Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the work of Bill Simmons, the director of the Yuba County Office of Education's Regional Career Center, and recognize Mr. Simmons' 21 years with the Yuba County Office of Education and commend his more than five decades of service to his country and his community.

In 1954, Bill Simmons began his 24-year career with the U.S. Air Force. He retired in 1977 as a first sergeant for the 9th Field Maintenance Squadron at Beale Air Force Base in Marysville, CA. After his retirement from the U.S. Air Force, Mr. Simmons remained in Marysville and began a long career of service to his community.

Bill Simmons used the leadership skills he gained in the Air Force and began his career with Yuba County as a group counselor in the juvenile probation system. He remained committed to improving the community as he worked to help build the One-Stop Center, a invaluable resource for the region that is the service provider for the Federal Workforce Investment Act's One-Stop Center for Business and Workforce Development.

I had the pleasure of working with Bill when he served on the Yuba County board of supervisors from 1997 to 2005, and we continue to collaborate on issues affecting Beale Air Force Base through Mr. Simmons' role as a member of the Beale Military Liaison Committee. For the last three decades, Bill Simmons has been a forceful advocate

for Beale AFB, by both working to improve the on-base facilities and promoting the many values and strengths of Beale AFB throughout California and the country.

Bill Simmons has been a valuable local resource on education, military, and local issues affecting the entire Yuba-Sutter region, and I hope that he will remain active in his community beyond his retirement from the Yuba County Office of Education. I wish my friend the best as he embarks on this latest chapter of his distinguished career.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the 2006-2007 National Hockey League champions, the Anaheim Ducks. The Anaheim Ducks demonstrated remarkable skill, teamwork, and determination in becoming the first California hockey team to win the prestigious Stanley Cup.

The 2006 to 2007 season will be remembered as a truly landmark season for the Anaheim Ducks. During the course of the season, the Ducks played in the franchise's 1000th regular season game and recorded their 1000th point after a much-deserved 4 to 2 victory on March 11, 2007. The Ducks began their season in fine form as they set an NHL record by remaining undefeated in regulation play for the first 16 games of the season. The Ducks used a high-octane offense and a stout defense to achieve the first 100-point season and the first Pacific Division title in the franchise's history. Throughout the season, the Ducks were a model of hard work, dedication and consistency.

Under the leadership of a dedicated management and coaching staff and with contributions from an outstanding roster of seasoned veterans and promising young players, the Ducks defeated the Minnesota Wild, the Vancouver Canucks, and the Detroit Red Wings in their usual spirited fashion en route to winning the Western Conference title. In the finals, the Ducks triumphed over the Ottawa Senators in a fiercely contested series that ensured the oldest and most famous trophy in all of North American professional sports, the Stanley Cup, will finally make its way to California for the first time.

It is my pleasure to congratulate all the hard working members of the Ducks organization who worked tirelessly to bring so much joy and pride to the people of Orange County and to the State of California. Their successes are considerable, and I salute their accomplishments. As the Anaheim Ducks and their fans celebrate their first Stanley Cup victory, I congratulate them on a truly remarkable and memorable season and wish them more success in future seasons.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the lifetime of achievement and community leadership of Dr. Ron Bangasser. Dr. Bangasser passed away in Redlands on May 2, 2007.

Born on January 25, 1950, in Freeport, IL, Ron Bangasser served the Inland Empire, his State and our Nation as a physician and advocate for health and wellness. After completing medical school at Chicago Medical School, Dr. Bangasser trained at San Bernardino County Medical Center in southern California, later served at St. Luke's Presbyterian Hospital in Milwaukee, and with the Navy Diving Medical Officer's Training School. Most recently, he was a physician with the Beaver Medical Group in Inland Southern California, where he served as medical director and director of external affairs. He also served as the chief of staff at nearby Redlands Community Hospital. In 1986, Dr. Bangasser founded the Paul F. Bangasser Wound Care Center at Redlands Community Hospital, named after and dedicated to his father.

Dr. Bangasser was a tremendous advocate for patients and physicians, serving with a number of medical associations. For 28 years he provided key leadership for the San Bernardino County Medical Society, the California Medical Association, and the American Medical Association. He served as the speaker for the California Medical Association's house of delegates, and as chair for the California delegation to the American Medical Association. He also served as chair of the California Medical Association's finance committee, and vice chair of the California Medical Association's hospital medical staff section.

Dr. Bangasser was also the recipient of numerous prestigious awards and honors. He received the Nicholas P. Krikes, M.D. Award for Outstanding Contributions to the San Bernardino County Medical Society, the American Medical Association Pride in the Professions Award, Riverside County Medical Association's Outstanding Contribution to Organized Medicine Award, the California Medical Association Young Physician's Joseph Boyle Young at Heart Award, the James C. MacLaggan, M.D. Political Action Award, and the Medical Board of California's Physician Humanitarian Award.

While serving in each of his varied capacities, Dr. Bangasser also found the time to serve as the team physician for the San Bernardino Valley College football team for 22 years. San Bernardino Valley College honored him for these years of service and awarded him its Distinguished Service Award in 1999.

Dr. Ron Bangasser will be remembered for all that he did to make his community and this country a better place to live. His was a life well lived.

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

Mr. President, I have a couple questions for the Senator. I am very taken with his response to this amendment offered by my dear friend, one of the senior members of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I feel the Senator from New Jersey has hit on a number of points, and I wish to go over them. So if we reiterate, I think it is important.

This Energy bill is supposed to be about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, not increasing it. It seems to me that by turning to the same old, same old is ignoring the fact that our coastlines and our shores and the area out 50 miles where this will kick in are huge economic engines for our various States.

So doesn't my friend believe, to restate his argument in a slightly different way, that we are going back to the same old solutions and ignoring what has happened in the last 20 years since we protected our coasts, that the economic engines of our coastal States have driven jobs and tourism and all the good things that come with a protected coast?

I have a further question. I would like to get the attention of Senator Bingaman, if I may, on this particular question because there are some people in this Chamber who think this particular amendment just deals with Virginia. Is it not so, if we look at page 2, it deals with any coastal State, and it is defined here to mean Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida? So we are not just dealing at all, as I understand it, with one State. It appears as if we are dealing with a number of States on the east coast, if not all the States that border on the coast.

So the amendment I have in front of me, 1566, is not the amendment that is before the Senate; is that correct? Parliamentary inquiry to the Presiding Officer: Is amendment No. 1566 not before the Senate, or has it been modified since it included all the other States?

Yes, I understand.

I thank the Senator. That is why I took the floor to ask some questions because my staff reading of it was not correct. I am glad it only applies to Virginia.

However, my next question I was going to ask of my friend from New Jersey is this, because I think it is very important: We have one country from sea to shining sea. It seems to me my friend is pointing out, even with comments from other States, if, in fact, one particular Governor prevails, will there not be impacts most likely on other States?

I am not going to take very much time. I say to my good friend, I know he is just looking at his own State but, in essence, what he will do today, if he succeeds, is to destroy, I believe, a very important bipartisan environmental agreement that has been in place for decades now--I guess it is, what, 25 years or so, or getting close to that--where we have basically said as Republicans and Democrats: We have a God-given country, and one of our most precious resources is our coastlines, our shores; that because we have stood together, shoulder to shoulder, on this issue perhaps until this moment--and I hope not, but so be it, we are going to find out--we send a signal to our States that they should preserve and protect their coastlines and, indeed, to many in the private sector who have taken advantage of the fact that the beauty of our coastlines, the beauty of our oceans that attract millions of tourists, not just from around the United States to our coastlines but from throughout the world.

I would hate to see us today, through the amendment process, without a pretty good hearing, take a step to cast asunder 25 years of bipartisanship and agreement by Presidents, both Republican and Democratic.

Look, we know we want to become energy independent, and I think this underlying bill takes us very far down that road. Why turn to the same- old, same-old answers, when we have within our grasps the ability to get better fuel economy in our cars, the ability to get new kinds of renewable fuels, the ability to look forward, not backward, and not cast asunder the beauty we have inherited, I believe, from our Creator?

I hope we can stand firm on this point because I am very fearful that if this idea is adopted, it is the beginning of the unravelling of something of which I have been so proud to be a part. I came to the Congress in 1982. I know my colleague has been here much longer than that. The fact is, since that time, we have worked in such a good way to preserve and protect the coasts.

Again, I thank my colleague.

I will be happy to.

Mr. President, is the Senator asking a question?

I will answer that one because it was so brilliantly posed. I got caught up in the Senator's poetic expression. I don't want to forget.

I think Senator Menendez, and pretty soon we are going to hear from an eloquent opponent of Senator Warner's amendment, Senator Nelson from Florida, they are going to express how they feel being on the east coast. I am on the west coast. But, again, to me the beauty of this whole moratorium has been that we have said our coastlines and our ocean, that those are national treasures, east coast, west coast. And I think my colleague, Senator Menendez, has pointed out, it isn't as easy as all that. You are not going to build some kind of a sand dune around the drilling. You don't know what could happen. You don't know how far the problem could go. I know the Senator talks about the mitigation fund, but that just speaks to the point. So it isn't just about one State, it is about an entire coast, and it is about a precedent.

Let me just say to my friend that the world has changed after 9/11. I voted to go to war against bin Laden--and we are still waiting--and, clearly, we learned very quickly over the years that we have to not be dependent on foreign oil, but we also understand we need a strong economy and a good economy, which means some other things, too. It means a beautiful coast, it means a healthy tourist industry, it means a healthy fishing industry.

There are more jobs in tourism in my State than almost any other sector. So I think it is simplistic to say the only thing that drives us is oil. As I said, the beauty of the underlying bill is that we want to get past that and into the new solutions that are coming. We are going to have a vote, probably, on the CAFE standards, corporate average fuel economy, if Senator Feinstein's provision remains. It will be the equivalent of taking 5 million cars off the road.

So there are new ways to think about the future, new ways to get off of foreign oil, and I don't think a good new way is to cast asunder years of bipartisan agreement and perhaps endanger the economies of many States along the Atlantic coast.

We don't have any offshore oil drilling very much anymore in California, but I am familiar with the big spill that occurred in Santa Barbara, which was so devastating that our State said never again, and our Governors, Republicans and Democrats, have said never again to drilling in State waters.

Now, I can't give the Senator an answer to his question, but I have seen Exxon Valdez, and I have seen the great damage that has been done in my home State, as we study what happened in Santa Barbara. It is fortunate we don't have much offshore drilling in my State anymore, so I would be happy to have my friend put that in the Record.

I will wait in line. It is his time.

I would. I want to be very clear--very clear. I support drilling where it makes sense to drill. I oppose drilling where it doesn't make sense. I submit to my friend and to the Senate and to the American people that we made a very wise bipartisan decision a long time ago--and I think we should stick to it--that the fact is, it is important for the economy of the coastal States to keep and preserve the coast in the pristine nature in which it was given to us by God. That is my view, and I hope we will not support this amendment.

Madam President, could the Chair give us the parliamentary situation this morning.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, it is my understanding now there is how much time remaining until the vote on the Inhofe amendment?

Madam President, I rise to debate this Inhofe amendment and, in the strongest possible terms, make a few points to my colleagues.

When you strip it all away, this amendment is a giveaway--a giveaway to energy companies at a time when they have never had it so good, at a time when they have never made so much money. The CEOs are making $37 million a year; $16 million a year; Exxon, a $39 billion profit-- billion-dollar profit; Shell, a $25 billion profit; BP, a $22 billion profit; Conoco-Phillips, $15.6 billion; and Chevron, over $17 billion. The CEO, Lee Raymond, of ExxonMobile, received a $400 million severance gift. Let me repeat that. One man received a $400 million severance gift, and the Inhofe amendment wants to give these people more. The Inhofe amendment wants to give these people more, even after, in the 2005 Energy bill, they already got their streamlined provisions. They already got what they needed.

Let me tell my colleagues what the Inhofe amendment does. It gives to those who have, and it gives to energy companies free public land-- public land that belongs to the taxpayers of America. It gives them preference to get free public lands. Not only do they get the land free, but in the case of Indian land, they get 110 percent of their costs reimbursed to them. This is what we are doing in an Energy bill that is supposed to be good to consumers.

The underlying bill has many provisions in it. All those provisions are good for the American people, including fuel economy for our cars, solar energy on the building of the Department of Energy. We hope we will have a modest model project at the Capitol powerplant showing that we can, in fact, reduce the carbon emissions of coal. These are all bipartisan amendments.

Senator Inhofe tried to get a similar amendment to the one he is now proposing through the committee. When he controlled the gavel, he couldn't even get it out of the committee then, let alone now. So it gives to the oil companies, when they were taken care of in the Energy bill of 2005.

I am going to tell my colleagues what we did for them in 2005. The 2005 Energy bill has a provision, which is section 392, that allows States to request EPA to work with them and enter into an agreement under which EPA and the State will identify steps, including timelines to streamline the consideration of Federal and State environmental permits for a new refinery. Interestingly, even though this legislation exists, EPA said before my committee in October--actually, it was before Senator Inhofe's committee because he was chair at that time-- that no State had asked EPA to use that provision of the law. So they got a streamlined procedure in 2005. They never took advantage of it. Now, Senator Inhofe is giving them more streamlining procedures, and he is exempting these energy companies from every single environmental law that was signed into law by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents.

Let me tell my colleagues the laws that are waived in the Inhofe amendment. I say to the American people: Listen to this because if ever we have unanimity about what is important to do for the health of our people, it is when Republican and Democratic Members of the Congress and Presidents sign these laws and pass these laws: The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Those are a few examples of Federal laws which are cast asunder by this amendment. Who gets the benefit? Not the American Lung Association, which might, in fact, put in substantial precautions that the air is clean, but they give it to the most polluting industries in America: the refining and oil industries.

Senator Inhofe will say: Oh, we let the States pass these laws. We say they have to pass substantially equivalent laws. That is not defined. Why on Earth waive the laws that are the cornerstone of America's environmental protection under both Republican and Democratic Presidents? Why waive those laws? Do you think that little of America's families?

In my State, 9,900 people die every year from lung-related disease. And let's talk about some of the chemicals these refineries give off.

In 2005, refineries emitted over 68 million pounds of toxic chemicals, 3.8 million pounds of known cancer-causing substances, 2.5 million pounds of toxins that damage the reproductive system, and 6.8 million pounds of toxins that harm the development of children.

In California, communities that border refineries and chemical plants have high concentrations of childhood asthma. We should be working to make the air cleaner, not worse.

Let me review what I have said so far. This amendment has a name, and I am going to read you the name of this amendment. The title of this amendment is the Gas Petroleum Refinery Improvement and Community Empowerment Act. I ask, how is a community empowered by this amendment? The idea is to allow these new energy plants to go on Federal land that has been surplused. In California, we have had a lot of these lands, and, by the way, some of them have been redeveloped in the most wonderful way. Everybody is equal. There are no winners and losers. Here we are picking a winner, and the winner is one of the most polluting industries in America. They get the land free, and the community is left without anything. The Federal Government gets no money. That was the idea behind the Surplus Federal Lands Act. The Federal Government should get some money from the private sector. Oh, no, they get the land free, these energy companies. That is because they are hurting so much. They are hurting so much that we are going to give them the land free.

On Indian land, they get back 110 percent of their investment, so they actually make money without a penny of cost. Whoever votes for this amendment is voting for a giveaway of taxpayers' dollars. Whoever votes for this amendment is voting for an open-ended cost that isn't even stated in the bill.

Look at the last page of the bill, ``such funds as may be required.'' We know some of these energy plants will cost $4 billion for one plant. Let's say there are 100 pieces of Federal land that could be redeveloped. You do the math. We are busting the budget. You think the Iraq war costs a lot? Take a look at this. And who does the money go to? The same people who are charging us in California close to $4 a gallon for gas.

So you can stand up here and talk about it all you want, but the bottom line is, this is, in many ways, a socialistic bill, socialism: give away land to big business, give them the cost of the building, in some cases 110 percent reimbursement, waive all of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act that protects the health and safety of our people, and who are the most vulnerable? Our moms and dads, our grandmas and grandpas, our children. Just ``Katy bar the door'' with the money. No problem. Oh, it is as if we are somehow in the black today when we have deep deficits today.

What an amendment to bring to the floor from my friend--my good friend--Senator Inhofe. A similar amendment went down in the committee when he had the gavel.

I say it is economic blackmail for communities that are losing a military base. It chooses an energy project over any other project they might want. I say to my colleagues, if they look at what these refiners are making, how well they are doing, we don't need to give them any more incentives.

I want to tell my colleagues a story about my State. Shell Oil owned a refinery in Bakersfield, CA. We all supported that refinery. It made 2 percent of the gasoline for the cars in California. Shell Oil announced they were shutting down the refinery. We begged them not to shut it down. Here is what they said to us in writing: We are losing money, and we are shutting it down because we can't find a buyer.

Lies, those were lies. How do I know that? Because we were fortunate enough to have an attorney general of California, at that time it was Bill Lokyer, who saw the books. The refinery was making a lot of money. We believe Shell Oil wanted to shut it down because they wanted to squeeze the supply--squeeze the supply. Guess what

else. When we caught them on that, they said: Oh, we are sorry, we made a mistake; we still can't sell the refinery.

We found buyers for the refinery. The attorney general made sure they advertised. They sold that refinery, and that refinery is up and running.

So we are going to give away to refineries, to energy companies in this bill--this amendment is all they could ever dream for. They don't have to pay attention to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or the Safe Drinking Water Act. If my colleagues vote for this amendment, they are voting to open the checkbook to hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. It could be as high as a trillion dollars. Who knows how many of these people will take advantage of this opportunity.

What do we get? We get sick kids because this will waive all these environmental protections. And they are giving away to those who have.

I want to read again the amount of money some of these executives have made. Valero Energy, the top executive in 2005, William Greehey, took home $95.2 million. This is one person, folks--$95.2 million. Occidental Petroleum chief Irani took home $81 million in 2006. Oh, these poor people. Their businesses aren't doing good enough. We have to give them more. We have to make life easier for them.

What about the people who pay at the pump? That is why the underlying bill is so good because it has Maria Cantwell's antigouging law. By the way, the President has said he doesn't like the antigouging law. He might have to veto this entire bill. That shows you where people stand around here. Republicans want to give away to the oil companies, to the refiners, to the energy companies, and take away clean air protections from the people, take away land from the taxpayers, taxpayers' money to fund these projects. Count me out, and I hope count out the vast majority of the people here.

You can put any face on it. One thing that gets me is how the Republican side is supposed to be so fiscally responsible. Let's look at the last page of this amendment. They will tell you now how much they are going to pay for this bill. It is on the last page of this amendment. Here it is: ``Subtitle E--Authorization of Appropriations. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this'' amendment.

What does that mean? I already told my colleagues it costs $4 billion to build one of these energy plants--just one. It is 100 percent Federal pay on Indian land plus 10 percent on top of it, and 88 percent is the minimum number on Federal land that is not Indian land. You get the land, you get the cost back to build the plant, you get to waive all the environmental laws, and you get a streamlined process, which they already have the ability to get under the 2005 Energy bill.

This is a big kiss to the oil companies and the energy companies. This is a major hug. It would be better if we took this up on Valentine's Day. Well, count me out. I hope there is a resounding ``no.'' We don't know the cost. It is not told in this amendment. We don't know the impact on the people. It certainly is not told in this amendment. It picks winners and losers on Federal land. It doesn't protect our people.

Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask that the time be equally divided on that quorum call.

Mr. President, I was confused about the time. If I may make a parliamentary inquiry before my time proceeds: I thought I had 9 minutes left on my side; is that not the case?

I have 6 minutes. OK. I hear you.

An additional 3, so I would have 6, you would have 3.

Mr. President, yesterday Senator Inhofe repeatedly quoted Senator Feinstein in a way that suggested she supports his amendment. He kept reiterating a statement she made about streamlining which had nothing to do with this amendment.

Senator Feinstein has told me she opposes the Inhofe amendment. I think it is important that I make that point.

All you have to do is look at the title of this amendment: The Gas Petroleum Refiner Improvement and Community Empowerment Act. You ask yourself: OK. What are we giving the gas petroleum refiners that they do not have right now, that they did not get in the 2005 Energy bill, when they got all kinds of streamlining and everything they wanted and all kinds of money and all kinds of grants and the rest?

This is a giveaway to the people who are gouging us at the pump. That is the first point. Yes, life will improve for gas petroleum refiners, who have it very good.

Now, let's take the second part, the Community Empowerment Act. Your communities and mine and the communities in Washington State and, frankly, in Oklahoma and all over this country, I believe those communities will be hurt by this bill because it says there will be a giveaway to energy companies, a giveaway of taxpayer-owned land, former BRAC land, former federally owned lands that are now in the BRAC procedure.

A lot of communities want to sell these lands. They want to use these lands for economic development. They have plans for these lands, and yet this particular project of building an energy plant would take precedence over local control. It is Federal control from Washington.

I call this a socialistic amendment. Why do I say it is a socialistic amendment? It gives these big companies free land, and then it pays for the building of their energy plants. Can you imagine this? I see the chairman of the Budget Committee coming on the floor. I want to tell him one thing about this amendment because yesterday he talked to us Democrats in the Democratic caucus. I hope he doesn't mind if I say he really told us to use caution on these amendments.

What are they going to cost? Let me read to my friends the last line of this amendment: There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this title and the amendments made. Now, we found out today, by asking the industry, how much one of those plants will cost.

The plant on Indian land--I know my friend is interested in that-- would be reimbursed or given or paid for 110 percent of the cost of the plant in Federal tax dollars, $4 billion; the cheapest, $3 billion. That is one plant, not paid for here.

So I call it a socialistic amendment. You get the Federal taxpayer land, and then you get Federal taxpayer money to build your plant. And, by the way, all big environmental laws are waived. How does that help a community, Mr.

President? Picking a winner, telling them that priority has to be given to these sorts of plants, and, by the way, in case communities were concerned that the quality of the air might go down because they are near a refinery, this bill conveniently takes care of that problem by waiving the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act.

They say States can pass equivalent laws. But there is no reason that we should do that in America today. We have one Clean Air Act, we have one Safe Drinking Water Act, we have one Clean Water Act, and there is a reason: Water travels, air travels.

Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents alike decided--and it really started under Richard Nixon--that we must protect the air and the water. This act gives everything away that taxpayers have, including the protection of clean air, including their funding.

Now, this particular vote is very important for people who care about clean air and clean water. I assume we all do. We all talk about it. We all say it is important. In my home State I lose in excess of 9,000 people every year because of particulate matter. I will not allow--I say this with all humility; it is not a show of power--something to get through this Senate that would, in essence, make the air worse, the drinking water worse. I cannot let this go while taking dollars out of the pockets of hard-working Americans, to give to whom? The biggest energy companies in the country.

Let me read to you what some of these companies made in the last couple of years: Exxon, $39 billion; Shell, $25 billion; BP, $22 billion; Chevron, $17 billion; ConocoPhillips, $15.6 billion.

Some of these companies earned 21 percent more than the year before, and, by the way, the year before that they earned 40 percent more.

Let's take a look at what some of the executives have earned. I would ask how much time remains?

Let's not give more to these people who are gouging us at the pump. Vote no on this amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the outstanding National Night Out program in Modesto, CA. For the past 6 years, the city of Modesto has either ranked first or second in the Nation in National Night Out participation among cities with populations of 100,000 to 299,999.

Since its inception in 1983, National Night Out has brought millions of Americans together to take a united stand against crime and send a clear message to criminals that citizens and neighborhoods are committed to crime prevention. National Night Out has played an instrumental role in helping to raise crime and drug prevention awareness, generate support for and participation in local anticrime programs, and perhaps most importantly, improve neighborhood spirit and strengthen community-police partnerships.

In 2006, more than 35.2 million people and 11,125 communities from all 50 States, U.S. territories, and military bases worldwide participated in the National Night Out campaign. Conscientious citizens, law enforcement agencies and civic groups came together to participate in a variety of festive events and activities such as block parties, ice cream socials, flashlight walks, and visits from law enforcement and other public agencies to help promote the importance of community involvement in local crime-fighting programs.

In Modesto, 123 neighborhoods participated in National Night Out last year, making it the Nation's leader among cities with populations of 100,000 to 299,999. The city of Modesto is a shining example of the importance of community and cooperation in local crime-fighting efforts.

As the residents of Modesto gather for another successful National Night Out campaign, I would like to congratulate and commend its citizens, civic leaders, and the Modesto Police Department for their leadership and willingness to help make their city a safer and better place to call home.

Madam President, I am pleased to recognize the 150th anniversary of Sacramento High School in Sacramento County, CA.

On September 1, 1856, as the Gold Rush came to an end in California and miners migrated into newly formed cities, Sacramento High School opened its doors and began a long tradition of quality education. As the second oldest high school west of the Mississippi, Sacramento High School is a historical landmark and symbol of a quality educational institution in California's capital city.

Sac High, as it is locally known, has been the alma mater of a wide range of notable alumni including NBA great Kevin Johnson, Pulitzer Prize winner Herb Caen, and a number of distinguished Californians, including former California Governor Hiram Johnson.

Most recently, nearly 100 percent of the senior class will have the opportunity to pursue a post secondary education, 70 percent of whom have been accepted to a public or private 4-year college. Sac High's Dragons have also accumulated many championships in a variety of athletics over the years, including the recent San-Joaquin Division III Championship that both men's and women's basketball teams have won.

As the school and the community celebrate Sac High's sesquicentennial, I would like to congratulate the past and present students, faculty, and administrators who upheld Sacramento High School's traditions and campus pride for the last century and a half and wish them another 150 years of success.

Will the Senator yield to me for a question?

Because there is so much concern about this amendment

from within this committee and others, I would like to have a vote on this amendment. I don't want to take a lot of time. But I am wondering if my friend will propound some type of unanimous consent request so that the Senators on the floor can respond to the presentation by Senator Inhofe, but then give him time. I just think it might make for a more even flow.

Madam President, of course, I support Senator Inhofe's right to offer this amendment, but, to me, it is a disastrous amendment because it is a taxpayer giveaway to the oil companies. And I will explain why it is a total taxpayer giveaway to the oil companies that are making more money now than ever in history.

It doesn't do one thing to expand energy supply--not one thing. It shortcuts many environmental laws, which I will not go into at this time, but if we get further time, I will do that. It shortcuts many environmental laws that protect the air quality which is so important to our families. In California, 9,900 people every year die of particulate matter in their lungs. We cannot afford to say we are going to forget about air quality. That is a disaster. We don't want to become a China where they don't care about their people and their people suffer. We don't want to go there.

In the Energy bill in 2005, oil companies got a huge break, and it was made very attractive for them to open new refineries. My staff informs me that not one company has taken advantage of this break. So there is nothing that I think suggests that even going as far as Senator Inhofe goes, which is a total giveaway, will result in increased energy supply.

This bill never made it out of our committee when the Senator was chairman. It was never offered in the committee since I have been chairman. And if it were to be offered, it would go down.

Let me tell a story about Bakersfield, CA, where Shell Oil owned a refinery. We were all saying how important it was to continue the production of gasoline. In California, 2 percent of our gasoline supply came from this particular refinery.

Guess what. Shell Oil announces they are shutting down the refinery.

We were stunned, and we said: Why?

They said: We are not making a profit.

Guess what we found out. They were making a huge profit.

Then they said: We can't find a buyer.

We said: Really?

We went to the attorney general. We said: Can you help us?

He got involved. At that time, it was Bill Lockyer. Guess what. Somebody stepped forward to purchase the refinery.

Shell Oil wanted to shut down the refinery because they wanted to manipulate the supply. It is as simple as that--more money in their pocket, vertical integration. These are the people we want to reward with the Inhofe amendment? I think not. I think quite the opposite. I think we ought to agree to Senator Cantwell's antigouging amendment. I think we would want automatic investigations by the FTC. That is what I think we would need.

I wish to address some other aspects of this bill. As I understand it, there is an aspect of this bill which I want to make sure my colleagues understand before they come to vote on it, if, in fact, we have a vote. When I say this is a taxpayer giveaway, I mean what I say. There are expedited permits, waiver of all kinds of environmental laws, there is access to Federal lands, free. I say to my friend from New Mexico, can you imagine any other industry that gets free access to Federal lands? Not only do they not have to pay for the land, but they get 88 percent of the costs of the refinery if they are on Federal land and 100 percent reimbursement if they are on Indian land. What a situation--at a time when oil company profits are going through the roof and CEOs are coming before us and putting their heads down as we look at the amount of bonuses they are getting--into the tens of millions of dollars. This is the time to give them Federal land for refineries, which they have shown they are not interested in building? Waive all environmental laws to the detriment of the health and safety of America's families? Reimburse them for 88 to 100 percent of the cost of building their plant? What a deal. If people vote for this, I have a little piece of land in a very rocky part of California I could sell you. This makes no sense at this time.

I say to my colleagues, it is very important that we have supply. I am supporting this new fuels mandate. I see wonderful opportunities in the area of cellulosics that I think are fantastic, very exciting. I am willing to invest in research so we can use coal in a clean way. These things are all exciting. This is an opportunity for business. We don't have to give away the store to the oil companies to build these refineries when, again, I have experience that tells me they are actually shutting down refineries.

In California, the case in point is the Shell oil refinery in Bakersfield, one of the biggest scandals we had there, with nontruths coming after nontruths.

``We don't really want to close it down, but we have to because it is not profitable.'' Oh, yes, it turned out it was profitable. They just want to manipulate the supply.

``We can't find a buyer, we are looking high and low and can't find a buyer.'' In 3 weeks, the attorney general found them a buyer.

Here is the point about this Energy bill which Senator Bingaman is managing. It is the product of three or four different committees, and the bills that are included in the majority leader's package are bills that came out of committee. They have gone through the committee. They have been debated, they have been discussed, and they have been voted out. This particular plan of my friend's--he has every right to offer his amendment. I defend his right to offer it. But it never passed our committee even when the Republicans were in control. It certainly would not pass out of committee today. It is a taxpayer giveaway with absolutely no proof that refineries would be built.

I stand so strongly against this bill, on behalf of the American taxpayer as well as in behalf of the American families who want their health protected and do not want us to waive every single environmental law that protects the quality of the air they breathe inside their bodies.

I yield the floor. I will be back to respond to the comments of my good friend from Oklahoma.

Madam President, I was not aware that Senator Feinstein was supporting your amendment. Is that what you are suggesting?

I would like you to read it again.

I would really like that because you are implying that she supports your amendment.

We all are. That doesn't mean we support your amendment. Go ahead, read it again.

Madam President, if I might say, I appreciate hearing that. It has nothing to do with this particular amendment, which, basically, is a giveaway to the energy companies at a time when they are making a fortune.

We have a Federal Clean Air Act. We have it for a reason: Air goes from one State to another, one region to another. That is what we have. It is a Federal Clean Air Act. This was passed under Republican and Democratic administrations, over and over again. This is what the people want.

Do they want streamlining of permits? Yes. We all do. I was a county supervisor. I did a lot of my work streamlining permits. That doesn't mean backing off on protecting the people you represent and making sure you have an adequate timeframe to ascertain what are the pollutants that are going to come out of the smokestacks here. What are the diseases that could follow if these pollutants get into the lungs of the people?

This is an amendment which hides behind the word ``streamlining.'' But what it really does, it waives environmental laws.

Yes, I know a lot about this particular amendment. I have to say, the Senator from Oklahoma talks about these local redevelopment authorities--you could have 10 people from oil companies on those redevelopment authorities. You could. So you cannot stand here and tell me this is protective of the public interest.

We have an amendment which has been offered as some kind of a fix to the lack of refineries. You take a look at our refineries. I think the Senator from Washington is aware of this. They remind us a lot of the problems we had with Enron. They keep taking power offline, shutting down the refineries for so-called maintenance, at higher and higher levels. And when Shell Oil had a chance to expand a refinery or keep it going, they chose to shut it down.

My friend doesn't think the refinery companies, I guess, are making enough money. They are making record profits. He wants to give them land for nothing. He says it goes to a redevelopment agency. Yet there is no protection for the public there. At the end of the day, these companies are getting it for free, whether they are getting it from the Federal Government directly to them or the Federal Government through a redevelopment agency. Environmental laws are waived. People in this country will not be protected. It is a backdoor way to repeal part of the Clean Air Act at a time when people are dying of particulate matter.

Now, if you are on Indian land, you get that land, and you get reimbursed 100 percent for the plant. So my friend can get up and say: I didn't read it. And he could read me a quote from my friend, Senator Feinstein, who, as far as I know, is not supporting his amendment. I mean, it is a very tricky thing. I can hold up a statement from Senator Domenici and say: Look at this statement.

I can hold up a statement from every Republican from a speech they made saying how important it is that the people be protected from lung cancer. That has nothing to do with this amendment. It is a good debating tactic, but at the end of the day this amendment failed in the Environment Committee when the Senator from Oklahoma had the gavel, and this amendment would clearly have failed in the committee when I was holding the gavel.

So the fact is, what we are trying to do in this particular legislation is gather around amendments that have been voted out of committee in a bipartisan fashion, that were not contentious, like this one; that are not argumentative, like this one; and that are very unclear and are going in uncharted waters, like this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I just have one last response. I don't know how many of my colleagues ever sat on a redevelopment agency. I happen to have done so when I was on county board of supervisors. And it is disingenuous to say it is the redevelopment agency that gets the benefit. The redevelopment agency is the conduit to the private sector, and that is where the benefit goes.

Now, in many cases it is totally fine. When I sat on the redevelopment entity, it was because we had a very run-down part of our county that needed support. And so whatever it was we could give to them, any benefit in the Tax Code, et cetera, that is what we did.

But how about this? The benefit goes to the particular businesses now that are making record profits. I would tell you, the American people looking at this debate are going to say: Why aren't you protecting us from price gouging like Senator Cantwell suggests? That is the bill that is in the package, not this bill which essentially says we are taking away clean air protection, we are going to have 50 different standards here, 50 different permit processes. What a nightmare. We are giving away the money of the taxpayers to the biggest corporations in America that are making the most money ever--not only giving them the land but paying them back for all of their costs.

To me, to put this in this package will doom this package. I just hope if and when this does come up for a vote, there will be a resounding no. It was voted down in the committee, and it ought to be voted down on the floor of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Parliamentary inquiry before my friend yields: How much time do we have on our side?

I was hoping to get 5 minutes to speak.

Mr. President, I am here to say this is a very important moment in the Senate. We are moving toward a change in our Nation's energy policy. Clearly, this day has taken a long time to come.

Obviously, the bills included in the leader's package, Senator Reid's package, are not the be-all and end-all of everything we have to do. But it is a significant step forward. As I said the day I was fortunate enough to gain the gavel of the Environment and Public Works Committee--and the Senator who is presiding knows this--as soon as we had the votes we would move forward with good legislation.

I think Senator Bingaman has certainly had that same attitude, to begin moving and getting bills to the floor. I was very pleased when Senator Reid agreed that we could have a group of bills put together which would be a real confidence builder so the people know we are working.

As Senator Bingaman said, we have three committees represented in this

particular piece of legislation. The committees that participated in this, as Senator Bingaman said, are the Energy Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, and the Commerce Committee. How fortunate am I to sit on two of the three committees. I wish I sat on all three--this is such an important issue--but I am so pleased to be able to sit on both the Environment Committee, of which I am the Chair, and the Commerce Committee.

We all know global warming is a looming problem for us. We all should know at this point. The Environment Committee has held at least 12 hearings on the subject, at which the Presiding Officer was present--I think at almost all of them. We know the Federal Government is lagging behind on global warming; that is, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We are lagging behind Europe. We are lagging behind the mayors of this country and many States, including my State of California, where there has been a bipartisan move forward on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The contribution the Environment Committee has made to this bill is to do that, it is to essentially make the Federal Government a model of energy efficiency and of lessening the carbon footprint we are making.

I am very proud of that. Every single one of the bills that is in this package passed the Environment committee with overwhelming support. Only one had a few against it at the end, but almost all of them were virtually unanimous.

We started off taking a look at Federal Government buildings, and we realized we are way behind the times in terms of the way we use energy. Since our committee has jurisdiction over these buildings, we decided to say that from now on, we are going to make sure we can save money for taxpayers by reducing the energy costs in Federal Government buildings. Not only that, but we set up a very important grant program which will give matching grants to local governments so for their buildings they can have help making them energy efficient.

I do not know if my colleagues are aware of this, but in America 39 percent of global warming emissions are attributed to buildings. If the Federal Government takes the lead and we help all governments make their buildings energy efficient, we are moving forward.

We also passed a very good compromise bill by Senators Lautenberg and Warner on new buildings, the green buildings legislation. We also passed a bill on a Capitol powerplant, kind of a model project to see what we can do from the carbon coming out of that coal-fired plant. We are excited about that. We passed a bill that would make the energy building, the Department of Energy building, a solar building.

Wrapping it up I see my time is up. We are very happy to partake in this bill. We think we are finally moving forward on global warming in a small but deliberative way to set the stage, by making the Federal Government the leader, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I thank Senator Bingaman for the time and I believe Senator Salazar is next.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, it is very rare that I have such a strong disagreement with my friend, Ted Kennedy, but I don't understand the agitation over an amendment that simply says that a program that allows 200,000 foreign workers in here, a generalized program--this isn't AgJOBS, which is a specific industry program that we know we need because we know right now half the workers are foreign workers; this is a generalized, open program, 200,000 foreign workers a year. I think Senator Dorgan and I and others have shown that American workers are going to be hurt by this. So why is there so much angst about sunsetting a program that will allow in now 200,000 people a year? It was 400,000. Thanks to the Bingaman amendment, it is down. This is a modest amendment. This is a sensible amendment.

Mr. President, I would ask my friend to yield me 1 more minute, or 30 seconds.

Mr. President, here is the point: You are doing no harm to these people. Under this bill, these people have to leave at the end of 6 years. They are done. So for the Senator to say this somehow hurts people in the long run, it simply isn't true.

This is a modest amendment. It makes a lot of sense. Who knows, in 5 years, we could be in a massive depression. We don't want that, but we are certainly not going to want to extend the program in that case. This is a wise amendment, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in March and April I voted for an emergency spending bill that would have fully funded our troops in Iraq but would have changed their mission--would have changed their mission--to a sound mission. That mission would have taken our troops out of the middle of a civil war and put them into a support role, as the Iraq Study Group suggested, training Iraqi soldiers and police. We would have allowed them to fight al-Qaida and protect our troops.

The President did not agree to that, and he will not agree to that. As a matter of fact, the President will not agree to any change in strategy in Iraq. That is more than a shame. For the American people, it is a tragedy.

It does not seem to matter how many Americans die in Iraq, how many funerals we have here at home, or what the American people think. This President will not budge. This new bill on Iraq keeps the status quo. Oh, it has a few frills around the outside, a few reports, a few words about benchmarks--while our troops die and our troops get blown up.

Now, I understand why this legislation is before us today. It is because this President wants to continue his one-man show in Iraq. That is the only thing he will sign. The President does not respect the Congress. What is worse, he does not respect the American people when it comes to Iraq. He wants to brush us all off like some annoying spot on his jacket. Well, that is wrong, and we won't be brushed off.

We have lost 3,427 American soldiers in Iraq. Of those, 731--or 21 percent--have been from my State of California or based in my State of California. Mr. President, 25,549 American soldiers have been wounded.

If you come to my office, on big boards, I have the names of the California dead and they are now blocking

the doorway, there are so many names, and we have to send the charts back for smaller and smaller print.

Today, after several days of worrying and praying, we received the tragic news of the death of PVT Joseph Anzack, Jr., 20 years old, of Torrance, CA, who was abducted during a deadly ambush south of Baghdad almost 2 weeks ago. One member of his platoon, SPC Daniel Seitz, summed it up this way to the Associated Press:

It just angers me that it's just another friend I've got to

lose and deal with, because I've already lost 13 friends

since I've been here, and I don't know if I can take any more

of this.

He should not have to. But with this bill, he will.

The first half of this year has already been deadlier than any 6- month period since the war began more than 4 long years ago. In this month alone, 83 U.S. servicemembers have already been killed in Iraq.

Let me be clear: There are many things in this bill I strongly support--many provisions I worked side by side with my colleagues to fight for, for our troops, for our veterans, for their mental health, for our farmers, for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, who so deserve our attention--but I must take a stand against this Iraq war and, therefore, I will vote ``no'' on this emergency spending bill.

Mr. President, we are not going away. You cannot brush us off like some spot on your jacket because we are going to be back.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Captive Primate Safety Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Vitter, Lieberman, Lautenberg, and Menendez. An almost identical bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 109th Congress.

This bipartisan bill amends the Lacey Act to prohibit transporting monkeys, great apes, lemurs, and other nonhuman primates across State lines for the pet trade, much like the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, which passed unanimously in 2003, did for tigers and other big cats.

This bill has no impact on trade or transportation of animals for zoos, medical and other licensed research facilities, or certain other licensed and regulated entities. The prohibitions in the Lacey Act only apply to the pet trade.

I am proud that this legislation is supported by the Humane Society of the United States, the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, Defenders of Wildlife and the Wildlife Conservation Society and many other organizations.

I look forward to working with all my colleagues to enact this legislation.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Captive Primate Safety Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Vitter, Lieberman, Lautenberg, and Menendez. An almost identical bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 109th Congress.

This bipartisan bill amends the Lacey Act to prohibit transporting monkeys, great apes, lemurs, and other nonhuman primates across State lines for the pet trade, much like the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, which passed unanimously in 2003, did for tigers and other big cats.

This bill has no impact on trade or transportation of animals for zoos, medical and other licensed research facilities, or certain other licensed and regulated entities. The prohibitions in the Lacey Act only apply to the pet trade.

I am proud that this legislation is supported by the Humane Society of the United States, the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, Defenders of Wildlife and the Wildlife Conservation Society and many other organizations.

I look forward to working with all my colleagues to enact this legislation.