Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution conference report. As a member of the committee, I want to recognize Chairman Conrad and thank him personally for his untiring efforts to craft a blueprint that will get our Nation's fiscal house back in order.

Perhaps more than at any time in our history, it is imperative that Congress focus seriously on our Nation's budget situation. The competing demands of an aging population, our current international commitments, growing competition in the global economy, our widening trade deficit, and shrinking revenues all require that we address our fiscal situation with urgency. Revenues are at a historic low point, while the demographics of the country are driving spending higher on needs that the private sector is ill-equipped to address. Now there is widespread consensus among working families that--regardless of the official definition--we are in a recession.

Employment growth during this administration has averaged fewer than 50,000 jobs a month--the lowest monthly rate for any administration since Dwight D. Eisenhower's and less than one-quarter the average of 237,000 jobs per month created during the Clinton administration.

Inflation-adjusted hourly wages have decreased by 1.3 percent since August 2003. Even median annual household income has decreased by $1,700, or 3.6 percent, after accounting for inflation. These are aggregate statistics, but behind each of them are millions of families who are falling behind as a result of inadequate investment in the right priorities.

For too long, we have been moving in the wrong direction. Over the past 7 years, the Bush administration has sent us budgets with the wrong priorities. They have contained drastic cuts to education and health care programs. They did not provide for investment in our nation's public transit systems, bridges, and roads. They did not address energy efficiency. They ignored veterans' health care needs and actually attempted to make it more difficult for veterans to access the health

system we promised our troops. And they neglected the programs that help working families thrive, including child care, housing, community development, and job training. Recent Congresses supported those budgets, and exacerbated the fiscal crisis by enacting irresponsible tax cuts that America could not afford--tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefitted the wealthiest Americans, while providing very little help for working families. Last year, under new leadership in Congress, we passed a budget that began to change course. This budget continues that effort, and I am pleased to support it.

This conference agreement targets tax relief where it is most needed--at working families. This includes an extension of the child care tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 10 percent individual income tax bracket.

Equally important, this budget resolution is fiscally responsible. It will return us to a balanced budget, with a surplus of $22 billion in 2012 and $10 billion in 2013.

Even as crucial domestic programs have suffered under this administration, the Nation's debt has increased from $5.8 trillion at the end of President Bush's first year in office to in excess of $9 trillion.

If we fail to change course, we will leave our children and grandchildren an insurmountable legacy of debt. The fiscal policies of this current administration have erased the $5.6 trillion surplus that was projected in 2000 and replaced it with a projected deficit of nearly $4 trillion over the next 10 years.

The borrowing necessitated by deficit spending has jeopardized our economic position in the world, and it has clouded the outlook for generations of Americans to come. We have had to turn to foreign governments to borrow money. Our foreign-held debt has increased by more than 100 percent during this administration. In fact, in just one year, the total has increased from $2.1 trillion to $2.5 trillion. According to the Treasury Department, as of March 2008, the United States now owes more than $600 billion to Japan, nearly $500 billion to China, more than $200 billion to the United Kingdom We owe $150 billion to oil exporting nations, up from $112 billion last year. These levels of foreign-held debt threaten our independence as a nation, and they are unsustainable.

That is why it is so important that we make the difficult budget choices that can return us to a balanced budget, and that this resolution contain tools needed to get there, including pay-go.

This resolution calls for $3.1 trillion in spending for the next fiscal year. It rejects the President's cuts to entitlement programs, and it funds domestic discretionary programs at $21 billion above his budget request. This means that we can begin to make much needed improvements in the programs that help build our nation.

The many important areas that this budget addresses are particularly crucial in these difficult economic times for America's families. We provide for a reserve fund that will improve access to affordable housing for working families, we add $40 million for emergency food assistance and we improve unemployment compensation.

In health care, I want to mention two specific areas. This budget makes room for critically needed increases in health research funding. The National Institutes of Health is headquartered in Maryland, and its grants fund research in my state and across the nation. Unfortunately, this is the sixth year in a row that NIH has been essentially flat- funded. I have the privilege of meeting often with biomedical researchers from my home state. They are working to find treatments and cures for our most challenging diseases--cancer, diabetes, arthritis, ALS, and others.

During the period when Congress doubled NIH funding--between 1998 and 2003--researchers' chances of securing NIH funding for a worthwhile grant proposal was one in four. Since 2003, their chances have dwindled to one in eleven. Undergraduate and graduate students alike are beginning to question their career choices and wonder if there is a future for them in biomedical research. With medical research inflation at nearly 3.5 percent, we must increase the agency's funding by at least that amount in order to break even. To make progress in the fight against disease, we must increase our spending substantially. I am pleased that our resolution rejects the President's planned cuts for this critical agency and makes room for additional funding.

This budget resolution also makes room for improvements to pediatric dental care. I have come to the floor of the Senate on several occasions to talk about a 12-year-old named Deamonte Driver. He lived just 6 miles from here in Prince George's County, MD. The Driver family, like many other families across the country, lacked dental coverage. At one point, his family had Medicaid, but they lost it when they moved into a shelter, and their paperwork fell through the cracks. When advocates for the family tried to help, it took more than 20 calls just to find a dentist who would treat him.

Deamonte began to complain of headaches in January 2007. An evaluation at Children's Hospital found that he had an abscessed tooth, but the condition was advanced and he needed emergency brain surgery. He later experienced seizures and a second operation. Even though he received additional treatment and appeared to be recovering, medical intervention had come too late. Deamonte passed away on Sunday, February 25, 2007. At the end, the total cost of his treatment exceeded a quarter of a million dollars--more than 3,000 times the $80 it would have cost for a tooth extraction.

There is no excuse for us, in the wealthiest nation on Earth, to watch a child die for lack of access to basic dental care. It is difficult to find dentists to treat low-income children for two reasons. First, because there is a shortage of pediatric dentists--only 4.3 percent of dental school graduates in 2001 reported pediatric dentistry as their specialty of choice; and second, because the reimbursement from public programs such as Medicaid and SCHIP is low.

Our budget rejects the President's cuts to dental training programs, and it is my hope that we will continue to work to increase the number of pediatric dentists and improve reimbursement for public programs. But there are thousands more children, like Deamonte's brothers who also need dental care--who cannot wait for us to recruit and train more dentists. I thank both Senator Whitehouse, who joined me in offering an amendment in committee to address this issue, and the members of the Budget Committee who unanimously supported it. My amendment would establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund in the budget for legislation to improve access for low-income children who are in either Medicaid, SCHIP, or are uninsured. As a result, this budget will allow Congress to fund legislation to improve oral health care and more appropriately reimburse the providers who are willing to treat low-income children. These are the offices, clinics, and dental schools whose doors are open to underserved patients, but whose ability to treat large numbers is compromised by inadequate payments.

This budget also funds critical investments in homeland security. The President's budget reduced funding for important first responder programs, including the SAFER--Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response--grant program. The SAFER grant program directly funds fire departments and volunteer firefighter interest organizations to help them increase the number of trained, frontline firefighters. This budget rejects those cuts and will give firefighters needed resources to protect our communities.

I am proud that this resolution also addresses another issue that is critically important for Maryland. It calls for pay parity between civilian and military employees. With tens of thousands of Federal employees in Maryland, I have witnessed the additional burdens placed on our civil servants, particularly since the 2001 terrorist attacks on our Nation. These dedicated employees are called upon to assume greater risks with lower comparable pay to private sector wages. In addition, many Federal agencies now face a human capital crisis, with thousands of our most experienced employees eligible to retire in the next few years. Pay parity is necessary if we will be able to recruit and retain a quality Federal workforce, and this budget provides for it.

Finally, I also note that this budget supports our veterans. We rightly reject the President's misguided proposals to increase enrollment fees and copayments for veterans' health care services. We increase funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs so that we can improve VA health care facilities and improve access to rehabilitation, mental health services, traumatic brain injury services, and speed the processing time for disability claims.

Again, I thank Chairman Conrad for his leadership in helping to bring forth this agreement. As he has said previously, it truly marks a new path forward for our country. I urged my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. President, today I congratulate the St. Ambrose Housing Aid Center on its 40th anniversary. Since 1968, it has grown from its original mission to confront the ``blockbusting'' practices harming Baltimore's neighborhoods to providing a myriad of services to more than 100,000 Baltimoreans as our oldest nonprofit housing provider.

St. Ambrose Housing Aid Center was founded in 1968 by the dynamic and tenacious Father Vincent Patrick Quayle, known to all as Vinny. The center is dedicated to creating and preserving affordable housing in Baltimore. Its many successes are due to the charismatic and effective leadership of Vinny Quayle and the tireless efforts of a dedicated staff.

In the 1970s, St. Ambrose initiated a rental program and converted several vacant Catholic school buildings into affordable apartments. This effort led to neighborhood revitalization in many Baltimore communities. Today, St. Ambrose owns and manages 350 single and multifamily affordable housing units serving very low-income households, households with special needs, and the elderly.

When Baltimore experienced a gentrification movement in the 1980s, many low income families, especially those renting their homes, feared they would be displaced. St. Ambrose led the way in helping tenants convert to homeownership and was instrumental in convincing Baltimore City to establish a ``Tenant's Right of First Refusal'' bill.

Two other programs were established that have become core services at St. Ambrose. The Homesharing Program, the only one in Maryland, matches householders with room to share with homeseekers who need affordable housing and are willing to provide help with household tasks or financial support. The Legal Services Program helps homeowners and tenants combat home improvement fraud and predatory lending practices.

St. Ambrose partnered with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, and bought, renovated and sold Federal Housing Administration, FHA, properties to first-time homebuyers. Through its Homeownership Counseling Program, St. Ambrose serves more than 700 prospective homebuyers every year, with 100 of them purchasing a home within 6 months of completing housing counseling.

As the numbers of subprime mortgages and foreclosures have increased, St. Ambrose has stepped forward to help homeowners save their homes. Expert housing counselors provide assistance to homeowners in a number of ways and staff attorneys are available to provide legal review and action.

I am most proud to extend my warmest congratulations and best wishes to St. Ambrose Housing Aid Center on its 40th anniversary and ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, today America takes a major step forward in reasserting our leadership on the world stage. Upon enactment, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act will be the most aggressive climate change bill in the world, slashing American greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by mid-century, putting America in the lead in reducing harmful emissions.

Let me begin by acknowledging the tremendous leadership of Senators Lieberman, Warner, and Boxer. They have worked tirelessly to take on this, the greatest challenge of our time. And they have done so with great intelligence, great skill, and a remarkable willingness to forge a consensus that meets our needs. I salute them. They are extraordinary public servants, and the Nation owes them an incalculable debt of thanks.

The Climate Security Act is truly historic.

The legislation will transform the American economy, positioning us to continue our global leadership for decades to come. Energy efficient, high-performance businesses will flourish here and serve as international leaders in ushering in sustainable economic growth around the world.

Retooling the American economy for the 21st century will put us in charge of our own energy supplies. Our current reliance on other countries, many of whom are not friendly to Americans or the values we cherish, puts us at unacceptable risks to disruptions in the fuel supply chain. This bill will put us on a path to energy independence and that is a path to improved national security.

Dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions is essential to the environmental health of our planet. This legislation goes further, providing billions of dollars in resources to plant forests, grow sustainable sources of biofuels, and protect and restore our most precious natural resources, such as the Chesapeake Bay.

The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act is good for our economy, critical for our national security, and essential for the health of our environment.

The bill will reassert American leadership among the nations of the world. And we will do it the way America has always done it--with ingenuity and hard work and leadership by example.

Global warming presents a real and present threat to our economy.

Four global warming impacts--hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs--will drain billions of dollars annually from our economy. By the end of the century, the annual costs from these impacts alone will reach an estimated $1.9 trillion annually.

Clearly, these impacts would be devastating. Unfortunately, they are not the only adverse economic costs of doing nothing.

Rising food prices and global food shortages underscore the need for stable, ample, and environmentally sound agricultural practices. But climate change brings with it widespread droughts in some parts of the world, an increase in plant pests and diseases, and reduced crop yields. The drought that has persisted in Australia in recent years has had a devastating impact on the world price of wheat. Today's rising cost for a loaf of bread is a harbinger of the dramatic impacts on our food supply if we fail to act.

And it is not just crops that will suffer. In the Chesapeake Bay rising water temperatures are blamed for a dramatic loss of the most common underwater grass in the lower bay. Eelgrass, as it is called, simply cannot tolerate the warmer waters. That means crabs and other species have no habitat. Virginia and my home State of Maryland have just instituted dramatic reductions in the blue crab harvest next fall because of the falling numbers of crabs in the bay. Our multimillion dollar blue crab fishery is at risk--and at risk today--from global warming.

The good news is that the actions we take to reduce global warming will be good for our economy.

Through its innovative cap-and-trade system, the bill is designed to be self-financing, and there will be sufficient funds to also make a major contribution to debt reduction.

American businesses will see an unprecedented Federal investment in retooling for tomorrow.

In the first 10 years, the bill provides $61 billion for renewable energy. Wind, solar, geothermal and other zero- and low-carbon sources of power will get the boost they need to become an integral part of our energy distribution system. And to prepare for that capital investment, the bill also provides $18 billion over that same period for an Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training program. We will have both the infrastructure and trained workforce for a new energy sector.

In Frederick, MD, today we already have one of the world's leading solar energy operations. Companies such as BP Solar will have the resources they need to grow their businesses and the trained workforce to build, install, and operate a new generation of electricity- generating equipment.

Our core heavy industries will benefit from $138 billion by 2022. Those funds will help iron, steel, pulp, paper, cement, and other carbon-intensive industries with the assistance they need to remain competitive while they shift to cleaner energy sources.

Lehigh Cement's largest plant in America is located in Union Bridge, MD. The plant produces up to 2 million tons annually. The company will now have the resources it needs to become even more efficient--and more profitable--because of this transition assistance.

The bill contains provisions that will help American consumers make the transition to tomorrow's economy, too. More than $800 billion is reserved for tax credits and tax cuts that will make sure that during the transition average Americans don't have to bear the costs.

I am especially proud of a section of the bill I authored that will direct about $171 billion, over the life of the bill, to States and localities for public transit nationwide. About two-thirds of this money will go to support existing systems such as Washington Metro, MARC and MTA, while about 30 percent will help develop new systems that will take more and more cars off

our roads, cut dangerous emissions, ease congestion, and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, such as OPEC.

Today, too much of our national energy needs are supplied by other nations. Our reliance on foreign oil weakens our position in the world. Today, we are sending massive infusions of American dollars to oil-rich countries that don't share our values and are often active opponents of American foreign policy. We know that some of those petrodollars have been used to finance terrorists.

No entity relies on petroleum more than the American Department of Defense. We have a great strategic weakness with such a strong reliance on foreign oil.

My senior Senator, Senator Mikulski, and I have been working with Volvo-Mack Truck in Hagerstown, MD, to build prototype heavy-duty hybrid trucks for military use. These trucks will dramatically reduce their need for oil because of their increased fuel efficiency. They are also being tooled to handle a wide variety of biofuels. In the future, we envision fuel-efficient vehicles powered by home-grown biofuels.

The bill contains funding to support these prototypes, putting them into widespread use. Our military will benefit, along with the entire commercial sector of our economy.

Global warming threatens our national defense in another way. Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia is a keystone location for American Naval operations. But Norfolk is under grave threat because of rising sea level.

At a hearing before the Environment and Public Works Committee last summer, scientists told us that sea level rise has been higher in the Chesapeake Bay than worldwide because of a number of factors including land subsidence. Their best prediction is that we could see a 3-foot rise is water levels by the end of the century. Our critical national security infrastructure lies directly in the path of these rising waters.

Just 30 miles east from here in Annapolis, MD, the U.S. Naval Academy sits literally on the edge of the Severn River. The Academy has already seen damage from major storms. This is a story that is repeated up and down the coasts of America. Our military installations and assets are at risk. We need to act to protect them so that our Armed Forces can protect us.

While the Climate Security Act will have profound impacts on our economy and our national security, at its heart, this is an environmental bill. The bill was reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee. It amends the Clean Air Act. The Environmental Protection Agency is the central player.

The current administration has been painfully slow in recognizing the threats to the worldwide environment that runaway greenhouse gas emissions are causing. Begrudgingly, they are now accepting the fact that the impacts are huge and growing.

The legislation will reduce dangerous greenhouse gas emissions by over 70 percent from the 2,100 entities covered in the bill. Even with the uncovered segments of the economy included, the emissions are two- thirds below 2005 base levels. These are impressive cuts. I think we can do even better. The consensus scientific opinion in the world is that we must do better. Cuts of at least 80 percent are required, and I will support efforts on the floor to set that as our 2050 target.

Periodic reviews that are built into the bill will build the case, I believe, that we will need to do more to curb the most adverse environmental outcomes.

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is essential to putting our global ecosystem back into balance. Doing so will have other direct health and environmental benefits. Bringing down CO2 emissions will almost assuredly bring down nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and mercury emissions as well. The ozone code red days that are all too commonplace every summer will be reduced as we cut greenhouse gases. Similarly, the fish consumption advisories that every State faces because of widespread mercury contamination will gradually be lifted as mercury levels go down.

Although the bill modifies the Clean Air Act, we will see major benefits for our coastal areas, including the Chesapeake Bay. Rising water temperatures will abate. The bill also provides extensive funding to manage the adaptation that will be needed for our natural systems.

A National Wildlife Adaptation Strategy will direct funding to those areas most likely to be adversely affected by climate change and ocean acidification.

The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Program and the Land and Water Conservation Fund are existing programs with strong State partnerships that have proven track records of effectiveness. Both will see major infusions of financial support: $185 billion for the Wildlife Restoration Program and another $52 billion for the Conservation Fund.

Annually, Maryland would be expected to receive an additional $52 million for these well-established programs.

The EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA will all have dedicated programs to protect and restore our fresh and estuarine water systems. The Chesapeake Bay is one of several water bodies specifically mentioned in the bill because of the value of the resources at risk and the need for priority funding.

The Forest Service and the Department of the Interior will have crucial roles to play as well. In all, the Federal investment in programs to protect natural resources will approach $300 billion over the life of the bill.

The time to act is now. There is no country in the world better positioned than the United States to undertake this historic challenge. We have the world's strongest economy. We are the international leaders in climate science. We have an extraordinary history of facing the gravest challenges facing mankind. I believe that America is ready to meet this change.

The time to act has long since passed. The time to catch up is now. I urge my colleagues to support the strongest possible Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. It is a challenge we can and must meet.

Mr. President, again, I acknowledge the tremendous leadership of Senators Boxer, Lieberman, and Warner in bringing forward this historic legislation. The Climate Security Act is truly historic. The legislation will transform the American economy, positioning us to continue our global leadership for decades to come. Energy-efficient, high-performance businesses will flourish here and serve as international leaders in ushering in sustainable economic growth around the world.

Retooling the American economy for the 21st century will put us in charge of our own energy supplies. Our current reliance on many other countries, many of which are not friendly to Americans or the values we cherish, puts us at unacceptable risks to disruptions in the fuel supply chain. This bill will put us on a path to energy independence, and that is a path to improved national security. This bill is important for national security. It is important for our economy, and it is certainly important for our environmental health.

The legislation goes further, providing billions of dollars in resources to plant forests, grow sustainable sources of biofuels, and protect and restore our most precious national resources, such as the Chesapeake Bay.

The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act is good for our economy, good for our national security, and good for our environmental health. The bill will reassert American leadership among the nations of the world, and we will do it the way America has always done it--with ingenuity, hard work, and leadership by example.

Clearly, we know the scientific information as to the dangers we face. The dangers we face are real, with extreme weather conditions, disruptions to our food supplies. We have seen this already. In my own State of Maryland, we have a problem today with the blue crab. The reason, quite frankly, is the waters of the Chesapeake Bay are just too warm for the seagrasses and juvenile crabs cannot survive. That is bad for our watermen. That is bad for our State. That is bad for our economy. I can give you another 100 examples in Maryland where science is telling us that global climate change is real, hurting our economy.

The good news is that action we take to reduce global warming will be good

for our economy. Through its innovative cap-and-trade system, the bill is designed to be self-financing, and there will be sufficient funds to also make major contributions to debt reduction. Because of the financing and investments in the legislation, it will help reduce our Government borrowing. It is good for our economy.

American businesses will see an unprecedented Federal investment in retooling for tomorrow. In the first 10 years, the bill provides $61 billion for renewable energy. Wind, solar, geothermal, and other zero- and low-carbon sources of power will get the boost they need to become an integral part of our energy distribution system. To prepare for that capital investment, the bill also provides $18 billion over that same period for an energy efficiency and renewable energy worker training program. We will have both the infrastructure and trained workforce for a new energy sector.

For our core heavy industries, they will benefit also. There will be $138 billion to help heavy industries. Those funds will help iron, steel, pulp, paper, cement, and other carbon-intensive industries with the assistance they need to remain competitive while they shift to cleaner energy sources.

LeHigh, the largest cement plant we have in America, is located in Union Bridge, MD. The plant produces up to 2 million tons annually. The company will now have the resources it needs to become even more efficient and more profitable because of this transition assistance.

I am especially proud of the section of the bill I helped author that will direct $171 billion over the life of the bill to States and localities for public transit nationwide. I wish to thank Senator Boxer for helping make this amendment a reality in this bill. About two- thirds of this money will go to supporting systems such as the Washington Metro, MARC, and MTA, while 30 percent will help develop new systems that will take more cars off the road. This legislation will make public transit convenient and economic.

Mr. President, this bill is important for our country and for our future. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I urge my colleagues not only to vote to bring up this bill, but let's work out the amendments and let's pass it so that America can regain its leadership in the world on fighting the rising problems of greenhouse gases.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are here today--after more than 5 years, 4,000 American lives lost, 30,000 wounded, and nearly $600 billion spent--to discuss funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have always believed invading Iraq was a mistake. I voted against granting our President that authority in 2002. I have opposed, from the beginning the way this administration carried out that effort once begun. Last year, when the 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations bill came before the Senate, I, along with a majority of my colleagues, passed a bill that would have brought our troops home. The President chose to veto that bill. If he had signed it, most of our troops would be home today.

Instead, we now have more troops in Iraq than we did more than 5 years ago when President Bush declared our mission accomplished. The grave costs of his aimless strategy continue to plague us both at home and abroad.

Former President John F. Kennedy said, ``To govern is to choose.'' President Bush has repeatedly chosen to pursue his war in Iraq, despite its costs to our nation. After voters sent an overwhelming message that they wanted a different direction, President Bush charged full steam ahead. In his ``New Way Forward'' speech on January 10, 2007, President Bush announced his decision to place more troops in Iraq.

But even the President recognized, and I quote, ``A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.'' ``America's commitment,'' he said, ``is not open-ended.''

As General Petraeus stated in a March Washington Post interview, ``no one'' in the U.S. and Iraqi Governments ``feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation,'' or in the provision of basic public services. And, in fact, only 3 of the 18 benchmarks the Iraqi Government and our Government agreed were important have been fully accomplished.

President Bush, however, has not held the Iraqi Government accountable for its failures as he promised. Instead, he has asked for over $170 billion to stay the present course: arming opposing militias, meddling in intra-Shi'a violence, and tinkering around the edges of the growing refugee crisis. The President wants money for his war, but says he will veto any conditions on those funds or any additional funds this Congress offers for the other urgent needs that face our Nation's troops, our Nation's families, and our Nation's economy.

To govern is to choose. I believe it is past time for a more comprehensive strategy in Iraq under which our current, unsustainable military presence evolves into a longer term diplomatic role. I believe it is past time to hold President Bush to his promise that American support to the Iraqi Government is not open ended.

So I will vote against providing any additional funds for this war until we have a new mission for our Armed Forces. I will also vote against a provision that merely suggests a new mission for United States forces in Iraq. The time for suggestions, pleas, and protests has passed. The President has demonstrated that these fall on deaf ears.

Because our troops remain mired in an Iraqi civil war, we as a nation remain distracted from efforts to combat terrorists and extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan where they pose the greatest threat. We have stretched our military too thin. We have pushed our troops too far. Beyond the priceless cost in life and limb, the nearly $600 billion and counting we have spent in Iraq has kept us from rebuilding the gulf coast, improving our infrastructure, fixing our schools, and providing quality health care for all.

So far, Maryland has paid over $10 billion for the war in Iraq. With just that share of the cost of the war we could have:

Provided over 2 million people with health care;

Powered over 9 million homes with energy from renewable sources;

Put over 200,000 new public safety officers on the street;

Given over 1 million students scholarships to university; or

Allowed over 1 million children a brighter beginning in Head Start.

To govern is to choose. I am proud to vote for provisions, above and beyond the President's request, that will provide additional funds for barracks improvements, restore $1.2 billion in BRAC military construction funding, and provide nearly $440 million to construct world class VA polytrauma centers.

I am especially pleased to vote to provide veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with a new level of educational benefits that will cover the full costs of an education at a State institution. President Bush and some of my colleagues say the benefit is too generous. But this country provided our troops a similar opportunity after World War II. That investment created a generation of great leaders and an economic boom that transformed our country.

A new GI bill allows a new generation of brave men and women to fulfill their dreams and adjust to civilian life. That is an opportunity we owe veterans who this administration has asked to serve extended and repeated combat tours. A new GI bill is also a wise investment; it allows our economy to fully benefit from these veterans' talent, leadership, and experience.

I believe that the Iraqi refugee crisis, international disasters in China and Myanmar as well as an international food crisis require bold action by our government. I am proud to support significant additional aid to Jordan who has accepted hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees, as well as disaster assistance and global food aid above and beyond the President's request.

We have an obligation to respond to the growing economic crisis and the needs it has created for American families. People are losing their homes and their jobs, and along with those jobs, their health care. Since March 2007, the number of unemployed has increased by 1.1 million workers. I find it unbelievable that the President would threaten to veto emergency assistance for Americans in crisis.

So I am happy that this Senate has ignored the President's veto threats and I support provisions that extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks for all the nation's workers and by an additional 13 weeks in those States with the highest unemployment rates. Extending unemployment benefits helps families. That is critically important. But it will also help our economy. Economists estimate that every dollar spent on benefits leads to $1.64 in economic growth.

The bill extends a freeze on seven Medicaid rules issued by the administration that would have put a tremendous burden on State and local budgets already under pressure and affected access to services for Marylanders and Americans all around the country. This bill also makes critical investments in our infrastructure including roads, dams, and levees; increases energy assistance by $1 billion to low-income Americans facing skyrocketing fuel prices; and provides commercial fishery disaster assistance that could help Maryland's watermen.

These are only a few of the critical investments this bill makes in our Nation. With this emergency supplemental legislation, we chose to address many of the most pressing issues of our time.

Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.

First, let me express my support for Judge Agee's confirmation. I had the opportunity to chair Judge Agee's confirmation hearing. I thank Senator Warner and Senator Webb for the manner in which they worked with the White House to get an appointment that could go through the confirmation process, and one which I hope my colleagues will support.

I support Judge Agee because of his experience. I am pleased he has legislative experience. I think that will help him on the court. He respects the rule of law and precedents, and he believes in the independence of the judiciary. He has expressed concerns at times with political interference within the judicial branch of Government. I think he is well qualified to be confirmed to the circuit court.

Let me comment very briefly on the comment made by my colleague, Senator Specter. Let me point out that Judge White was first appointed on January 7, 1997. She then waited 4 years for action in this body and received none because of being held up by the Republicans. So when we say we are ``rushing to judgment,'' I think waiting 4 years without any action is not rushing to judgment. It seems as though the majority leadership is being criticized at times for moving too fast and also too slow. You cannot have it both ways.

In regard to circuit court appointments, there have been three I have opposed--two because of lack of experience, and one because of his record. I was joined by other Members who opposed those nominations. None of us sought to delay those confirmation votes. In fact, on one, the Republican leadership asked that we hold the confirmation vote in committee until they could get some more support.

So I think you should be judged by the record. Let me point out the record very clearly. If you look at the record on vacancies in circuit courts, starting with President Clinton, there was 17. At the end of his term, it grew to 32. The record by the Democrats has been consistent to reduce that so that we now have 12 vacancies. I think the record speaks for itself.

Obviously, we want to get as many judges confirmed as possible. I hope we can work in a bipartisan manner to make sure these vacancies are filled. If the White House would work with the local Senators and with us, I think we can get more confirmations to our circuit courts.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2008, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, May 20, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 20, 2008, at 10:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on law enforcement treaties.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 20, 2008, at 2:15 p.m. to hold a business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 20, 2008, at 2:45 p.m. to hold a hearing on Pakistan.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Plant Closings, Workers' Rights and the WARN Act's 20th Anniversary'' on Tuesday, May 20, 2008: The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 20, 2008, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Financial Speculation in Commodity Markets: Are Institutional Investors and

Hedge Funds Contributing to Food and Energy Price Inflation?''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting the Constitutional Rights to Vote for All Americans'' on Tuesday, May 20, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Global Internet Freedom: Corporate Responsibility and the Rule of Law'' on Tuesday, May 20, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD- 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, this week, 358 new names were inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, representing officers from across the country over the course of many years. We often take for granted the thousands of brave officers who dedicate their lives to protecting our streets and our communities every day across Maryland and across America. But this week, during National Police Week, we all should take a moment to thank these brave men and women--America's finest--who risk their lives on our behalf. We especially must honor the fallen law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice so that the rest of us could enjoy our families and go about our daily business with a common sense of peace and security.

Nationally, 187 law enforcement officers gave their lives in the line of duty during 2007. More than one-third succumbed to gunfire. On average, they were nearly 11-year veterans of their respective departments. The average age was just 39 years young. Seven of these brave officers were women. Most importantly, these were sons and daughters, husbands and wives, sisters, brothers, and true role models for those who knew them well or saw them on the street proudly wearing their uniform or badge. So our thoughts, during this special commemoration, also are with their families and the communities they touched by their presence.

Four of Maryland's finest gave their lives for our safety in 2007 and one more recently on New Year's Day, January 1, 2008. I would like to take a moment to tell you about these brave law enforcement officers.

Troy Lamont Chesley, Sr., was a detective with the Baltimore City Police Department. At age 34, he was a 13-year veteran. On January 9, 2007, shortly after Detective Chesley got off duty at a public housing unit, a suspect attempted to rob him. Despite being shot and mortally wounded, Detective Chesley was able to take police action and return fire. The robber was arrested later in the day and charged in connection with Detective Chesley's murder. A widower himself, Detective Chesley is survived by his three daughters, two sons, parents, and brother.

On April 25, 2007, Police Officer Luke Hoffman had been with the Montgomery County Police Department just 1 year when he was struck by a car while involved in a foot pursuit of a suspected drunk driver. The driver had fled on foot after a slow-speed pursuit in the Aspen Hill area early that morning. Officer Hoffman was struck after chasing the suspect across Old Georgia Avenue in an area with very low lighting conditions. Another patrol car struck Officer Hoffman when his patrol car went down an embankment and struck a tree. The officer in the patrol car was injured. Officer Hoffman was flown to a local hospital where he later died.

Corporal Scott Wheeler of the Howard County Police Department was struck by a speeding vehicle he was attempting to flag down on Route 32. He had stepped into the roadway in an attempt to stop the car for speeding while working an enforcement detail. He was flown to Maryland Shock Trauma Center where he died on June 18, 2007, 2 days after the accident. Corporal Wheeler had served with the Howard County Police Department for 6\1/2\ years. He was posthumously promoted to the rank of corporal. He is survived by his wife, parents, and brother.

Another brave Marylander who lost his life far too early was 25-year- old Police Officer Christopher Nicholson of the Smithsburg Police Department. Officer Nicholson was shot and killed while responding to assist members of the Washington County Sheriff's Office at a call involving reports that a man had just murdered his girlfriend during a domestic disturbance. As he waited in his patrol car a short distance away from the home for additional units to arrive, the suspect drove toward Officer Nicholson's patrol car and opened fire as he pulled even with the officer's door. A rifle slug struck him in the chest, penetrating his vest. The suspect fled into a nearby cemetery, where he engaged members of the Special Response Team in a shootout. The man was wounded and taken into custody. Officer Nicholson was flown to a local hospital where he succumbed to his wounds. Officer Nicholson had previously served with the Maryland Division of Correction but spent only 1\1/2\ years with the Smithsburg Police Department before his death. He is survived by his mother, father, and girlfriend.

Finally, another auto accident claimed the life of Corporal Courtney G. Brooks of the Maryland Transportation Authority Police Department. He was struck and killed by a hit-and-run driver on I-95 in Baltimore City at approximately 11:30 pm on New Year's Eve 2007. A 13-year veteran of the Maryland Transportation Authority Police Department, Corporal Brooks was setting out cones at the interchange of I-95 and I- 395 to keep commercial vehicles out of downtown Baltimore during New Year's celebrations when he was hit. The driver fled in his vehicle but was apprehended early the next morning. Corporal Brooks was transported to Maryland Shock Trauma Center where he succumbed to his injuries shortly after midnight on New Year's Day, January 1, 2008. Lost at the age of 40, Corporal Brooks is survived by three children and a fiance.

I mentioned earlier that gunfire accounted for more than a third of the law enforcement deaths nationwide. This was the single-biggest cause of death. Perhaps after hearing about Police Officer Hoffman, Corporal Wheeler and Corporal Brooks, it is no surprise that automobile accidents fall second on that list, claiming the lives of over 25 percent of law enforcement officers who died nationwide last year.

During this commemoration, let me also offer thanks to The Officer Down Memorial Page, a nonprofit organization dedicated to honoring America's fallen law enforcement heroes every day of the year by telling the stories and preserving the memories of each of these officers at www.odmp.org. I also offer my tribute and respect to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, which generates increased public support for law enforcement as a profession, promotes law enforcement safety, and leads our Nation in remembering the fallen 365 days a year but especially during National Police Week.

I am humbled by the sacrifice these law enforcement officers have given for their fellow Marylanders. I would hope that they represent the last of our Nation's finest law officers who would sacrifice themselves for the greater good of safety and security.

Unfortunately, we know that is not likely. That is why, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee I am working with my colleagues to improve the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program to make it easier for States to qualify for grants under this program. While not a guarantee, bulletproof vests do save lives and allow more men and women in law enforcement to return home to their families at the end of their shift.

We held a hearing in the Judiciary Committee earlier this week, during which we heard from Detective David Azur, an ATF agent from Baltimore, MD. He testified about how, in 2000,

while working as part of the Regional Auto Theft Task Force, he was shot in the line of duty and survived only because of his bulletproof vest. He was subsequently awarded the Medal of Valor for his actions that day.

I also recognize that strong partnerships between first responders, like police officers, and the cities and States they serve are vital to public safety. I firmly believe that all of our Nation's first responders deserve the right to be treated with respect. But far too many first responders across the country do not have basic workplace protections.

As we debate the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, I pledge to work to ensure all first responders receive the respect they deserve with the same protections enjoyed by so many other workers across the country. I have cosponsored this important bill. In honor of the 187 law enforcement officers who gave their lives last year and the more than 18,000 who have done likewise, I urge the Senate to pass this important legislation.

For many young Americans, it is hard to believe that only 40 years ago, citizens of the United States were subject to prosecution and imprisonment for marrying someone of a different race. But in 1967 that was indeed the situation in 16 States where interracial marriage was illegal.

In 1958, Mildred Jeter, a black Native American, traveled with Richard Loving, a Caucasian, from Virginia's Caroline County to the District of Columbia to be married. They came here because their home State of Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws prohibited interracial marriage. Shortly after returning to Virginia, Mr. and Mrs. Loving were arrested in their home. They pled guilty to violating section 20-58 of the Virginia Code: ``Leaving State to evade law--If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in Section 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage.'' Section 20-59 of the code provided for confinement for between 1 and 5 years. The Lovings were sentenced to 1 year in jail, but the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the couple leave the State and agree not to return simultaneously for the next 25 years.

But after some time away, the couple began to miss Virginia and decided to pursue justice. They hired lawyers and challenged the Virginia law through years of court cases leading up to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard the case of Richard Perry Loving et ux, v. Virginia on April 10 and decided the case unanimously on June 12, 1967, noting that ``the clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. . . . We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause . . . Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. These convictions must be reversed. It is so ordered.''

Due to their unyielding belief in equality and the work of dedicated attorneys, the Lovings prevailed. They made their home in Virginia and raised three children. According to published accounts of their life together, times were hard for the family. Hit by a drunk driver in 1975, Richard Loving died and Mildred Loving was injured. Mrs. Loving lived her remaining years in Virginia until Friday, May 2, 2008, when she died at age 68.

Mildred Loving's name lacks the prominence shared by other heroes of the civil rights movement. In fact, she eschewed the limelight and viewed her case differently than what many might expect.

On the 40th anniversary of the decision, Mildred Loving stated:

(W)hen my late husband, Richard, and I got married in

Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn't to make a political

statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to

be married. . . . We didn't get married in Washington because

we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the

government wouldn't allow us to marry back home in Virginia

where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and

where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see,

I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time

people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because

of their ideas of who should marry whom . . . Not long after

our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in

our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for

the ``crime'' of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our

marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed.

The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found

guilty, the judge declared: ``Almighty God created the races

white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on

separate continents. And but for the interference with his

arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The

fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend

for the races to mix.'' He sentenced us to a year in prison,

but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in

Virginia for 25 years exile. We left, and got a lawyer.

Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a

cause. We were fighting for our love. Though it turned out we

had to fight, happily Richard and I didn't have to fight

alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal

Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the

country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom

to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June

12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, ``The

freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital

personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness

by free men,'' a basic civil right.

Mrs. Loving's words express more poignantly than any others the importance of this case. Although she did not embrace the role of a civil rights hero, because of her forthright bravery, history will remember her as such. Last June, the House of Representatives passed unanimously H. Res 431, commemorating the 40th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing interracial marriage within the United States. In addition, June 12 has informally come to be known as ``Loving Day'' in the United States in their honor.

Next month, when we acknowledge the 41st anniversary of that historic decision, Mrs. Loving will not be with us, but her spirit will remain. Today, I pay tribute to Mildred and Richard Loving and to their remarkable courage. I offer my sincere condolences to their children and grandchildren, and I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering them.

Mr. President, I am pleased our colleagues have come to the floor to talk about the energy crisis. Energy prices are soaring. The Bush administration is doing virtually nothing to help consumers. Congress must act.

I am pleased to hear so many of my colleagues come to the floor to talk about ways in which we can act to try to help the consumer. Americans are hurting today. In my own State of Maryland, my constituents are not only suffering from increased gasoline prices, but electricity prices rose by 72 percent in 2007. For a typical family in Maryland, they have seen a huge increase in their energy costs. For gasoline alone, the average Maryland family spends in excess of $4,500 a year. They have seen an increase in gasoline prices of 153 percent during the Bush administration. If you are a small business, you are vulnerable. Small businesses spend 20 to 30 percent more on energy to produce the same product as a larger company; 62 percent of small businesses have to use a vehicle as part of their business. They don't have the same options larger companies have to invest in energy efficiency as far as equipment is concerned. They certainly don't have the same financing that large companies have. So in these difficult times they have to put mortgages on their homes or, in some cases, even use credit cards. When they use their credit cards, it is the highest possible interest rates they can get. So Marylanders are hurting. Americans are hurting on the energy cost.

The first thing we should have done and we should do today is have an energy policy that makes us energy independent. I have heard a lot of my colleagues talk about it. We have taken some steps in that direction on energy legislation that we passed, but we certainly can do a lot more on the area of energy independence.

We need to be energy independent first and foremost for the security of America. We should not be depending on some country halfway around the world which we disagree with on their international policies because we need their oil and we are dependent on their oil, and we can't do everything we wish to do with that country on foreign policy issues. Secondly, we have to become energy independent for the sake of the environment.

The environmental risks are real. To give one example of global climate change and what greenhouse gas emissions are doing because of the use of petroleum and fossil fuels, I met with my Maryland watermen over the last week and talked about the fragile condition within the Chesapeake Bay and how it is difficult for the different species, including oysters and clams and rockfish, to survive. One of the reasons is the water at the surface is too warm. This is not conducive to good, healthy aquatic life. So the health of the bay is impacted by our dependency and use of oil.

I could talk a lot about our coastal lines in Maryland with the rising sea level and what that is doing as far as the safety of the people who live in my State. So for the sake of our environment, we need to become energy independent and use less fossil fuels.

As we have learned in this economic time, for the sake of our economy, we need to become energy independent. We need to control our energy sources so we can control the economic impact and not have to again be hit with uncertain energy cost increases. Part of that is going to be a renewable portfolio, alternative fuels, conserving fuel. We all know that. But we also need to take immediate action to help the consumer.

As oil prices are rising, gasoline prices are rising, oil companies profits have gone through the roof. The five largest oil companies in 2007 had profits of $103 billion. That is $2 billion a week in profits. In 2008, BP Oil has already shown a 63-percent increase over its 2007 profits. So the consumers are paying more and the oil companies are making a lot more. We need to take action. We need to pass the Consumer First Energy Act. I thank Senator Reid for introducing this bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I hope we will shortly take this up and be able to pass it. It will help consumers today.

First, it deals with $17 billion that oil companies receive in tax breaks. Remember, the profits of five companies were over $100 billion in 2007. We are talking about tax breaks we are giving which should be used for energy independence. Instead it is making us more dependent upon imported oil. What this legislation would do would be to modify these tax breaks and put the money into an energy independence security trust fund so we can become independent in energy needs.

We have heard a lot of conversation about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. What is happening today is that the Federal Government is buying 70,000 gallons of gasoline every day. Economics 101, supply and demand, we are increasing the demand for gasoline by 70,000 gallons a day. That has a direct impact on the price of gasoline. We have 97 percent of our needs already in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. There is bipartisan effort to stop the filling of the petroleum reserve as we are hitting these huge increases in cost to the consumer. This legislation deals with that. We should be having better tools to pursue those who are price gouging. This legislation deals with that.

I heard the Senator from North Dakota talk about the speculators. This legislation deals with that. Let me explain that. As Senator Dorgan pointed out, we have speculators, investors who are buying paper on future oil who are causing the price of oil to go up, which means we pay more at the pump. We should be regulating what we call the margins at a much higher level. Margins mean they have to put up not much money. They buy it on credit. Well, this legislation would have the FTC regulate the margin sales and purchases of futures on oil. That makes a lot of sense. It would calm the speculators and save us at the pump. It is another way we can reduce the cost immediately to the consumer. And it deals with offshore speculating, something else we should do.

The legislation also gives the Attorney General the ability to go after collusion on price fixing in gasoline.

So all these provisions in the Consumer First Energy Act are aimed at trying to bring down the cost to the consumer now and keep it lower than it is today. It would provide immediate help and would bring us closer to meeting our goal of energy independence for the sake of our national security, for the sake of our environment, and for the sake of our economy.

So let's remember the struggles of American families with rising energy costs as we work together. Let's put aside partisan differences, and let's pass the Consumer First Energy Act to provide real relief to the consumers in America. It is in the best interests of the consumers. It is in the best interests of our country. I urge my colleagues to act in a bipartisan way to pass this most important legislation.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague Senator Casey for his comments about the state of Israel. He has captured the special nature of Israel, which one gets when they have an opportunity to visit the country and see the faces of the people of Israel and what they have been able to accomplish in a relatively short period of time, in a very small country.

Today, we in the Senate pause to celebrate Israel's 60th anniversary. To the strongest ally of the United States in the Middle East, we wish Israel continued success.

There is good reason that Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East. It is a nation that has been built upon democratic principles, a trusted ally in our war against terror. It shares our values in a critically important part of the world to the United States.

President Lyndon Johnson said, ``The U.S. and Israel share many common objectives, chief of which is the building of a better world in which every nation can develop its resources, and develop them in freedom and peace.''

Israel today is a vibrant oasis of democracy in a region of the world replete with secular and religious dictators.

For 60 years, there have been near constant military and terrorist threats, economic boycotts, and diplomatic hostility. Yet it still stands as a thriving, pluralistic democracy, with the rule of law, and an independent judiciary that works to protect freedom of speech, association, religion, a free press, and fair and open elections.

Israel has become not only a regional power but international leader in agriculture, health, science, medicine, high tech, and security. It has used that expertise to reach out and help so many other countries in the world deal with its challenges. Although it is a very small country, eight of its citizens have been acknowledged as Nobel laureates. In homeland security, it has helped the United States in dealing with our war against terror in the post-9/11 era.

Tel Aviv's Ben-Gurion Airport is a model for airport security. Our Nation has benefited by learning how the Israelis protected their airports, and we are using many of those procedures here in the United States to protect our own citizens.

I can tell you how the Israelis have helped Maryland deal with homeland security issues. They have come and looked at one of our urban hospitals to make sure we take every precaution to protect the citizens of Maryland.

Israel is a safe haven for Jews--from the Soviet Union, to Ethiopia, or any country where Jews are threatened. As David Ben-Gurion said 60 years ago, ``The land of Israel was the birth place of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious, and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave the world the eternal Book of Books.''

Ben-Gurion went on to say that the State of Israel ``will be based on freedom, justice, and peace, as envisioned by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all of its inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race, or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the holy places of all religions.''

Since its first days as a modern state, it has sought peace with its Arab neighbors. During the declaration of independence, Israel stated:

We extend our hand to all neighboring states and their

peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness and

appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual

help with its sovereign Jewish people settled in its own

lands. The state of Israel is prepared to do its share in a

common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

It has had success, with the help of the United States, as peace agreements were entered into with Egypt and Jordan. But to those who continue to challenge Israel's sovereignty and security, let me caution them with the words of President John F. Kennedy when he said:

Israel was not created in order to disappear. Israel will

endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the hope of

the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor

demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy

and it honors the sword of freedom.

On the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel, we wish it continued success and peace, as the bond between our two countries continues to strengthen.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to speak today in favor of S. 2284, legislation that would reform and modernize the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP. Congress created NFIP in 1968 in the wake of a series of terrible hurricanes, the worst of which was Hurricane Betsy, a storm that devastated New Orleans in 1965. After observing the ad hoc nature of disaster relief efforts, all of which came at taxpayer expense, Congress saw an urgent need for a better way to handle the risks and losses associated with flood damage.

NFIP, which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, provided insurance to individuals living in flood-prone areas who weren't able to get private insurance. But it did much more. It required mapping to identify areas at risk for flooding and community floodplain mitigation and management measures to help prevent flood damage in the future.

The program has been important in my State of Maryland. According to the 2005 report of the Maryland Emergency Management Agency, Maryland is the third most vulnerable State in the Nation to flooding. More than 12 percent of land is designated under NFIP as a special flood hazard area. An estimated 68,000 Maryland homes and buildings are located within the flood plain, representing nearly $8 billion in assessed value. Nearly 64,000 Marylanders held NFIP policies as of February 2007, and in the hurricane seasons from 2002 to 2006, a span that included Hurricane Isabel, insured flood losses in Maryland totaled approximately $177 million.

The program appeared to work well for many years. The revenues brought in through insurance premiums covered payments made to individuals in the wake of flooding disasters. Today, the NFIP has been reported to save taxpayers over $1 billion annually in flood losses that, without the program, would be paid by the taxpayers in the form of emergency disaster relief. But the 2005 hurricane season, which brought Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, created a need on an entirely new scale, a scale that not only overwhelmed the program but exposed serious flaws in its design.

To pay out the estimated $19 billion in NFIP claims, the program had to borrow almost $18 billion from the U.S. Treasury. Government- subsidized premiums for certain policyholders, outdated flood insurance rate maps, and other program weaknesses undermined NFIP's ability to meet the demands created in the 2005 season. Those flaws have also created false incentives over the years, encouraging developers and homeowners to build and then rebuild in flood-prone and environmentally sensitive areas.

With the 2008 hurricane season less than a month away, we have to fix the program's flaws and put it back on sound financial footing. S. 2284 does just that, and I want to applaud Senators Dodd and Shelby and my other colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee for their excellent work.

First and foremost, S. 2284 restores the program's solvency by forgiving FEMA's debt to the Treasury. FEMA isn't able to repay it; the interest alone is approximately $900 million annually, equal to almost 40 percent of annual premium income. In order to keep rates affordable, we have to accept that loss and turn our attention to improving the program so it is better able to pay claims in the future.

S. 2284 takes several steps to make sure that the program's revenues will be sufficient to meet those future needs. The legislation moves several types of homeowners, who previously received subsidized rates, toward premiums that match their actual risk of flooding. It expands the categories of people who need to buy flood insurance to better reflect the categories of people actually at high risk. It includes provisions to encourage more homeowners, even those outside the highest risk areas, to buy insurance.

S. 2284 takes steps to ensure we know who is at high risk. It authorizes more money for FEMA to update and digitize the Nation's flood hazard maps. Most FEMA maps contain 30-year old data. Think of that. How many of us live in houses or even neighborhoods that were built in the last 30 years? Homeowners and officials can't make good decisions about risk and development based on such woefully outdated information.

At present, FEMA's map modernization program updates old maps by putting them in digital form without changing any of the information. So if you live in a house or on a street that only came into existence in the past 30 years or so, you wouldn't be on the old map or the new ``updated'' map. Maryland officials, to their credit, were among a handful of State and local officials nationwide who realized that mere digitization alone isn't enough, and they contributed their own time and data to update the content, as well. Those maps will all be completed over the next 5 years. I am proud of my State's emergency management officials for showing that initiative, and I am glad that this bill makes substantive improvement to flood plain maps the norm rather than the exception.

One of the biggest lessons we Marylanders learned in the wake of Hurricane Isabel in 2003 was that people didn't have good information about flood insurance. Some people who should have had insurance didn't. Some who had it didn't understand it, had too little coverage, or too much coverage.

S. 2284 will improve consumer education. It takes steps to ensure that all homeowners at high risk of flood damage participate in the program and that more homeowners know about the flood risks to their property and about the insurance options available to them. It requires every person who buys a home in an area of elevated flood risk to learn about that risk at their settlement and be given an opportunity to purchase insurance. It places the burden on lenders to make sure all people who need to have insurance actually get it. It would provide grant money to communities to conduct educational and outreach activities to encourage people to purchase flood insurance and learn what steps they can take to mitigate against flood damage. Last but not least, S. 2284 creates an Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate to assist policyholders with any problems they have with their NFIP claims.

Rates that reflect risk, better flood plain maps, more expansive participation, and better information: these changes will make the program self-sufficient once again. But even more important, by providing homeowners, communities, developers, and emergency management and planning officials with accurate information about flood risk and its associated costs, S. 2284 reverses some of the program's false incentives to build and live in disaster-prone areas.

When hurricane season starts this year, it will bring greater risk to many States, Maryland included. An April 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report found that global warming will result in more flooding through more intense hurricanes, reduced snow pack, and sea level rise. We are experiencing those changes today in Maryland.

We have over 4,000 miles of coastline, more than the State of California, and historic tide-gauge records show sea levels have risen one foot within Maryland's coastal waters over the last century. Due in part to naturally occurring regional land subsidence, Maryland is currently experiencing sea level rise at a rate nearly double the worldwide average. Thirteen charted islands and large expanses of those critical tidal wetlands in the Chesapeake Bay have already disappeared.

These changes make us more vulnerable to storm surges. Allstate Insurance, one of our largest insurers, announced this past year that it would stop writing new homeowners' policies in coastal areas of my State. The reason they won't give insurance to homeowners in coastal areas is because they say a warmer Atlantic Ocean will lead to more and stronger hurricanes hitting the Northeast.

It is critical that we shore up the National Insurance Flood Program so that it is ready to support Marylanders and all Americans in times of need. S. 2284 does that without increasing incentives to build in disaster-prone areas or destroy environmentally sensitive areas. That is a tough line to navigate, but this bill does it well. I am proud to offer my support.

Mr. President, first I wish to thank Senator Murray for her comments. I couldn't agree with her more. I know the people of Maryland are very much concerned about the FAA reauthorization bill and getting it done. Passenger safety is critically important to the people of Maryland and this Nation. Modernizing our air system is very important. I thank Senator Murray for the comments she made.

Mr. Presidentt, I wish to first respond, if I might, to the comments Senator Kyl made in regard to consideration of judicial appointments.

Of course, one of the most important responsibilities each one of us in the Senate has is to deal with confirmation of judges who have lifetime appointments to the Federal bench. It seems to me the Republicans are criticizing the Democratic leadership because sometimes they think we move too slowly, and now they are criticizing us for moving too fast on nominations. I don't quite understand it.

I hope the public will look at the record. When President Clinton was President of the United States, when he left office, there were 32 vacancies on the circuit courts of this Nation. Today, that number stands at 12. We have moved the confirmation process forward. I think we have done it in the appropriate manner.

I would also point out that there have been three circuit court judges who have had some controversy surrounding their confirmations in which there was opposition by Democrats, but at no time did Democrats delay the consideration of those nominations on the floor. They came up, they were voted on, there was never a filibuster, and there was never an effort made to slow it down. In fact, on one judicial appointment that was voted for on this floor, it was the Republicans who asked for the delay so they could get the necessary votes to get the nomination out of committee. So I think the record speaks for itself as to the consideration of judicial appointments.

Mr. President, I think it is ironic that the Republican whip used this opportunity to talk about delaying judicial appointments when the Republicans are in their 68th filibuster in this Congress. Sixty-eight filibusters. The most recent, of course, is the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act, the bill that is on the floor right now that we will have a chance to vote on later today. We have been on this bill for over a week without a vote because the Republicans are filibustering it. This is a bill which is critically important to the people of this Nation--first and foremost because of safety. I think Senator Murray pointed this out very clearly.

We need to implement the next generation of an air transportation system that was recommended in 2004. We still haven't implemented that. This legislation provides $290 million annually to modernize our satellite-based system. I am told there are some automobiles that have more sophisticated guidance systems or satellite identification systems than our planes. We need to do a better job.

We have a bill that was crafted in a bipartisan way in our committee that has come forward. Let's consider it on the floor for the sake of the people of this Nation--for their safety. We know that every year millions and millions more people are flying. Air traffic is up. We need to modernize our system for the safety of the people of this country.

We need more safety inspectors; we certainly know that from what has happened this year with the number of aircraft that were not properly inspected. This bill will provide the wherewithal in order to make sure we carry out the inspections in the best interests of the people of this Nation.

I am sure people are very aware of their fellow citizens being stranded on runways for up to 11 hours without being tended to. This legislation provides for a passengers bill of rights so that we have some basic protection for those who travel by air in this country.

It is important for our entire country, but let me just point out what it means in Maryland.

We have 20 million passengers who go through the Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, adding $5.1 billion to the economy of my State of Maryland. I could talk about the essential air service which affects one community in my State, the Hagerstown Regional Airport. That is in this bill.

My point is that this bill is a comprehensive bill that affects every part of our country, and it deserves a vote on this floor.

Hagerstown Regional Airport is critically important to the economic development of the people of that region, and the central air service which is extended in this legislation allows it to become the economic stimulus for additional growth in the Hagerstown area. So there is a lot depending upon this bill moving forward.

Yes, later today we are going to have a vote. It is a very simple vote. It is a vote on whether we are going to move forward on the legislation or we are going to allow the filibuster to continue--the 68th filibuster the Republicans have initiated in this Congress.

Majority Leader Reid has made it clear that if the Republicans or any Member of the Senate doesn't like a provision in the bill, they can offer an amendment to take it out. We will have a vote on that amendment. There is no effort being made here to stop debate. What we are trying to do is take up a bill, not spend a full week in doing no work on the floor because we are in a filibuster. Let's end this filibuster, let's take up the amendments, let's vote on the amendments, and let the majority rule on this very important subject. That is what we are asking for today.

This is a bipartisan bill. It has enjoyed bipartisan support. The public wants us--Democrats and Republicans--to work together on issues that are critically important to the future of our country. Air traffic and passenger safety is critically important to the future of America. So I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan differences and allow us to let democracy work. Allow us to vote on the issues. Allow us to bring forward this critically important bill to the people of this country. We will have a chance to do that later today, and I hope that the necessary Members of this body will vote to put aside their partisan differences and allow us to have a vote for the sake of the safety of the people of this Nation.

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

Mr. President, first, I welcome the bipartisan support for programs that will move us toward energy independence. I agree with my colleague from Tennessee that we need to do a Manhattan-type project, with the same type of commitment we made when putting a person on the Moon, to become energy independent. We have the technology. We know how to get it done. If we have the will, this Nation can do anything it wants to do.

I think there is a growing awareness among Members of this body, as well as on the other side of the Capitol, that we need to take immediate steps so this Nation can become energy independent. So I welcome the comments that have been made.

I come to the floor because the people of Maryland and throughout the Nation are hurting today. The most recent assault on their pocketbooks has been filling up their cars with gasoline. The costs are prohibitive for families--gasoline prices. Quite frankly, I think the administration is doing virtually nothing to help those who are trying to afford energy costs today--whether it is their electricity bills in their homes, or whether it is running the family automobile, or whether it is a business that requires them to use an automobile. This administration has done very little to help deal with the escalating costs of energy. Instead, they look for additional tax breaks for oil companies, or they want to extend tax cuts for millionaires. They don't come forward with energy policies that would try to make energy much more affordable.

I believe we need to have a strong energy legislation in this Congress. Let me give you some of the statistics that people in my State of Maryland are confronting on energy costs. Electricity rates went up 72 percent in 2007. Gasoline prices in Maryland are now $3.49, on average, for regular gasoline, and $3.80 for high test. That is a 150-percent increase since President Bush took office.

Let me try to translate this as to how it affects the average family in my State. When you take a look at what household costs have gone up, just for gasoline for your automobile, since President Bush took office, for a typical household it has increased $2,731 for the people of Maryland. If that household has children, it is an increase of $3,414 a year. If they have a teenager also operating a car, it has gone up over $4,000. To me, that is a shocking increase in just 7 years on the cost of gasoline that we put into our automobiles.

I recently had a conversation with small business owners in Maryland. Sixty-two percent of small business owners use a vehicle in their business. They need automobiles. They have to fill these tanks with gasoline. The majority drive over 50 miles a day in their automobiles to operate their businesses. So the statistics show that small businesses--and all of us talk about helping small businesses--spend more than their competitors that are large companies on energy costs. It can cost up to three times as much for a small business person for their energy cost to deliver a product to the market than for larger companies. I am sure you are aware that small businesses don't have the same availability of capital in order to buy equipment or the same availability of capital in order to keep their businesses afloat. Many small business owners are mortgaging their homes in order to keep their businesses going. Many are using credit cards with the highest possible interest rates to keep afloat. Now they have additional energy costs. So, yes, we need to take action on the energy problem.

I must tell you that the first thing we need is a national energy policy. We have had bills that have been submitted on this floor. I appreciate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle coming forward in support of a national energy policy for energy independence. But if you remember when we voted on the renewable energy portfolio, we didn't seem to get the votes we needed from the Republican side of the aisle. It is time to take action on a national energy policy--one that will truly make this Nation energy independent--whether you call it a Manhattan-type project or an Apollo-type project, we can do it. We can do it by using less energy and by developing alternative and renewable energy sources. We can do it in a way that will be good for America.

We should not be dependent for oil upon any country halfway around the world, that disagrees with our policies. We have to eliminate our dependency on imported oil. We need to do that for the security of America. Our national security should come first. If for no other reason, we should do it for national security. Also, let's do it for the environment. I listened to my friend talk about green energy. We have a chance to do that. We have a bill in the Environment and Public Works Committee that Senator Boxer provided tremendous leadership on, along with Senators Lieberman and Warner, that would cap our carbon emissions. That would energize our economy to produce green jobs and would help us to become energy independent. It would reduce greenhouse gases and would help our environment. We need to become energy independent because of our national security and because of our environment.

My friends who are talking about energy independence, we have a chance to move forward on that. Let's bring out the Lieberman-Warner legislation and move it on the floor. We are trying to do that, and if we had more help on the Republican side of the aisle, we could get that done this year and move toward energy independence.

There is a third reason we need an energy policy, and that is our economy. I don't need a clearer message about how important it is to be independent for our economy than to fill up my tank with gasoline. Go to any of your neighborhood gasoline stations and look at the price. We don't have control over our energy costs. If we were energy independent, we would. So we need an energy policy that is good for this Nation. We should not be financing other countries. That is what you do every time you fill up a tank with gas--financing other countries, and actually we are borrowing money to do that.

So we need a policy that is good for this Nation. What have the oil companies done to help us in this regard? They are doing quite well. We have businesses that are hurting. We are in a recession. We are not doing well in economic growth. But in the last year, the five major oil companies had profits of $103 billion, and 2008 is going to be a better year than 2007 for the oil companies.

These are excessive profits. We need to do something about them. The administration says let's continue tax breaks for the oil companies; let's create some new ones. We should be using these tax breaks to develop alternative energy sources. That is what we should be doing to help the people in our communities. We should be using these tax breaks to generate green jobs. We can do that if we energize the American economy to develop the alternative technologies that can solve our energy crisis as well as our environmental challenges.

We need to use these tax breaks so we have less reliance on foreign energy sources--alternative fuels. I wish to underscore that we need to get this administration, if they are really serious about trying to make this Nation energy independent, to refocus the tools we are using. Every time we try to do that--we try to take these tax credits and target it to the alternative energy sources rather than just giving them to the oil companies--we get a veto threat from the President.

I can tell you, Mr. President, people in Maryland desperately need leadership on energy. They need immediate help. One of the suggestions that has been made that I think we should move forward--again, the President said he is not going to do this--is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is 95 percent filled. Let me explain to my constituents what this is about. Our Government is in the market every day buying 70,000 gallons of oil to put in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. As a result, the cost to the consumers in filling up their automobiles' tanks is higher. It is supply and demand. The Government is there every day first at the gas pumps taking 70,000 gallons of fuel that otherwise could be available for consumers, and with supply and demand, the more fuel we have available, the lower the cost will be. This is something we can do immediately to try to reduce the cost of gasoline to the people of this Nation.

We need immediate action. We need immediate action to help the middle-income families in America and the small businesses that are literally being strangled by the high cost of gasoline and the high cost of energy. They need immediate relief. They need an administration that is going to take action to make more supply available. If the administration does not, the Congress should take action to do that. The American people need us to take action for immediate relief. But they also understand we cannot continue decade after decade to be dependent on foreign energy sources. It is way past time that this Nation become energy independent. We can get there.

As I hear my colleagues speak on both sides of the aisle, let's come together for the sake of our Nation, for the sake of our national security, for the sake of our environment, for the sake of our economy, and let's act together to pass laws so at last America can become energy independent and control its own destiny, be a good citizen of the world on the environment, and do much better for the growth of our economy. I am convinced we can do this if we act together in the best interest of our country.

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