Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in reflecting on the memory and deeds of a remarkable American, Andrea Mead Lawrence, who passed away March 31 in the town of Mammoth Lakes in Mono County.

Andrea was born in Vermont, where she developed a life-long love of winter sports. At the age of 15, she participated in the 1948 Winter Olympics in St. Moritz, Switzerland. In the 1952 Winter Olympics she won two Gold Medals in the Olympic Special and Giant Slalom races in Oslo, Norway. She also competed in the 1956 Olympics in Cortina d'Ampezzo, Italy. She was inducted into the U.S. National Ski Hall of Fame in 1958 at the age of 25. In 1960, she was the torch lighter at the Winter Olympics in Squaw Valley, CA. She remains the only American double-Gold Medalist in Alpine Skiing. Additional honors and her love of winter sports continued the rest of her life.

In 1967, she moved to Mammoth Lakes in California's spectacularly beautiful Eastern Sierra, a place that she fought to protect, for the rest of her life. Serving 16 years on the Mono County Board of Supervisors, she worked tirelessly to protect and restore Mono Lake and as a member of the Great Basin Air Pollution Control District, she saw that air pollution caused by the de-watering of Owens Lake was reduced. She founded the Andrea Lawrence Institute for Mountains and Rivers in 2003 to work for environmental protection and economic vitality in the region she loved so much.

Last summer, she testified before the Mono County Board of Supervisors in favor of the Eastern Sierra Wild Heritage Act, a bill that became law with the signature of President Barack Obama, the day before she died. Andrea knew that this legislation to protect nearly 500,000 acres of her beloved Eastern Sierra had become law.

Andrea Mead Lawrence passed away surrounded by her children, Cortlandt, Matthew, Dierdre, Leslie and Quentin, and leaves four grandchildren. She was 76 years old. Andrea had a remarkable and wonderful life and she will be sorely missed by all those who were fortunate enough to know her. She leaves a rich legacy that will continue to benefit present and future generations.

Mr. President, what is the order now?

Since he is not on the floor, I ask the way we would proceed is, Senator Barrasso wanted to speak in his stead--is that it-- for 5 minutes, followed by Senator Whitehouse, followed by me for 5 minutes, if that is OK?

Mr. President, I hope America is watching this debate. I think Senator Whitehouse was very on point when he exposed what the Republicans are doing. We all know it is perfectly in order to utilize something called reconciliation, which is a way to get around a filibuster, and it is the way to govern with a majority.

The fact is, as Senator Whitehouse has said, since 1980, reconciliation has been used 19 times, 16 times by my Republican friends who now come to the floor and say: Oh, my God, we should not use it for health care, we should not use it for climate change, we should not use it at all.

They do not want to use it because they want to be able to obstruct progress. Now, the reason I hope America is watching this debate is because they will see the difference in the parties. If you listen to the Republicans, what are they saying?

No. We are not going to do any health care reform of any meaning. We are not going to do education reform of any meaning. We say no--they say no--to global warming legislation. They say no to energy legislation. They are the party of nope, and I am in the party of hope. Here is where we stand. Same old politics.

All they want is tax breaks for billionaires, tax breaks for millionaires. We saw where that led us, along with the war in Iraq, budget deficits as far as the eye could see, a recession that is as close as we have come to the Great Depression.

Same old politics, same old policies that got us into this crisis in the first place. So every time they speak, I urge you, America, to listen. It is no. No. No. No. It is no to this new President who ran on fixing the education system. It is no to this President who ran on fixing the health care system. It is no to this President who ran on doing something about global warming. It is no. No. No. No on energy reform.

This budget is so important to be passed because it is, in fact, brought to

us by this new President who had a very strong debate with John McCain, who won a convincing victory, who is off now taking his first foreign trip. I hope that we can make that trip more pleasant for him by rallying around his priorities.

Now, we are going to be facing a slew of amendments that try to undermine and undercut President Barack Obama and the priorities I talked about. We talked a little about reconciliation. When people listen, they do not get what it means, so I will try and explain it. It is a way you can bring up a bill and avoid a filibuster. It is a way you can bring up a bill and pass it with majority votes instead of a supermajority vote.

That is a very important option for us to have when we are dealing with very important issues. I think it is important to be stated right now, important to be stated right now, that in this Senate budget there are no reconciliation instructions regarding climate change. There are no reconciliation instructions.

But the other side is not happy with that. They want to make sure we can vote on it. So Senator Johanns has a very simple and straightforward resolution that says: Reconciliation will not be used related to climate change. Senator Whitehouse and I have a side by side with that that says: Fine, we will not use it unless the Senate finds that the public health--I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Senator Whitehouse and I, and I think the Presiding Officer will be interested in this, have said: OK, we will not use reconciliation unless the Senate finds that the public health, the economy, and national security are jeopardized by inaction on global warming.

What we are doing is saying: If we find that our people are in danger because of inaction on global warming, and if we find we are facing a filibuster from the Republicans on getting anything done, then we should be able to use reconciliation and get around a filibuster. That is what we are saying.

Why did we put in here economy? It is very clear why we did that. Because we believe if we turn out to be the only Nation in the world, in the industrialized world, that is doing nothing, this could hurt us. Because other nations can say: Well, you know what. Until the United States acts, we are not going to have free trade with the United States. We can find ourselves isolated.

We could learn that as a result of inaction, we are not creating the green jobs that we should create and that business wants to create. We should have that opportunity to come together and, with a majority vote, pass global warming legislation.

We could find out from the FBI, the CIA, our Defense Department that tensions are growing around the world due to global warming. We already see in Darfur--and a lot of experts believe that is what has happened to the climate there and the fight over water there. We could learn that our national security has worsened because of climate change.

We already know it is a major issue with the intelligence community. What Senator Whitehouse and I are saying in this side by side is, we will not use this procedure unless we find out there is an emergency. We hope colleagues will realize that to take a very legitimate tool off the table is wrong.

The last point I wish to make is my colleagues on the Republican side keep intimating and saying that any bill on climate change will involve a tax. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are going to rebate funds to people. We are going to rebate funds to our families.

We have turned our back on a tax. Although some of my Republican friends said they would rather see a carbon tax, I rejected it. I do not want a tax. I want to model climate change legislation after the acid rain legislation and set up a free market mechanism to put a price on carbon.

So there is no tax. There is going to be a break for people. They are going to get rebates. Our States are going to get funded. So you can stand and call me a Republican. You can call me a Republican morning, noon, and night. I am not a Republican. I am a Democrat. You can call cap and trade a tax morning, noon, and night. It is not a tax. It is the opposite. It is an allowance.

It is a permit. It is a way to cap the amount of carbon going into the air by requiring that people who pollute purchase the allowance to pollute. Those funds will be given out to the people of the United States of America as we transition to a clean energy future.

I did not expect this budget debate would turn into a battle about climate change. But it has. I am here to say that I welcome this debate. I am very proud that over in the other body, in the House, they have begun their work on climate change. I look forward to seeing the progress that is made over there.

In closing, I hope we will see support for the Whitehouse-Boxer alternative to the Johanns amendment. I hope, at the end of the day, we have support for President Obama's very first budget. The people in this country support our President. They support him over party lines. Those who are Independent support him.

This is his first budget, folks, his first chance to show to the American people the priorities he laid out in his campaign and that are in this budget. Let's not forget it. If we support education and health care and action to clean up this environment, if we support deficit reduction--which is part of this package--then let us support this budget and let us defeat some of these nefarious amendments that are meant to undermine our new President and this budget.

I yield back my remaining time and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I say to the chairman of the Budget Committee, I have no problem with this. I want to do two things. First, I want to make sure the Whitehouse-Boxer amendment is at the desk and would be considered in order when we have another tranche of votes later tonight. Is that done?

OK. I would ask, if Senator Coburn does use the full 15 minutes, I would like to have 5 minutes when he is done, if we are not voting. And if we are, obviously, I do not need the 5 minutes.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the point of order.

Madam President, I wish to give you two reasons to vote no on this important, precedent-setting issue. Why would we start down this road taking a legal Senate procedure off the table? Have we ever done this before? We have looked it up and the answer is no.

On the contrary, let me tell you when the Republicans used reconciliation. They used it 14 times in the 19 times it has been used--to cut food stamps, to cut energy assistance, to cut impact aid, to cut title I, to cut dairy price supports, and to cut the Social Security minimum benefit.

Did I ever hear any of them then say: Oh, my goodness, reconciliation should not be used. Oh, no, which brings me to my second reason for voting no on this: hypocrisy and duplicity. Let me tell you what else the Republicans used it for: to cut Federal civilian and military retirement and disability COLAs, to delay and cut disaster loans to farmers. Let's stand tall for what we have a right to have, our rules. Thank you.

Mr. President, I really take to the floor, first of all, under the order to call up an amendment I have at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is an amendment I have decided to offer to our colleagues as a supplement to an amendment offered by Senator Thune.

Senator Thune makes the point that global warming legislation should not increase electricity prices. It is very interesting because I didn't hear the concern from the other side of the aisle--it also refers to gasoline prices--when gasoline prices hit almost $5 a gallon in our home States. We didn't hear an outcry. There was no global warming legislation. It had nothing to do with it; it had to do with manipulation. We didn't hear any outcry about that.

I think Senator Thune doesn't go far enough because we believe that revenues from a climate bill, should we pass one--and I certainly hope we will--would be used to offset any kind of an increase in electricity and gasoline prices, and we would have the revenues from a cap-and- trade system to do just that. So I think Senator Thune's amendment doesn't go far enough. We not only don't want to see an increase in prices, we want to have the revenues coming in through cap-and-trade legislation to make consumers whole.

In his argument for his very narrow legislation, which I will be voting for--I don't have a problem with it--Senator Thune cited a study by MIT to argue that climate legislation is a tax. In fact, the MIT study actually shows why it is important to capture the overall picture because the MIT study actually points out that the monetary value of allowances under a cap-and-trade program is something that Congress would have the option of using to give a family of four a tax rebate--a tax rebate--that could be as high as $4,500 per year by the middle of the next decade.

So I find it amazing that my Republican friends who oppose taking any action on global warming suddenly have discovered the consumer and they are worried that the consumer would pay high prices when we fight global warming when, in fact, a well-designed program--and I say to the Chair, as he is a proud member of our committee--a well-designed program, as he knows, will give us the ability to refund money to consumers and make sure they are healthy and kept whole.

So this legislation simply says that we will ensure that our legislation relating to clean energy does not increase electricity or gas prices or does not increase the overall burden on consumers, and that is the key. So it is going to be a boon for consumers.

So we will be voting for the Thune legislation and hopefully for the Boxer legislation so that we cover all of our bases and we know that global warming legislation is not going to hurt consumers but actually keep them whole and clean up their environment; it is going to create green jobs and all the rest.

I wish to spend a couple of minutes talking about this budget, and I wish to start off by thanking members of the Budget Committee. Again, my colleague in the chair is a member of the Budget Committee. They worked very hard under the leadership of Senator Conrad to come up with a product that keeps President Obama's priorities intact, that does more for deficit reduction, and I am very pleased about it.

I wish to say that I am very pleased the American people have not fallen for the same old, same old policies of the Republicans as they try to demolish this new President and they try to destroy his reputation and try to bring him down. We don't have the charts that talk about the same old policies, so if we could get those. There is a series of charts.

I have taken to the floor before to talk about the comments of my Republican friends during the debate on the Clinton budget, and we all know--here is the message. We all know the Republicans repeat the same old politics, the same old policies that got us into this crisis.

I wish to take you back to 1993. The Republicans came to this floor, and they tried to demolish the Clinton budget. Not one of them voted for it. The Democrats had taken over from George Bush's dad. Things were in very bad shape.

This is what the Republicans said about the Clinton budget in 1993:

It is just a mockery. It is just a mockery, said Committee chairman Pete Domenici.

Senator Hatch: Make no mistake. These higher rates will cost jobs.

Phil Gramm said: I believe hundreds of thousands of people are going to lose their jobs as a result of this program--including Bill Clinton, he predicted, would lose his reelection.

Connie Mack: This bill will cost American jobs.

What happened as a result of the Clinton budget? Twenty-three million jobs were created. It was the best record ever in peacetime--the best record ever in peacetime.

Senator Roth of the other side: It will flatten the economy. It is bad policy.

And on and on and on.

Now here we have today--this is years later, more than 10 years later--the same old politics, the same old policies. Just listen to my Republican friends trashing Barack Obama's budget: disaster, disastrous, terrible, deficits as far as the eye can see. That is what they said about the Clinton budget too--deficits forever. Guess what. Guess what. Not only did we have a balanced budget under Bill Clinton by the end of his term, we had a surplus.

So as our Republican friends come to the microphone, I want my colleagues to listen carefully to their words. I am proud of the American people for seeing through this. They understand what got us into this mess. Clearly, what we can see is the same old, same old, same old; the party of nope: Nope, we can't change. Nope, nope. I, frankly, would rather be in the party of hope than the party of nope, and hope is what the American people want.

In this budget, we recover from the Republican deficit. It is true in the short-term we are going to see deficits go up. But as shown to us by Senator Conrad, who is the biggest deficit hawk in this Senate--I challenge anyone to be more of a deficit hawk--we see we are beginning to turn these deficits back down to sustainable numbers.

We know why the American people support President Obama and the Congress right now--because they saw that George Bush took record surpluses and turned them into record deficits. The national debt increased by 85 percent. The foreign-held debt more than tripled. This is the Republican deficit we are dealing with now, and we don't like it. But we are going to fix it as we did under Bill Clinton. We fixed it then, we will fix it now. The people are smart. When Republicans come to the floor and they fight President Obama, the people in this country--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike--are saying give this new President a chance. He inherited this mess.

Let's look at the rest of the deficit that happened with our families. Health insurance premiums have risen, energy prices increased, college costs skyrocketed, and the gap between the wealthy and the middle class widens. That is the part of the deficit this President was left with. We are losing the middle class in this country. That is very clear. It is very clear. All you have to do is look at income levels. That is why when my Republican friends come to the floor to trash the President and the budget, they understand what has happened. It is not a mystery.

This is not a theoretical argument about who is right and who is wrong. We now know what happened in the Clinton years: the best economy in peacetime, 23 million jobs, surpluses, debt on the way down. We know what happened. When George Bush took the keys to the Oval Office, he turned it around into the Republican deficit. We know that happened. The people are smart; they get it. That is why they support this.

Let's look further. I said before when George Bush took the keys to the Oval Office, there was a surplus of $5.6 trillion. That was the projected surplus. They turned it into a deficit of $10.6 trillion. That is what happened under the Republicans. Why should we listen to what they are saying now? They are saying the same old thing. GOP, SOP, same old policies.

Now, what our President is saying is that we are going to have a road to change. That road to change is going to be paved with a few simple things. One is energy independence; two, making college affordable; three, lowering health care costs; four, middle-class tax cuts; five, cutting the deficit in half in the next several years. Let me repeat them. Energy independence, making college affordable, lowering health care costs, middle-class tax cuts, and deficit reduction.

What do my Republican friends stand for? The same old policies, the same old thing--no investment, no imagination, no realization that until we get off of foreign oil, and we lead the way on global warming, and we lead the way on lowering health care costs, we are going to be stuck in the same old place. That is why this budget is so crucial and important, because it is a roadmap of our Nation's priorities.

The President ran on these issues. He is doing what he promised he would do--everything. The American people are saying that we know times are tough, but this President is trying, this Congress is trying. That is better than the status quo. If you read anything about the years of the Great Depression, you realize that what our people wanted then was what our people want now; they want us to try. They want us to shake things up, to invest in our people, and to create the jobs that will come along with these important policies.

There are a lot of middle-class tax cuts in this budget. The President extends the child tax credit, eliminates the marriage penalty, and increases education benefits. These are important for our people. So this budget, all told, makes a lot of sense for our country.

Senator Thune has offered an amendment in which he says electricity and gas prices should not rise as we pass global warming legislation. We agree with that. We don't think his amendment goes far enough, because what we want to see is global warming legislation that passes that uses the revenues to help consumers, that uses the revenues to invest in new technologies, that uses the revenues to create jobs, to build transportation systems, to make sure our forests continue to act as carbon sinks, taking carbon out of the air.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining at this point?

Mr. President, I ask if the Chair will let me know when I have 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I said before that when my Republicans friends come to the floor, the American people should be wary. That is because they trashed the Clinton budget, and they were wrong then. Now they are trashing the Obama budget, and they are going to be wrong again. Even more than that, let's see what they said about the Bush budget--the Bush budget that led us into this mess.

Senator Gregg I have a lot of respect for, but he was wrong on the Bush budget. He said the Bush budget would drive the deficit down and produce a surplus in 2012. It is hard to believe that was the prediction. We had deficits as far as the eye could see under George Bush. The leader of the Republicans on this predicted there would be a surplus under the Bush budget. As a matter of fact, we are in the biggest economic mess since the Great Depression that this new President has to lead us out of. We need to help him. We really need to help him. It is very important that we do.

I thank the Budget Committee for including in the budget a reserve fund that will be able to make global warming legislation a reality. In other words, the committee is saying this may happen and they have set aside a reserve fund. It is important. It sets the stage for legislation. I guess the message I want to give to my colleagues who oppose any legislation--and there are a lot of them--I have bad news for them. Whether they support it or not, action on global warming has already begun. The train has left the station. The Supreme Court--this Supreme Court--voted 5 to 4 that the Clean Air Act actually does cover carbon emissions, greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, the EPA has the power to say to our businesses: Clean up your act for the good of society.

Frankly, as far as I am concerned, knowing what I know about the consensus of scientists, I think it is urgent that the EPA act. But I also know it would be far better if this Congress acted, because if we acted, we could set up a cap-and-trade system. The EPA cannot do that without legislation. That cap-and-trade system will bring in revenues to help our businesses, help our consumers. I think at the end of the day it will lead us to millions of green jobs, a new economy, and lead us down the path of energy independence.

Let me say to my friends who will oppose the legislation when it comes--and it is coming--here is your choice: You can fight it tooth and nail and stop it any way you want. You can even say never use reconciliation, even though you supported it 17 times in the past. If that is what you want to say, say it. We already have the New England States which have come together and they are doing a cap-and-trade system. The western States have gotten together and they are doing a cap-and-trade system. We have the Midwest involved with Canada doing a cap-and-trade system. We have the EPA having to act because of the Supreme Court. We have the California waiver out there.

So we are acting on global warming. The question is: Will we do it in a way that turns this challenge into an enormous economic opportunity-- and, of course, that is what I want to do. That is why so many businesses, and now

more and more labor unions, are supporting the passage of climate change legislation. Look, we know, because our own scientists have told us here at home, there are risks to public health if we don't act: more heat-related deaths, water-borne diseases from degraded water quality, more cases of respiratory disease, including lung disease, from increased smog, and children and the elderly are vulnerable. We know what the future will be like. We would never, ever, take our kids in an automobile and park it in the sunlight next to a supermarket, lock all the windows, and go inside and leave them alone. We would never do that. Well, as legislators, we cannot do that to our constituents.

The fact is we know what is happening. The IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warned us that unchecked global warming would lead to reduced snowpack in the western mountains, critically reducing access to water. We are already seeing insect invasions damaging our forests. We know that every State in this great Union will be impacted, and some are already impacted. We know that. In New York, a report predicts that northeastern cities could be hit the hardest as sea levels rise, including flooding of their subway system. We know Florida is another very vulnerable place. A huge population is exposed. New Orleans and Virginia Beach are ranked in the top 20.

It doesn't matter where you are in this country, you are going to be impacted. Your agricultural sector will be impacted, your tourism sector will be impacted, your fishing industries will be impacted.

So here is the deal: Either we pass legislation that turns this challenge into a great opportunity, gives us the resources to get us on the path to energy independence, gives us resources to create millions of green jobs, or we allow the States to do what they want to do, and that is fine. I support that. There will be various States doing their own cap-and-trade system. The whole world will do it. But Members of the Senate will think, oh, if that is what they choose to do, that is their choice. But we will fight global warming, and we already are. It is just that we are not doing it in a way that is beneficial to our working people, our families, and our children.

I have to tell you a story. We had yet another hearing in the Environment Committee on the latest science on global warming. We heard what we expected to hear--the predictions are getting more and more dire. The Republicans invited a witness, and I think the occupant of the chair will remember this. He was a very good witness. But at the end of his remarks he lost his way. This is what he said:

I don't know why everybody is so worried about high levels

of CO2. We have had levels that have hit a

thousand parts per million before, and everything was just

fine.

I asked him:

Sir, you are an expert. When was it?

He said:

Eighty million years ago.

I said:

Who lived then?

He said:

The dinosaurs.

I have to say that is not an answer I am going to give to my grandkids--that in order for them to live in the future, they are going to have to become dinosaurs or they won't make it. This is ridiculous.

The Senate is the last place to get the message. We are going to do everything we can to bring legislation later. I know what the Budget Committee did was a sound decision. They said we are not getting into it, but if the committees do act, we will set aside a reserve fund, so they can make sure there will be an order when they do act.

I am very happy to say that my House colleagues are working on legislation. The prospects are looking very good over there. We will be ready to go. But let me say this: The choice is between a livable world and one that is not livable. If my colleagues cannot understand this, then I am very sorry. But in any case, we are going to fight global warming. We will do it in the right way.

We are going to have an amendment that goes beyond what Senator Thune has done. I am going to tell my colleagues to support the Thune amendment and the Boxer amendment so that we make sure our consumers are kept whole as we move forward with legislation.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Reserving the right to object, what I am concerned about is, according to MIT, if we did a cap-and-trade system and we did it right, a family of four would get a tax rebate of $4,500. What is happening here is they are trying to make it more difficult for us to get a cap-and-trade system, get the revenues, and return $4,500 per family. I object.

Reserving the right to object. It is hard for me to believe that three or four Senators come to the floor to try to control the agenda of the various committees, which we are very proud to serve on.

I also wish to say that 19 times since 1980 has reconciliation been used, and by far and away more times by the Republicans--namely, 13 times they used it. They never came here and complained. They used it. I have the record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the number of times Republicans have used reconciliation.

I object to the Senator's unanimous consent request.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, the problem with this--and I could support it if it were made clearer--is it doesn't take into account that we could have some very important new programs that actually result in consumers getting rebate checks. So you may have an increase temporarily, before we get free of foreign oil, in an energy cost that is totally offset by a refund and a rebate. So this would hamper the committees from doing what MIT says we should do, which is, when we do tackle this issue of energy independence, make sure we have the revenues to rebate funds back to the American people.

I do not want to block the possibility of that so I am going to object in a moment. But I have to respond to Senator Gregg. This is the first time I saw the Reagan revolution be so downplayed by my Republican friends. ``Oh, nothing new was done by reconciliation.''

It was the Reagan revolution. It was Bill Clinton changing welfare as we know it. I have it all here. So let's not say now, oh, the 13 times the Republicans supported reconciliation it wasn't anything major; it was little minor things.

The record is replete with what reconciliation did. Why are they so afraid of reconciliation? They embraced it time after time. Don't be so fearful of the rules of the Senate. Reconciliation is a rule allowed by the Senate. Let's not say we could never do it again, never look at it again. It doesn't make any sense.

I am going to object to this because I think in the end it could cost consumers more.

About 3 minutes, if I could.

Mr. President, I am so pleased to have these 5 minutes to correct the record. First, Senator Gregg takes the floor and says he opposes a national sales tax; that is what cap and

trade is. I defy Senator Gregg to show me where there is a national sales tax.

This is what is so interesting. A cap-and-trade system was invented in America to fight acid rain. It has been one of the most successful programs. For acid rain, we used the cap-and-trade system, and it has worked. By the way, it has worked in the State of Senator Gregg.

The other thing I want to put in the record is, Senator Gregg made a statement to my committee in January 2007. He said:

I believe Congress must take action to limit the emissions

of greenhouse gases from a variety of sources. The

overwhelming scientific data and other evidence about climate

change cannot be ignored. It is for this reason I have been a

strong advocate for mandatory limits on greenhouse gases.

I ask unanimous consent that this statement be printed in the Record.

Now he is here trying to do everything he can to block us from taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Then we have Senator Thune arguing that we are going to see taxpayers take a huge hit, consumers take a huge hit, if we pass global warming legislation. Where was Senator Thune when gasoline prices in my State reached almost $5 a gallon? That wasn't because there was cap and trade. We had no cap and trade. What happened? We saw gas prices go from $1.50 to $5. We saw the biggest increase in history under George Bush as President on gas prices.

Was it about cap and trade? Obviously not. We had no cap and trade. It was speculation in the market. Where was my friend Senator Thune with all kinds of amendments? He wasn't here. Where was my friend Senator Thune and my friends on the Republican side when Enron was speculating and price fixing and saying they didn't care if old ladies went broke? Nowhere. That had nothing to do with cap and trade.

I am going to list some of the corporations that support a cap-and- trade system: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Chrysler, Conoco, Deere, Dow, Duke Energy, DuPont, Ford Motors, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, PepisoCo, and so on. Even Shell Oil understands if we want to have a future, we better stand up and be counted.

Here is the point: My colleagues are doing everything they can to narrow our options on how we deal with climate change. As chairman of the Environment Committee, I want all the options at my fingertips. If colleagues don't want to do it, I understand it because, guess what. Game over. We are already fighting back. EPA is getting ready because the Supreme Court told them they had to make sure greenhouse gas emissions were reduced under the Clean Air Act. They were sued. The Bush administration said: No, greenhouse gases aren't covered under the Clean Air Act. Wrong. So the EPA is off and running. They have to be or they will be sued again. They are already working to see that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.

Are States? A majority of States are involved. A lot of States have their own cap-and-trade system. The Northeast corridor, the west coast, they are working with Canada, Europe, and everybody else.

If my Republican friends want to put their head in the sand and have the Senate be the only place in the world that isn't taking action on global warming, be my guest. The train has left the station. The EPA is doing its work. California and 19 other States are working to get a waiver so they can cut back on greenhouse gases in terms of motor vehicles. In New England, they have their own cap-and-trade system. The Midwest is working with Canada.

If my friends want to stand around and listen to the minority witness who said: Don't worry about it. There were times in history when carbon was 1,000 parts per million, and everything was fine. But when we pressed him, he admitted the only life on Earth then was dinosaurs. I knew the people who are against this were looking backward, but I didn't realize they were going back that many years when only dinosaurs roamed the Earth.

I will fight hard to keep all our options on the table. We are fighting back, and we will eventually be victorious because mankind is depending on us.

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

What is the order right now?

I am happy to yield to my friend if he would like to, and then I will close the debate.

Six minutes.

Mr. President, Senator Thune makes it sound as if a cap- and-trade regime that we hope we will be able to put in place to fight global warming is going to be bad for the economy. The fact is, we have hundreds and hundreds of business leaders and union members, working people, the Conference of Mayors, and Governors of both parties strongly supporting global warming legislation because it will create millions of green jobs.

My friend argues it will raise prices on consumers, and he cites Barack Obama's comments taken out of context because here is the thing: We all know there will be revenues coming into the Government which we use to soften the blow to consumers. As a matter of fact, my friend cites the MIT study, but he forgets the conclusion of the MIT study, which is that a family of four could get a rebate as high as $4,500 per year. That is more than the increase in costs that are predicted.

So my friend is a pessimist, and he is standing here saying: The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Where was he when gas prices reached almost $5 a gallon without any global warming legislation but because of speculators? I didn't hear my friend complain. Where was my friend?

Where was my friend when Enron had a scandal--and I won't yield; I don't have time to yield--where was my friend when Enron had a scandal in which it raised prices? I didn't hear him coming down here and complaining about it. But because we are contemplating a way to solve a major crisis that is facing the American people--and by the way, in the course of that crisis of fighting global warming, we will generate revenues that we can give back to consumers--suddenly--if I might ask for order. If I might ask for order.

Suddenly, my friend is upset that consumers won't be made whole.

Well, I hope my colleagues will support my amendment because my amendment says that, in fact, consumers will be made whole by the policies in the bill, by the revenues in the bill.

We embrace what he is doing with his amendment. We hope he will embrace what we are doing in our amendment, which is to say that consumers will do well in any cap-and-trade system. They will not be hit. They will have rebates. They will be made whole. The fact is, the very same MIT study he cites proves our point.

Our friends on the other side are nervous and excited now because there are studies that say gasoline could go up by 10 cents over 10 years--a penny a year. They are getting very exercised about that. None of us want that. But they weren't exercised over it when there was manipulation going on by the oil companies, the traders, and the rest of it. What we are saying in our amendment is----

Vote aye on the Boxer amendment and vote aye on the Thune amendment.

Amendment No. 749

Mr. President, there is no national energy tax proposal. Nobody I know has ever proposed it. If the purpose of this amendment is to fight a national energy tax proposal, then it is very interesting because there is no such proposal.

The fact is, we have a cap-and-trade system in place for acid rain. I never heard one Republican come to the floor and call that a tax. It is not a tax.

My friend is very concerned that energy prices will go up. I share his concern. He should vote for my amendment. As a matter of fact, I think it would be stunning if my friend didn't because I said any kind of a cap-and-trade system that comes forward will not increase electricity or gas prices or increase the overall burden on consumers.

He will have a lot of explaining to do to his constituents. I urge an ``aye'' vote on Boxer and on Thune.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 731

Mr. President, I think Members should feel free to vote for the Thune amendment because the Boxer amendment was adopted, which means that if there is any increase in gasoline prices, in electricity prices, because the Boxer amendment was adopted, we said we can rebate, we can take the funds that have come in from a cap-and-trade system and keep consumers whole. So I have no problem at all with the Thune amendment now that we have passed Boxer. So feel very free to do that.

I will say that my friends on the other side are so desperate to kill cap and trade that they call it a national sales tax. They never called the cap-and-trade system for acid rain a national sales tax. So they are inventing a new vocabulary just to kill any chance at addressing global warming in the way that most businesses want us to address it-- through a cap-and-trade system.

But I feel comfortable voting for the Thune amendment because the Boxer amendment passed, and we will have the ability to keep consumers whole.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 739

Mr. President, today I honor the life of a great American, John Hope Franklin, who died last week at the age of 94. Dr. Franklin was a witness, participant and documentarian of the struggle of African Americans for civil rights and the fight to have this country fulfill its promise to become a more perfect union for all of its citizens.

Dr. Franklin once said, ``I want to be out there on the firing line, helping, directing or doing something to try to make this a better world, a better place to live.'' In his life, Dr. Franklin did just that through his work with W. E. B. Du Bois, his efforts on Brown v Board of Education with Thurgood Marshall and by marching from Selma to Montgomery with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. How wonderful that this great fighter for civil rights was able to witness the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States.

As a historian and a teacher, Dr. Franklin enriched this Nation by educating us all about race issues. He began his teaching career in 1936 at Fisk and continued teaching over the next six decades, at schools such as Howard University, the University of Chicago, Cambridge University in England, Harvard, Cornell, the University of California Berkeley, Duke, and other institutions. He had a passion for teaching, and I was fortunate enough to sit in on Dr. Franklin's classes at Brooklyn College in the 1960s. Having him there was like having a real star in our midst, and students who were lucky enough to get into his class bragged about him from morning until night.

Dr. Franklin was the author of nearly 20 books, beginning with ``The Free

Negro in North Carolina, 1790-1860,'' which explored slaveholders' hatred and fear of the quarter-million free blacks in the antebellum South. His 1947 ``From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African- Americans,'' remains a classic and one of the most definitive explorations of the American Black experience. Dr. Franklin once said, ``One might argue that the historian is the conscience of the nation, if honesty and consistency are factors that nurture the conscience.'' While many of these studies may have been of the past, they inevitably shed light on the struggles we continue to face as a nation.

Dr. Franklin led a life of firsts, and President Clinton awarded him the Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian honor, in 1995 for his life's work. Today, I honor his life and ask that all Americans join me in remembering this truly great visionary who never stopped working for change.

Mr. President, today I join Representative Susan Davis in commemorating Cesar E. Chavez's 82nd birthday by introducing legislation to name a post office in San Diego, CA, after this extraordinary civil rights activist and union leader.

Today we join millions of people across this Nation in honoring Cesar Chavez's legacy as an educator, environmentalist, and a civil rights leader who was committed to providing fair wages, better working conditions, decent housing, and quality education for all. As an activist, Chavez worked to give a voice to the voiceless, and inspire millions of Americans to stand up and say, ``Si, Se Puede!''

As a migrant farm worker in his youth, Cesar E. Chavez learned about the struggles of farm workers including poor wages, poor medical coverage, and poor working conditions. When he returned from serving his country in the Navy during World War II, Chavez began to work to improve this situation, first by organizing for the Community Service Organization coordinating voter-registration drives and battling racial and economic discrimination.

In 1962 Cesar Chavez founded the National Farm Workers Association, later to become the United Farm Workers, the largest farm workers union in the country. Using nonviolent tactics, such as boycotts, pickets, and strikes, Chavez raised awareness about the plight of farm workers. Cesar Chavez's unflagging determination made great strides in championing the rights of farm workers, but the struggle for farm workers continues. This year, thousands of workers across California are preparing to march, and continue the fight for their rights.

Cesar Chavez's life and legacy should serve not only as an example but an inspiration to us all as we work to address the growing inequality in our nation, as well as the challenges faced by America's working families, including poverty, health care, and education.

Fifteen years ago, President Clinton awarded Cesar Chavez the Presidential Medal of Freedom, in recognition of his great contributions to our Nation. Today we remember his work not only for the U.S., but also for the communities and people of the State of California.

San Diego is a city with a rich cultural heritage, and a history of community organizing and activism that shares its roots with Cesar Chavez's lifelong struggle for justice and equality. Cesar Chavez accomplished a great deal to improve living and working conditions for all people, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to recognize his work and his memory.

Mr. President, the need for health care reform is undeniable and we must undertake comprehensive efforts to provide quality care for our Nation's diverse populations, particularly older Americans. Our aging population is expected to almost double in number, from 37 million people today to about 72 million by 2030. If we fail to prepare, our Nation will face a crisis in providing care to these older Americans. We must start now if we are going to adequately train the health care workforce to meet the needs of an aging America.

Health care providers with the necessary training to give older Americans the best care are in critically short supply. In its landmark report, Retooling for an Aging America, the Institute of Medicine concluded that action must be taken immediately to address the severe workforce shortages in the care of older adults.

According to the Institute of Medicine, only about 7,100 U.S. physicians are certified geriatricians today; 36,000 are needed by 2030. Just 4 percent of social workers and only 3 percent of advance practice nurses specialize in geriatrics. Recruitment and retention of direct care workers is also a looming crisis due to low wages and few benefits, lack of career advancement, and inadequate training.

Preparing our workforce for the job of caring for older Americans is an essential part of ensuring the future health of our nation. Right now, there is a critical shortage of health care providers with the necessary training and skills to provide our seniors with the best possible care. This is a tremendously important issue for American families who are concerned about quality of care and quality of life for their older relatives and friends.

It is clear that there is a need for federal action to address these issues, and that is why Senator Collins and I are introducing the Caring for an Aging America Act. This legislation would help attract and retain trained health care professionals and direct care workers dedicated to providing quality care to the growing population of older Americans by providing them with meaningful loan forgiveness and career advancement opportunities.

Specifically, for health professionals who complete specialty training in geriatrics or gerontology--including physicians, physician assistants, advance practice nurses, social workers, pharmacists and psychologists--the legislation would link educational loan repayment to a service commitment to the aging population, modeled after the successful National Health Services Corps. The bill would also expand loan repayment for registered nurses who complete specialty training in geriatric care and who choose to work in long-term care settings, and expand career advancement opportunities for direct care workers by offering specialty training in long-term care services. Lastly, the legislation would establish a health and long-term care workforce advisory panel for an aging America.

In addition, I was pleased to work with the Alzheimer's Association and the American Geriatrics Society to ensure that this legislation will also help provide a workforce to meet the needs of older Americans with dementia, Alzheimer's and other cognitive disorders.

Ensuring we have a well-trained health care workforce with the skills to care for our aging population is a critical investment in America's future. This legislation offers a modest but important step toward creating the future health care workforce that our Nation so urgently needs.

I look forward to working with Senator Collins and our colleagues to ensure that we meet our obligations to the seniors of our Nation to improve their care.

Mr. President, as we engage in the debate on health care reform, it is critical that we address the need to invest in health research and innovation to spur the development of new treatments and cures for diseases. Today, I am proud to introduce two bills, S. 755 and S. 756, that would direct Federal investment in new programs that would develop tools to detect ovarian and prostate cancers.

We know that early and reliable detection of these cancers can save lives. These bills make sure we have the tools we need to catch these cancers early, when they can be treated thereby significantly increasing survival rates.

First, the Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Research Act provides funding for research directed toward the development of reliable screening techniques for ovarian cancer--a critical investment in the future of any woman who will face ovarian cancer.

Though only one in 72 women will face ovarian cancer in their lifetime, this disease ranks fifth in cancer deaths among women and causes more deaths than any other cancer of the female reproductive system. In the last year alone, the National Cancer Institute, NCI, estimated there were 15,520 deaths from ovarian cancer in the U.S.

For many years, ovarian cancer has been called the ``silent killer'' because too often women are diagnosed with this disease too late to be saved. But when ovan cancer is diagnosed early, more than 93 percent of women survive longer than 5 years. Because there is currently no effective screening test available, 4 out of 5 ovarian cancer cases in the U.S. are diagnosed in the later stages, when a woman's chance of surviving more than 5 years drops to 46 percent.

The Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Research Act would authorize NCI to make grants for public or nonprofit entities to establish research centers focused on ovarian cancer biomarkers. Biomarkers are biochemical features within the body that can be used to measure the progress of a disease and predict the effects of treatment. This legislation also authorizes funding for a national clinical trial that will enroll at- risk women in a study to determine the clinical utility of using these validated ovarian cancer biomarkers.

The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, and the American College of Surgeons have all joined together in support of this research developing tools to detect ovarian cancer early, because they know it is critical to improving the rate of survival for women struck by this disease.

The second bill, the Prostate Imaging, Research and Men's Education Act, addresses the urgent need for the development of new technologies to detect and diagnose prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in the U.S., and the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in men--striking 1 in every 6 men. In 2008, it was estimated that more than 186,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and more than 28,000 men died from the disease.

The Prostate Research, Imaging, and Men's Education Act, or PRIME Act, would mirror the investment the Federal Government made in advanced imaging technologies, which led to life-saving breakthroughs in detection, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. This bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to expand prostate cancer research, and provides the resources to develop innovative advanced imaging technologies for prostate cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment.

In addition, the PRIME Act would create a national campaign to increase awareness about the need for prostate cancer screening, and works with the Offices of Minority Health at HHS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to ensure that this information reaches the men most at risk from this disease.

The PRIME Act will also promote research that improves prostate cancer screening blood tests. According to a National Cancer Institute study, current blood tests result in false-negative reassurances and numerous false-positive alarms. Some 15 percent of men with normal blood test levels actually have prostate cancer. Even when levels are abnormal, some 88 percent of men end up not having prostate cancer but undergo unnecessary biopsies. Furthermore, the prostate is one of the last organs in a human body where biopsies are performed blindly, which can miss cancer even when multiple samples are taken.

Government initiatives in research and education can be the key to diagnosing prostate or ovarian cancers earlier and more accurately. These two bills would strengthen our efforts to fight these diseases.

These bills are of vital importance to thousands of men and women across our great Nation, and the families and friends who are concerned for their continued health. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to get these bills passed as soon as possible.

Mr. President, today I join Representative Susan Davis in commemorating Cesar E. Chavez's 82nd birthday by introducing legislation to name a post office in San Diego, CA, after this extraordinary civil rights activist and union leader.

Today we join millions of people across this Nation in honoring Cesar Chavez's legacy as an educator, environmentalist, and a civil rights leader who was committed to providing fair wages, better working conditions, decent housing, and quality education for all. As an activist, Chavez worked to give a voice to the voiceless, and inspire millions of Americans to stand up and say, ``Si, Se Puede!''

As a migrant farm worker in his youth, Cesar E. Chavez learned about the struggles of farm workers including poor wages, poor medical coverage, and poor working conditions. When he returned from serving his country in the Navy during World War II, Chavez began to work to improve this situation, first by organizing for the Community Service Organization coordinating voter-registration drives and battling racial and economic discrimination.

In 1962 Cesar Chavez founded the National Farm Workers Association, later to become the United Farm Workers, the largest farm workers union in the country. Using nonviolent tactics, such as boycotts, pickets, and strikes, Chavez raised awareness about the plight of farm workers. Cesar Chavez's unflagging determination made great strides in championing the rights of farm workers, but the struggle for farm workers continues. This year, thousands of workers across California are preparing to march, and continue the fight for their rights.

Cesar Chavez's life and legacy should serve not only as an example but an inspiration to us all as we work to address the growing inequality in our nation, as well as the challenges faced by America's working families, including poverty, health care, and education.

Fifteen years ago, President Clinton awarded Cesar Chavez the Presidential Medal of Freedom, in recognition of his great contributions to our Nation. Today we remember his work not only for the U.S., but also for the communities and people of the State of California.

San Diego is a city with a rich cultural heritage, and a history of community organizing and activism that shares its roots with Cesar Chavez's lifelong struggle for justice and equality. Cesar Chavez accomplished a great deal to improve living and working conditions for all people, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to recognize his work and his memory.

Mr. President, the need for health care reform is undeniable and we must undertake comprehensive efforts to provide quality care for our Nation's diverse populations, particularly older Americans. Our aging population is expected to almost double in number, from 37 million people today to about 72 million by 2030. If we fail to prepare, our Nation will face a crisis in providing care to these older Americans. We must start now if we are going to adequately train the health care workforce to meet the needs of an aging America.

Health care providers with the necessary training to give older Americans the best care are in critically short supply. In its landmark report, Retooling for an Aging America, the Institute of Medicine concluded that action must be taken immediately to address the severe workforce shortages in the care of older adults.

According to the Institute of Medicine, only about 7,100 U.S. physicians are certified geriatricians today; 36,000 are needed by 2030. Just 4 percent of social workers and only 3 percent of advance practice nurses specialize in geriatrics. Recruitment and retention of direct care workers is also a looming crisis due to low wages and few benefits, lack of career advancement, and inadequate training.

Preparing our workforce for the job of caring for older Americans is an essential part of ensuring the future health of our nation. Right now, there is a critical shortage of health care providers with the necessary training and skills to provide our seniors with the best possible care. This is a tremendously important issue for American families who are concerned about quality of care and quality of life for their older relatives and friends.

It is clear that there is a need for federal action to address these issues, and that is why Senator Collins and I are introducing the Caring for an Aging America Act. This legislation would help attract and retain trained health care professionals and direct care workers dedicated to providing quality care to the growing population of older Americans by providing them with meaningful loan forgiveness and career advancement opportunities.

Specifically, for health professionals who complete specialty training in geriatrics or gerontology--including physicians, physician assistants, advance practice nurses, social workers, pharmacists and psychologists--the legislation would link educational loan repayment to a service commitment to the aging population, modeled after the successful National Health Services Corps. The bill would also expand loan repayment for registered nurses who complete specialty training in geriatric care and who choose to work in long-term care settings, and expand career advancement opportunities for direct care workers by offering specialty training in long-term care services. Lastly, the legislation would establish a health and long-term care workforce advisory panel for an aging America.

In addition, I was pleased to work with the Alzheimer's Association and the American Geriatrics Society to ensure that this legislation will also help provide a workforce to meet the needs of older Americans with dementia, Alzheimer's and other cognitive disorders.

Ensuring we have a well-trained health care workforce with the skills to care for our aging population is a critical investment in America's future. This legislation offers a modest but important step toward creating the future health care workforce that our Nation so urgently needs.

I look forward to working with Senator Collins and our colleagues to ensure that we meet our obligations to the seniors of our Nation to improve their care.

Mr. President, as we engage in the debate on health care reform, it is critical that we address the need to invest in health research and innovation to spur the development of new treatments and cures for diseases. Today, I am proud to introduce two bills, S. 755 and S. 756, that would direct Federal investment in new programs that would develop tools to detect ovarian and prostate cancers.

We know that early and reliable detection of these cancers can save lives. These bills make sure we have the tools we need to catch these cancers early, when they can be treated thereby significantly increasing survival rates.

First, the Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Research Act provides funding for research directed toward the development of reliable screening techniques for ovarian cancer--a critical investment in the future of any woman who will face ovarian cancer.

Though only one in 72 women will face ovarian cancer in their lifetime, this disease ranks fifth in cancer deaths among women and causes more deaths than any other cancer of the female reproductive system. In the last year alone, the National Cancer Institute, NCI, estimated there were 15,520 deaths from ovarian cancer in the U.S.

For many years, ovarian cancer has been called the ``silent killer'' because too often women are diagnosed with this disease too late to be saved. But when ovan cancer is diagnosed early, more than 93 percent of women survive longer than 5 years. Because there is currently no effective screening test available, 4 out of 5 ovarian cancer cases in the U.S. are diagnosed in the later stages, when a woman's chance of surviving more than 5 years drops to 46 percent.

The Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Research Act would authorize NCI to make grants for public or nonprofit entities to establish research centers focused on ovarian cancer biomarkers. Biomarkers are biochemical features within the body that can be used to measure the progress of a disease and predict the effects of treatment. This legislation also authorizes funding for a national clinical trial that will enroll at- risk women in a study to determine the clinical utility of using these validated ovarian cancer biomarkers.

The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, and the American College of Surgeons have all joined together in support of this research developing tools to detect ovarian cancer early, because they know it is critical to improving the rate of survival for women struck by this disease.

The second bill, the Prostate Imaging, Research and Men's Education Act, addresses the urgent need for the development of new technologies to detect and diagnose prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in the U.S., and the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in men--striking 1 in every 6 men. In 2008, it was estimated that more than 186,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and more than 28,000 men died from the disease.

The Prostate Research, Imaging, and Men's Education Act, or PRIME Act, would mirror the investment the Federal Government made in advanced imaging technologies, which led to life-saving breakthroughs in detection, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. This bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to expand prostate cancer research, and provides the resources to develop innovative advanced imaging technologies for prostate cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment.

In addition, the PRIME Act would create a national campaign to increase awareness about the need for prostate cancer screening, and works with the Offices of Minority Health at HHS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to ensure that this information reaches the men most at risk from this disease.

The PRIME Act will also promote research that improves prostate cancer screening blood tests. According to a National Cancer Institute study, current blood tests result in false-negative reassurances and numerous false-positive alarms. Some 15 percent of men with normal blood test levels actually have prostate cancer. Even when levels are abnormal, some 88 percent of men end up not having prostate cancer but undergo unnecessary biopsies. Furthermore, the prostate is one of the last organs in a human body where biopsies are performed blindly, which can miss cancer even when multiple samples are taken.

Government initiatives in research and education can be the key to diagnosing prostate or ovarian cancers earlier and more accurately. These two bills would strengthen our efforts to fight these diseases.

These bills are of vital importance to thousands of men and women across our great Nation, and the families and friends who are concerned for their continued health. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to get these bills passed as soon as possible.

Mr. President, what is the order?

I came to the floor to talk about the budget debate. I think it is very important that we let the American people know where we are on the budget and what this debate is really all about.

We have a new President and we have a new budget, thank goodness. We have a budget that reflects the hopes and dreams of the American people. We have a budget that is going to cut the deficit in half by the time this President's term is over. We have a budget that is absolutely open in terms of the way it spends our money and the way it saves our money.

It is important that we take a look at the type of economy this young President inherited: Record deficits. Record deficits that President George W. Bush's own party supported. It is very important that we remember that when George W. Bush got the key to the Oval Office, we had surpluses. Then we saw a 50-percent increase in spending. We saw a debt that was about to be put away go up in major proportions. We are seeing the playing out of the worst recession since the Great Depression, a financial market in crisis, and a housing market in crisis because of the deregulation that was the centerpiece of George W. Bush's and the Republicans' leadership.

We are paying the price of those years today. We have a young President who came into office and said: Be patient, we are going to change the way we do business in this country. And we are going to do that. We started with the stimulus bill that got not one Republican vote on the House side, although some of my Republican friends over there are running around my State taking credit for the bill they voted against. We had three Republicans over here, whom I praise mightily for having the courage to do the right thing and get this economy back on track.

We have seen the loss of 3.3 million jobs in the last 6 months. The President is dealing with two ongoing wars that, by the way, were never paid for in the budget. They were taken off the budget. He now puts them in the budget so that the American people can see the truth. President Bush put them in emergency spending even though we knew he needed to fund them.

What we have in the President's budget is a refreshing change of reality, honesty, integrity, and investments that have to be made. What are we getting from our Republican friends? We are getting just what we got when the Clinton budget passed without one Republican vote. I want to take us back to that because I think it is very interesting, intriguing, and enlightening to see what our Republican friends said about the last Democratic President's budget. You would have thought the sky was falling. You would have thought the universe would never survive. I have some of the quotes they made about the Clinton budgets.

If people will remember, Al Gore, as Vice President, had to come over here and cast the tie-breaking vote on that budget. Here is what happened as a result of that budget; we will talk about that first. As a result of the Clinton budget, we saw 23 million new jobs created in this country--not millions of jobs lost but 23 million jobs created. What happened to the deficit under the Clinton budget? It went down, down, down, and we wound up with a surplus. We voted for the Clinton budget, the first Democratic budget in a while, and what happened? Twenty-three million new jobs were created and the budget was in balance.

As a matter of fact, George W. Bush, when he took the keys to the Oval Office, had a surplus. What happened with the Republican rule? Deficits as far as the eye can see. These are the facts. This isn't rhetoric--debt of $10 trillion, $11 trillion.

Let's look at what the Republicans said about the Clinton budget that we know, because time has passed, history has shown, created 23 million jobs, stopped the deficits, turned them into surpluses, and got the debt going on the way down. What did our Republican friends say then?

Wayne Allard said then as a Representative:

In summary, the plan has a fatal flaw--it does not reduce

the deficit.

Wrong. Wrong. Wayne Allard continued:

So we are still going to pile up some more debt, but most

of all, we are going to cost jobs in this country.

That is what Republican Wayne Allard said about the Clinton budget-- ``. . . we are still going to pile up some more debt, but most of all, we are going to cost jobs. . . .'' Wrong--23 million jobs created.

Senator Pete Domenici said of the Clinton budget that created 23 million jobs and turned the deficit into a surplus:

It's just a mockery.

Our friend, Senator Orrin Hatch, a leader of the Republicans, still here and going strong, I am happy to say, he is my friend--he said:

Make no mistake, these higher rates will cost jobs.

Talking about the Clinton budget and the taxes in it.

Make no mistake, these higher rates will cost jobs.

Wrong--23 million jobs created.

How about Senator Phil Gramm, one of the leaders of the Republicans in the Senate at the time of the Clinton budget that created 23 million jobs, took the deficit, turned it into surplus, what did he say?

I want to predict here tonight that if we adopt this bill,

the American economy is going to get weaker and not stronger,

the deficit 4 years from today will be higher than it is

today and not lower. . . . When all is said and done, people

will pay more taxes, the economy will create fewer jobs,

Government will spend more money, and the American people

will be worse off.

Wrong. Phil Gramm was wrong. Oh, Phil Gramm, he is the one who said this recession was in our minds.

Here is another quote of Phil Gramm--remember, he was a leader of the Republicans then--talking about the Clinton budget that created 23 million jobs and cut our deficit and turned it into a surplus:

. . . [T]his program is going to make the economy weaker. .

. . Hundreds of thousands of people are going to lose their

jobs as a result of this program.

Guess what he also said:

I believe that hundreds of thousands of people are going to

lose their jobs as a result of this program. I believe that

Bill Clinton will be one of those people.

Bill Clinton got reelected and the economy created 23 million jobs, the

deficits went down, we had a surplus, and the debt was almost eviscerated.

What did our good friend Chuck Grassley say? Chuck Grassley is our good friend. He has taken a lead against this budget document. He is one of the leaders against the Obama budget. Let's see what he said about the Clinton budget that created 23 million new jobs and cut the deficits, turned them into surpluses, and had the debt going down, one of the most prosperous times in our history as a result of the Clinton budget. What did Chuck Grassley say?

I really do not think it takes a rocket scientist to know

this bill will cost jobs.

Wrong.

Connie Mack, another leader, a friend of mine, now retired, a Republican leader--this is what he said about the Clinton budget:

This bill will cost America jobs, no doubt about it.

Bill Roth said:

It will flatten the economy. . . . I am concerned what it

will do to jobs. I am concerned what it will do to our

families, our communities, to our children's future.

Senator Roth was wrong--23 million jobs created, one of the most prosperous times in our Nation's history, deficits went down, debt on the way out.

So our Republicans have a visceral reaction when there is a Democratic President. They come and they excoriate our Democratic President, and they are wrong. They are wrong. Look at the record. This is the beauty of what I am saying. I do not have to defend it. I know what they said, and I know what happened to the economy.

Newt Gingrich--still a major leader in the Republican Party, some people say the leader--about the Democratic President's budget, Bill Clinton: ``It will kill jobs.'' Wrong. It will ``lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will . . . increase the deficit.'' Wrong.

John Kasich--we have seen him on television a lot. He was a leader then in the Republican Party. This is what he said about Bill Clinton's budget, not dissimilar to the Barak Obama budget in the sense that it is a plan to cut the deficit and make investments--make good investments. This is what he said:

This plan will not work. If it was to work, I'd have to

become a Democrat . . .

John, if you are watching me, it is your time because the plan worked--23 million jobs. You didn't become a Democrat. You said you would.

Peter King--what did Peter King say about the Clinton budget that created 23 million jobs and cured the deficit problem?

[I]t is because of budgets such as this that the economy is

going to be damaged.

Wrong. Wrong.

Flash forward. We know what happened under Bill Clinton. We know about the 23 million jobs. We know what happened to the debt. It went down. We know what happened to the deficits. They turned into surpluses. George W. Bush takes the White House, the Republicans take over, and what happened? The worst recession since the Great Depression, terrible loss of jobs, deficits record high, which they never complained about, debt record high. We get a new President who comes in and says: I have a plan to turn it all around. What do they do? They come down to the floor with the same old politics.

If I gave you the quotes I am hearing of my colleagues--Senator Shelby is all over, they are all over the place--disaster, Armageddon, the world is ending, we are going to lose jobs, we are going to have deficits as far as the eye can see; what a nightmare. It is the same old politics and, by the way, the same old policies, which is tax breaks for the wealthiest among us, shorting the investments that the people of this country need, not tackling health care, not tackling energy, not tackling education--all the things this President wants-- not tackling the deficits, and we have to know they got us into this crisis.

I do not enjoy reiterating all of this because it brings back some fights I was in. But I am going to do it every day as long as I hear the same rhetoric, the same politics, the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

The American people had a choice in November. They had a choice in Senate races, they had a choice in House races, they had a choice in the Presidential race. Did they want the same old politics, did they want the same old policies that got us into the crisis? Guess what they said. They wanted change, and they are getting change. We have the same rhetoric flowing from my friends on the other side of the aisle. I thought they were going to change the image of their party. I thought they were going to change the message of their party. It is the same old stuff. You could substitute a name for a name. It is the same thing they are saying about the Barak Obama budget that they said about the Clinton budget, and it doesn't fly because our new President understands we have to make some changes. He understands we need to invest in America's future, in jobs, in health care, in energy independence, and in education.

We know the deficit predictions are different coming out of the Congressional Budget Office than they are coming out of the White House office. Everybody knows we are going to adjust this budget here and there to make sure the numbers reflect reality. This President understands that. I watched him at his press conference. He said: What I care about is jobs, health care, energy independence, education, and deficit reduction, he added. That is a major focus of his agenda. He says: As long as I get jobs, health care, energy independence, education, and deficit reduction, I am a happy person.

The President is coming today to the Hill to meet with us. I am very much anticipating his presentation.

We know what this President inherited. We know the fiscal mismanagement. We know the misplaced priorities. We know, we know, we know. The American people understand that is why this President, despite getting pounded day after day on this floor, on the airwaves, and on conservative talk shows, is still maintaining a strong majority of Americans who say: Give this man a chance.

Who else in history inherited two wars and the biggest economic nightmare since the Great Depression? Nobody. The wars were not of his making, and the economic mess is not of his making. He is addressing them. He addressed it in the stimulus package that is going to start to pay off for us.

It is tough times, but he is doing what has to be done. He went forward and he said: You know what, I have a plan to get these banks on their feet. He was honest. He said: I have bad choices and worst choices.

If there is a tragedy in our families and we find out one of our loved ones has cancer and the doctor comes to us and says: There are two treatments. There is a tough chemotherapy treatment and there is a tough radiation treatment. You have to pick between those two treatments to cure this cancer. It is a hard choice. Our President faces very hard choices when it comes to straightening out this mess. But the American people want him to try and try he is.

If we can get these bad assets off the hands of these banks and get them lending again, we basically save the financial system. If we don't save the financial system, we are going to have to take it over. This President does not want to do that and I do not want to do that and I do not think most Americans want that. So he is doing what it takes.

The housing crisis--I am so happy to hear people are refinancing. It is very important. That is going to put more money in the pockets of people. It is going to make it more affordable for them to stay in their homes.

Our President has a budget blueprint to get us out of this mess. We all know he is not going to get every line in there he wants. He knows that. Senator Conrad is working with him. We will have a reserve fund in there for the things we want to do for health care and energy, and I am going to work very hard so we can, in fact, have a cap-and-trade system that brings funding in and puts people to work, it gets us off dirty energy. We will have the ability to do that. The point is, this President deserves to have his priorities in place.

I wish to say in closing to my Republican friends: Go back a few years in time. See how wrong you were. Admit that you were wrong. Then go back and see what you said about the Bush budget. I didn't get a chance to go through

those quotes. I will do that the next time I take the floor. When the Bush budget came down and we saw what happened with the Bush budgets, they were adopted by Republicans, and they received lots of votes from their side, unanimous. All we had out of that was unemployment and deficits. They said: Oh, this is going to be a great budget. They are wrong. They have been wrong--wrong on the Clinton budget, wrong on the Bush budget, and now they are wrong on the Obama budget.

As one Senator, I wish to say this: I never forget. I forgive all the time, but I never forget. I have these quotes. They are real. They are in the Record. I am going to bring them out constantly.

Remember, when you hear these Republicans come out and trash Barak Obama's budget, it is the same thing they did to the Clinton budget and they were wrong--wrong then and they are wrong now.

We have to give this President the support he needs. Not that we are going to give every line--I don't agree with every line in it--but basically the thrust of what he wants, the investments and the deficit reduction.

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

Mr. President, due to an illness, I was forced to miss the previous two rollcall votes.

The first vote was on the nomination of Elena Kagan to be the Solicitor General of the United States. The second vote was on cloture on the motion to proceed to national service bill. Had I been present for these two rollcall votes, I would have voted aye.

Elena Kagan has the qualifications and intellect to be an outstanding Solicitor General. I am proud that she is the first woman to hold this important position.

I also support the motion to proceed to the national service bill and am disappointed that it is necessary to invoke cloture to break the filibuster against this bipartisan legislation. It is important that we act to expand opportunities for Americans who volunteer their time and talents in service to their communities.

Mr. President, it is with deep sadness that I discuss one of the deadliest attacks against California law enforcement in my State's history--an attack that took the lives of four Oakland, CA, police officers, and has left our community reeling from the shock of this terrible and senseless loss.

Every day, our law enforcement officers selflessly and bravely put their lives on the line to protect our families and our communities. If anyone, anywhere, needed a reminder of that, this tragedy puts a spotlight on the risk our police officers face every day.

On Saturday, March 21, what should have been a routine midday traffic stop for Oakland PD officers Mark Dunakin and John Hege quickly turned into a murder scene.

After fatally wounding both officers, the suspect fled the scene, leading to a frantic manhunt that involved more than 200 officers from Oakland PD, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, BART Police and the California Highway Patrol. The suspect was quickly tracked down to an apartment. But when the SWAT team entered the apartment, he fired a series of shots from inside of a closet, fatally wounding officers Daniel

Sakai and Ervin Romans, and injuring a third, before he was shot and killed.

In the days and weeks ahead, we will have important debates about the problems with our justice system that allowed a violent offender to be on the streets in clear violation of his parole. And we will debate the issue of powerful weapons in the hands of dangerous criminals.

As these debates move forward, I will work to give our law enforcement officers more support and more resources to adequately protect our communities and protect themselves.

Now I want to pay tribute to these four fallen officers.

Sergeant Mark Dunakin, age 40, was an 18-year veteran of Oakland PD. He was no stranger to violent crime, having worked homicide cases in the criminal investigation division. But he later transferred to the motorcycle traffic division where his days focused on patrolling our streets on his beloved Harley Davidson, cracking down on drunk drivers and trying to always enforce our State's seatbelt laws. Sergeant Dunakin is survived by his wife Angela Schwab and their three children.

Officer John Hege, age 41, had been with the Oakland PD for 10 years and had only recently started his dream assignment of becoming part of the motorcycle traffic division. Respected by his colleagues and well liked by his neighbors, Officer Hege was often known to lend a helping hand, and even found time to umpire high school baseball in his free time. After being gunned down this weekend, Officer Hege was declared brain dead. And true to the heroism he exhibited in his life, his organs are being donated to help save other lives. Officer Hege is survived by his father and his beloved dog.

Sergeant Ervin Romans, age 43, had been with the Oakland PD since 1996. As a member of the elite SWAT team, Romans was in charge of entering the most dangerous situations to confront and arrest barricaded suspects. Known as just ``Erv'' to his friends and colleagues, he was among a group of officers awarded the department's prestigious Medal of Valor in 1999 for helping to evacuate residents during a fire. His captain, Ed Tracey said he ``had an exterior image of being the tough, rugged guy, but everyone knows he has a soft heart.'' Sergeant Romans is survived by his three children.

Sergeant Daniel Sakai, age 35, had recently been named a leader of the entry SWAT team, and was known to all as a rising star. Before joining the SWAT team, Sergeant Sakai worked in the K-9 division, responding to calls with his dog, Doc. He studied forestry at UC Berkeley, where he was a member of the Alpha Sigma Phi fraternity. He also worked as a community service officer at Berkeley, escorting students around campus at night. He is survived by his wife Jennifer, a UC Berkeley police officer, and their daughter.

My thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends, and colleagues of these fallen officers in this tragic time.

We must come together to support those suffering, and in the coming days we must come together, firmly resolved to end the violence that has for too long eaten away at the fabric of our communities.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after the conclusion of my remarks, Senator Whitehouse have the floor, and then Senator Shaheen.

Madam President, we just took a very important vote on a very important bill that is good for our country and good for our families. It is good for our heritage. It is good for our economy because I would argue that when we preserve magnificent places in our land, it encourages people to come and see those places and spend time around those places and spend money around those places, and that helps our economy.

I thank the leaders of the Energy Committee on both sides of the aisle, Senators Bingaman and Murkowski, and others on the committee. I also thank the staff who worked hard, and I want to take exception to a remark by Senator Coburn. After the staff was thanked, he got up and said, ``Well, what staff works for the American people?'' Well, I would argue that all the staff here and all of the Senators here work for the American people. And

even though Senator Coburn does not bless every provision in this bill, this bill has huge support because the bills in this package will protect some of the most breathtaking places in the Nation, areas that provide a refuge for birdwatchers, hikers, campers, equestrians, fishermen, and other visitors who are looking to escape our Nation's crowded, fast-passed cities to enjoy the tranquility of nature.

I am going to show a few pictures. This is in the Eastern Sierra, the bighorn sheep. We are protecting this magnificent creature that I know Senator Harkin appreciates.

The bald eagle, which we know we have been doing a lot to save, will be preserved in the many acres we preserve in my home State of California.

In the Riverside bill, this is another magnificent scene of the mountains and the beautiful vegetation that grows without any water to speak of.

The Eastern Sierra, these White Mountains--imagine the beauty of this. So when people come and say we are not doing right by America to save areas such as this, all I say is, open your eyes and gaze upon God's creation. It is so magnificent.

I have one more photo I would like to show you. I know Senator Schumer feels the way I do about this. In the Eastern Sierras, this beautiful creek here, a beautiful place to come and enjoy the day, as I said, get away from our crowded cities, bring your family, and stay in the area.

Many bills in this package provide much needed water resources for our communities. It provides recycled water to areas suffering from drought, restoring major watersheds. We are experiencing one of the worst droughts in our State's history. That is why a coalition of 16 western water agencies and organizations wrote to Congress about the urgency of passing this bill that we happily just passed.

You saw some of the magnificent photos of some of the wilderness areas in California that have been saved. They are in what is called the California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act, the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park Wilderness Act, and the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act.

I want to make a point to colleagues. On each of these wilderness areas, I worked with colleagues in the House, many of whom are Republicans, and I thank them enormously for their work: Buck McKeon, Mary Bono Mack, Devin Nunes. I also worked with many Democrats, including Jim Costa. So we have had a wonderful working relationship across party lines.

There are 700,000 acres of wilderness and/or wilderness study areas and 105 miles of wild and scenic rivers in this bill in my home State. I would say again to Senator Coburn, although I suppose the best thing I can say to him is his argument did not win the day, is that it is our responsibility, I would say to him, to protect these magnificent areas so future generations can enjoy them exactly as we do. These are breathtaking places in California. They provide critically important habitat, as you saw, for the Peninsular bighorn sheep, the mule deer, mountain lions, desert tortoises, and bald eagles.

Again, the economics of this are very clear. In a time of recession, we want to look to the future for jobs, and we know that wilderness bills, just the three of mine in this bill, will produce an estimated 420 jobs and $7 million in income to my State. I cannot say enough about the importance of opportunities such as this when you save the environment and you create jobs and everybody comes away a winner.

I would like to respond to some things Senator Coburn has been saying about one of these bills, the California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act. He has questioned why we are designating Beauty Mountain and the Pinto Mountains as wilderness in this bill even though the Bureau of Land Management failed to recommend them for wilderness back in 1990. Well, the answer is that a lot has changed since then--private lands have since been acquired by the BLM and dozens of mining claims have been retired. Without these restrictions, the BLM now supports wilderness designation for these areas and has testified before Congress in support of this bill. Also, Congress has repeatedly asserted its right to name wilderness areas--the agencies make recommendations but we make the final decision based on what we are hearing from the constituents we represent.

These three bills have bipartisan, bicameral, and diverse support. They would not impact the use of private lands, but would simply improve the protection of existing Forest Service, National Park Service, or Bureau of Land Management lands.

While preserving these areas, we have been careful to accommodate stakeholders' needs. For example, we worked to clarify that the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage bill's designation of a Wild and Scenic River on segments of Piru Creek will not affect the operations of the United Water Conservation District or Pyramid Dam on the creek, including any rights they may have to modify water releases.

I will close by thanking my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for not only supporting my wilderness bills that are in here but for her leadership in the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, which is included in this bill.

Senator Coburn tried to remove it from this bill. I do not understand his motivation. The settlement ended 18 years of litigation over the impacts of the Friant Dam on Chinook salmon populations. Why on Earth would anyone try to derail a settlement and drive us back into the courthouse?

What is in here is a carefully crafted compromise solution that is good for our environment, for our agricultural economy, and for our urban communities.

Again, there is more to be said on this matter. I will say again, to see Senator Coburn get up and try to torpedo this important legislation was kind of shocking to me because once in a while I say we should come together here to preserve our Nation's heritage and to try to avoid litigation.

You know, the fact is, the San Joaquin settlement had broad bipartisan support, has it in my State, from the Governor. We even have the support of the outgoing Bush administration, bipartisan House Members, water agencies, conservation groups, elected officials.

So it is a happy day, frankly, for my State of California, a very happy day--700,000 acres of wilderness, the settlement over the San Joaquin River--and for this whole Nation it is a wonderful moment because we addressed the drought some of our areas are facing.

The areas in this bill are truly magnificent places representing California's and the Nation's incredible range of landscapes and habitats. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this bill into law and protect these treasures for future generations of Americans.

I hope this bill will get much attention. I hope the President will have a ceremony when he signs this bill because it deserve far more attention than it has been getting. It is good for the environment, it is good for the economy, and it shows a spirit of bipartisanship that I know our President and all of us encourage.

I yield the floor.