We
should have the ability to make sure that in fact there is mitigation
money for that noise, and we look forward to being able to offer that.
The last amendment we are considering is to address the growing
problem of low fuel landings. We have had a whole host of low fuel
landings at Newark International. That means you are sitting on an
airplane and because the industry is trying to save money, they have
less fuel in the aircraft and now, because you have been put in delays
and holding patterns, it gets pretty low, maybe dangerously low. We
want to know what is the level of that and what is the reporting of
that so we can make judgments--and certainly so the FAA can make
judgments--along the way. We think that is incredibly important.
Finally, one of the worst casualties of the Bush administration is
how much trust the public has lost in their Government. We lost trust
when the administration flew us into Iraq on the wings of a lie. We
lost trust when millions of dollars in tax breaks were given to those
with million-dollar bank accounts while the middle class saw their
economic situation get worse. And at the very least, at the very least,
we should be able to trust our Government to keep us safe when we take
to the skies. That is the core mission of the Federal Aviation
Administration. It is time for them to put that mission ahead of the
financial interests of the industry they regulate. It is time for them
to put that mission and our safety first. This bill goes an enormous
way to making that happen.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as
in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Energy Independence

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, in 1942 President Franklin D.
Roosevelt summoned a bipartisan group of congressional leaders to the
White House. He outlined with them a secret plan to win World War II.
At the conclusion of the briefing, the President asked Kenneth McKellar
of Tennessee, who chaired the Appropriations Committee in the Senate,
if the Senator could hide $2 billion in the appropriations bill for
this project to win the war. Senator McKellar replied:

That will be no problem, Mr. President, but I have one
question: Just where in Tennessee do you want me to hide the
$2 billion?

That place in Tennessee turned out to be Oak Ridge, one of the three
secret cities, along with Hanford in Washington and Los Alamos in New
Mexico, that became the principal sites for the Manhattan Project.
The purpose of the Manhattan Project was to end the war by finding a
way to split the atom and build a bomb before Germany could. Nearly
200,000 people worked secretly in 30 different sites in three
countries. President Roosevelt's $2 billion appropriation equaled $24
billion in today's dollars.
Less than 3 years later, after that conversation between President
Roosevelt and Senator McKellar, the project succeeded when on August 6
and 9, 1945, the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. On August 14, Japan surrendered unconditionally.
According to New York Times science reporter William Laurence, who
watched the Nagasaki bombing:

Into its design went millions of man-hours of what is
without doubt the most concentrated intellectual effort in
history.

On Friday, May 9, I will go to one of those secret cities--Oak
Ridge--to propose that the United States launch a new Manhattan
Project: A 5-year project to put America firmly on the path to clean
energy independence. Instead of ending a war, the goal will be clean
energy independence so we can deal with rising gasoline prices,
electricity prices, clean air, climate change, and national security--
for our country first, and--because other countries have the same
urgent needs and therefore will adopt our ideas--for the rest of the
world.

By independence, I do not mean the United States would never buy oil
from Mexico or from Canada or from Saudi Arabia. By independence I do
mean the United States could never be held hostage by any country for
our energy supplies.
In 1942, many were afraid that the first country to build an atomic
bomb could blackmail the rest of the world. The overwhelming challenge
in the Manhattan Project veteran George Cowan's words was:

the prospect of a Fascist world and the need to build a
weapon so powerful that it would quickly guarantee victory.

Today, countries that supply oil and natural gas can blackmail the
rest of the world. Today's need is to create clean energy independence
to quickly guarantee victory over that kind of extortion.
Such a concentration of brain power directed toward an urgent
national need is not a new idea, but it is a good idea, and it fits the
goal of clean energy independence.
The Apollo project to send men to the Moon in the 1960s was a kind of
Manhattan Project. Senator Susan Collins of Maine has suggested an
energy independence by 2020 project, comparable to the goal of putting
a man on the Moon. Others such as Senator Kit Bond of Missouri and
Congressman Randy Forbes of Virginia have suggested a Manhattan Project
for clean energy or energy independence. As part of their ongoing
Presidential campaigns, both Senator John McCain and Senator Barack
Obama have called for a Manhattan Project for new energy sources.
Likewise, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Democratic National
Committee Chairman Howard Dean have said a Manhattan Project-type
program is needed to develop technologies to free us from oil
dependence.
All throughout the 2 years of discussion that led to the passage by
this Congress of the America COMPETES Act, several participants
suggested that we should focus on energy--believing that solving the
energy challenges would force the kind of investments in the physical
sciences and research and teaching that the America COMPETES Act seeks
to encourage.
The Manhattan Project in 1942 was in response to an overwhelming
challenge: the prospect that Germany would build a bomb and win the war
before America did.
In his address on Monday to the annual meeting of the National
Academy of Sciences, Academy President Ralph Cicerone described today's
overwhelming challenge, and that is the need to discover ways to
satisfy the human demand and use of energy in an

[[Page S3573]]

environmentally satisfactory and affordable way so we are not overly
dependent on overseas sources. According to Cicerone, this year
Americans will pay nearly $500 billion overseas for oil--that is $1,600
for each one of us--some of it to nations that are hostile to us or
even trying to kill us by bankrolling terrorists. That weakens our
dollar. It is half our trade deficit. It forces gasoline prices toward
$4 a gallon, and it is crushing family budgets.
Then there are the environmental consequences. If worldwide energy
usage continues to grow as projected and fossil fuels continue to
supply over 80 percent of that energy, humans would inject as much
CO<inf>2</inf> into the air from fossil fuel burning between 2000 and
2030 as they did between 1850 and 2000. We have plenty of coal to help
achieve our energy independence, but we have no commercial way yet to
capture the carbon from the coal, and we have not finished the job of
controlling sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury emissions.
So instead of finding a way to build a bomb to win a war, the new
goal would be to find ways to help our country, which consumes 25
percent of all the energy in the world, to achieve clean energy
independence, and to do it at a price the family budget can afford,
with the hope that the rest of the world will follow our lead.
In addition to the need to meet an overwhelming challenge, other
characteristics of the Manhattan Project are suited to the challenge of
a new Manhattan Project. First, it will require what Harris Mayer has
called meta-engineering. Next, it needs to proceed as fast as possible
along several tracks to reach the goal.
According to Don Gillespie, a young engineer in Los Alamos during
World War II:

The entire project was being conducted using a shotgun
approach, trying all possible approaches simultaneously,
without regard to cost, to speed toward a conclusion.

Next, it needs Presidential focus and it needs bipartisan support in
Congress. It needs the kind of centralized, gruff leadership that Gen.
Leslie R. Groves of the Army Corps of Engineers gave the first
Manhattan Project. A new Manhattan Project needs to put aside old
biases and subsidies and instead break the mold. As Dr. J. Robert
Oppenheimer said in a speech to Los Alamos scientists in November of
1945 about the atomic bomb, the challenge of clean energy independence
is ``too revolutionary to consider in the framework of old ideas.''
Most important, in the words of George Cowan as reported in a book on
the Manhattan Project edited by Cynthia C. Kelly:

The first Manhattan Project wouldn't have come into
existence at all without initial concepts that were spelled
out by a small number of extraordinary people. . . . The
Manhattan Project model starts with a small, diverse group of
great minds.

As I said to the various National Academies when we first asked for
their help in the American competitiveness project in 2005:

In Washington, DC, most ideas fail for lack of the idea. We
need ideas from the best minds we have.

I said it then about American competitiveness, and I say it now about
clean energy independence.
I addressed a meeting earlier this week of about 500 men and women
from all over America who were here to encourage the Congress to fully
fund the America COMPETES Act that we passed into law in 2007. The
President has asked for an 18-percent increase in funding for the
Department of Energy's Office of Science, which is the money for our
national laboratories. He has asked for a 13-percent increase in
funding for the National Science Foundation. Both of those would put us
on the road to doubling funding for the physical sciences so we can
keep our brain power advantage so we can keep our jobs from going
overseas.
That was the recommendation of the small, diverse group of great
minds whom we asked 3 years ago to tell us what we need to do to keep
our brain power advantage. Most of the speakers at that meeting this
week were talking about the need to come persuade the Senator from New
York or the Senator from Tennessee or the Senator from some other State
to fully fund the America COMPETES Act.
I see the Senator from New York here. He was very active in that
legislation, especially with a project from New York that helped focus
on better ways of teaching mathematics to young people. Almost all of
us here have felt some sense of ownership of the America COMPETES
legislation: The majority leader and the minority leader were the
principal sponsors, and 70 of us cosponsored it. So we saw the need for
it. Now we need to apply even more focus and discipline on a different
goal, which is clean energy independence. That is why I am going to Oak
Ridge on May 9 to propose a second Manhattan Project for clean energy
independence.
I believe the work we did during the America COMPETES Act over the
last 3 years has important lessons for how we solve the energy
challenge.
Let's remember how America COMPETES happened. Three years ago, in May
of 2005, a bipartisan group of us asked the National Academies to tell
Congress in priority order the 10 most important steps we could take to
keep America's brain power advantage. Basically, we were asking for the
antidote to the problems set out in Tom Friedman's book, ``The World is
Flat.''
By October 2005, the academies had assembled what might be called a
``small diverse group of great minds,'' chaired by Norm Augustine, a
member of the Academy of Engineering, which presented to the Congress
and the President 20 specific recommendations in a report called
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''
We worked with the Bush administration in a number of ``homework
sessions'' to refine the proposals, and we considered a number of other
very good proposals by different competitiveness commissions.
Then, in January of 2006, President Bush outlined his American
Competitiveness Initiative to double over 10 years basic research for
the physical sciences and engineering, and he included money to do that
in his budgets that he proposed 2 years ago, 1 year ago, and this year.
As I mentioned earlier, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the
Senate became the principal sponsors of the legislation. That didn't
change even when the Senate changed from Republican to Democrat.
Last week, I telephoned Ralph Cicerone, the president of the National
Academy of Sciences. I told him about my proposed May 9 Oak Ridge
speech. He told me about an address he made this past Monday before the
annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences on America's energy
future. That study will be completed in 2010.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, following my remarks,
the remarks of Ralph Cicerone be printed in the Record from the 145th
annual meeting of the Academy of Sciences on Monday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I told Dr. Cicerone that what I will be
proposing at Oak Ridge will require more specific and quicker action
than what the National Academies already have underway. I hope that
within the next few weeks, a bipartisan group of us from the Congress
could meet with the National Academies and see what concrete proposals
we might offer the new President and the new Congress, and that we
complete that work this year.
Democrat Bart Gordon, a Congressman from Tennessee and chairman of
the Science Committee in the House of Representatives, was--along with
Senator Bingaman, myself, and then-Congressman Sherwood Boehlert--one
of the four original signers of the 2005 request to the National
Academies that led to the America COMPETES Act. Congressman Gordon will
join me in Oak Ridge on May 9, and he will address those who are there
about clean energy independence. Also there--and cohost for the
meeting, along with the Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory--
will be Congressman Zach Wamp, a senior Member of the House
Appropriations Committee in whose district we will be. I have talked
this week with our leaders in the Senate on energy, Senator Bingaman
and Senator Domenici--both of New Mexico--who have played such a large
role in the America COMPETES Act over the last 3 years. I talked with
Senator Murkowski, who likely will succeed Senator Domenici as the
senior Republican

[[Page S3574]]

on the Energy Committee when Senator Domenici retires at the end of
this year.
I know this is a Presidential election year. I have no illusions
about the difficulty of bipartisan congressional action. But I also
know that gasoline is nearing $4, and that the electricity produced by
America today is not clean enough for our country. I also know that, on
our present course, we permit other countries in the world to whom we
are paying $500 billion a year the possibility of blackmailing us, or
other countries, because of their ownership of oil assets. I believe
now is the best possible time for Members of Congress and candidates
for President of the United States to address the clean energy
independence goal.
Let us compete to see who can come up with the best ideas and compare
them with one another, knowing that in the end--especially in the
Senate--it will take the kind of bipartisan cooperation we had with the
America COMPETES Act to get a result. After all, the people didn't
elect us to take a vacation this year just because there is a
Presidential election.
This country of ours is a remarkable place. While enduring this
economic slowdown, this year we will produce about 30 percent of all
the wealth in the world for 5 percent of those of us who live here. We
have 30 percent of the wealth in the world, but we are just 5 percent
of all the people in the world.
Despite the ``gathering storm'' of concern about American
competitiveness, no other country approaches our brain power
advantage--the collection of research universities we have, the
national laboratories we have, the private sector companies that exist
in the United States. And this United States is still the only country
where people can say with a straight face that anything is possible--
and believe it.
These are precisely the ingredients America needs during the next 5
years to place ourselves firmly on a path to clean energy independence
and, in doing so, we can make our jobs more secure, help balance the
family budget, make our air cleaner and our planet safer and healthier,
and lead the world to do the same by our example.
I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Energy Challenges

(Presented to the 145th Annual Meeting of the National Academy of
Sciences, Ralph J. Cicerone, President, Apr. 28, 2008)

As I stand before the members of the NAS, I feel as each of
you would in my place--that it is a great honor and a rare
opportunity to address you here in our historic NAS building.
As you know, we are planning a major restoration of the
building which will be discussed further in tomorrow's
business meeting.
I want to recognize NAS Presidents-Emeritus Frank Press and
Bruce Alberts who are here with us today. Each of them led
the Academy with distinction and continues to represent us
well.
The past year has been a very busy one, reflecting the
importance of science and technology in contemporary society.
One project, the revision and updating of our 1984 and 1999
booklets on science and creationism, was completed when the
new booklet, Science, Evolution and Creationism was released
in January. This project was initiated and supported by the
NAS Council. For this third edition, we invited the Institute
of Medicine to join the NAS.
The authoring committee is shown here. I ask each of the
authors who is here today to stand.
Today I want to use the opportunity to draw your attention
to a major issue of today, human demand for and usage of
energy, a topic that has become progressively more serious,
one that will take years to address and which requires
scientific efforts of many kinds.
In the past fifty or sixty years there have been other
transforming issues that have dominated national and
international attention and which required science and
technology for any successful outcome, but these earlier
cases have not been numerous. One can recall the nuclear arms
race, the polio outbreaks of the 1950's, and the very rapid
increases of human populations of the 1950's and 1960's.
Science made possible the cessation of nuclear weapons
testing through demonstrated capability to detect the
detonation of even relatively small weapons, while
computational methods enabled stockpile stewardship.
Similarly, through medical immunology, scientists came to
understand the cause of polio and created preventive
vaccines; and the Green Revolution made it possible to feed
many more people. Two other major issues in which public
attention was focused on science and technology were the
launching of early Earth-orbiting satellites (and placing a
man on the Moon), and the capabilities that emerged in the
early 1970's from molecular biology for safe laboratory DNA-
transfer experiments.
Now in 2008, we see that human demand and usage of energy
is a pervasive issue. The issue has multiple dimensions and
constraints. It is both national and worldwide. Enormous in
scale, it will remain serious for the foreseeable future, and
science and engineering are essential for progress.

Main Points

My main points today are:
Our energy-intensive way of life, population growth and
worldwide economic progress combine to create large and
growing demand for energy.
Our options to meet this large demand with types of energy
now available to us are seriously constrained. We must assure
access to energy and geopolitical security, overcome the
financial impact of high costs, deal with climate change,
other environmental impacts, nuclear safety and wastes. There
is no simple single solution and some attractive options are
mutually incompatible.
Science and technology and scientists are essential to
meeting this pervasive challenge.

Energy Usage and Demand

The scale of human energy usage today is large and
projections of future demands are even larger. Let me begin
by outlining current energy usage in the United States.
We consume 100 Quadrillion BTU (one Quad is 10\15\ BTU) per
year as a nation, or 3.3 x 10\8\ BTU per person annually.
There are many ways to disaggregate these figures. For
example. we can examine end usage by economic sector or by
function. One such cut reveals that 28 percent of U.S. energy
usage is for transportation (burning gasoline, diesel and jet
fuel) and 39 percent is used in buildings for lighting,
heating, cooling, appliances and office equipment.
What are the sources of our primary energy? For the U.S.,
85 percent comes from the burning of fossil fuels: 23 percent
from natural gas, 23 percent from coal and 40 percent from
petroleum (using rounded numbers). Eight percent is derived
from nuclear power and six percent from renewable sources
like hydropower (3 percent), biomass (3 percent), geothermal
sources, wind, and solar.
Two key factors are liquid fuels for transportation and
coal burning to generate electricity. Slide 5 shows growth in
U. S. imports and consumption of petroleum.
Net imports grew from 3 million barrels per day in 1970 and
surpassed domestic ``production'' in 1996. Today, we import
approximately twelve million barrels of oil daily, most of it
for transportation, and we consume about six million barrels
of oil more each day for running our automobiles and trucks
than is produced (extracted, to be more precise)
domestically.
A related figure is the fraction 41 percent of primary
energy consumption that goes into producing electricity.
Annually, the U.S. consumes about 3800 billion kWh of
electricity, with an average instantaneous consumption rate
of 440 million kW, or 1.47 kW per person. Because of
considerable inefficiency in the conversion of primary energy
into electricity during generation and losses in its
distribution, the electrical energy received by the end user
is only about one-third of the primary energy invested in
generating it.
Our electricity is generated in several ways but the major
pathways are from coal burning (52 percent), nuclear power
(20 percent), natural gas (19 percent) and renewable energy
including hydropower (8.5 percent). While still small,
electricity generated from wind power grew by over 25 percent
compounded annually from 2001-2005.
Slide 7 shows world energy consumption 1970-2005 and
projected usage to 2030, developed & developing countries.
Worldwide energy consumption was about 447 quadrillion BTU in
2004. This figure grew from approximately 207 quadrillion BTU
in 1970; it doubled in 30-32 years. World average energy
consumption is approximately 6.2x10 \7\ BTU/person, or only
one-fifth as much as for Americans. The fraction of total
world energy usage from fossil-fuel sources was about 87
percent in 2004, slightly higher than the corresponding U.S.
figure. The fraction of world electricity from nuclear power
was only six percent as opposed to eight percent in the U.S.
although it is well known that France's electricity is
generated primarily (70 percent) from nuclear power, and of
course, there are other nations that employ no nuclear power
at all. Recently, Germany has emerged as a world leader in
capturing wind energy and in the manufacturing of
photovoltaic cells for the direct conversion of sunlight to
electricity, as is Japan.
World energy consumption is projected to grow to
approximately 700 quadrillion BTU in 2030, another doubling
from its early 1990's value. Much of this projected growth is
likely to occur in developing, or emerging market countries,
where there is great demand for energy usage per capita to
grow, while slower growth is projected for mature market
countries like those of advanced developed countries. One
projection is for non-OECD countries (including China and
India) to increase energy usage by over three percent
annually, more than doubling between 2004 and 2030 while U.S.
energy growth is projected to be one percent annually. This
differential growth will continue trends observed from 1999-
2005 when China and India increased their energy usage by 80
percent and 25 percent, respectively.
The dynamics and impacts of this differential growth are
extremely important to analyze. For example, we must
understand what

[[Page S3575]]

is driving this increased demand (electrification, pumping
water for irrigation and for manufacturing and consumer uses,
population growth . . .). We must also anticipate impacts on
world prices and availability and on world geopolitics,
environment and climate. A recent report from the
InterAcademy Council is a rich source of data on growing
demand and strategies for satisfying it worldwide.

Impacts of Energy Usage and Constraints

For many years there have been concerns over the stability
of energy supplies or the cost of energy or the consequences
of too much dependence on overseas sources or over various
environmental impacts. Now all of these concerns are
operative at once and they are seen as long term as
opposed to temporary.
For example, as U.S. consumption of petroleum, mostly for
transportation, has grown, and costs have risen to over $100
per barrel, the net flow of dollars to oil-exporting
countries has ballooned to between $450 to $500 billion
annually, as noted recently by former CIA Director James
Woolsey. Let me note that even at the now past price of $65
per barrel, 300 million Americans send $1000 each overseas
for oil annually. At our NAS/NAE energy symposium on March
14, former Secretary of Energy and Secretary of Defense James
Schlesinger said that our dependence on foreign oil is
allowing some hostile oil-exporting countries to accumulate
dollars, resulting in diminished U.S. influence not only
toward them but also with our allies. He stated that ``we
cannot ensure energy security, only mitigate energy
insecurity''.
Predicting future energy costs is perilous and certainly
not a talent of mine. Personally, I did not predict that
gasoline would cost $3.5 to $4 per gallon as it is now.
However, there is general consensus that the era of low cost
energy is over, largely due to increasing demand from
developing countries. Thus, one can expect U.S. purchases of
oil to continue and world prices to remain high enough to
cause difficulties for poorer countries. Worldwide fleets of
car and trucks demand oil as does the growing commercial
airline sector. High costs of energy are being felt by
individuals, families, businesses, universities, governments,
and hospitals, for example. High energy costs are now
beginning to be blamed for rising grain costs and food
shortages in some countries.
The imperative for access to secure energy supplies prompts
some regions and countries to turn to coal or to nuclear
power. For example, the U.S., China, South Africa and India
have substantial domestic coal supplies. Environmental and
climatic impacts must be dealt with. Inadvertent emissions of
soot, sulfur, nitrogen oxides and mercury, historical
challenges which have been met in some selected regions,
remain major problems elsewhere and due to the scale of coal
usage, they are increasingly serious problems, as are
deleterious effects of coal mining on land surfaces and
ground water. In each of the last several years, a large
number of coal-fired power plants have been built in China;
total generating capacity from these plants has increased
annually by approximately 95 Gwatts (adding approximately the
entire capacity of France or Germany).
In recent years it has become clearer that the global
climate is changing in response to increased atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning.
Current atmospheric concentration of CO<inf>2</inf> is over
380 ppm, compared to a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm.
Climate change is being observed in elevated air and sea
temperatures, losses of ice, rising sea level and several
other variables, and it is judged mostly due to greenhouse
gases, including carbon dioxide, from human activities. While
some climate change can be accommodated, there is increasing
evidence and concern that dangerous changes can also occur.
``Dangerous'' here is defined as irreversible changes such as
sea-level rise and loss of biodiversity, and generally other
physical variables whose rates of change exceed the rates at
which we can adapt to them. Large or prolonged changes in
regional water supplies can destabilize entire nations.
While it might be intuitive to guess that we could
stabilize worldwide atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts by
holding worldwide emissions constant, the natural uptake of
atmospheric CO<inf>2</inf> by the global carbon cycle is only
about 40 percent of current emissions; this figure has been
derived by decades of research, much of it by NAS members.
Current annual emissions are nearly seven billion tons of C
as CO<inf>2</inf>. The eventual steady-state atmospheric
concentration of CO<inf>2</inf> from current emissions would
be over 650 ppm. Thus, a specified carbon constraint such as
preventing atmospheric CO<inf>2</inf> from rising above
say 450 parts per million, is difficult to satisfy: it
would require reducing emissions by more than four billion
tons (C) from current levels. Several examples show how
difficult it will be. Reducing emissions by just one
billion tons C per year would require a fleet of two
billion cars to achieve 60 mpg instead of 30 mpg, or
replacing 700 one GW coal-burning power plants with
nuclear plants, or replacing coal-burning plants with one
million 2 MWe (peak) wind turbines or 2,000 1-GWe (peak)
photovoltaic power plants.
Instead, if worldwide energy usage continues to grow as
projected and fossil fuels continue to supply over 80% of
that energy, worldwide CO<inf>2</inf> emissions would grow to
over ten B tons C annually by 2030, just 22 years from now.
At such a rate of fossil-fuel burning, humans would inject as
much CO<inf>2</inf> into the air from fossil-fuel burning
between 2000 and 2030 as they did between 1850 and 2000.
In addition to climatic change from carbon dioxide, we
expect the world's oceans to become acidified by the
CO<inf>2</inf> added from the atmosphere. Research on the
biological effects of this acidification is in its early
stages and there are many questions surrounding the ability
of calcifying marine organisms to make shells, for example.
The view that emerges is of a carbon-constrained world.
Taking into account the fact that coal is relatively
plentiful and that its supplies are secure within several
large countries, and recognizing the carbon constraint gives
rise to the need for research on carbon capture and storage
(CCS) and to other means to tap into coal's energy without
releasing CO<inf>2</inf> to the atmosphere and oceans.
Even if coal, for example with effective CCS, could be used
even more intensively to generate electricity, one must
realize that to use today's fleets of cars and trucks and
airplanes, one requires liquid fuels, presumably from oil.
While coal yields less energy per unit of CO<inf>2</inf>
released, carbon constraints apply to oil and natural gas as
well as to coal.
The constraints of energy supply, dependence on foreign
sources and atmospheric carbon dioxide cause us to consider
wider usage of nuclear power. Nuclear power plants, currently
based on nuclear fission processes, offer several advantages
in that their operation does not emit carbon dioxide nor are
supplies of nuclear fuel thought to be seriously limited
physically or immediately. Widespread utilization of nuclear
power is limited instead by concerns over safety of operation
and over waste handling, storage and disposal. Strongly
related is the need to prevent the misappropriation of
nuclear wastes to produce nuclear weapons or conventional
bombs spiked with radioactivity (dirty bombs). In addition,
costs of electrical power from current nuclear plants exceed
those for coal and from natural gas; capital costs of nuclear
plants are much higher. These concerns have virtually stopped
the building of new and replacement nuclear power plants in
many countries since approximately 1980.
For nuclear power to satisfy large parts of current and
future world demand for electrical energy would require the
siting, construction and operation of large numbers of new
and replacement nuclear power plants such as a tripling or
quadrupling of the number of such plants now in service.
Local limitations on volumes and temperatures of cooling
water will tighten as tensions grow over water supplies and
heat waves intensify. Even if successful, we would not have
satisfied much of world demand for energy to drive
transportation, now supplied by petroleum, with today's fleet
of automobiles and trucks.

Agenda for Scientists, the National Academy of Sciences and the
National Research Council

The constraints placed on energy choices for the United
States and for the world today can appear to be intractable.
For example, large U.S. domestic coal reserves, much of our
existing infrastructure and the goal of energy security all
argue for more dependence on coal. However, we are pushed in
the opposite direction by the pressing need to reduce
CO<inf>2</inf> emissions to the atmosphere so as to limit
climate change, and by several other environmental impacts
including ocean acidification. In a democracy there are many
different voices representing people with differing values
and interests, such as protecting or advancing locally based
industries, and also with differing weighting factors for
addressing the various constraints.
All of these challenges place scientists and engineers in
an essential position--we can:
Perform research relevant to energy supplies and usage,
Formulate and analyze options for decisionmakers,
Inform the public about research and policy options,
Advise and help government officials and business leaders,
Develop scientific and engineering human resources.
We must address each of these needed roles with
complementary skills. Along with creating specialized
processes and strategies, we need big-picture synthesis. For
example, achieving increased energy efficiency can relax all
of these constraints but implementing this goal requires
great attention to detail.
The NAS and the NAE, working through the NRC, are
conducting a study, America's Energy Future, and it will be
published in less than a year from now. This report will
present objective, quantitative data and estimates of
contributions to our energy supply from various energy
technologies, including energy-efficiency technologies, along
with their costs. Many NAS and NAE members and other experts
are involved on this project. It is led by economist Harold
Shapiro, President-emeritus of Princeton University (and an
IOM member). This report will lay a foundation for much more
work to follow on energy research, energy-policy options and
worldwide cases. It is intended to provide what Benjamin
Franklin aptly described as ``useful knowledge'' to
individuals and groups in business and government and the
general public as they consider how to transition to the
energy trajectories that are needed.

[[Page S3576]]

We are also beginning a new suite of studies on climate
change, focusing on how to benefit from and extend the
scientific understanding of climate change and also how to
mitigate it and adapt to it.
Scientific research, as always, offers possibilities for
improvements in how we extract, convert, store, distribute
and consume energy. Indeed, research can lead to major
changes which could revolutionize our current systems and
which could dodge some of the constraints that now bind us.
Opportunities for this research to create new technologies
with worldwide business potential are enormous.
There are numerous fascinating research topics in physical
and biological sciences which could dramatically transform
the energy landscape or which could at least improve our
options. Photovoltaic devices based on new materials to
convert sunlight into electricity and chemical means to
convert sunlight into chemical fuels offer great
opportunities. Photosynthesis-based designs are beginning to
receive some attention. Energy-storage devices with high
energy and power densities could enable much wider use of
solar, wind and nuclear energy, for example, in electric-
drive vehicles.
Alternative energy sources for transportation must match or
overcome a large advantage of liquid hydrocarbons; the
oxidizer for their combustion does not have to be carried
along with the fuel. A major goal is to derive petroleum
substitutes from plant matter other than food crops which
would be approximately carbon-neutral. Microbiological
processes enhanced by molecular biology comprise many
potential advanced pathways toward creating liquid biofuels
such as alcohols. In such advanced processes, efficient use
of normally recalcitrant material like plant cellulose and
lignins must be made. Progress from this laboratory-based
biological research is needed to obtain higher biofuel yields
which justify inputs of energy, fertilizer, water and land.
These input/output ratios themselves and corresponding
tradeoffs require research to clarify the value of this
option.
Wider usage of nuclear power to generate much larger
amounts of electricity could displace some fossil-fuel usage
but it requires safe and efficient handling of wastes which
in turn require secure geological and geochemical storage.
Similarly, economical and safe waste-to-fuel reprocessing
represent research and engineering challenges and
opportunities, and some materials problems with reactors
remain.
As has been the case for too many years, nuclear fusion
remains a distant but tantalizing pathway toward plentiful
energy, with almost no radioactive waste, but very difficult
problems in confining high-temperature plasmas have impeded
progress.
A host of other research frontiers must be explored, for
example, can carbon dioxide be effectively captured and
stored in geological reservoirs in amounts measured in tens
of billions of tons and for centuries? Can transmission lines
be vastly improved through superconductivity or by using
direct current transmission instead of AC, with better system
analysis and control? If so, solar and wind energy can be
distributed in ways to match generation and demand time
functions better.
Scientific research on climate change is essential to
enable us to predict how climate will change in smaller
geographical areas and shorter time intervals than is now
possible so as to guide our efforts in mitigating the changes
and in adapting to changes that do transpire. Economic
science and social phenomena must be incorporated in this
endeavor, and as is the case in all of the topics mentioned
here, computational science has become essential.
In deciding how to deal with the constraints placed on us
by U.S. and global energy usage, governments, businesses,
NGO's and individuals want to know what options they have. An
important role for us as individuals and through National
Research Council committees is to help to formulate and
analyze options that can illuminate the consequences of
various proposed actions. This work can consist of focused
analyses of specific energy sources or pathways and
respective technologies, or on comparisons of many
alternatives. Variables include physical, chemical and
biological principles, costs, readiness for deployment,
social acceptance and time frames. In many cases, those who
will make decisions amongst the options will be political or
business leaders who have little or no scientific background,
so scientists' communications skills will be tested. In these
interactions centered on formulation and analysis of options,
scientists must be prepared to interact with such
decisionmakers in iterative ways. It is likely that some
overall pathways to a more secure, safe and robust energy
strategy will involve short-term options in preparation for
transitions to a longer term.
More broadly, scientists can inform the public about
research prospects and goals and about policy options. The
pervasive nature of our challenges with energy requires wide
public awareness and consensus, and arriving at consensus
will be challenging. Whether deciding how to locate solar
collector arrays, nuclear power plants or wind farms or how
to gauge the benefits of various biofuels or automobile fuel
efficiency, and how to invest their own resources or public
funds, people must appreciate the constraints and the goals
to choose the best options and to avoid costly mistakes and
ineffective actions. Scientists who are effective
communicators should present public talks and/or help other
scientists and journalists who are even more effective. In
our NAS communications with the general public, we plan to
emphasize energy topics in several ways.
We depend on many structures and institutions to govern us.
Agencies of the U.S. Government which support science
research, set standards, monitor and regulate trade, products
and pollutants need qualified people to serve in them and
they need external counsel through advisory committees, for
example. Each of us should serve when invited, and we should
prepare thoroughly for each assignment. Important roles in
advising the government are carried out by the National
Research Council. State and local governments have many
significant energy issues in front of them so the need for
scientific advice is even larger. Scientists can also help
each other when one is called to advise.
Education of the current and future generations of students
is a high priority. All of the needs listed above require an
educated public to recognize our options, to understand their
consequences, and to exploit opportunities. Students who will
go on into business and government will have big roles just
as future scientists will. We must develop human resources,
both broadly and in specific scientific endeavors, from
microbiology and molecular biology to nuclear science and
engineering. Our university curricula for science and for
non-science students must create awareness of challenges and
opportunities surrounding energy usage, efficiency and
related research. As always, research opportunities for
students are especially important.

conclusion

We must change the trajectories of our energy usage and
energy sources. World peace, economic development for much of
the world, continuing prosperity for the developed countries
and a stable climate require us to do so. To create and
analyze options, and to educate and inform people about the
work ahead, scientists and engineers are critical.
There is no single action or individual technology that
will take us to this goal. (The glass(es) are partly filled
and partly empty. The baseball is just for fun!)
Rather we must explore all sources and pathways and
discover, invent and optimize in each case. While it might
disappoint some people that there is no single pathway to
success, a world in which many energy sources and solutions
are integral to the whole will be more stable and less
susceptible to disruption. Our enthusiasm and efforts must be
broad as we seek to discover and disseminate useful
knowledge.
A great deal of innovative and determined work is needed by
scientists and engineers in the years ahead. It is our
privilege and our responsibility to rise to these energy
challenges. Let's get going; there is a lot of useful
knowledge to be gained.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). The Senator from Maryland is
recognized.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, I welcome the bipartisan support
for programs that will move us toward energy independence. I agree with
my colleague from Tennessee that we need to do a Manhattan-type
project, with the same type of commitment we made when putting a person
on the Moon, to become energy independent. We have the technology. We
know how to get it done. If we have the will, this Nation can do
anything it wants to do.
I think there is a growing awareness among Members of this body, as
well as on the other side of the Capitol, that we need to take
immediate steps so this Nation can become energy independent. So I
welcome the comments that have been made.
I come to the floor because the people of Maryland and throughout the
Nation are hurting today. The most recent assault on their pocketbooks
has been filling up their cars with gasoline. The costs are prohibitive
for families--gasoline prices. Quite frankly, I think the
administration is doing virtually nothing to help those who are trying
to afford energy costs today--whether it is their electricity bills in
their homes, or whether it is running the family automobile, or whether
it is a business that requires them to use an automobile. This
administration has done very little to help deal with the escalating
costs of energy. Instead, they look for additional tax breaks for oil
companies, or they want to extend tax cuts for millionaires. They don't
come forward with energy policies that would try to make energy much
more affordable.
I believe we need to have a strong energy legislation in this
Congress. Let me give you some of the statistics that people in my
State of Maryland are confronting on energy costs. Electricity rates
went up 72 percent in 2007. Gasoline prices in Maryland are now $3.49,
on average, for regular gasoline, and $3.80 for high test. That is a
150-percent increase since President Bush took office.

[[Page S3577]]

Let me try to translate this as to how it affects the average family
in my State. When you take a look at what household costs have gone up,
just for gasoline for your automobile, since President Bush took
office, for a typical household it has increased $2,731 for the people
of Maryland. If that household has children, it is an increase of
$3,414 a year. If they have a teenager also operating a car, it has
gone up over $4,000. To me, that is a shocking increase in just 7 years
on the cost of gasoline that we put into our automobiles.
I recently had a conversation with small business owners in Maryland.
Sixty-two percent of small business owners use a vehicle in their
business. They need automobiles. They have to fill these tanks with
gasoline. The majority drive over 50 miles a day in their automobiles
to operate their businesses. So the statistics show that small
businesses--and all of us talk about helping small businesses--spend
more than their competitors that are large companies on energy costs.
It can cost up to three times as much for a small business person for
their energy cost to deliver a product to the market than for larger
companies. I am sure you are aware that small businesses don't have the
same availability of capital in order to buy equipment or the same
availability of capital in order to keep their businesses afloat. Many
small business owners are mortgaging their homes in order to keep their
businesses going. Many are using credit cards with the highest possible
interest rates to keep afloat. Now they have additional energy costs.
So, yes, we need to take action on the energy problem.
I must tell you that the first thing we need is a national energy
policy. We have had bills that have been submitted on this floor. I
appreciate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle coming forward in
support of a national energy policy for energy independence. But if you
remember when we voted on the renewable energy portfolio, we didn't
seem to get the votes we needed from the Republican side of the aisle.
It is time to take action on a national energy policy--one that will
truly make this Nation energy independent--whether you call it a
Manhattan-type project or an Apollo-type project, we can do it. We can
do it by using less energy and by developing alternative and renewable
energy sources. We can do it in a way that will be good for America.
We should not be dependent for oil upon any country halfway around
the world, that disagrees with our policies. We have to eliminate our
dependency on imported oil. We need to do that for the security of
America. Our national security should come first. If for no other
reason, we should do it for national security. Also, let's do it for
the environment. I listened to my friend talk about green energy. We
have a chance to do that. We have a bill in the Environment and Public
Works Committee that Senator Boxer provided tremendous leadership on,
along with Senators Lieberman and Warner, that would cap our carbon
emissions. That would energize our economy to produce green jobs and
would help us to become energy independent. It would reduce greenhouse
gases and would help our environment. We need to become energy
independent because of our national security and because of our
environment.
My friends who are talking about energy independence, we have a
chance to move forward on that. Let's bring out the Lieberman-Warner
legislation and move it on the floor. We are trying to do that, and if
we had more help on the Republican side of the aisle, we could get that
done this year and move toward energy independence.
There is a third reason we need an energy policy, and that is our
economy. I don't need a clearer message about how important it is to be
independent for our economy than to fill up my tank with gasoline. Go
to any of your neighborhood gasoline stations and look at the price. We
don't have control over our energy costs. If we were energy
independent, we would. So we need an energy policy that is good for
this Nation. We should not be financing other countries. That is what
you do every time you fill up a tank with gas--financing other
countries, and actually we are borrowing money to do that.
So we need a policy that is good for this Nation. What have the oil
companies done to help us in this regard? They are doing quite well. We
have businesses that are hurting. We are in a recession. We are not
doing well in economic growth. But in the last year, the five major oil
companies had profits of $103 billion, and 2008 is going to be a better
year than 2007 for the oil companies.
These are excessive profits. We need to do something about them. The
administration says let's continue tax breaks for the oil companies;
let's create some new ones. We should be using these tax breaks to
develop alternative energy sources. That is what we should be doing to
help the people in our communities. We should be using these tax breaks
to generate green jobs. We can do that if we energize the American
economy to develop the alternative technologies that can solve our
energy crisis as well as our environmental challenges.
We need to use these tax breaks so we have less reliance on foreign
energy sources--alternative fuels. I wish to underscore that we need to
get this administration, if they are really serious about trying to
make this Nation energy independent, to refocus the tools we are using.
Every time we try to do that--we try to take these tax credits and
target it to the alternative energy sources rather than just giving
them to the oil companies--we get a veto threat from the President.
I can tell you, Mr. President, people in Maryland desperately need
leadership on energy. They need immediate help. One of the suggestions
that has been made that I think we should move forward--again, the
President said he is not going to do this--is the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. It is 95 percent filled. Let me explain to my constituents
what this is about. Our Government is in the market every day buying
70,000 gallons of oil to put in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. As a
result, the cost to the consumers in filling up their automobiles'
tanks is higher. It is supply and demand. The Government is there every
day first at the gas pumps taking 70,000 gallons of fuel that otherwise
could be available for consumers, and with supply and demand, the more
fuel we have available, the lower the cost will be. This is something
we can do immediately to try to reduce the cost of gasoline to the
people of this Nation.
We need immediate action. We need immediate action to help the
middle-income families in America and the small businesses that are
literally being strangled by the high cost of gasoline and the high
cost of energy. They need immediate relief. They need an administration
that is going to take action to make more supply available. If the
administration does not, the Congress should take action to do that.
The American people need us to take action for immediate relief. But
they also understand we cannot continue decade after decade to be
dependent on foreign energy sources. It is way past time that this
Nation become energy independent. We can get there.
As I hear my colleagues speak on both sides of the aisle, let's come
together for the sake of our Nation, for the sake of our national
security, for the sake of our environment, for the sake of our economy,
and let's act together to pass laws so at last America can become
energy independent and control its own destiny, be a good citizen of
the world on the environment, and do much better for the growth of our
economy. I am convinced we can do this if we act together in the best
interest of our country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Tribute to Charlton Heston

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, over the last few weeks, I have taken note
of the tributes that have been made about

[[Page S3578]]

a great American who passed away on April 5, 2008. That American is
Charlton Heston. This Senate even joined in those tributes, and I was
pleased to cosponsor a resolution offered by my colleague, Senator Jim
DeMint, officially honoring Mr. Heston's life and extending the
sympathies of the Senate to the Heston family.
Charlton Heston's significance was more than his distinguished career
as an actor. In his lifetime, he became undeniably an American icon.
But there is an aspect of his life that has not received the attention
that I believe it deserves--his truly admirable record of public
service. That is why I rise this afternoon to comment about his
contributions to our Nation.
This was not a man who only recited patriotic speeches; he put his
words into action and put his reputation and career on the line for the
causes he supported. This was especially true in an area that people
seem to have forgotten: his work on civil rights.
Charlton Heston freely allowed his fame to be used to draw attention
and support to the cause of civil rights, and he did so at a time when
it wasn't the popular thing for Hollywood stars to do. In fact,
according to his autobiography, some of his associates warned him that
his activism could harm his career and his financial success. But he
pursued it anyway.
He told the story of demonstrating outside some Oklahoma City
restaurants that refused to serve black Americans in 1961, and while he
modestly acknowledged this was a small effort that ``made no more than
a ripple in the wider world''--those are his words, not mine--the
restaurants did change their practices, and the episode was a
significant personal milestone for him.
His civil rights activism took him further. He was an admirer of Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr., and wrote ``Many men who knew him better than I
have written about Martin Luther King. I can't match their eloquence; I
can confirm what they've written: He was a special man, put on Earth, I
do believe, to be a twentieth-century Moses for his people. Dr. King
sought him out to discuss how to integrate certain segments of the film
industry. Mr. Heston was supportive but had doubts that it could be
done; he was surprised and impressed when Dr. King accomplished that
goal.
Later in 1963, when Martin Luther King famously marched on Washington
Charlton Heston was not only part of the march but helped organize and
lead a contingent from the American arts community in participating.
Their job was to help draw press attention to the cause but Mr. Heston
characterized the role he played as essentially an ``extra'' at the
event. Even so, he said of the march on Washington: ``In a long life of
activism in support of some good causes, I'm proudest of having stood
in the sun behind that man, that morning.''
I think many people fail to appreciate the importance of Mr. Heston's
involvement in supporting the cause of civil rights at that particular
time. It was a turning point in our Nation's history. His position put
him at odds with many in his industry, not to mention the mainstream
America that existed in those days. It was no small thing for Charlton
Heston to commit his energies and his name to advancing a cause that
was deeply controversial.
Today, some have forgotten what those times were like and the risk he
took. I would even argue that some prefer to overlook or rewrite the
record of his civil rights activism because they disagree with other
causes he took up later in his life.
Maybe it just doesn't sit right with the predominately liberal
majority in the media and Hollywood that Mr. Heston could both march
with Dr. King and later publicly denounce the violent, pornographic
lyrics of rapper Ice-T. Maybe they don't understand how the same man
who picketed against racism could criticize the Screen Actors Guild--an
organization he presided over for six terms--for practicing reverse
discrimination.
Or maybe they just don't understand the common denominator between
his fight for civil rights and his fight for the Second Amendment. When
he took the helm of the National Rifle Association for an unprecedented
three terms Americans' firearms rights were under attack as never
before. I met with him and encouraged his participation, as others did.
Mr. Heston did participate and brought for formidable energy to the
defense of this fundamental civil right of the law-abiding American
citizen.
It was my great privilege to work with him in those days. I came to
know him as an unabashed patriot and a friend. He was amazingly modest
about his accomplishments when he told me about his past involvement in
policy and political issues, but it was from him I learned about his
early work on behalf of civil rights.
Charlton Heston is remembered by countless Americans around the world
for the great roles he played and the characters he created, as only he
could do. That legacy will live forever. As his movies are discovered
by new audiences in the future, a new life for that memory will emerge.
But Americans should also be aware and celebrate and treasure another
legacy he left behind--his simple and quiet service to our Nation. Let
the record show Charlton Heston did not sit safely on the sidelines. He
strode boldly into the arena of public affairs and took on all the
risks of fighting in that arena. He worked to make this Nation a better
place through his activism in promoting civil rights and individual
liberties, a legacy that will have an even more lasting impact on our
lives and the lives of our fellow citizens.
Goodbye, Charlton Heston. America misses you.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Farm Policy

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am going to address, very briefly, an
action that will come before us this evening in a 2-week extension of
current farm policy that will be sought by Chairman Harkin, as they
work out, I understand, the final details of a new farm policy for our
country.
As my colleagues know, over the last several weeks, I have come to
the floor to speak out about the urgency at hand of getting a new farm
policy before American agriculture as we move into the spring season
and before the early harvest in the grain belt of our country, which
starts very soon in Oklahoma and northern Texas.
As most of my colleagues know, both the House and Senate passed new
farm policy last year, but because of their differences, we were simply
not able to work out a compromise in conference. In fact, the House
waited months to appoint conferees. Then the Speaker openly spoke out
about being unwilling to provide the tax package to finance the
necessary new policy.
I began to object. After 6 months and 4 extensions, finally, last
week on the floor I did object. But out of that we began to work
together and worked out a compromise, and I must say to all the
conferees on the House and the Senate side that their diligence appears
to have paid off. In talking with my colleague and the ranking member
of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Saxby Chambliss, today,
their work in large part is done. It is a matter of simply putting it
in final form, bringing it to print and, of course, then bringing the
conference report to the floor of the House and the Senate. Apparently,
the White House has also signed off on that and their work is largely
complete.
It is with that understanding that I will not object this evening to
a unanimous consent request to extend the current farm policy for
another 2 weeks while they work out and put to print their final
effort.
Let me thank them all for the sense of urgency that has developed
over the last 2 weeks and the work in completing it. Obviously, the
finance committee in the House, the House Ways and Means Committee and
Senate Finance Committee had to bring about the necessary package.
Senator Max Baucus and Congressman Rangel, apparently working with the
Republican side, have solved those problems and put the appropriate
finance package together.

[[Page S3579]]

There are very important policies, new policies inside this farm
bill. We are hearing for the first time, at least in my memory, a
question about food shortages or at least some commodity shortages
because of new demands we put on the production of American agriculture
as it relates to the production of energy. There is no other time more
important in our country to have farm policy in place and operative
than right now, to say to the American people we can get our work done
in a timely fashion--and that work is now complete; to say to American
agriculture: Here is your policy for the next 5 years, whether it is
nutritional policy for America's poor, whether it is production policy
for America's farmland, whether it is conservation policy or energy
policy; in large part all that is embodied.
I thank my colleagues for the work they have done. I hope their sense
of reality and their finishing the product and getting it before us
meets that timing. With that in mind, I will not object tonight to an
extension. But I am on the floor to personally thank them for the work
they have accomplished in getting it completed in the next 2 weeks and
getting it before us as soon as possible so we can say to American
agriculture: The work is done. Here is agricultural policy for the next
5 years.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington State.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Energy Market

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have been to the floor now a couple of
times already to talk about the high price of gasoline and what is
going on in the oil markets. I want to take a few minutes this evening
and talk about this issue as it relates to the futures market and what
is happening to the day-to-day price of gasoline.
I know my constituents are outraged over this price. I know they are
frustrated. It is impacting our economy. They want to see results. They
want to see us take action. I think it is very important for us to keep
delving into the details of what is causing this problem; that is, the
price of gas increasing over 100 percent in about a year's time.
The first thing that is important for us to remember is how dependent
the United States is on foreign oil; that we are, at 20 million barrels
per day, the highest user of a country dependent on oil. And when you
look at other countries and where they are on this issue, you can see
that 20, almost 21 million barrels a day of foreign oil really means
the United States, given the high oil prices we are seeing in the world
market, is more impacted than any other economy.
So that means the United States has to step up and deal with this
issue. I am not saying other economies, such as China, Japan, and
Germany, are not impacted, but we are five times more impacted, and
that is why we need to be aggressive and act on this legislation.
Now, we know where oil has been. In fact, I made this chart a few
days ago to show how oil prices have tripled since 2002. I said oil was
at $118 a barrel. Well, that changed. It went to $120. Now I think it
is back down maybe to $116 today. I have not seen where it has closed.
But that means we have seen gas go from $3.50 to $3.60. We have seen
diesel at $4.22.
The important point is that oil futures; that is, the future price of
oil, people are already purchasing oil and oil contracts into the
future, and they are paying $100 or more for the next several years.
That means those contracts that people are purchasing in oil futures
help set the price for the commodity we purchase today.
If people are saying: I will buy oil into many years from now, 7, 8
years from now, and pay over $100 a barrel, it makes it very hard to
have oil purchased in the physical market for a cheaper price than
that.
Now, I have spent many hours on the Senate floor talking about supply
and demand. The reason I have done that is because when you have a
normal market, you have supply and demand, it works pretty well. My
concern is, when you look at the statistics and the numbers, and here
is a particular example, that world supply basically since 1988 has
increased 33 percent and world demand has increased in that same time
period 33 percent.
I showed a chart the other day that basically showed these two lines
in parallel. This is not about supply and demand. This is not about a
major market disruption and thereby not having a lot of supply and
thereby causing a shortage and an increase, a spike in price. Now, yes,
we have had some anomalies in the marketplace. We have had situations
like Katrina, but they have been small instances, nothing that would
cause a 100-percent increase in a 1-year period of time in the price of
oil.
So that leads you to say simply: What is going on in this marketplace
if it is not supply and demand, if the market is not functioning?
Well, one thing I know about this futures price that I described to
you is that we have had a lot of testimony before the Energy Committee,
before the Commerce Committee. I am sure some of my colleagues with
oversight of the CFTC have had hearings.
But one thing we heard from a professor from the University of
Maryland was, with those selling or buying commodities in the spot
markets, they rely on the future price to judge the amount they are
going to pay for the delivery of those commodities.
So I am reinforcing what I said earlier; that is, if people are
already buying future contracts, and those future contracts are saying:
We are definitely going to pay more than $100 a barrel for oil, That is
going to affect the spot market. And the spot market is the market in
which people buy the commodity today and what price they will pay.
So if you are sitting there thinking: How much am I going to pay for
oil, and people are going to pay over $100 a barrel for it over the
next several years, it is certainly going to affect the day-to-day
price of oil.
Now, why is this so important? Well, it is so important because the
futures market, in my mind, is out of control as it relates to the
price of oil. It is out of control in the sense that it is not
regulated in the same way other futures commodities are regulated. It
is not regulated the same way cattle futures are, for example. They
have reporting requirements. They have trading requirements. They have
oversight by the CFTC. They are not exchanged on an international
exchange to which we do not have access. There is no loophole, but for
oil there is. That is the futures market, and the futures market
impacts the spot price market.
So let's look at what happened. In fact, one of the analyses that was
done on these hedge funds and how they are impacting the futures
market--because I know a lot of people think crude oil is produced and
an oil company either has that supply and then delivers it to its
regional retailers throughout the United States or maybe to other
countries and that is how it works. But what is happening is major
investors are buying that product.
In fact, hedge funds are taking an ever-larger bet in the futures
market because it is smaller than the stock market or the bond market,
which means you can have more influence. The funds are using borrowed
money to maximize their bets, magnifying their impact on the energy
markets and prices.
So this is a reporter reporting about what is happening in the
futures market and how hedge funds are playing this large role of
moving in and having an impact on what the futures price is. Now, the
reason I mention this is because we know this is causing problems. We
have a very big example of a hedge fund gone wrong; that is, a hedge
fund that was involved in rogue trading and used its power in the
futures markets to disrupt the market as it related to natural gas.

So many people probably read about Amaranth; they have seen it in the
paper. But what happened is, Amaranth sold large volumes of the next
month's gas delivery in the last 30 minutes of the market. So they took
a huge amount of supply and basically did what was called ``crashing
the close,'' basically to benefit their position.
Now what this did is it cost consumers $9 billion more in the cost of
natural gas. That is what this hedge fund did in disrupting the natural
gas

[[Page S3580]]

markets. And, thank God, we had passed a law in 2005 saying this kind
of activity was manipulative and it ought to be outlawed. The FERC is
working on enforcement penalties of $291 million against Amaranth in
this case.
But this is an example of how a hedge fund has come into the system
and had a significant impact. Now, the Chairman of the FERC is saying
these futures market prices impact the physical market price, and these
manipulative schemes that were used like in Amaranth were designed to
lower the prices in the futures market in order to benefit positions
held in the physical market.
It is that kind of activity that we do not have enough insight into
in the oil markets. You are saying: Well, how do we know about this?
This was a natural gas market. And post-Enron we passed a law and said:
We need to make this clear, a bright line that this kind of market
manipulation is against the law.
We did that, and this is what the policeman on the beat, the FERC,
has been doing to stop bad actors. And it is a very bright line. But
what we need to do now is to do the same thing with the oil markets
because after the Amaranth case, after it collapsed, lo and behold,
what happened? What happened? Well, the futures price dropped to the
lowest level for that contract in 2.5 years. So, basically, after
Amaranth got out of the situation, and throughout this period
thereafter, the market fundamentals of supply and demand basically have
been unchanged.
This was an investigation that was done by our Permanent Committee on
Investigations of the natural gas market. So once Amaranth was out of
the market and their activities, guess what. We saw a stabilization in
price. That is what we want. We want policing of the market. And that
is why we want the FTC to do its job. We want the FTC to do the
aggressive job that FERC is now doing in policing the electricity and
natural gas market.
This body, this Congress, this President, signed into law language
saying that the oil markets should also have a very bright line and
should not tolerate market manipulation. That was signed into law last
December. For the law to take effect, we need the Federal Trade
Commission to actually implement the rule, to say how they are going to
use this law, and to focus on catching the bad actors.
I want to reiterate the things that we need to do. We need to close
the Enron loophole. The Enron loophole allows for online trading to be
exempt from the regulations that other futures commodities comply with.
We need to require oversight of all oil futures markets. We cannot be
held, in the United States with that 21 million barrels of oil, to
having a blind spot on how the market is being impacted because the FTC
does not have any insight into bad actors who might be manipulating it
like Amaranth did.
We need the FTC to implement these new market rules. The FTC needs to
be clear. They need to publish these rules and implement them as soon
as possible.
I believe we need the Department of Justice to step in and help
because we have seen, in the Enron case, when the Department of Justice
and the CFTC and the FERC and various agencies worked together to piece
this puzzle together with their authority, more enforcement mechanisms
were used to catch bad actors.
I am sure we will have time again to talk about how 28 States have
already implemented statutes to make price gouging illegal. I believe
that is some authority that we should give the President.
So these are the things that we should be doing to protect consumers.
I know it might seem to some of my colleagues that the oil futures
market is complex and might not be the subject of something we should
be dealing with on the floor of the Senate. But I will guarantee you,
if we do not have a policeman on the beat for the oil markets, we are
going to see a continuation of these incredible prices that are not
based on market fundamentals.
I know whether you are an oil company or a hedge fund or whether you
are someone in the supply chain, no one wants manipulation. Everybody
wants markets to function based on supply and demand and basic
fundamentals. Everybody should be for transparency of these markets,
and they should be for strong Federal statutes implemented by the FTC,
and they should be in support of having a very aggressive policeman on
the beat to make sure we send a very strong message that these kind of
practices will not be tolerated.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Defenders of Freedom Fellowship

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, John F. Kennedy once said:

As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the
highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by
them.

I rise today to express my gratitude to the Montanans who have served
our country in uniform. Montana is home to over 100,000 veterans. Many
others gave the ultimate sacrifice in service of our Nation. Twenty-
four Montanans have given their lives in combat in Iraq and
Afghanistan. We owe these brave warriors a debt of gratitude that can
never be fully repaid, and it is an honor to call myself one of their
countrymen.
These veterans embody everything that is great about this Nation.
They are tough. They are smart. They work hard. No matter the task,
they get the job done. But the highest appreciation deserves more than
just words. In honor of all Montanans who have served this great
Nation, I am launching the Defenders of Freedom Fellowship. The
Defenders of Freedom Fellowship offers professional experience in the
U.S. Senate for Montana veterans. Each fellow will work in my personal
office on veterans issues. The fellow will research issues and
correspond with constituents, attend congressional hearings, and work
on new legislation. The fellow will gain a rare insight into how the
American Government works. The fellow will serve our Nation's veterans
and all the people of Montana.
The fellowship has three goals. First, the fellowship aims to help
involve more veterans in public service. A veteran's patriotism and
love of service is a valuable asset to any public office.

Second, the fellowship will take advantage of all the experience a
veteran has to offer. Many of these young men and women have experience
well beyond their years. We have much to learn from what they have seen
and done. We will gain a new perspective on tough problems we are
working to solve.
Last, the fellowship is a humble way to say thank you to Montana's
veterans, humble because it is an invitation for a veteran to come to
Washington to work. However, this fellowship can also offer a gift.
Some fellows will find a love for public service that will last a
lifetime. This passion for public service has propelled many to
greatness. It is this spirit that has inspired our Nation's greatest
leaders.
I am excited about this--very excited. I am very excited about this
fellowship and the opportunity I will have to work with some of
Montana's veterans. To all Montana veterans and their families, I offer
my gratitude for your service and for your sacrifice. To the future
Defenders of Freedom fellows, I look forward to working with you soon.
I thank you in advance for your efforts. I am confident you will find
your service very rewarding.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to speak to an amendment to the
pending legislation, H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization bill, which
would require the FAA to more effectively address flight delays that
are caused by airline overscheduling.
Airlines continually schedule more flights than airports can
physically handle. Schedules are made to reduce operating costs and
maximize airline profits without regard for airport capacity. Since
only a certain number of flights can be accommodated within a specified
time period, overscheduling triggers built-in delays which can take the
air traffic system hours to recover from. Responsible scheduling of
flights within airport capacity limits will go a long way towards
alleviating delays.

[[Page S3581]]

Many interested parties point out that airport capacity needs to be
expanded to match existing schedules. This is true. We do need to
ultimately expand airport capacity to accommodate passenger demand, but
projects to expand capacity can take years to develop and millions of
dollars to construct. In the nearterm, we should ensure that there is
some rationality to flight schedules so that passengers can trust that
their flight has a reasonable chance of being accommodated.
This amendment, on its own, would not cap or reduce peak hour flights
at any airport. It would simply direct the Federal Aviation
Administration to intervene in cases where overscheduling is causing
significant delays.
Specifically, it would require the FAA Administrator to convene a
meeting of airlines to discuss voluntary flight schedule reductions at
any airport where flights exceed the maximum hourly departure and
arrival rates set by the FAA, provided that such excess flights are
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the national or regional
airspace system. In other words, if the excess flights were deemed not
likely to have an adverse effect, no action would be taken. If an
agreement cannot be reached on voluntary flight schedule reductions,
then the Administrator, working with the affected airport, would be
required to take such action as is necessary to ensure that flight
schedule reductions are implemented. This gives the FAA and the local
airport the flexibility to decide how best to bring their schedules
within capacity. Additionally, the Administrator would be required to
submit a report to Congress every 3 months on flight scheduling at the
Nation's 35 busiest airports.
This amendment is supported by the Airports Council International-
North America as a measure that will force the FAA to more effectively
deal with delays. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to adopt it.
Mr. President, on December 19, 2007, the Federal Aviation
Administration, FAA, ordered air traffic controllers at Philadelphia
International Airport, PHL, to use new dispersal departure headings,
sending aircraft at low altitudes over residential portions of
Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey.
These new flight paths, a component of the FAA's New York/New Jersey/
Philadelphia metropolitan area airspace redesign, have been met with
enormous fury in local communities, prompting 12 lawsuits against the
FAA. They also prompted air traffic controllers at PHL to file an
``Unsatisfactory Condition Report,'' claiming that mandatory use of
dispersal headings unnecessarily complicates departure procedures.
The FAA has always touted this project as a congestion relief
initiative, and it is vitally important to address airspace congestion
in the northeast. However, they are not sending planes over residential
areas as a relief option. According to air traffic controllers, these
dispersal headings are being used as a primary option from 9-11AM and
2-7PM, resulting in overflights even when there are no other planes
waiting to take off at PHL.
At an April 25, 2008, field hearing that I chaired in Philadelphia
under the auspices of the Transportation and Housing and Urban
Development Appropriations Subcommittee, FAA Administrator Robert
Sturgell confirmed that overflights are occurring when less than 10
planes are waiting to depart at PHL.
This runs counter to prior commitments the FAA had made to only use
the headings during moderate to heavy traffic periods at PHL, when 10
or more aircraft were waiting to depart. The FAA has been unwilling to
honor its commitment by limiting use of the headings to only those
times when 10 or more aircraft are waiting because they claim that
doing so would require them to conduct a reevaluation and analysis. I
would argue that a reevaluation and analysis are in order if it would
provide relief to the communities surrounding PHL, but I am more
interested in seeing to it that the FAA honors its commitments.
Since they have not been willing to do so on their own, this
amendment would force them to honor their commitment by prohibiting the
use of dispersal departure headings at PHL unless 10 or more aircraft
are waiting to depart. It will ensure that communities are not
frivolously disrupted by overflights but still give air traffic
controllers the option of using dispersal headings as a relief option
when the airport is most congested.
It is important to note that the FAA is limiting overflights from
Newark Airport to times when 10 or more aircraft are waiting, so this
is not a policy that is unprecedented or impossible to implement.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Amendment No. 4585 Withdrawn

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I withdraw my amendment No. 4585.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 4627

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] proposes
an amendment numbered 4627.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

Amendment No. 4628 To Amendment No. 4627

Mr. REID. Madam President, I have a perfecting amendment to the
substitute at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 4628 to amendment No. 4627.

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the end add the following:
The provisions shall become effective 5 days after
enactment.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Could I ask
what the amendment is?
Mr. REID. Madam President, it is a change of date.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Just a date change.
Could I ask, on the amendment that was offered by the Senator from
West Virginia, is that the bill that has been discussed that has
already been on the table without the pension provision? Is that the
new substitute that was just put forward?
Mr. REID. That is our understanding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 4629 To Amendment No. 4628

Mr. REID. Madam President, I have a second-degree amendment at the
desk and I ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 4629 to amendment No. 4628.

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``5'' and insert ``4''.

Amendment No. 4630

Mr. REID. Madam President, I have an amendment to the bill at the
desk and I ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 4630 to the language proposed to be stricken by
amendment No. 4627.

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:

[[Page S3582]]

``The provision shall become effective 3 days upon
enactment.''
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 4631 To Amendment No. 4630

Mr. REID. Madam President, I have a second-degree amendment at the
desk, and I ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 4631 to amendment No. 4630.

The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``3'' and insert ``2''.
Mr. REID. Madam President, to all the Senators who are on the floor,
and those within the sound of my voice, there has been a new substitute
filed. The purpose of that is to eliminate the provision we have been
dealing with all day here. I say to my colleagues, there are
discussions going on as to how we can resolve that, if, in fact, we can
resolve it.
I say to especially my distinguished counterpart, Senator McConnell,
at this stage we are now ready to start the amendment process. I was
told early this morning that there was a Bunning amendment the minority
wanted to offer. No problem; we just have not seen it. I think this
bill, which is a tax bill--we do not want to tell anyone what they can
or cannot offer--but I think it should be in keeping with what this
bill is about. I have no problem if the Republicans want to offer one
amendment, two amendments, or lots of amendments. I have no intention
of trying to prevent them from offering amendments to this piece of
legislation. But there comes a time when you have to move on, and that
is what we are doing now.
I repeat: The floor is open. I do think it is appropriate--and the
only thing I did here is to stop random amendments from being offered.
I do not know how I can be more suggestive of the fact I want to finish
this bill. I want it to be done. If there are people who want to amend
parts of this very important bill, they should have a right to do so. I
have no problem with that. I do say it would be appropriate that we at
least see what the amendment is so we can move on, and as long as it is
in keeping with this bill, I do not care what it does.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I certainly share the view of the
majority leader that this is an important bill that needs to be
completed. However, I do not agree that employing a parliamentary
technique of filling the tree, which is what my good friend, the
majority leader, did, will help facilitate the completion of the bill.
This, of course, gives the majority leader the opportunity to basically
pick which amendments from my side will be allowed. That is the kind of
procedure that makes it impossible to get enough cooperation on the
minority side to get cloture and finish the bill.
This process is not going to help us get the bill finished. We will
have to continue our discussions on both sides about the amendments we
are going to insist be offered.
Hopefully, at the end of the day, after we get through the various
procedural moves that have been made, we can develop a regular
amendment process. I do not think there will be a huge number of
amendments, but the amendments that need to be dealt with are important
to this side of the aisle.
Until that kind of procedure is agreed to or worked out in one way or
another, it would be difficult to get cloture and to finish the bill.
I see my good friend from Texas on the floor. She has been working
diligently on this, along with Senator Rockefeller, for quite some
time. She may want to offer her observations as well.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I say, through the Chair to my friend, I
want to legislate on this bill. If someone can come up with a better
way that we do it, I am happy to do that.
As we know, if this vehicle is here, standing alone, anyone can offer
any amendment on anything. I do not think that is helpful to the
process. I do not want to stop them. If there are amendments over here
to offer, I have said once, twice--this is the third time--more power
to you, offer them. I don't wish to stand in the way of anyone offering
an amendment. I don't want to be dealing with the war in Iraq, abortion
or anything else which are some things that are very difficult to deal
with. That is my whole purpose in doing this. I want to deal with FAA
or anything within the realm of transportation. I hope everyone
understands that. I will be happy--if somebody can figure out a
different way to do this, let me know, and I will be happy to
cooperate.

Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I am greatly disappointed that we
have come to the time when we are not going to be able to move this
bill because there is not an open amendment process. I have worked with
Senator Rockefeller on the aviation bill; this is the FAA
reauthorization. We have come to agreement on the basic bill. It is
very bipartisan. Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, the chairman of
the Commerce Committee and the ranking member, have come to an
agreement on the aviation portions of this bill. The distinguished
majority leader said we don't want to take amendments that are not
relevant to the bill, but, in fact, the tax package that is in the
substitute that was put forward deals with many issues that are not in
any way related to aviation, not in one instance. So we would like to
be able to pass a bipartisan FAA reauthorization bill.
We have come to agreement in the Commerce Committee on the importance
of the bill--the passenger bill of rights, the added safety features.
It will modernize the air traffic control system. Yet now we have a
bill that has no amendments allowed unless we get permission to offer
amendments, when the underlying bill has many extraneous provisions in
it that were added by the Finance Committee. They are not relevant to
this bill, and they are not agreed to even by the leaders on the
Commerce Committee whose bill this is.
So I am disappointed. I think it is going to stop the consideration
of the FAA bill. If we could pare it back to FAA reauthorization,
modernization, then I think we would have a bipartisan step forward for
the consumers and passengers in this country.
I wish to thank my colleague, the Senator from Illinois, for working
on the pension part, which has now been taken out. I think that is an
excellent step in the right direction. It is very important to me. I
was the cosponsor of his amendment. That amendment has now virtually
been adopted. But I can't walk away from the rest of the people on my
side of the aisle who want to offer legitimate amendments and who have
very great concerns about the tax provisions in this bill that have
nothing to do with aviation.
So I hope once we get to the point the bill doesn't move forward,
which is where I think we will go, we can once again come together in a
bipartisan spirit and have the aviation bill we have agreed to, with
the tax provisions that relate to aviation that we have agreed to, and
get this bill going. There will be legitimate amendments on perimeter
rule, on some other safety issues. Those will be relevant. But we can't
move forward when half our body virtually is unable to be a
participant.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Texas makes my case. If there is part of
this bill she doesn't like, whether it is tax provisions or anything
else, offer an amendment to try to take it out. No one is trying to
stop her from legislating. It appears to me my friend from Texas is
looking for an excuse to kill this bill. If she doesn't like the tax
provisions in this bill, offer an amendment to strike them. No one is
stopping her from doing that.
I don't think it is asking too much to say we would like to have some
idea of what amendments are going to be offered. I don't care what they
are if they relate to this bill. I don't know how

[[Page S3583]]

many more times I need to say that. I think people, such as my friend
from Texas, are looking for an excuse to deep six this bill, and that
is what is going to happen.
We are at a place now where I have said if you want to offer
amendments, offer amendments, and they are saying, well, we don't want
to offer amendments because you have said you want to look at the
amendments first.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Wasn't the
tree filled up so that there are no possibilities of offering
amendments?
Mr. REID. I have said--it is so easy. If anyone wants to offer an
amendment, we take that little tree and add her branch to it. It is
easy to do. I am not trying to stop anyone from offering amendments to
this FAA bill. It is an important piece of legislation and it should be
accomplished. But we can't stand around for days on end looking at each
other. We have people who say they want to offer amendments. Good. Let
them offer amendments. I have no problem with that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I will try one more time with this
voice. I expect I am correct in saying that filling up the tree has not
worked except on occasions when the Republican leader agreed with the
majority leader on filling up the tree, and there have been a few
occasions on which I have agreed. I do not agree this time. This is not
a process that is going to get us a bill. But we all continue to talk
to each other, and we will hope that when the Sun comes up tomorrow,
there will be a process agreed to that will give us a chance to get the
votes we are going to have to get on this side of the aisle in order to
complete a bill we would all basically like to complete.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I have an idea. Why don't we have an
arrangement where the minority leader, the Republican leader, can also
look at amendments with me. I am not going to try to stop anyone from
offering an amendment. He can be part of the deal. I shouldn't be the
sole arbiter. He can work with me on these amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I would observe that from the very
beginning of this most interesting day, my very good friend, Senator
Hutchison, who is the ranking member on the Aviation Committee, has
said there is a way to pass this bill in 5 minutes and that is: One, we
do the amendment with respect to what my substitute amendment does;
and, secondly, that the extraneous amendments, financial amendments
which the Republicans do not like, they can put up that amendment. Now,
they have said nobody on their side will vote for our amendment on the
theory that it didn't come before they had a chance to take out the
extraneous amendments. So I would say to my distinguished friend,
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, offer your amendment right now, right
now. Offer it. You may find a more welcome audience than you think.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, it is frankly unfortunate that we are
getting all high bound here and wrapped up around the axle. The action
by the majority leader, as I understand it, in effect has adopted the
Durbin amendment, which off the top I think is regrettable. I think it
is important that this body protect pension plans--all pension plans--
and the effect of the substitute would be to let a certain airline off
the hook in providing enough protection to the plans. It has made big
promises, but it is not fully funding the plan.
Second, it is a bit disturbing that things have developed this way
because I had discussions with the majority leader as to how we can
resolve the Durbin amendment, how we can resolve that issue. It was my
hope we could continue those negotiations and discussions to possibly
take that issue off the table.
I say to my good friend from Texas and to all Members, the leader
asked me to work with Senator Rockefeller to come up with a bill that
merges both the Commerce Committee bill and the Finance Committee bill.
Senator Rockefeller and I did that. We sat down and worked out an
agreement on the bill. It is unfortunate we are not starting with that
agreement because it is a good-faith agreement and it also included tax
provisions. We have to have tax provisions to pay for our airlines, for
the trust fund, the airline trust fund. We have to have tax provisions
to pay for the highway trust fund. Again, we negotiated this out, the
chairman and I did, Senator Rockefeller and I did in good faith and we
came up with the measure which I think is fair.
Now, fairly, Senators have the right to offer amendments and should
offer amendments. After all, this is the Senate. I think there is a way
to work out the Durbin amendment. I made a suggestion to the majority
leader as to how to do that, and I think it would be helpful if those
negotiations could continue as we unwind one of the problems we are
faced with. But second, I hope we can get away from the situation the
minority leader described, which is filling up the tree which tends to
get us stuck. The goal is not to get stuck; the goal is to seek an
expeditious process and to move along quickly.
We have been spending all afternoon doing nothing, frankly. I made a
suggestion as to how to deal with at least one significant part and
that is the Durbin amendment, and it would be my hope that, as has been
suggested, when the Sun rises tomorrow and we all sleep on this a
little bit, cooler heads prevail, and we can find a way to get from
here to there. That means passing the FAA bill, which deals with issues
Senator Hutchison has talked about and which also finances the airport
trust fund and the highway trust fund--that is, the plussed-up highway
trust fund--and also a way to resolve the Durbin amendment in a fair
and equitable way. Because nobody is 100 percent right here. Senator
Durbin is not 100 percent right and I am not 100 percent right. But I
do think there is a way to resolve this, and I hope this evening we can
think about it, sleep on it, and work it out.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from
Montana. We have had some words today, some positive and some not so
positive, but I hope we can follow through on this conversation and
this dialogue and try to see if there is common ground. I don't know if
there is, but I am willing to try, and I hope we can see if we can
achieve it.
I offered with Senator Hutchison to have a vote earlier today and
that didn't happen. But at this point I hope we can find a way to reach
an amicable solution. This pension issue is a very important issue to
thousands and thousands of workers and to many communities that are
served by these airlines. We worked hard and I think had a sizable
number of Senators who supported our position, but you never know until
you take the actual vote. I will say the underlying bill, after all
this conversation about the pension plans affecting five airlines--and
the tax provisions, which, frankly, I support--I think the tax
provisions in this bill are good, relative to rail bonds, to the New
York situation, and to the highway trust fund. I support that. I am
happy to support it. But we want to make sure that at the end of the
day, the underlying bill is enacted into law. This is long overdue to
bring modernization and safety to our skies, and I know the work that
has been put into it by the Senator from Texas and especially the
Senator from West Virginia.
So I am prepared to sit down and meet with anyone in good faith to
try to resolve this if we can. I hope that at the end of the day,
though, what the majority leader said a few minutes ago is remembered.
He is looking for any germane amendments relative to this bill and is
prepared to engage a debate on both sides. He used this procedural
approach to try to break a logjam, but he clearly is looking for a way
to move to amendments and most importantly to pass this bill. I think
that was a good-faith offer, and I know he is a man of his word. So we
are prepared to work with Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison and
all the Members to try to resolve these differences.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I appreciate what the Senator from
Montana and the Senator from Illinois have said. I do hope we can
continue to

[[Page S3584]]

work on this. I know the situation, as it stands right now, would not
be acceptable: having a major piece of legislation that needs to be
debated, and we need to have the ability for the minority voice to be
heard. I don't think that it is going to happen with this particular
procedure, but that doesn't mean the door is closed.
We do want to work on this bill because, as I have said many times,
the underlying bill is one I fully support. It may be that one of the
options would be to separate the tax part of the bill and the aviation
part. I agree with the aviation tax part as well. Most people on our
side of the aisle do. It is the taxes that have nothing to do with
aviation that have been put into this bill that are the problem. That
is what is killing this bill right now. If we can come to an agreement
on the aviation taxes and the aviation bill and let the other tax
provisions that relate to the subway and the railway and the highway
fund, if those can be done in a separate package and then we have the
votes up or down, then I think that is one option we ought to consider.
So right now, in this particular procedure, I think we are going
nowhere. But we are going to continue to talk, and perhaps one of these
other options would be doable. The pension part is so important to me.
I have worked with Senator Durbin all day and ever since I learned the
pension part had been changed in the tax part of the package.
I hope we can come to a conclusion. I would like to come to a
conclusion with the Finance Committee because I think there are some
compromises, perhaps, that could be made. But I know what is in the
bill now would be very detrimental to some of the airlines in this
country. I think, as a matter of fairness and equity and protection of
employees, that we could not accept the language that is there. That
doesn't mean the door isn't open to talk. But if we can do something in
a separate bill and let the aviation bill--taxes and authorization--go
forward, I would hope that would be an option to consider.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Montana is
recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, first, I appreciate the words of the
Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Texas and their willingness
to work out an accommodation on the pension provision.
Second, I caution this body about potentially separating these bills
because the revenues provided in the bill are for the airport trust
fund. I think that is very important. Also, the revenues are provided
for NextGen, which is the next generation of air traffic control
infrastructure, as they move from analog to satellite. European
countries already have it. We need it here. We are behind the times. We
need the money to get started. So I wonder about the advisability of
separating those provisions.
Third, our highway trust fund is in deep trouble because of
inflation, fuel costs, and construction costs going up. It is important
that we so-called plus-up the highway trust fund and revenues there.
The ways we are paying for the highway trust fund have been agreed to
by the Commerce Committee and the Finance Committee, Senator
Rockefeller and myself. We agreed. That should not be an issue. The
ways we are paying for the highway trust fund are provisions that are
very meek and mild, not inflammatory at all. One is to limit fuel
fraud. We should do that. Next, we should increase the solvency of the
liability trust fund. That has not been opposed by anybody that I am
aware of. That is jobs. We know this country and our growth rate is not
what we would like it to be, and we could work this out.
Again, here we are at about 7 o'clock this evening, and a lot of good
words have been spoken in good faith. Let's follow up and try to find a
solution tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if I may respond briefly to the
Senator from Montana, there is a lot of room for us to work on the
highway trust fund issue. Everybody wants to replenish the highway
trust fund. I do think there are issues with paying for it, and I think
there is the view that we don't have to put a tax on some sectors in
order to make this whole, because it is stimulative, and I think we
could work on something that would get the highway trust fund
replenished but not have to then find the issue of how we pay for it--
particularly, one of the things is the retroactive tax version which is
a problem for some people.
With the highway trust fund, I think we are replenishing something we
can all agree is necessary. If we can come to terms on paying for it
and in what manner it will be paid for, that is an area we would like
to discuss.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I don't know if I am closing or not.
I want to offer this observation. I have been here virtually all day. I
have had plenty of rest--very little talking and very little learning.
What strikes me, as this day closes, is that the people who are
objecting in various ways to taking a vote--there will be no votes from
our side on this or that or whatever--are missing the whole point of
the bill. I support the Durbin position on pensions because it is part
of the written law. It is not very difficult.
Everybody wants their own little piece to win. I have heard almost no
conversation today--and virtually none yesterday--about the perilous
condition of our aviation industry, particularly the commercial
aviation industry. There isn't any sense of urgency about the large
matter. Maybe people have it in their hearts, but they don't choose to
bring it out here because on the floor they want to win points or they
have ideological considerations that we cannot raise taxes or whatever.
But while we are sitting here doing nothing--and I am sure impressing
the American people mightily with our vigor--we have an aviation
industry that is on the verge of collapse.
I pointed out a number of times that one out of every six employees
has been laid off by commercial airlines. The fastest growing part of
the aviation industry is the general aviation industry. I have very
strong feelings about that, but for the sake of the chairman of the
Finance Committee, I backed off of my solution for a fee of $25 per
flight for a high-end private or corporate jet. I never really
figured out how the $25 was going to bring them to the feet of
catastrophe. Most of the jets that are made at the high end are sold
elsewhere, overseas.

So I am very frustrated, as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee,
that we are not really talking about how to fix aviation. We are
talking about how to keep our turf, how you are going to get no votes
on this until I get my votes on that. None of it is about the big
picture. It is about little things inside the bill which people choose
to put their feet down on and then not move.
That is very depressing to me because I am very keenly aware that
aviation is not a subject that has a great deal of appeal broadly. Most
of our meetings on the Commerce Committee are attended by relatively
few. There are relatively few on the floor of the Senate who really
understand the condition of the aviation industry or the details
pertaining to its condition, the history of that condition, and what
the future holds.
I hope that, as we go through this night of cooling down, we will
become reflective about what the bill is about, which is trying to give
the commercial aviation industry, as well as the general aviation
industry, a chance to survive in one case and flourish in the other
case.
I made enormous compromises with the chairman of the Finance
Committee--monumental, from my point of view. But so what. That is not
even the point. The point is commercial airlines. So many of them are
closing down. So many of them are in chapter 11 bankruptcy, in and out
of chapter 11. Some are headed toward chapter 7. It is a national
catastrophe--not to speak of our air traffic control system where we
are at this point behind Mongolia.
So these things are important, and evidently others don't think so
because they want to win their points to keep their positions and let
the aviation industry take care of itself. I have not heard anybody on
the floor today discussing with any passion, any coherency, or logic
the condition of our aviation industry. That is very disappointing to
me.
So I put up that caution and say that I hope we will be a wiser group
tomorrow and that we will reach an accommodation because if we don't,
we will

[[Page S3585]]

not only not be the world class of aviation, we will be very far from
it. It is not just the commercial airlines, it is the air traffic
control system. And, yes, you do have to kind of raise taxes for that.
You have to build a digital GPS satellite system at the same time as
you maintain an analog system. It will take 10 or 12 years to build
this modern air traffic control system which every other country in
Europe has--Japan and probably China have it.
It is discouraging to me for people not to be keeping their eye on
the central force of this bill, which is to preserve what we need to do
in commerce, to stay in touch with each other, to visit a dying mother,
and do all kinds of things that are in the American way of life. Our
debate today has not reflected the American way of life. It has
reflected kind of a much more parochial view than I am comfortable
with. But I am managing the bill, so I have to deal with that.
So I just close by saying that I hope tomorrow will be a brighter
day.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wasn't present on the floor when the
maneuvering that just took place happened that puts this Senate in a
very difficult position, but it gets us into a very bad and dangerous
situation.
The maneuvering of the Democratic leader and floor manager that was
just done is not used very often in the Senate. In fact, substituting--
putting a modification of a substitute that was agreed to by two
separate committees that jointly brought this to the floor is something
that I think is very unprecedented. This process of filling the tree so
that only the majority party can decide what amendments can come up is
not only dangerous and can keep this very important piece of
legislation from being passed, but it is dangerous for the whole
process of the Senate's comity in getting the job done.
As I said, this substitute was the product of two committees--not one
committee but two committees--and by the overwhelming support of people
on those committees that we needed to not only reauthorize the Federal
Aviation Administration and do everything we can to improve airport
safety, as well as airport facilities, but also the financing of it, to
make sure there is plenty of money available to get the job done.
On safety at the airports, we have the Commerce Committee doing their
work. On financing it, we have the tax-writing Finance Committee making
sure the money is available. These two committees do their work almost
in a unanimous way, and it comes to the Senate floor. That ought to be
a procedure that gets this bill through this body quickly, without a
lot of controversy, and by an overwhelming vote that reflects the
comity that went into it and that reflects the need of the airline
industry, both for commerce and for the passenger.
These joint deals should not be taken lightly, and because one
amendment is offered that a few powerful Senators do not like, and
their unwillingness to set it aside so we could work on other
amendments as we tried to work out a compromise was not accepted, they
take this extraordinary measure that only a manager of a bill can do to
ask to modify an amendment by taking out the provision of the bill
which dealt with the Durbin amendment that was before the Senate. That
is nothing else, just blatant political power to get around something
that people did not want to deal with. This was something that was
agreed to between the two committees. That move breaches the deal.
What is more, the Democratic leader has backstopped the breach of the
deal by this procedure we call ``filling the tree'' so that only
amendments can be offered that can get unanimous consent to offer them,
and that is very difficult to do and is only done for the sole purpose
of keeping the issue dealing with the Durbin amendment from debate and
finality on the floor of the Senate.
All day long the floor managers could have set aside the Durbin
amendment, as I said, and moved along to other business. That is what
the Finance Committee does in similar situations. We have already heard
speakers before me say there are very real possibilities of working out
compromises on that amendment that the majority manager did not like.
Let it be clear that we could have processed other business if
Senator Durbin would have deferred action on his amendment, and we
would have been moving along. We would not be in this position that is
dangerous from two standpoints: dangerous whether or not this important
legislation can be passed, and dangerous from the standpoint of working
together on other legislation that needs to be done in future weeks.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
(The remarks of Mr. Brown are located in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. BROWN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

IRAQ

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to talk about the war in
Iraq, from two different vantage points. One, the first vantage point,
is from the perspective of those who have served--some of our fighting
men and women who happen to be in the Reserves. I also wish to talk
about a victim of this war and some thoughts I have in my heart today
about the war and about this particular victim and what it tells about
our country. First of all, with regard to a particular problem and then
some legislation I introduced to correct it.
We have a policy right now, which I would regard as unfair, that if
it is fully implemented would hurt numerous Army Reserve members and
consequently our national security. Last year, the Army implemented a
new policy whereby Reserve members who were called to Active Duty for a
period of time exceeding 180 days, will be given an option--an option
of a permanent change in station assignment or a waiver request to
receive a significantly reduced per diem rate for the locality to which
they are temporarily assigned. This could tremendously disadvantage
those who happen to be serving in the Army Reserves.
While on its face it might seem harmless because it gets fairly
technical, its unintended ramifications could be very costly. Reserve
Members from across Pennsylvania and across the country have described
this policy as a hardship that could potentially cause future problems
for retention and enlistment rates. For instance, under this new
policy, an Army reservist living in Philadelphia who is deployed for a
temporary mobilization, as short as 9 or 12 months, for example--and
this is an increasingly common occurrence because of the strain the war
in Iraq has placed on our military, but this particular example means
that person could face the financial necessity of selling his or her
home if he or she is unable to afford to maintain both their primary
residence and their temporary housing on a reduced per diem rate. In
other words, they are not being helped in that interim period of, say,
9 to 12 months. This is not only a story about Pennsylvania, but it is
a story that could be replicated, unfortunately, across the country.
I introduced legislation yesterday entitled ``The Reserve Residence
Protection Act of 2008,'' which would correct this fundamentally unfair
policy. The legislation would provide a basic allowance for housing to
cover the costs of maintaining the primary residence of National Guard
or Reserve members when they are mobilized outside their local area.
In addition, it would pay a lower second basic allowance at their
mission location, if onbase housing is not provided. In January, when
we passed the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, we
passed a provision providing for the second basic housing allowance to
protect the residence of Reserve members without dependents, but we
left out--it is hard to believe this but we did--this body left out
members with dependents. So if you had dependents and you are in this
dilemma, you were left out. This legislation corrects this very
important oversight.

[[Page S3586]]

Our Nation today is relying more than ever on National Guard and
Reserve troops to fulfill our missions around the world and especially
to carry on the work these men and women are doing in Iraq. Without
these citizen soldiers placing their lives on the line to contribute to
our national security, we could not carry out all our vital missions.
National Guard and Reserve members know the sacrifices they need to
make whether they enlist, but no Reserve members should be forced to
choose--as they are now, if this policy is implemented without the bill
passing--no Reserve member should be forced to choose selling his or
her primary residence in order to fulfill a temporary mobilization
order or deciding not to reenlist due to this unnecessary burden. In
addition to being unfair in the first instance, it acts as a
disincentive to those who might want to give even more service to their
country.
When citizen soldiers enlist, they sign agreements to train and
deploy when they are called up. That is the commitment they make to us
and to our national security. However, I do not believe, and no one in
this Chamber believes, that this is a one-way street or a one-way deal.
The Nation, at the end of this bargain, promises to acknowledge their
unique role as citizen soldiers and to aid in the transition between
Active and Reserve Duty.
I am proud to have introduced the Reserve Residence Protection Act of
2008 because it will ensure that America is keeping its promise,
keeping our promise to those who serve in our National Guard and
Reserve, and we are keeping our promise to their families as well.
In conclusion tonight, I wish to talk about the war for a few
moments, from the perspective of one victim, but I think this one
victim tells a very dear and sad story. Today's Washington Post had a
picture on the front above the headline. The headline read: ``U.S. Role
Deepens in Sadr City.'' The subheadline reads, ``Fierce Battle Against
Shiite Militiamen Echoes First Years Of War.''
I would say this in the context of where we are today. Tomorrow is
the fifth anniversary of President Bush declaring, ``Mission
Accomplished.'' That is one thing we are thinking about today and
tomorrow--all the time that has passed, all the trauma to our country
and to the people of Iraq since then. But also we note, in yesterday's
press, in the month of April, as of April 29, yesterday, 44 Americans
died in Iraq, the highest number since September of 2007.
So why do I say that in the context of this story? The story, which
is an ominous sign for what is happening in Sadr City with regard to
our troops--and we have seen the loss of life this week. But above that
story is this horrific picture. I know you may not be able to see it
from a distance, but many have seen it today. I will read the caption
before I show the picture.
The caption reads: ``Ali Hussein is pulled from the rubble of his
home after a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad's Sadr City. The 2-year-old died
at a hospital.''
The picture depicts two men, one holding this 2-year-old child above
his head. The 2-year-old, this child, would look like any child in
America with the kind of sandals you can connect with Velcro. He has
shorts on and a shirt.
Unfortunately, I know you cannot see it from here, unfortunately for
this child, who later died, apparently when this picture was taken he
is still alive, he looks at that moment, in fact, dead. His eyes are
closed, his mouth is open. You can see the soot or the dust from an
explosion covering his body. So at that moment he had not died, but he
died a short time after. And what does this mean? Well, it means a lot
of things. It means this war grinds on, and that the lives of our
soldiers, the effect on their families, and we see other victims--we do
not see pictures like this very often of children dying in Iraq.
This is not the fault of any one person or any side of the aisle
here. It is something we have got to be more cognizant of, especially
in the context of this raging debate we are having in America about our
economy. And it is so important that we have a debate about our
economy. It is so important that we focus on those who have lost their
jobs, focus on those who have been devastated by the loss of their
homes, focus on the increasingly difficult challenge that people have
paying to fill their gas tank; all of the horrific and traumatic
economic circumstances we face.
But as that debate is taking place, we are still at war. We still
have soldiers coming home who, as Lincoln said, in his second inaugural
when he spoke of ``him who has borne the battle and his widow and his
orphan.''
So many soldiers are coming home either maimed or coming home dead
for their final rest. And even victims in Iraq, young victims such as
this young boy, 2 years old. He lost his life in an airstrike. So
whether it is a 2-year-old in Sadr City who happened to be Iraqi or
whether it is a 2-year-old boy or girl here in America who lost their
mother or their father in Iraq serving our country, we have to remind
ourselves that this anniversary challenges all of us to do all we can
to bring this conflict to an end.
No one has a corner on the market of truth. No one knows the only way
to do this. But we have to continue to worry about it and think about
this war and its victims, and we have to figure out a way to get our
troops out of this civil war.
As we do that, unfortunately, these pictures of the victims, whether
they are nameless and faceless, or whether they are, in fact,
identified, as this poor child was identified, must be reminders to all
of us that we have a lot of unfinished business in the Senate and in
Washington when it comes to the policy that has led to the loss of life
we have seen here in America.
In my home State of Pennsylvania, like the Presiding Officer's, Ohio,
we are up to 184 deaths and more than 1,200 wounded, in many cases
grievously, permanently, irreparably wounded.
So this picture reminds us that we have a lot of work to do when it
comes to the policy as it relates to the war in Iraq.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________