Floor Statements

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a couple questions?

First of all, Mr. President, I have known my friend from Illinois, the senior Senator from Illinois, for many years. We served in the House together. He is one of the most collegial Members of the Senate. I say to the Senator, I do not think I have ever seen you quite as upset and angry as you are.

I wish to ask my friend--because he touched on this--as to the real impact on America's families that he started to discuss. As chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I know, as he does, we have to fund our highway program. I know my colleague from Michigan and my colleague from Minnesota both are going to talk about the need for safe and sound infrastructure and the fact that with it comes good jobs.

But here is where we are at this point. Because of the no, no, no votes by that side--what they said no to today was making sure we can pay for the highway projects we have already authorized, we have already told the States to go ahead and start constructing.

I say to the Senator, $8 billion was in this bill that they just said no to, again--$8 billion to replenish the highway trust fund. That translates to--and hold on to your hats, folks--400,000 good-paying jobs that will be lost if we do not replenish this fund, not to mention the jobs that are already being lost because they refuse to renew these tax credits for solar, wind, and geothermal.

In my State, we have a horrible housing crisis. It is terrible. Construction is down. What has been keeping us afloat, I say to my colleagues, is the renewable energy industry. Four hundred solar companies have moved in. They are taking these workers. So how could we have--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator have 1 more minute.

So I say to my friend, this Republican Party here, they are the recession party. They stand for recession and moving into depression with their votes, does my friend not agree, with their votes today?

And the trust fund.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 100th anniversary of the city of Albany, located in Alameda County, CA.

The city of Albany, formerly known as Ocean View, was incorporated as Ocean View in September 1908. In 1909, voters changed the name of the city to Albany in honor of the birthplace of the city's first mayor, Frank Roberts. This year, we celebrate its centennial anniversary. Well-recognized for its prominent landmark, Albany Hill, the city of Albany has charmed residents and visitors alike for decades.

Situated on the eastern shore of the San Francisco Bay in northern Alameda County, Albany's waterfront has undergone significant changes over the last 100 years. From the renovation of the Albany Bulb to the city's involvement in Eastshore State Park, the city of Albany has taken dramatic steps to promote a greener, more sustainable city. These efforts were rewarded in 2008 when Albany was named one of California's greenest cities.

Solano Avenue, the principal shopping street in Albany, traverses the city from east to west, while San Pablo Avenue, its other major commercial street, runs north to south. These two streets account for the majority of commerce in the city. Solano Avenue is also host to the annual Solano Stroll, which is held on the second Sunday of every September. This event began in 1974 and has since been designated by the Library of Congress as a National Local Legacy. Another local landmark to be found in Albany is Golden Gate Fields, the only horse racing track in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I congratulate the city of Albany on this special occasion of its 100th birthday and salute its wonderful community spirit.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the city of Kingsburg, a family- oriented community located in California's San Joaquin Valley.

The story about the city of Kingsburg, like many other communities throughout the San Joaquin Valley, can be traced to its fertile soils, Mediterranean climate, and industrious population. In the early 1870s, the lure of a better and more stable life prompted two Swedish natives to settle in a Central Pacific Railroad town called Kings River Switch. In 1874, the site for the present-day town site was

drawn up and the name was changed to Kingsbury. Two years later, the name was changed to Kingsburgh to reflect the Swedish heritage of many of the town's residents. In 1894, the city's name took on its current spelling, Kingsburg. On May 19, 1908, the city of Kingsburg officially became an incorporated city in Fresno County.

The city of Kingsburg has grown from a sleepy railroad town, at its founding, to a vibrant community of nearly 10,000 that rests in the middle of one of the most dynamic regions of California. Kingsburg is where Olympic legend Rafer Johnson and his brother, Pro Football Hall of Famer, Jimmy Johnson, spent their formative years and honed their athletic skills. Today the city of Kingsburg proudly embraces it Swedish heritage and its status as the ``Swedish Village.'' The city's landscape features distinctive Swedish architecture and brightly painted Dala horses, traditional wooden statuettes of horses and a national symbol of Sweden.

If its first century is any indication, it is clear that the city of Kingsburg will continue to grow and reach new heights in the years to come. The story of the city's first one hundred years is a testament to the value of community. As the residents of Kingsburg gather to celebrate this auspicious occasion, I congratulate them on their centennial anniversary and wish them continued good fortune and success.

Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize the 100th anniversary of the University of California, Davis.

U.C. Davis began as a public land-grant university in 1905 when California Governor George Pardee signed into law an act establishing a university farm school for the University of California. One year after the act was signed, the small town of Davisville, today known as Davis, was selected as the site for the University Farm. The campus was established largely due to the vision of Peter J. Shields, then- secretary of the California State Agriculture Society, who was dissatisfied by the fact California students were choosing to attend out-of-state universities due to the lack of programs offered by the University of California.

The official opening of the University Farm was in January 1909 with a student body of 18 students from the University of California, Berkeley on a 778-acre campus. The campus opened with 16 regular instructors from U.C. Berkeley's College of Agriculture and 12 nonresident instructors. In 1922, the University Farm was renamed the Northern Branch of the College of Agriculture and expanded to 3,000 acres in 1951 to support its rapidly growing student body.

In 1959, the Northern Branch of the College of Agriculture was declared by the Regents of the University of California as the seventh general campus in the University of California system. Since its inception as a U.C. campus, Davis has become one of the most renowned academic universities in the Nation. In 1996, Davis joined the prestigious Association of American Universities, which represents the top 62 research universities in North America. It has also been ranked by U.S. News and World Report as the 42nd best university in the United States and the 11th best public university in the Nation. In addition, Washington Monthly ranked U.C. Davis 8th among all U.S. universities based on its contributions to society.

U.C. Davis offers its students 100 academic majors and 86 graduate programs within its 4 colleges and 5 professional schools. It currently ranks 14th in the Nation in total research expenditures, 2nd in agricultural research, 12th in life sciences, and 13th in biological sciences. Davis' impressive faculty include 21 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 13 members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 7 members of the National Academy of Engineering, 5 members of the Institute of Medicine, 3 members of the Royal Society, 2 members of the American Academy of Arts and Letters, 2 Pulitzer Prize winners, and 2 MacArthur fellows. U.C. Davis alumni account for 1 in every 276 Californians, many of whom have gone on to become leaders in their fields of expertise.

Today U.C. Davis has 30,000 students on the largest campus in the U.C. system spanning over 5,300 acres. U.C. Davis is the only U.C. campus with its own airport and one of two campuses with a nuclear laboratory and fire department. The U.C. Davis School of Medicine operates one of the Nation's finest hospitals which is regularly ranked in the top 50 by U.S. News and World Report.

As the community, students, staff and alumni gather to celebrate U.C. Davis's centennial anniversary, I would like to congratulate them and thank them for their outstanding commitment to education.

Mr. President, I understand the time is divided between myself and Senator Durbin. How much time do I have?

Mr. President, I wish to spend the 7 minutes talking about four bills that are in this package from the Environment and Public Words Committee, all of which have broad bipartisan support, and I want to correct the Record on some of the things Senator Coburn stated about one of the bills.

The bills are the Captive Primate Safety Act, the Beach Protection Act, the Chesapeake Bay Gateway Act continuing authorization, and the Appalachian Regional Development Act amendment. These bills are all bipartisan and they represent a diverse background of support in the country and in the Senate.

The Appalachian Regional Development Act amendment reauthorizes and improves the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965. The ARDA is a Federal-State partnership that works with the people of Appalachia toward self-sustaining economic development and to improve the quality of life in all, or portions, of 13 States--Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. The commission's primary function is to support economic development in the Appalachian area, critical infrastructure to provide a climate for business, growth, and industry that will create jobs in the regions that need that help. The bill strengthens existing law and provides better assistance to counties in the region that are most at risk of becoming economically distressed. The bipartisan support for this bill is very strong. It includes Senators Voinovich, Alexander, Brown, Burr, Byrd, Cardin, Clinton, Cochran, Dole, Graham, McConnell, Mikulski, Rockefeller, Schumer, Sessions, Shelby, Specter, and Warner. We certainly hope this package passes because this area of the Nation requires this commission to continue its work.

Next, the Beach Protection Act. We spent a lot of time talking about offshore oil drilling. Let the Record show that everyone in the Senate supports offshore oil drilling. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that they want to open pristine areas off the coast, where we protect a $70 billion coastal economy, while the oil companies hold leases to 68 million acres and they are not drilling. So we all say drill now to these oil companies. But as far as opening our pristine coast and jeopardizing the coastal economy, that doesn't make much sense. What will happen is you will give the oil companies more assets on their balance sheet, and they are still not drilling the acres they have, the 68 million acres, plus they have access to another 28 million acres in the Alaska Naval Reserve. I believe they have developed 3 million of those acres. It has about three times as much oil as ANWR. This is so much bluster and there is nothing to it--except the oil companies' power to be shown on the floor of the Senate by my friends, the Republicans.

Regardless of those differences, we want to protect our beaches. We don't want to have our kids swimming in polluted water. They want to enjoy the clean, safe, healthy, pristine beaches. The Beach Act will do that. Essentially, there are improvements that are greatly needed so that the waters are tested and people know it is safe to swim. The bipartisan support for this bill includes Senators Lautenberg, Voinovich, Warner, Brown, Cardin, Clinton, Durbin, Kerry, Klobuchar, Menendez, Schumer, and Stabenow.

The Chesapeake Bay Gateway Act will help to connect the public with the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers to 150 exceptional parks, wildlife refuges, and historic trails. It is one of America's and the world's most important estuaries. The American people put a great amount of resources into protecting and restoring this great water body, and now this bill will help the public understand, visit, and enjoy this spectacular bay. I applaud the bipartisan work that went into this bill. The work was done by Senators Specter, Biden, Carper, and Casey, and the lead on this was taken by the Senators from Maryland and the Senators from Virginia.

The last one I will talk about is Captive Primate Safety Act, and why this bill will help address a serious issue. More than 132 people, including 29 children, have been injured by nonhuman primates, and the fact is they should not be pets. One of the statements I read that Senator Coburn made is that this is going to stop the ability of scientists to use these nonhuman primates in science. That is false. That is exempted from this. He also made reference to the fact that we ought to ban them from coming into the country. The fact is that, since 1975, they have been banned from coming into the country. But they are in the country and the fact is there is interstate trade here. It is a real problem.

The CDC has said they have serious concerns about the transmission of communicable diseases here, and they stated:

These animal species have been linked to transmission of

certain diseases to humans, and individuals involved in

transporting animals are especially at risk for infection.

So even though we have had these concerns and we passed legislation banning their importation, the CDC is still greatly concerned that there is a nonhuman primate pet trade in this country. So, clearly, the statements that have been made on this have been incorrect. Trade or transportation of these animals for zoos is exempt. Scientific research facilities are exempt and certain other regulated entities. Groups like Helping Hands, which provides highly trained and carefully controlled nonhuman primates as helping animals to severely disabled people

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.

Last week, I received a letter from the Humane Society highlighting the need for this legislation, and another letter of support from over 25 groups, including Defenders of Wildlife.

I will close with this. When Senator Vitter comes together with me, that is unusual. But we came together on this bill. Senator Lieberman is on board, as are Senators Lautenberg, Menendez, and Ensign. So you are looking at a bill that has been carefully thought out. I urge strong support for this package.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Herb Fischer as he retires from a long and distinguished career in education. His service and commitment to California's schoolchildren, and to his community, have provided an example for us all.

Dr. Fischer received his undergraduate degree in business administration from California Polytechnic San Luis Obispo. He later earned his teaching credential, master's degree, and doctorate from the University of California, Riverside. Dr. Fischer served his 38-year career in education in San Bernardino County, beginning as a classroom teacher. He later served as a principal and district administrator in the San Bernardino City Unified School District, where he remained for 22 years. One of his chief accomplishments was his administrative support for San Bernardino City Unified's Desegregation and Integration Magnet School Program. This has been a model in providing quality programs for all students and offers parents and students more educational choices. Dr. Fischer also served as superintendent of the Colton Joint Unified School District for 7 years. There he directed a staff of over 2,500 employees. In 1998 Dr. Fischer was elected to serve as County Superintendent, where he oversees the programs and operations of the County Superintendent of Schools Office, which has an annual operating budget of $250 million.

Under Dr. Fischer's leadership, the County Superintendent of Schools Office has prioritized services to support school districts' efforts to improve student performance and accountability. This has included closing achievement and access gaps for underperforming schools and underrepresented students, improving postsecondary education and career readiness, and ensuring safe school campuses.

Among other accomplishments during Dr. Fischer's tenure, the County Superintendent of Schools Office lead a county-wide emphasis to improve student performance collectively with district superintendents, resulting in increased scores on the State Academic Performance Index for 7 consecutive years. He also was responsible for the construction of the county's first permanent school site, the Dorothy Gibson County High School in Ontario, and six additional schools to improve housing for the 6,000-plus special and alternate education students served by the county. Dr. Fischer also established three regional councils to provide seamless education, and close access and achievement gaps for students, and launched the Alliance for Education initiative that has over 1,500 business, labor, community, and faith-based partners working with public schools to improve the college, career, and labor readiness of students.

For his outstanding leadership and contributions to education and the community, Dr. Fischer has been recognized by many organizations. He was awarded the University of California, Riverside Alumni Association's prestigious Alumni Public Service Award for his service to the public sector. He has been recognized by the Rialto/Fontana Chapter of the NAACP, the Victor Valley African American, and Inland Empire Hispanic Chambers of Commerce for building collaborative relationships to benefit the education of all students throughout San Bernardino County. Most recently, the Mount Baldy Chapter of the Building Industry Association recognized Dr. Fischer for his leadership in developing partnerships with business leaders.

Throughout his long career in education and public service, Dr. Herbert R. Fischer has consistently provided for stronger communities and higher educational attainment, and he has provided a model of exemplary service to us all. I am pleased to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating him on his retirement.

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, I wanted to take some time this early evening to talk a little bit about our energy crisis and gas prices. But I first want to say thank you so much to our leaders, Senator Reid in particular, to Senator Baucus, to all those who helped score a real victory for the Medicare Program for our senior citizens today. It is not every day that a President has a veto overridden, but this President is just out of touch in so many areas. This was one area. Now I truly think we have saved Medicare for the moment, and that is a good feeling.

Mr. President, I know you care a lot about the way we move toward addressing our energy crisis,

and I think the American people are very wise about this. I think they want to see action, but they do not want to see phony solutions to a real problem.

I remember when the idea came up for a gas tax holiday and it was put forward by Senator McCain and others, it took a few days for people to understand that our gas tax funds our highway program and we were not about to put our highway program at risk because that program is essential to building the infrastructure of our Nation. That program is essential for hiring millions of workers. The American people are wise. They want to see solutions that are real and that work.

That is why I believe so strongly that as we shine the light of truth on this idea to undo a moratorium we have had on magnificent areas of our coastline, as people shine the light of truth on that, they will understand that this is another phony solution. It doesn't do a thing to lower gas prices. Just as the gas tax holiday put the highway trust fund at risk, this idea puts our national coastal economy at risk, which, as my friend knows, is a $70 billion economy with millions of jobs, many of them in his State of New Jersey and my State of California. It makes no sense to tell the American people that by undoing this very important protection for our coastline, that is going to result in lower prices at the pump. It simply is not going to happen.

There are many things we can do. I am going to outline some of those things for the consideration of colleagues, but I think the important thing for us to note as we reach this election year is that we are going to hear a lot of silly stuff. We are going to see a lot of proposals to try to take the focus off why we are where we are.

Two oil men in the White House for 8 years equals $4 per gallon for gasoline. That is 8 years divided by two oil men in the White House equals $4 per gallon of gasoline.

As my colleagues were coming up with this idea on how to show us where we are--and Senator Whitehouse was one of those--I said to him: We better be careful, because in California we are getting to $5 a gallon gasoline and this math will not work.

But I am happy we did this, because one of the hallmarks of being a mature adult is taking responsibility. And this administration does not want to take responsibility for anything; not for the housing crisis, not for the war in Iraq, not for the deficit, the debt, not for the stock market, not for anything, and certainly not for a 300-percent increase in gas prices that has occurred while we have had two oil men in the White House.

The oil companies have gotten everything they have wanted: record- breaking profits, CEOs taking tens of millions of dollars home in their pockets. And guess what the President's solution is: Give the oil companies more of what they want. Give them access to beautiful land, land in the OCS, the Outer Continental Shelf, that was set aside first by President George Bush, G.W.'s Dad. He did not listen to him on Iraq and he is not listening to him on this either, and then carried forward by President Clinton.

Now, here is the point: Do we need to drill? Do we need to have domestic drilling? No problem. I agree with that. I agree with that. So go to the places where it makes sense. Do not go to the places where you are going to threaten a thriving coastal economy.

That leads me to the next chart which is: Use it or lose it. What do I mean? The oil companies have available to them 68 million acres they have leases on for drilling. Have they drilled there? No, not really. They have not. So I would say, rhetorically, why would the oil companies, in a time of these prices, not go and drill in these acres where they have all of this oil?

Answer--it is easy to answer your own question. Answer: They love the fact that there is a shortage of supply. I have seen in my own State where they tried to shut down a refinery and made up a whole story that it was losing money, that there were no buyers. That was baloney. And now why do you think they want more access to these leases? It is because they can put it on their balance sheet and their stocks can go up and their CEOs can make more money. Even the Bush administration stated very clearly there would be no impact on gas prices if you gave them access to more OCS. So let's go through this again. There are 68 million acres available for the oil companies right now this minute. And they want more, more, more, so they can put it on their balance sheets, get their stocks to go up higher, get their CEOs to earn more money. They are not going to drill. It would be foolhardy to believe this President when it comes to this issue. He said, and I am quoting him almost verbatim--if I do a disservice I am sure I will hear about it because I listened to him say it. He said: There is only one thing standing in the way of lower gas prices, and that is the Congress.

I thought: Well, that is interesting. What does he want us to do? Then he said he wants us to reverse our policy of preserving the pristine areas of our coastline. By the way, 80 percent of our coastline, 80 percent of the resource, is already available for drilling, so this represents 20 percent, so it is not an answer, anyway. His own people tell him it is not, but he is so desperate to detract the flak away from himself and his oil partner, Dick Cheney, that he comes up with this idea.

I am here on the floor tonight because I am trying to tell the American people the God's honest truth. Here is what you are going to hear. You are going to hear: There were no problems with oil spills after Katrina. My friend from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, is in the chair. I heard him give a little speech about this. He has documented tens of thousands of gallons of spills after Katrina. We have spills in California all the time. We have a lot of offshore oil drilling in our State.

But we know we do not want it expanded, because we count on the quarter million jobs we have in our State in the tourist industry and the fishing industry and the recreation industry. So I say to my friend: What can we do then to push for lower gas prices? There is a whole host of things we can do. I want to say for the 68 million acres available for drilling now: Use it or lose it, oil companies.

There is another 22 million acres in the naval reserve that is off of Alaska. They have only bid for a few million acres there, so they can do that. But do not come into our coasts. They are a gift from God. It is a moral responsibility to protect it, and it is an economic responsibility to protect it, because once you start the drilling, it changes the whole nature of that coast. I know that because I have got part of the coastline that allows drilling and part that does not, and the difference is immeasurable in terms of the activities that go on, in terms of the wildlife, in terms of the scenic value, the beauty, and the pristine feeling you have.

So what can we do? First, tell the oil companies: Drill

where you have got leases. Oh, and the other thing you hear,

in addition that there were no problems after Katrina, you

will hear other stories about how we do not know if there is

any oil in those acres. Excuse me, we do, because in the 2005

Energy bill we ordered an inventory to be taken. That

inventory was started and we are getting the information. We

know there is six times the amount of oil here than in ANWR,

the Alaska preserve. So use it or lose it. That is one.

I did a whole study in my office about what it would mean to our imports of foreign oil if we could suddenly have every car on the road get in the high 30s, toward 40 miles per gallon fuel economy. I drive a hybrid. It is very good. One of my hybrid cars, the newest one, gets over 50. So I wanted to know if we all suddenly shifted--we know it is not going to happen, but it was an exercise. If we were able to get 39, 40 miles per gallon, that would save every single bit of import of oil from the Persian Gulf. Can you imagine?

So why are we sitting around being so dour about this? The technology is already there. We know we can do even better. If we can get that fuel efficiency up to 39, up to 40, we will no longer have to import nearly as much foreign oil. That is a very exciting point. So what can we do to lower gas prices and have the impact not be felt on our pocketbook? One way is to lessen the demand. Another way, because that does not always work, as my friend knows, if you get cars that do better so that, yes, you may be paying more at the end of the day but you need less to keep your car running, I would like to see some strong incentives for buying a hybrid car. Those incentives are gone now. We limited them to a certain number of cars. I would like to see that come down here,

and we do not need to give people who earn $200,000 or $300,000 a year those benefits, but I would like to give people who earn $30,000, $40,000 even up to $100,000, $150,000, a break when they buy a hybrid vehicle, an electric vehicle, because families do save up and do make these decisions. And we should incentivize them for purchasing such an automobile.

What else can we do? We have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. One of the reasons it is set aside is so we can avoid the shock for the economy of high gas prices. Now is the time. I agree with Speaker Pelosi, who has put this out as an idea, to release some of the oil from the SPR. It is 97 percent full. Even if you kept it at 90 percent full, it is the highest it has been in history. That would have a salutary impact by allowing that supply to get right into the market.

And, by the way, if we did it in a swap, and it is complicated here, there are ways we could actually make money on such a plan. So that is another way.

Incentives for conservation, use it or lose it, while we protect our coasts. I am saying to you there are many ways to move.

Speculation. Some experts have said speculation is anywhere from 25 percent of the problem to 50 percent. I do not know where it comes out. But I can tell you this: We ought to go after the speculators. I talked to my friend Maria Cantwell from Washington. She and I and Senators Feinstein and Murray were so burned on the Enron scandal. Now we have got traders doing the same thing. And we know there are many people playing in the futures market who are unregulated. They go abroad.

So I am hopeful, and Senator Reid said he is working on this, he will be able to bring down to this floor a bipartisan measure that goes after the speculators. We can do these things. There are many other things we can do.

Let me tell you, the bottom line in the long run is global warming legislation, which I know my friend was such a strong supporter of. The fact is, we have 54 Senators who said: Yes, let's go forward on this. But we did not have 60, so we were cut short.

The fact is, our next President is going to take this on, and when he does and we work with him, we will unleash the genius of America. Once there is a price on carbon that will probably be set in the private market through a cap-and-trade system, the investments that will be made in cellulosic fuels, in biofuels, all of these things that we need, they are going to happen.

I have been told by Silicon Valley that they are going to spend more, more in finding alternative energy that is clean, that does not have a carbon footprint, than they did in the biotech revolution and in the high-tech revolution. That is pretty remarkable.

What we need to do in the long term is to stand up together, fight global warming, save the planet, have a transition fund to help our consumers get through the early years. We know from our modeling that by the time we get to the outyears, people will be saving money because we will have the alternatives.

So when it comes to energy, efficiency is the name of the game too. You know, if you have a leaky house, meaning that if you do not have double-paned windows, you double-pane them, the difference in your bill is overwhelming. If you are putting in a new air conditioner, and you have to do it, if you go to the high efficiency end, your bills will go down by two-thirds. That is a fact. We cannot drill our way out of this. Anyone who tells you we can is not telling the truth.

Senator Biden was saying to me, suppose you opened up every single drop of oil to drilling. It is a tiny percent of the energy we need. Why on Earth would we tell people, therefore, if you just open the coastline, your gas price will go down? That is what the President is saying. It is not true. His own energy people tell him it is not true. It will not have an impact on gas prices. Why don't we do something that will? I think I talked about some of those ideas.

I will close where I started, which is to the oil companies and to this President: Let the oil companies start drilling in the acreage they have access to before we start giving away the crown jewels of our country. We are just not going to do it.

I know the Senator from New Jersey very well. He and I are close friends. We worked hard on coastal protection. We will use every tool at our disposal to make sure that an energy policy we embrace is real, is not phony, does not give away more gifts to the oil companies and these CEOs who are making hundreds of millions of dollars in 1 year. We are not going to allow it. It is not going to happen. It shouldn't happen. What should happen is a balanced approach where we have drilling where it makes sense, where it doesn't endanger our precious coastline.

By the way, to think of the millions of dollars we have put into sanctuaries to protect wildlife and to hear our President say what he said was, to me, extraordinary. I haven't had a note in front of me through this speech because, honestly, I wasn't going to speak about this formally. But I couldn't resist the opportunity to get into the Record my dismay at having a President who is an oilman, who has presided over the biggest runup in gas prices we have ever seen. He has not ordered one investigation. He hasn't used any of the tools at the FTC, at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not one thing to say to the oil companies: Shape up.

We have proven in California that they are trying to control the supply. All he can do to deflect attention away from 8 years divided by two oilmen in the White House equals $4 per gallon of gasoline, all he can do now is to say: Congress, it is all your fault. It won't work. The American people are too smart.

Where is the President on the renewable energy tax credits we have tried and our Republican friends stopped us every single time? There is so much genius out there. We have the technologies, the solar, the wind, the geothermal. In California, we have 400 new solar companies because we are taking the lead on global warming. Thank God, we do because as the housing market is doing very badly in California and people are laid off of construction, they are going over to work putting solar panels on, building windmills. Thank goodness. That is what we could be doing all over this great Nation if we had a leader in the White House and enough of us here to overcome the status quo, the sucking up to the oil companies. I hate to be crude about it, but I have to say that is what it is like. We don't have an energy policy that works for anybody but the oil companies. It is quite obvious.

I hope the American people watch this debate. I hope they embrace the values we have had for so long, since George Bush's dad was in the White House, when we said there is a value to our unspoiled coast and there is not enough oil there to make a difference overall, so why should we jeopardize the many jobs that come from this unspoiled coast by drilling there when there are so many other places to drill and so many other ways we can work on this problem?

My colleague has been a leader on this issue. In many ways, he has been inspirational to many of us. I hope he has a chance to take the floor of the Senate and make some remarks. Leadership is very necessary.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 3268, Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008, to be introduced by the majority leader today, Tuesday, July 15, notwithstanding an adjournment of the Senate on that day, be considered to have received a first reading, and that the Record remain open today until 8:30 p.m. for that purpose.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., tomorrow, July 16; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for up to an hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the Republicans controlling the second 30 minutes; I further ask that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 2731, the Global AIDS legislation.

Mr. President, tomorrow, the Senate will resume consideration of the Global AIDS bill. Senators

should expect rollcall votes throughout the day as we work to complete this important legislation.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

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

Madam President, I rise today to express my deep gratitude to the men and women who are fighting the wildfires now raging in my magnificent State of California. Over the last month, a swarm of dry lightning storms sparked more than 1,800 fires across drought-ridden land in California.

Governor Schwarzenegger and President Bush have declared a state of emergency in 11 counties and crews are still working to bring under control over 300 fires burning across more than 600,000 acres of public and private land. Three hundred fires, and it is early July, and we do not get rain usually until November.

In the fight against these fires, support has come from all quarters, including the National Guards of 11 States. I say to my colleagues all: Thank you for your contribution. Help has come from the U.S. Marine Corps, the Navy, even from NASA.

I give special thanks to the more than 18,000--18,000--local, State, and Federal firefighters who have put their lives on the line over the last several weeks and continue to do so to fight these fires and protect our communities.

The people of California owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the brave men and women of CalFire and the U.S. Forest Service as well as the California National Guard and all of the local fire departments who have gone above and beyond the call of duty in fighting these fires.

Your courage and swift action during this recent series of firestorms have truly been heroic. You have risked your health and your well-being for the benefit of our people, of our communities, and we are all grateful. You are the heroes.

Some 233 firefighter injuries have been reported in the past few weeks--233 firefighter injuries--and that is a testament to the great personal risk these men and women undertake every day. These fires are unpredictable. The winds are unpredictable, and the danger shifts at a moment's notice.

I am sad to report that these fires have claimed the life of one of our firefighters. Robert Roland, who had been with the Anderson Valley Volunteer Fire Department in Mendocino County for only 3 months, passed away on July 3, 2008, battling wildfires near the town of Philo. He was 63 years old--a volunteer firefighter.

One of America's greatest strengths is its spirit of voluntarism, and nowhere is that spirit more evident than in the tradition of volunteer firefighting.

We mourn his loss, and we remember and give thanks for his selfless efforts and those of all the firefighters--volunteer and professional-- who put their lives on the line throughout California.

The scale of these fires so early in the year is a stark reminder that we cannot afford to shortchange our fire preparedness. Being prepared means making sure adequate resources are available to fight and prevent fires. That is why I have consistently fought against the proposed cuts to the Assistance to Firefighters Program. This program provides Federal grants for equipment and training to local fire departments and emergency medical services organizations. I do not think you need to look farther than the efforts being undertaken to save lives and protect communities right now in California to understand that those proposed cuts are wrongheaded.

Preparedness is about more than funding. It also means making sure we have a fully staffed firefighting force on our public lands.

I am concerned about the reports of inadequate staffing in our national forests in California. Earlier this year, I called on the U.S. Forest Service to resolve the pay disparities and retention issues that have prevented them from recruiting and keeping qualified Federal firefighters in California.

We also need to support the State and local efforts in order to manage

the risk posed by wildfires. One of the keys to preparedness is hazardous fuel reduction. Local communities and State agencies that do their part to remove hazardous fuel on local and State lands should not be left at risk for fires because inadequate funds limit hazardous fuel reduction on Federal lands.

The Federal Government must be a good partner in not only fighting the wildfires but in preventing them. That is why I have urged that we include $910 million for U.S. Forest Service and Interior Department firefighting and fire prevention efforts--including efforts such as hazardous fuel reduction--in the legislation that Congress is expected to take up this session to address critical domestic priorities.

The unprecedented onset of the fire season in California is an important reminder that we cannot afford to continue reducing the resources available for disaster preparedness and expect emergency responders to still be able to effectively protect our communities.

They are exhausted. They are working overtime and more. I want to read from a letter I am sending today to President Bush. I wrote this letter after speaking at length with my Governor, Governor Schwarzenegger:

With over 300 fires still actively burning in California, I

am writing to request that you immediately allocate

additional resources to assist with ongoing firefighting

efforts throughout my state. Governor Schwarzenegger has

informed me that an additional 41 helicopters, 302 hand

crews, 616 fire engines, and 773 support personnel are

urgently needed to help the thousands of Federal, State,

local, and volunteer fire fighters who are working so hard to

protect our communities from these dangerous fires.

Governor Schwarzenegger also informed me he plans to call

up as many as 2,000 more members of the National Guard in

addition to the over one thousand members that are currently

supporting fire fighting activities. In order to ensure that

our National Guard is ready for this mission, I request that

the Administration make available out-of-State Federal

firefighters to help train National Guard members for fire

fighting duties. Active fire crews are currently being taken

away from the front lines of fires to train National Guard

members, but if Federal personnel were on scene to help train

new arrivals, our crews could continue to fight active fires.

I might say what is happening is we are taking firefighters off the line to train the National Guard because they need to be extensively trained in firefighting, and we need to get those firefighters back on the line. So if we could have some Federal firefighters sent in, we would be able to keep these firefighters on the line.

The Governor has also informed me that he requested the

U.S. Forest Service's Maximum Efficiency Level be increased

to 100 percent for the current fire season in California.

This will allow Federal incident commanders to make tactical

firefighting decisions as needed to protect lives and homes

without having to receive prior approval from the Office of

Management and Budget. I strongly support his request and

urge you to grant it immediately.

This unprecedented start to the fire season in California

has put incredible stress on the State's resources and on the

brave men and women fighting these fires. While the support

provided by the Administration has been very helpful thus

far, the severity of the ongoing fires and the strong

potential for more fires indicates an urgent need for

additional resources and support.

The residents of California need the Administration's

continued assistance and cooperation in protecting their

lives and property.

Madam President, this is one Nation under God, and we know that, and we say it when we pledge allegiance every day here.

The fact is, we need to come to the aid of our citizens, whether it is in the devastating floods in Iowa or it is Hurricane Katrina or it is the fire that I well remember in North Dakota or what is happening today in California.

We must work together. I want to say right now that I will be making a call to the head of Homeland Security, Mr. Chertoff. I hope he has heard my words. I hope he has received a copy of my letter. We are going to need this help quickly. We expect--and this is right from my Governor--about a 5-month problem here. This is not going to be a momentary problem. We need a long-term commitment from everyone in order to save lives and save property and allow our firefighters a little bit of rest, because when they are exhausted, their lives are put in danger, and we cannot have that.

I thank you very much for the time, Madam President, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, will my friend yield for a question?

I am just stunned that Phil Gramm, who is a top adviser to Senator McCain--would you repeat exactly what he said?

Let me get this straight. Senator McCain's top adviser-- one of his top advisers on the economy--says we are in a mental recession, there is no actual recession, and we are whining about it.

Let me ask my friend, what does she hear in her State about gas prices from her constituents?

Is that mental? Do they just think they are unemployed but they are really employed? What is he talking about?

Will my friend continue to yield?

I didn't expect to stay here and engage my friend, the Senator from Michigan, but when she read this--I know what her State is going through, and I have to say that California is suffering as well. If it were not for the fact that we have seen companies invest in alternative energy, and that is taking some of the jobs--

and thank goodness--away from a crumbling housing industry, we would be in worse shape. We are not in good shape in California. We have real problems.

My friend from Michigan makes a good point. Two men in the White House--and I remember when George Bush was running in the beginning and saying: Well, put two oilmen in the White House, and we will see how we will deal with gas prices. Well, we have seen.

Is my friend aware that since George Bush and Dick Cheney--two oilmen--took over the White House, we have seen about a 255-percent increase in the cost of gas per gallon? Is my friend aware of that?

Let me ask one more question, and then I will leave her to the rest of her remarks. I know she has some thoughts she needs to share. As Phil Gramm, the economic adviser to John McCain, says that Americans are whining, we all know that the middle class is suffering, as the Senator from Michigan said, not just from gas prices but as a result of food prices, health care prices, credit card rates. There is a middle-class squeeze going on that is hitting our people very hard, and they are falling behind by thousands of dollars a year because of increased prices. Now, Phil Gramm, he doesn't feel the pain. He probably is in the top one-tenth of 1 percent of income earners, let me say.

I wish to ask my friend, and then I will leave her to her speech, does she know how much the head of ExxonMobil made this year?

Well, the CEO, the chief executive officer of ExxonMobil, according to my information, including his last paycheck and bonuses and the rest, made $400 million in 1 year. So no, he is not whining, and Phil Gramm is not whining. That is obvious. They are the winners in this economy with two oilmen in the White House.

I wish to thank my friend.

I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Senator Dodd has yielded me 10 minutes of his time to speak in favor of his amendment to strike the immunity clause. I am wondering how I may get recognition here and how much time does Senator Dodd have left in this debate?

I wonder if Senator Bond would allow me to take 10 minutes of the 43 minutes Senator Dodd has remaining?

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of the amendment offered by Senator Dodd to strike the provision from the bill providing immunity to the telecom companies who assisted President Bush with his warrantless surveillance program; in essence, breaking the law they were supposed to live by. I also note that not every telecom company went along with this. There was at least one, Qwest, that refused to go along because they said it would break the law if they did so. I thank Senators Dodd, Feingold, Leahy, and others for their leadership. I know these are difficult debates to have because people could say: My goodness, they are offering an amendment to the intelligence bill and, ipso facto, that must be a bad thing because they are slowing things down.

I have to say, when you are standing up to fight for liberty and justice and the truth, you should never be afraid to slow something down. As a matter of fact, it is our job to do so. I do thank my colleagues for their leadership.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. In my support of this amendment to strike the immunity to the telecom companies who went along with the President's secret and, I believe, illegal program, I wish to say I am not seeking punishment for them. As a matter of fact, I have stated a long time ago that I support indemnification for the telecom companies. I believe Senator Whitehouse took the lead on that. Senator Specter, at one point, I think, was involved in that and others. I thank them for their leadership on that issue.

I understand the predicament of a company that is facing the White House and the White House is saying: You need to spy on your customers because we are asking you to do it for the safety of the people. I understand their predicament. But I do believe, at this point in time, to give retroactive immunity kind of makes a mockery of the fact that we are supposed to be a government of laws, not people. We are a government of laws. Do we then come back and say: By the way, there are three laws over here we don't like so we are going to say to the people who broke them, it is OK, because we have looked at it and we think it is OK? This is America. We are a country of laws. So this issue is so important. I can't overstate how deeply I feel about it.

We cannot place the interests of the companies and, frankly, of this administration, that doesn't want the truth to come out, ahead of the constitutional rights of our citizens who seek justice in our courts. This administration is so desperate to have this immunity because they have no interest in the American people finding out the truth.

In another subject area, I had a press conference today with a wonderful man who stood up and quit the Environmental Protection Agency because they were thwarting him every step of the way as he tried to tell the truth about the real dangers, as a matter of fact, the endangerment posed by global warming. He sent the White House an e- mail, and it was entitled ``Endangerment Finding.'' The White House called and said: Take it back. We don't want to open it. And he said: It is too late. So that e-mail is floating around in cyberspace because the

White House knows, if they open it, it becomes public domain. So secrecy is what this administration lives by.

This is a blatant example of where they want to keep secret an illegal program. I don't think we should be complicit. I don't think we should enable them to avoid the constitutional scrutiny of our Federal courts. We can't sacrifice--we can't--the truth for convenient expediency. It is not American. We have a system of government that is built not only on our Constitution but on the notion of checks and balances. The Federal courts are doing their job by checking this administration's broad exercise of Executive power. That is why I will be supporting other amendments that will be coming up that deal with this matter.

Last week, Chief Judge Walker, of the Northern District of California, issued an opinion rejecting this administration's claim to have ``inherent authority'' to eavesdrop on Americans outside of statutory law. What does this Senate want to do? A lot of the leaders you hear speaking on this want to make it possible to give retroactively to this administration the inherent authority to eavesdrop on Americans outside the law. In the future, we are fixing it. Good, I am glad. I am happy. But you can't then say, but we are going to look back and change the law. It is not right.

Listen to what Judge Walker wrote:

Congress appears clearly to have intended to establish the

exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be

conducted. Whatever power the executive might otherwise have

had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive

branch to conduct such activities and it limits the executive

branch's authority to assert the State secrets privilege in

response to challenges to the legality of its foreign

intelligence surveillance activities.

So we, Congress, limited the power of the executive. We said: You can't assert the state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the legality of its foreign intelligence activities. And here we are rolling over with bravado to say to this administration--and by the way, I would feel the same way whoever was the President, this administration or any administration--oh, you are the absolute ruler, the King. You can do whatever you want. You can roll over. You can do all of that.

We need to protect this country from terrorists. We must. I voted to go to war against bin Laden, and I will not rest until he is gone and we break the back of al-Qaida. Unfortunately, that has gone awry. I will be very willing to have our Government listen in on conversations of the bad actors out there, but I don't want good people being spied on. That was the whole reason FISA came into being in the first place. People seem to forget the original FISA was to protect the people from being spied on, ordinary people. Suddenly, it has been turned on its head. I believe the current process works. Our system of government works. The Federal courts are exercising their constitutional duty to review Executive power.

So why in this bill are we seeking to stop that process? Why are we attempting to tie the capable hands of the Federal courts and deny our citizens their day in court? Covering up the truth is not the way to gain or regain the trust of the American people. The truth is the basis of the American ideal.

I always marveled, as a little girl and as a young woman, growing up, watching as the truth came out about America. I remember my dad, who loved this country so much, saying to me: Honey, you just watch this country. We are not afraid to admit a mistake. We are not fearful of giving people rights. We will stand up and tell the truth, even when we make the biggest mistakes.

Covering up the truth is not the way to gain the trust of the American people. Since learning, in late 2005, that the President violated the trust of our people by spying on our citizens, Congress and the American people have struggled to find out what happened. Last week, we celebrated the day we adopted the Declaration of Independence, Independence Day, July 4. In that historic document is the following phrase:

To secure these rights, governments are instituted among

men deriving their just powers from the consent of the

governed.

``The consent of the governed,'' that means the law has to be behind you when you undertake to do something such as this administration did. They didn't care about the consent of the governed. They didn't care about the law that was in place. Truth is the centerpiece of justice. I don't see how we ever get to the truth if we grant this immunity. I don't. It is not, to me, about the punishment.

As I said, I will be happy to have substitution, to have the Government step in. That is not the issue. We need to get to the truth, and we all know how that happens in our country. The immunity provision in this bill sweeps the warrantless program under the carpet. It hides the truth. The people deserve better from us.

I will close with a quote by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:

It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments

that our nation's commitment to due process is severely

tested. It is in those times we must preserve our commitment

at home to the principles for which we fight abroad.

I hope we will support the Dodd amendment to strike the immunity provision.

I thank the Chair.