Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order of speakers after morning business, prior to the recess for caucus luncheons, be as follows: Senator Feinstein for up to 20 minutes, Isakson for up to 15 minutes, Corker for up to 20 minutes, Specter for up to 15 minutes; Kerry for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the climate change legislation sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner and the managers' substitute amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer.

I congratulate all three of them. This is not an easy road. I want particularly to thank the chairman of the committee for her work. She has been open, she has been consultative, she has asked to meet with Members, she has asked for Members' participation in the work. She has been both strong and solid in her leadership.

After years of debating about the science underlying the warming of our planet, today marks a momentous step because for the first time we are considering comprehensive legislation to address global warming in a comprehensive manner. I believe the time has come for the Senate to pass legislation to tackle this problem.

The bill represents the most comprehensive opportunity we have in this Congress to help curb our carbon footprint and take meaningful action to prevent catastrophic climate change--and nobody should disbelieve that is coming. The fact is this: Global warming is happening. It has already begun to inflict changes on the world as we know it. If you read the newspapers, if you watch television, or if you simply take a look around, it is undeniable. Just look at weather patterns. More destructive and deadly storms, such as the cyclone that hit Burma and the tornadoes that have devastated parts of the Midwest, are happening. Species are beginning to disappear. The Fish and Wildlife Service has just announced that the polar bear has been placed on the endangered species list because of global warming.

Its habitat is literally melting away. Polar icecaps are melting. The Northwest Passage was navigable for the first time last summer. The Arctic Circle could be ice free by 2030. The West is running out of water. Scientists at UC San Diego believe there is a 50-50 chance that Lake Mead, a key source of water for 8 million people in the Southwestern United States, will be dry by 2021, if the climate changes, as expected, and its use is not curtailed. Projections suggest that both Antarctica and Greenland could melt at the same time. If that were to happen, the seas would rise by 20 feet. So we are feeling the effects of warmer weather. Five out of the past 5 years and 19 out of the last 20 have been the warmest on record.

The Western United States is receiving the brunt of warming. This is because the West's average temperature is 70 percent greater than the planet as a whole. So the Earth's temperature has warmed 1 degree over the past century, but it has warmed 1.7 degrees in the 11-State Western region, and it is only getting warmer. Take a look at this map.

Here is why. Carbon dioxide doesn't dissipate in the atmosphere. It remains for 30, 40, 50, 100 years. The atmosphere is a shell around the Earth, and carbon dioxide has been growing since the Industrial Revolution in this atmosphere. So the question becomes, how much will the Earth warm? This very question is at the heart of why we need climate change legislation, because scientists tell us we can make a difference to impact how much the Earth will warm. We can't stop warming, but we can slow it down. But if we are to do even that, we have to act soon and decisively. I truly don't believe there is a minute to waste.

To stabilize the climate and to prevent catastrophic warming, scientists say we need to begin by reducing emissions by 65 to 80 percent below 1990 levels--that is 65 to 80 percent below what we have put into the atmosphere in 1990--and do all this by the middle of the century. That translates into a goal of 1,450 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Vice President Al Gore told me recently there is some new science out that we actually may need to limit carbon emissions to 350 parts per million, which is even stronger. There is new science out that shows the Earth is warming even faster than was originally predicted. We need to contain the warming to 1 to 2 degrees. We will still experience significant but manageable changes, but if we fail to act, the Earth's temperature could rise 5 to 9 degrees or more. Those results are catastrophic and irreversible.

I tell constituent breakfasts about the Earth. Most people believe the Earth can't change. But, in fact, planets do change. Look at Mars, look at the Earth 250 million years ago, when there was one mass on Earth only. The Earth is subject to change. That change can be dramatic, and warming affects that change. This is a gamble we cannot afford to take. The truth is, though, there is no silver bullet. There is no one thing that will turn the tide. We need to go clean and green in driving, in heating, in cooling, in building, and fueling. We need to move away from fossil fuels. We need the Lieberman-Warner legislation.

By 2050, this bill would reduce emissions by 63 percent below 2005 levels or 57 percent below 1990 levels. So the legislation sets us on the path toward meaningful greenhouse gas reductions. It does so in a way that encourages innovation and makes the investment in cleaner energy and green practices across the entire economy. Importantly, it also includes important provisions to keep our economy strong. The bottom line: This legislation is a major step in the right direction. It is the most significant thing we can do right now to help prevent catastrophic climate change.

Let me take a few moments to talk about what the bill does. There are two ways to deal with this. One is a carbon tax. Most scientists want the carbon tax, but most people believe a new tax is not going to happen. The other alternative is a cap-and-trade system, much as Europe has been doing and much as the Northeastern States have been doing to deal with acid rain. They have reversed acid rain by 45 percent through their cap-and-trade system. This legislation establishes a cap-and- trade system for roughly 86 percent of the economy. It includes the electricity sector, manufacturing, transportation, and natural gas. It would be

the world's most comprehensive effort to address global warming to date. It controls emissions in more sectors of our economy than Europe's carbon control program. It would restore American leadership in the fight to protect our planet.

Here is how it works. In 2012, emissions are capped at 2005 levels. They begin to ratchet down 2 percent per year. By 2020, emissions would be 19 percent below current levels. By 2050, emissions would be cut to approximately 63 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, or 57 percent below 1990 levels. That is the cap part. The trade part of the bill allows for the trading of allowances, which are permits to release 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is a proven system. It is working well right now in the United States to control acid rain and smog pollution. It has given companies flexibility to innovate and embrace new technologies.

Under the bill, the pollution permits are allocated in a way that transitions our economy toward a low-carbon future. In the early years, one-third of the allowances will be allocated to polluting industries covered by the bill to assist with their transition to less carbon- intensive technologies. So one-third goes to those who pollute to help them convert. Revenue produced by selling allowances at auction will be used to invest in low-carbon technology development and deployment.

The bill funds carbon capture and sequestration, renewable energy, and other low-carbon technologies for producing electricity. That is a good thing. It funds efforts to retool car factories, to produce more efficient vehicles and ventures to develop cellulosic biofuels, two steps essential to reducing vehicle emissions. It funds efforts to increase the efficiency of buildings, homes, appliances, and it rewards States that produce significant emission reductions.

In later years, this bill refocuses its assistance toward worker training and financial relief for consumers. It is a good bill. It assists those in coastal and arid States who will have to adapt to sea level rise and rainfall loss. So it makes our world better off, but it also helps those who may have to shoulder an undue burden.

Here is the bottom line: This cap-and-trade bill significantly reduces emissions. It funds new technologies. It deploys existing low- cost options. It contains costs. It mitigates negative impacts. It effectively combats climate change, while protecting our quality of life.

I wish to take a few moments to talk in detail about some of the key provisions of the bill that are of particular note. First, the legislation includes language to establish Federal oversight for the new carbon market. This is something I learned, as a Californian in the Western energy crisis, that we need to do. A $100 billion market for the trading of carbon emissions is going to spring up as this cap-and- trade system is established. We need to be prepared. Just as there are those who manipulate the price of oil and the price of gas--and we in California found that out to the tune of $40 billion--this new market could attract Enron-like manipulation, fraud or excessive speculation, unless we take preventive action. This month Congress finally passed legislation in the farm bill to close the Enron loophole to protect electronic energy markets. It took us 6 years after the Western energy crisis to achieve that. It is time to learn from these mistakes. We need to take steps now to ensure that the market functions with transparency, as well as antifraud and antimanipulation provisions from the get-go.

Specifically, this legislation requires the President to establish an interagency working group, the carbon market working group. It is made up of the heads of the following agencies: the EPA, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Treasury Department. Within 270 days of enactment of the bill, the working group would establish the regulatory framework for the market and recommend necessary regulations that ensure enforcement of core market oversight principles. These principles would include ensuring market transparency in price, volume, and other trading data--all of it made available to the public--requirements for recordkeeping, an audit trail which, up to this point, doesn't exist on the electronic marketplace--but thanks to the Enron loophole closure bill, it will exist--and finally, preventing fraud, manipulation, and excessive speculation.

I was pleased to hear the Commodities Futures Trading Commission is now taking a look at excessive speculation in the oil market as a reason for the drive up of prices of gasoline. I will bet anything there is excessive speculation in that market today. These regulations would be fully enforceable by existing market oversight agencies, and violators would be subject to significant penalties. So it is critical we protect these markets from the outset. We cannot afford to delay.

Secondly, the bill promotes green practices for farmers and foresters. This is something I am very interested in. California is the largest ag State. The legislation includes language I authored to fund research on innovative and cost-effective methods for farmers and foresters to store carbon in the soil.

It is believed that farming and forestry practices to sequester carbon in the soil hold great potential to reduce our carbon footprint, and this is particularly true in my State. But the fact is, we do not yet know enough about the best ways to carry out carbon sequestration.

So this legislation would help shed light on a number of practices farmers and foresters can take to sequester carbon. The research would be funded through allowances for agriculture in the cap-and-trade system established by the Lieberman-Warner legislation. Some of these practices could include several methods popular in my State, including row crop practices such as conservation tillage--this is a picture of it--permanent crop practices, including planting cover crops during the winter season, and using prunings for bioenergy production rather than chipping, mulching, or burning the material, and practices to reduce the digestion-related emissions of methane gas from cattle and livestock. Once we understand which of these innovative methods is the most cost effective, farmers could then sell low-cost offset credits to companies that need to reduce their emissions. So this is a win-win.

Third, this bill promotes low-carbon fuels through a low-carbon fuels standard. Similar to the Clean Fuels and Vehicles Act, which Senator Snowe and I introduced last year, this would require each major oil company selling gasoline in the United States to reduce the average life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy in their gasoline. The provision ensures that the car and truck emissions go down as we increase the use of low-carbon renewable fuel, such as cellulosic ethanol. By improving the renewable fuel standard, which requires the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2020, it assures that the climate benefits of this provision are realized.

My conclusion and my bottom line: Confronting global warming will require action on a broad scale. To those in this body who are dissenters, I say this: If we do not do it, when the science has coalesced, when the science tells us the time is limited, when the science tells us we cannot stop it because it does not dissipate--we must move away from carbon, and we must move to other kinds of fuels, and do so quickly, and we must take these steps to aid the conversion of American industry. Also, most important, this bill will signal that the United States, after a long period of doing nothing, is prepared to stand up tall and to lead.

I thank Senator Warner and Senator Lieberman for this legislation. I know the senior Senator from Virginia is on the floor. I know he is going to retire at the end of the year. I want him to know very personally from me how much I respect him.

I respect your leadership on this issue, Senator Warner. I think it leaves you a great legacy. I only hope we will do justice to you by passing this legislation here today. So thank you so much for your leadership.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in a moment I wish to make a motion, but I would like to say as a prelude, for 6 years I have worked on legislation to provide for notification in the event of a data breach. During that period of time, 43 States have passed their own legislation. We would not know of data breaches if it were not particularly for the State of California which has put forward action on several of them.

The bill went to the Judiciary Committee. It has been heard in the Judiciary Committee. With the cooperation and support of the chairman of that committee, Senator Leahy, the bill has come out unanimously and has been pending before this body. There are holds on the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 180, S. 239, data breach modifications; that the committee-reported amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, simply put, I cannot vote for another $165 billion to give President Bush a blank check and fund the continuation of the war in Iraq, without condition, for over another year.

This is a difficult decision and not one I take lightly. But I believe that the time has come for Congress to exercise the power of the purse and bring this war to a conclusion.

I am a strong supporter of our troops in the field. They have done a tremendous job under difficult circumstances. They weren't greeted as liberators as Vice President Cheney said they would be.

Instead, they found themselves targets in an internecine battle, whose roots go back hundreds of years. They found themselves in the crossfire between Sunni insurgents and Shia extremists. They've done everything asked of them, with the courage and dedication that we expect from our service men and women.

But President Bush has never provided an exit strategy for Iraq. He has never laid out a plan for bringing our troops home.

So, here we are more than 5 years after this war began. More than 4,000 troops killed. Tens of thousands injured. And no end in sight. $525 billion spent all designated as emergency spending and none of which is paid for simply added to our Nation's growing debt.

This is the first major war that has not been paid for, but instead has relied time and time again on emergency supplemental funds outside of the Federal budget.

I, along with many of my colleagues in the Senate, have voted again and again for a change of course to transition the mission. But the minority has obstructed the vote or President Bush has vetoed the bill each time we have tried.

So the power of the purse is the only tool we have to change the Iraq war. And it is time to bring this war to a conclusion after 5 long years.

The $165 billion supplemental funds the war for 1 year and 1 month, or until July 2009. This is all funded on the debt. I simply cannot agree to do it.

It would have been one thing if the supplemental had been to fund the war for an additional 6 months. But it is not. This means that the next administration essentially need not make any move or change until July 2009. This is simply not acceptable to me.

To me, it is a big mistake to have a supplemental this big because it simply means ``business as usual.'' And I don't believe we can be ``business as usual.''

On Tuesday, I questioned Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the funding for this war. I told Secretary Gates that it is unclear to me why the passage of a $165 billion 2009 bridge fund is urgent at this time, particularly given that funding needs for next year are very much up in the air.

I told him that it is my understanding that if DOD transfers funding to the Army to meet its personnel and operational expenses, the Army could stretch its current funding quite far. And I asked how long the Army and Marine Corps could operate without the '09 bridge fund.

The Secretary said:

``The notion of having to borrow from the base budget in

'09 to pay war costs . . . we probably could make it work for

a number of months.'' And ``can we technically get thought

some part of fiscal year 2009 without a supplemental?

Probably so.''

So the other question that I have been grappling with is why should we provide 13 months of funding now? Where is the urgency to fund this war through July 2009? That is over a year away. It is simply not necessary to appropriate $165 billion for the Iraq war in a single day. This is almost twice the size of any previous supplemental the Senate has considered to date.

President Bush won't listen to the wishes of the majority of Congress and the American people. He has shown a complete unwillingness to evolve in the face of compelling evidence of the need for change.

After the fall elections, a new President will offer new ideas and policies, and at the top of the list should be a new plan for Iraq.

Congress should not, during this time of transition and great opportunity to seize the moment and change our war policy, allow the war to linger unaddressed for up to 7 months of the new administration.

Congress should not relinquish its constitutional right and obligation to use the power of the purse to require the next President to present a plan for Iraq one that includes the funding he or she will need to put that plan in motion.

So now, we are faced with another choice: Do we provide $100 billion through the end of this year and an additional $66 billion to take us through July 2009? Do we give the next President a pass and affirm that he or she does not have to change the mission or plan an exit strategy until the middle of next year?

I cannot support this.

Passing a year-long supplemental is an abandonment of the power of the purse, the greatest power that the Congress has. I believe that the time has come for the Senate to assert its will, and another year and a month of funding for this war is not the answer.

Mr. President, 2 years ago I sponsored a resolution designating the third Friday in May as Endangered Species Day. This resolution passed by unanimous consent. There were no objections. The resolution was nonpartisan and noncontroversial.

The goal of Endangered Species Day was simple: to give students an opportunity to learn about the threats facing endangered and threatened species and the work being done to save them.

Last year, I introduced a similar resolution. Once again, it passed by unanimous consent and was noncontroversial. Over 60 events were held in cities across the country. It was used as an educational tool for teachers and a day for parents to take their children to the zoo.

This year the resolution was offered for a third time. It was thought it would pass quickly and without controversy. However, this was not the case. It was held up by an unknown Senator. We could not clear the hold, so we were unable to get unanimous consent to pass the resolution.

Now why is this important? The fact is that 90 events were scheduled in 28 States. Twenty events took place in California to commemorate the day. In my city of San Francisco, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Farralones National Marine Sanctuary led nature hikes in search of the endangered tidewater goby and explained to children what they can do to save them. The Antelope Valley Conservancy hosted its third annual Endangered Species Day Conference that brought together Federal, State, and local leaders to discuss their recovery efforts. Similarly, the San Diego Zoo held public lectures on the affects that global climate change will have on endangered species.

These events still went on as planned. Teachers continued to educate their students about what we need to do as a Nation and at the local level to protect our planet and endangered species.

We know that global climate change, habitat destruction, and the illegal trade and hunting of endangered species carry serious consequences for their future survival. These threats are ongoing. More effective wildlife management programs are needed like those to save the California condor, least Bell's vireo songbird and the California grey whale.

I am disappointed that this noncontroversial resolution was prevented from passing. The goals of Endangered Species Day are simple and uncontroversial: to build awareness about the threats facing our planet's species. If we don't recognize these threats and act now to address them, our planet's endangered species may soon become our planet's extinct species. I am hopeful that all those who took part in last Friday's events came away knowing that more work needs to be done to protect our planet.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, May 21, 2008, at 2 p.m. to hear testimony on the nominations of Cynthia L. Bauerly, Caroline C. Hunter, and Donald F. McGahn to be members of the Federal Election Commission.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352.

committee on rules and administration

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, May 21, 2008, at 2:45 p.m., upon completion of the FEC confirmation hearing, to conduct an executive business meeting to consider the nominations of Cynthia L. Bauerly, Caroline C. Hunter, and Donald F. McGahn to be members of the Federal Election Commission.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, today I honor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, who is retiring at the end of 2008, after a distinguished and illustrious career spanning 50 years as a

public servant in the State of California.

I wish to extend to Mrs. Burke, who served as a Representative of California's 37th Congressional District from 1973 to 1979, my sincere congratulations for the decades of dedicated service that she has given to her Nation, her State, and her county.

She is currently serving as chair of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and is in the final year of her fourth term on the board.

For the past 15 years, she has represented the Second Supervisorial District.

Supervisor Burke will be remembered as a devoted public servant who amassed numerous accomplishments and countless awards--in addition to inspiring women and minorities to pursue careers in public service.

As a product of the Los Angeles Unified School District, Mrs. Burke developed an interest in public speaking and participated in several citywide competitions during her high school years.

Her involvement in these events and many extracurricular activities helped her to obtain scholarships to the UC Berkeley and later at UCLA.

In 1956, Mrs. Burke received a law degree from the University of Southern California School of Law.

It was difficult for women, particularly African Americans, to practice law, because many private law firms showed little interest in hiring women as attorneys.

So Mrs. Burke opened her own law office in Los Angeles.

She specialized in immigration and civil rights and fought segregation in real estate law.

Mrs. Burke was active in the civil rights movement with memberships in various local and national organizations.

She subsequently landed a staff attorney position on the McCone Commission, which investigated the causes of the 1965 Watts riots in Los Angeles.

She became a spokesperson for the underrepresented and, through a grassroots campaign, won her first political office in 1966 as a California State assemblywoman.

It was a position she held for the next 6 years.

In 1972, Mrs. Burke became the first African American woman--west of the Mississippi River--to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.

She was selected to serve as vice chair of the 1972 Democratic National Convention in Miami and later on the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

She also was the first Congresswoman to give birth while in office.

Mrs. Burke did not seek re-election to Congress in 1978 but instead ran for attorney general of California.

She won the Democratic nomination, but subsequently was defeated in the general election.

In 1979, Mrs. Burke was appointed by the Governor of California to fill a vacancy in the Fourth Supervisorial District in Los Angeles County and served in that capacity until the end of 1980.

She also was appointed by the Governor to serve on the Board of Regents of the University of California in 1982.

Two years later, Mrs. Burke was selected to serve as vice chair of the 1984 U.S. Olympics Organizing Committee.

In 1992, she became the first African American elected to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

She played a significant role in the 2000 Democratic National Convention, hosting an event for hundreds of African American elected officials nationwide.

Supervisor Burke represents nearly 2.5 million residents in the Second District of the Nation's largest county.

Her efforts primarily have focused on improving the lives of children, encouraging economic development, and improving transportation throughout Los Angeles, as well as promoting public social services, health care for the uninsured, and affirmative action for women and the economically disadvantaged.

In addition, she has taken the lead in establishing a county archives system.

These are just some of Yvonne Brathwaite Burke's significant accomplishments.

On behalf of the U.S. Senate and the State of California, I extend my heartfelt gratitude for her immeasurable contributions throughout her renowned career.

With sincere best wishes, I congratulate Supervisor Burke upon her retirement from elective office.

And I am pleased to join her many coworkers; her family: her husband William, her daughter Autumn and stepdaughter Christine; friends; and associates in wishing her health, happiness, and continued good fortune in her future endeavors.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution to establish the third annual Endangered Species Day on May 16, 2008. I am introducing this resolution with Senators Collins, Cantwell, Lieberman, Clinton, Kerry, Brown, Snowe, Levin, Boxer, and Feingold whose co-sponsorship I appreciate.

I want to commend my constituent, Mr. David Robinson, who first suggested the establishment of an Endangered Species Day. Mr. Robinson is an example of people who really do make a difference.

The designation of Endangered Species Day will provide many wonderful opportunities for the public to familiarize themselves with the status and recovery efforts of endangered species in our country and around the world.

Last year, more than 50 events were held across the country to highlight endangered species success stories. The Governor of Maine, and the cities and counties of Santa Barbara, San Diego, and San Francisco also declared state and local Endangered Species Days. Zoos and aquariums across the country, such as the Roger Williams Zoo and the San Diego Wild Animal Park, also held educational events.

Based on the success of last year, I am confident that the events of this year's Endangered Species Day will continue to foster increased communication and awareness about many of the most endangered species by encouraging such activities as school field trips to the zoo or attending a lecture at the local library. In my city of San Francisco, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Farralones National Marine Sanctuary plan to hold special tours and viewings of endangered species to commemorate this special day.

Endangered Species recovery programs in California are examples of the conservation and management efforts that have helped significantly restore populations of California condor, the least Bell's vireo songbird, and the California gray whale. Over 300 species classified as either endangered or threatened currently call California home, and efforts to protect them will ensure that they continue to do so.

Despite these success stories, we need to be aware that more can be done. At this time, we have more than 5,000 threatened species in the U.S. and abroad, which receive protection. One small step is to increase awareness about the seriousness of the circumstances facing many of these endangered species and educating the public about them.

I am introducing this bill with the hope that Endangered Species Day can spark the wonder and interest in our youth to continue the conservation efforts we have begun, but still are far from finishing.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge John A. Mendez to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Let me begin by explaining the urgency of filling this judgeship. Simply stated, the Eastern District of California is in a crisis. In 2005 and 2006, the district had the highest number of case filings in the Nation. In 2007, the district ranked second out of all 94 Federal judicial districts in the number of new cases filed.

Regrettably, the bench in the Eastern District has been understaffed throughout this period of heavy case filings. A temporary judgeship in the district expired in 2004 because the Congress failed to extend it. As a result, average caseloads in the Eastern District increased by 18 percent from 2004 through 2006, even as average caseloads nationwide declined.

In this Congress, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S. 1327, which would recreate the temporary judgeship in the Eastern District. The bill has already

passed the Senate and is currently pending in the House. I am also a cosponsor of S. 2774, which would create new judgeships to meet the needs of California and other States throughout the Nation.

In addition to creating new judgeships, we clearly need to fill the judgeships that already exist in the Eastern District. Judge John Mendez is the nominee for a seat that was vacated in June 2007.

Judge Mendez is a native Californian and is currently a judge on the Sacramento County Superior Court. He was born in Oakland and graduated with distinction from Stanford University, with a degree in political science. He went on to earn a law degree at Harvard Law School.

After law school he returned to California and worked in private practice in San Francisco from 1980 to 1984. From February 1984 through July 1986, Judge Mendez served as an assistant U.S. attorney in San Jose. He was assigned to the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney's Office and became a specialist in criminal law and procedure.

In 1986, Judge Mendez moved to Sacramento and returned to private practice. He focused on civil litigation and business litigation and rose to become a partner at the law firm of Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rowher.

Judge Mendez was appointed as U.S. attorney in San Francisco in 1992, the final year of George H.W. Bush's Presidency. He served as U.S. attorney for 1 year and was personally involved in major civil litigation and a criminal appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

After leaving the U.S. Attorney's Office, Judge Mendez was of counsel to the law firm Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison in San Francisco from 1993 to 1995. In the summer of 1995 he returned to Sacramento and joined the firm of Somach, Simmons & Dunn as a shareholder. His practice included complex commercial and environmental litigation and white-collar criminal defense work, as well as counseling clients on regulatory compliance.

Gov. Gray Davis recognized his potential as a judge in 2001 and appointed him to the Sacramento County Superior Court. Judge Mendez was elected to retain that position in 2002 and continues to serve as a superior court judge today.

In addition to his service to the State of California, Judge Mendez has served the legal profession through leadership positions in the Hispanic National Bar Association and the Sacramento Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

In California we have developed a bipartisan process for selecting Federal district court nominees. Under this system a committee of lawyers known as the Parsky Commission, which includes Democrats and Republicans, recommends qualified applicants to the President.

I am proud of this system and pleased to report that Judge Mendez was recommended unanimously by the Parsky Commission to be nominated as a Federal district judge. By all accounts, he would make an excellent addition to the Federal bench in Sacramento.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of Judge Mendez.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation. The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act will take two major steps in preventing oilspills.

First, the bill directs the United States Coast Guard to control and oversee a vessel's route and speed during dangerous conditions. This oversight is critical to protect our ships during an attack or in conditions of low visibility.

Second, the bill will keep dangerous oil and fuel out of our waterways by mandating that all large cargo ships reinforce their fuel tanks with double hulls. By doing so, many of the small mishaps that occur will not lead to major oilspills.

San Franciscans learned the hard way that further precautions and regulations are needed.

Last November, in my hometown, a large cargo ship carrying over 100,000 gallons of fuel, ran into the San Francisco Bay Bridge. The damaged ship poured 53,000 gallons of oil into the bay.

In the following hours and days there was confusion, it was difficult to obtain accurate information, and there was a general sense of frustration felt by Bay Area residents.

Here is what we knew:

On the foggy November morning, visibility was very low--less than a quarter of a mile--in the San Francisco Bay.

Under these low visibility conditions the Cosco Busan, a large 900- foot-long cargo ship, decided to leave for its destination despite the poor conditions.

As the ship proceeded towards the Bay Bridge, the captain was advised by the Coast Guard that his vessel may be off course. However the Coast Guard did nothing to stop the ship, which they knew was heading directly towards a pillar of the bridge.

Despite the warnings and the poor visibility, the ship continued to speed toward the bridge until it collided.

The fact is this: The Coast Guard's actions did not stop the ship from running into the pier.

It is the responsibility of the Coast Guard to make sure that preventable oilspills are prevented. Sector Commanders and Vessel Traffic Service officers track ships as they traverse harbors across the country. In this case they could see that the ship was off course, yet they did nothing. This is unacceptable.

The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act will mandate that the Coast Guard act to stop a ship--such as the Cosco Busan--that is dangerously off course.

Yes, there was substantial human error that led to this oilspill. That is unquestionable. But the fact remains that the Coast Guard had an opportunity to stop this ship, and it did not.

The bill directs the Sector Commander of the Coast Guard, that is the top official within each of the Coast Guard's 35 regions, to assume direct authority of all vessels during conditions of enhanced danger, such as low visibility or an attack.

By doing this, we will create a central system where all decisions are made. There will not be any confusion about who should do what, or when, or how. This way, during emergency conditions when confusion abounds, all orders are coming from one central source.

The Sector Commander will have the authority to stop ships, change their course, or return them to a safe harbor. They will have the authority to alter the course of one ship, or of all ships. This authority is necessary to ensure safe navigation of dangerous waterways.

Yet even in a perfect world, the Coast Guard cannot stop all oilspills. Sometimes the circumstances are out of their control.

That is why we need to make sure that the ships in our waterways take all reasonable precautions to protect against spilling oil.

The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act also mandates that all cargo vessels are built with, or install, double hull containment structures around their petroleum based fuel tanks. Doing so keeps small mishaps and collisions from turning into major oilspills.

The extra layer of protection was required for oil tankers under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, OPA 90.

Following the 11-million gallon Exxon Valdez tragedy in 1989, new restrictions on oil tankers were at the center of the debate on how to prevent another catastrophic oilspill. The result of the OPA 90 legislation has been remarkable.

Compared to the 15 years before the enactment of the Oil Pollution Act, the following 15 years have seen a 90-percent drop in oilspills over 100,000 gallons.

In the same time period, there has been a 79-percent drop in spills less than 100,000 gallons.

By 2015 there will be no single-hull tank vessels operating in U.S. waters. As of 2010, only 5 percent of domestic and only 4 percent of foreign tank vessels will still have a single hull. Nearly 90 percent had single hulls in 1990.

These are incredible successes. Unfortunately one other statistic sticks out.

Since 1990, 90 percent of all oilspills have been from non-tank vessels.

Clearly, this illustrates the need for cargo ships, the main culprit of oilspills in recent years, to be subject to the Oil Pollution Act standards.

In 1990, cargo ships were left out because relatively, they carried much less oil. However, newer, larger cargo ships carry hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil as fuel, and this oil still poses a grave environmental threat.

In the Cosco Busan incident, and dozens of other catastrophic oilspills around the world, it was fuel oil that ended up in the water, not cargo oil. Of course this oil is just as deadly, yet under current law it is treated differently.

It is time to close this loophole.

The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act also provides a reasonable timeframe for implementing these standards.

In the 1990 bill, Congress adopted a sliding scale for when vessels needed to have applied the appropriate double hull protections. The timetable was developed to allow shipping companies and ship owners to plan for the additional costs--and up to 15 years to implement them. Under this bill, we will adopt the same time-tested schedule and apply it to the conversion of cargo vessels.

The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act is a commonsense bill that will unquestionably make our waters safer.

In an emergency situation, be it an attack or a condition of low visibility, the Coast Guard must assume authority over a ship in danger. It is their responsibility to guide the vessel to safety. This bill clarifies that they have the authority to do so, and it mandates that they follow through.

Similarly, vessels carrying a large volume of oil--be it as cargo or as fuel--have the responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent that oil from spilling.

In the event of even a minor accident, a single hull breach is a very real possibility. This is why we mandated that oil tankers implement a double containment system in 1990.

It has come time to close this loophole and call all oil, oil. Fuel oil is just as detrimental and just as deadly as oil that is carried in the cargo hold of a ship. Therefore it should have to be contained with an equal level of protection.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this very important matter, passing this important piece of commonsense legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation. The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act will take two major steps in preventing oilspills.

First, the bill directs the United States Coast Guard to control and oversee a vessel's route and speed during dangerous conditions. This oversight is critical to protect our ships during an attack or in conditions of low visibility.

Second, the bill will keep dangerous oil and fuel out of our waterways by mandating that all large cargo ships reinforce their fuel tanks with double hulls. By doing so, many of the small mishaps that occur will not lead to major oilspills.

San Franciscans learned the hard way that further precautions and regulations are needed.

Last November, in my hometown, a large cargo ship carrying over 100,000 gallons of fuel, ran into the San Francisco Bay Bridge. The damaged ship poured 53,000 gallons of oil into the bay.

In the following hours and days there was confusion, it was difficult to obtain accurate information, and there was a general sense of frustration felt by Bay Area residents.

Here is what we knew:

On the foggy November morning, visibility was very low--less than a quarter of a mile--in the San Francisco Bay.

Under these low visibility conditions the Cosco Busan, a large 900- foot-long cargo ship, decided to leave for its destination despite the poor conditions.

As the ship proceeded towards the Bay Bridge, the captain was advised by the Coast Guard that his vessel may be off course. However the Coast Guard did nothing to stop the ship, which they knew was heading directly towards a pillar of the bridge.

Despite the warnings and the poor visibility, the ship continued to speed toward the bridge until it collided.

The fact is this: The Coast Guard's actions did not stop the ship from running into the pier.

It is the responsibility of the Coast Guard to make sure that preventable oilspills are prevented. Sector Commanders and Vessel Traffic Service officers track ships as they traverse harbors across the country. In this case they could see that the ship was off course, yet they did nothing. This is unacceptable.

The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act will mandate that the Coast Guard act to stop a ship--such as the Cosco Busan--that is dangerously off course.

Yes, there was substantial human error that led to this oilspill. That is unquestionable. But the fact remains that the Coast Guard had an opportunity to stop this ship, and it did not.

The bill directs the Sector Commander of the Coast Guard, that is the top official within each of the Coast Guard's 35 regions, to assume direct authority of all vessels during conditions of enhanced danger, such as low visibility or an attack.

By doing this, we will create a central system where all decisions are made. There will not be any confusion about who should do what, or when, or how. This way, during emergency conditions when confusion abounds, all orders are coming from one central source.

The Sector Commander will have the authority to stop ships, change their course, or return them to a safe harbor. They will have the authority to alter the course of one ship, or of all ships. This authority is necessary to ensure safe navigation of dangerous waterways.

Yet even in a perfect world, the Coast Guard cannot stop all oilspills. Sometimes the circumstances are out of their control.

That is why we need to make sure that the ships in our waterways take all reasonable precautions to protect against spilling oil.

The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act also mandates that all cargo vessels are built with, or install, double hull containment structures around their petroleum based fuel tanks. Doing so keeps small mishaps and collisions from turning into major oilspills.

The extra layer of protection was required for oil tankers under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, OPA 90.

Following the 11-million gallon Exxon Valdez tragedy in 1989, new restrictions on oil tankers were at the center of the debate on how to prevent another catastrophic oilspill. The result of the OPA 90 legislation has been remarkable.

Compared to the 15 years before the enactment of the Oil Pollution Act, the following 15 years have seen a 90-percent drop in oilspills over 100,000 gallons.

In the same time period, there has been a 79-percent drop in spills less than 100,000 gallons.

By 2015 there will be no single-hull tank vessels operating in U.S. waters. As of 2010, only 5 percent of domestic and only 4 percent of foreign tank vessels will still have a single hull. Nearly 90 percent had single hulls in 1990.

These are incredible successes. Unfortunately one other statistic sticks out.

Since 1990, 90 percent of all oilspills have been from non-tank vessels.

Clearly, this illustrates the need for cargo ships, the main culprit of oilspills in recent years, to be subject to the Oil Pollution Act standards.

In 1990, cargo ships were left out because relatively, they carried much less oil. However, newer, larger cargo ships carry hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil as fuel, and this oil still poses a grave environmental threat.

In the Cosco Busan incident, and dozens of other catastrophic oilspills around the world, it was fuel oil that ended up in the water, not cargo oil. Of course this oil is just as deadly, yet under current law it is treated differently.

It is time to close this loophole.

The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act also provides a reasonable timeframe for implementing these standards.

In the 1990 bill, Congress adopted a sliding scale for when vessels needed to have applied the appropriate double hull protections. The timetable was developed to allow shipping companies and ship owners to plan for the additional costs--and up to 15 years to implement them. Under this bill, we will adopt the same time-tested schedule and apply it to the conversion of cargo vessels.

The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act is a commonsense bill that will unquestionably make our waters safer.

In an emergency situation, be it an attack or a condition of low visibility, the Coast Guard must assume authority over a ship in danger. It is their responsibility to guide the vessel to safety. This bill clarifies that they have the authority to do so, and it mandates that they follow through.

Similarly, vessels carrying a large volume of oil--be it as cargo or as fuel--have the responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent that oil from spilling.

In the event of even a minor accident, a single hull breach is a very real possibility. This is why we mandated that oil tankers implement a double containment system in 1990.

It has come time to close this loophole and call all oil, oil. Fuel oil is just as detrimental and just as deadly as oil that is carried in the cargo hold of a ship. Therefore it should have to be contained with an equal level of protection.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this very important matter, passing this important piece of commonsense legislation.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of a resolution condemning the violence in Tibet and calling for restraint by the Government of the People's Republic of China and the people of Tibet.

Cosponsoring this resolution with me is Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon.

The measure is also cosponsored by Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senators Klobuchar, Brown, Cantwell, Dole, Obama, Snowe, Menendez, Voinovich, Schumer, Collins, Byrd, Murray, Durbin, Lieberman, Stabenow, Sanders, Reed, Clinton and Feingold.

The resolution also calls for dialogue between the leadership of China and His Holiness the Dalai Lama on meaningful religious and cultural autonomy for Tibet within China; the release of individuals who protested in a peaceful manner; a cessation of China's efforts to ``reeducate'' Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns; China to open Tibet to international journalists, as it promised the international community it would do during the lead up to the Olympic games; and asks for a full accounting of the protests in Tibet which began in March.

Starting on March 10, Tibetan Monks and other Tibetans began protesting in Tibetan autonomous areas of Western China.

The protests, begun peacefully by monks who marched in their robes, were an expression of these religious people's desire to practice their religion freely and without government interference.

The protesters took this action at great personal risk. Many monks and marchers carried pictures of the Dalai Lama, the most revered figure in Tibetan Buddhism. Possession of such a picture is considered a crime in China.

Unfortunately and tragically, on March 14 protests in Lhasa, the capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region, turned violent. Long suppressed animosity boiled over. Innocent people were killed in the violence. Homes and businesses were burned in what appears to have been a riot.

Over the days and weeks that followed, the protests spread. Protests reportedly occurred in 42 separate Chinese counties. Most were peaceful, and in some case they were met with brute force by the Chinese police.

This resolution condemns the violence on both sides.

The Chinese government has now begun the punishment process.

Thousands of paramilitary police and possibly the People's Liberation Army are in Tibet rounding up protest participants.

International journalists and official representatives are still being kept out, making accurate information difficult to obtain.

But we know that dozens of people or more have died. And we know that more than 1,000 people have been incarcerated. We know that the monasteries have been surrounded by armed force.

On Monday I spoke about the underlying issues including a lack of religious freedom and economic opportunity that have caused Tibetans to take to the streets.

I also spoke about my long standing work to open the door between China and San Francisco and about my sincere friendship with China and its leaders.

Most importantly, I discussed my efforts since 1991 to establish dialogue between the Chinese Leadership and the Dalai Lama.

I read from letters that I carried from the Dalai Lama to the President of China in 1992, 1997, and 1998.

In those letters, the Dalai Lama expressed that he does not seek Independence as China's leaders assert.

In the Dalai Lama's 1998 letter, he wrote:

I would like to reiterate here that I am not seeking

independence for Tibet. My main concern is for the six

million Tibetan people . . . to be able to enjoy the

opportunity to fully preserve their civilisation and the

distinct Tibetan culture, religion, and language. I am

convinced that this could be achieved through genuine

autonomy or self-rule within the framework of the People's

Republic of China.

The Dalai Lama neither calls for independence nor supports the use of violence. He has encouraged the Tibetan people to use restraint both in Tibet and also in the cities, such as San Francisco, where the Olympic torch visits.

On Sunday, The Dalai Lama reiterated his call. In a message to the Tibetan people, he said:

I want to urge my fellow Tibetans who live in freedom

outside Tibet to be extra vigilant as they voice their

feelings on the developments in Tibet. We should not engage

in any action that could be even remotely interpreted as

violent. Even under the most provocative of situations we

must not allow our most precious and deeply held values to be

compromised. I firmly believe that we will achieve success

through our nonviolent path. We must be wise to understand

where the unprecedented affection and support for our cause

stems from.

I sincerely hope the people of San Francisco will heed the Dalai Lama's call.

I would like to commend the people of my city for holding a peaceful rally and candlelight vigil at San Francisco's United Nations Plaza.

And I call on the people of San Francisco that plan to take to the streets today to embrace the nonviolence advocated by the Dalai Lama.

As a friend of China and the Dalai Lama, I am saddened to see the situation in Tibet deteriorate to this point.

Violence cannot solve this matter.

The United States must use its influence to bring the Government of China and the people of Tibet together to

begin the process of reconciliation and dialogue.

To bring this issue to a settlement, the leaders must be involved.

It is in the interest of both the Chinese government and the Tibetan people for the leaders to sit down and negotiate how to bring about meaningful cultural and religious autonomy for the Tibetan people and faith.

For nearly three decades, I have worked to bring this about.

The events in Tibet over the past month have been tragic.

But they renew my commitment and belief.

China has an opportunity to negotiate with a moderate leader capable of quelling the anger within the new generation of Tibetans.

I hope that China's leaders will see this as an opportunity to open the long overdue dialogue with the Dalai Lama.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, last week, I tried and failed to introduce an amendment which essentially would set minimum standards, minimum Federal standards for--I see the chairman of the committee has just come in, so if I might wait for a moment and see what he wishes to do. May I note the absence of a quorum for a moment, please.

Mr. President, perhaps I will proceed with my statement on morning business, and then, when we return to the bill, I wish to call up the amendment.

Is that agreeable to the Senator from Tennessee?

Reserving the right to object.

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

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