Floor Statements

It is my understanding under the rule there is 10 hours on each side. Is that correct?

I yield 5 hours to the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Mr. Baucus, and 5 hours to Senator Dorgan.

Mr. President, there is so much negative written in the press about all the infighting that goes on in the Senate, how we don't work together. We work together on a lot of things. We don't get much appreciation from the public for that because they see all the negative that the press conjures up. But here is an example of two Senators, both very experienced, both from the same State, who are in positions of prominence in that very important committee that brought the Energy bill here. They worked together.

They had meetings where Senator Bingaman met with Republicans, Senator Domenici met with Democrats, and they crafted this bill. It wasn't a perfect bill, but there is not anything we do around here that is perfect. We did improve it and we had the opportunity to try to improve it even more. It was a free debate. And to indicate there was enough time on the debate, the cloture vote was overwhelming.

Mr. President, I hope as we proceed through the conference process on this--and as the distinguished majority leader knows, we have set the example of how a conference should be conducted with the highway bill-- we are going to move forward on this and do everything we can in conference to sustain and uphold the position of the Senate.

This is a good bill. I commend and applaud the two managers, Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman, for doing an outstanding job and setting the example of what should be the future of all bills that come before the Senate.

Mr. President, many States, especially those in the West, are dominated by Federal lands. For those States, and many others, the Interior appropriations bill is a singularly important piece of legislation because of the funding it provides for our public land agencies.

Take Nevada, for instance. While my State contains nearly 71 million acres within its borders, 61 million of those are managed by Federal agencies. That's 86 percent of my State, or nearly 9 out of every 10 acres. And if that number doesn't get your attention, consider the fact that two out of every three acres in Nevada are controlled by one Federal agency: the Bureau of Land Management.

I offer these statistics to highlight the significance of today's debate. While the Department of Interior may not be the center of attention in some areas of our country, in the West, the agencies funded under this bill have a measurable impact on our quality of life, our access to public resources, and the protection of our greatest public assets.

Senator Burns and Senator Dorgan have done a good job crafting this bill. We all know that this year is especially tough in terms of overall funding allocations and that some tough decisions had to be made. Considering the constraints they faced, these two senators have produced impressive legislation. I commend them for the time and effort that they and the rest of the committee have put into this bill.

Particularly, I am pleased that the committee funded a number of priority projects in Nevada. One of the key projects that this bill provides funds for is the construction and improvement of the Jarbidge Canyon Road. This road in northern Elko County washed out over 10 years ago and has been a major source of controversy ever since.

With the funding that the committee has helped provide, we will finally be able to bring resolution to the issue in a way that ensures greater access to our public lands while also protecting a threatened population of bull trout and shielding the road against future floods. This is a win-win situation for sportsmen, for the county, for the U.S. Forest Service, and for local residents.

I am also pleased that the committee saw fit to provide funding for a number of sewer and water projects that are difficult and often impossible for small and rural communities to fund on their own. Even in some of Nevada's larger population areas, the amount of Federal land in those areas still makes raising funds for these projects very difficult. So I thank the committee for their efforts to provide EPA grant funding.

I also want to recognize their efforts to increase funding for the Payment-In-Lieu-of-Taxes program. ``PILT,'' as the program is popularly known, provides millions of essential dollars to Nevada's counties each year. Without these funds, the provision of basic local government services such as law enforcement and street repairs would be severely diminished. I look forward to the day when we will fu1ly fund this program and finally live up to the responsibilities we have to our rural counties.

I am also strongly supportive of the increased funding levels contained in this bill for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Historic Preservation Fund. As our distinguished friend Senator Byrd has taught us on so many occasions, life can be not only enriched but measurably improved by a fuller understanding of our history, our cultural roots, and our common heritage. These programs deserve our respect and our support.

Before I close, let me remark briefly that we have a profound responsibility this year, and every year, to make sure that our public lands and our public resources are properly managed. As the demand for healthy outdoor recreation grows, so too must our commitment to proper stewardship.

I am concerned that in all too many places, budgets for agencies such as the BLM and the Park Service have stagnated or shrunk while the overall usage of our public resources has skyrocketed. The Lake Mead National Recreation Area, for instance, now sees nearly 8 million visitors a year, a strong increase from 10 years ago. But this same park has lost 40 rangers and support staff positions since 2002. We need to solve this and similar problems before our greatest natural treasures are lost or permanently compromised.

I look forward to a healthy debate on this bill and I hope Democrats have a chance to offer their amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, soon after President Bush won reelection last November, he made it clear that the top priority of his second term would be the privatization of Social Security. This is something the President had thought of long before his second term. In fact, when he ran for Congress in the late seventies from Texas, he talked then about the Social Security plan going broke and that it should be privatized. So this is something he has thought of a long time. But since he was elected the second time, he and other members of his administration have organized a massive campaign, given countless speeches, and crisscrossed the country all in an effort to sell the American people privatization.

It has been a tough sell, though. The polls show that people have accepted this whole Social Security agenda about 25 percent. When he started it was in the 70s. Now it is down to 25 percent. It has been a tough sell because the President's privatization proposal is flawed in many ways. It would require deep benefit cuts, even for workers who don't choose to privatize accounts. It would require massive borrowing from countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, where we borrow about 40 percent of the money we borrow for this year's deficit, which will be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, probably closer to half a trillion than not. It would turn Social Security from a guarantee into a gamble. And his privatized accounts would not strengthen Social Security's finances at all. In fact, it would make the long-term challenge worse, not better. The President has said the privatization plan will not stabilize Social Security.

It is important to remember that even if we do nothing, which no one here is advocating, Social Security will pay 100 percent of promised benefits until about 2055 and about 80 percent thereafter. In fact, President Bush will be about 108 years old at the time Social Security would start paying 80 percent of benefits.

While claims of a crisis are obviously false, it is also true that we face a long-term challenge, and we as Democrats need to address that, as we have said we would.

Unfortunately, the President has other ideas. His goal is not to bolster Social Security. To the contrary, he went all the way to West Virginia, arguing that the trust fund is nothing more than an accounting fiction. And you can't argue for strengthening something if you don't believe it exists.

No, the President's goal isn't to strengthen Social Security. His goal is to privatize it. Privatization, with its deep benefit cuts and massive debt, would undermine Social Security, and as a matter of principle we Democrats will never go along.

Social Security is based on the best of American values. It promises Americans if they work hard, contribute, and play by the rules, they can retire and live in dignity, and their families will be protected if they become disabled or pass away. A third of the benefits paid out by Social Security are not, as my grandmother referred to it, old-age pensions. They are for people who are disabled, widows, orphans. Social Security is not a handout. It promises benefits that people earn through their hard work. That is as it should be, and we need to do everything we can to make good on that promise.

Fortunately, the American people agree with us. Along with several of my Democratic colleagues, I have traveled the country on behalf of Social Security and against privatization. Everywhere we go, whether rural areas, suburban settings, or big cities, the response is the same: Americans don't want Social Security privatized. Middle class workers don't want their benefits cut. They don't want our Nation to get even further in debt to the Chinese and Japanese and Saudis. They don't want to adopt a risky scheme that could undermine the retirement security they have worked so hard to earn.

According to one poll, as I have mentioned, only 25 percent of Americans support the President's handling of Social Security. The opposition to privatization is as broad as it is deep. From those numbers, it is very obvious that it is not only Democrats throughout the country who oppose this, Republicans oppose it, also. Most Americans in rural areas who are especially reliant on Social Security voted for President Bush last year, but they strongly oppose his privatization plan. In fact, among those rural residents who know a great deal about the President's plan, opponents outnumber supporters by almost 40 percent.

That certainly seems to be the prevailing view among my neighbors at home in Searchlight. Whenever I am home, folks tell me the same thing:

Protect Social Security and stop privatization. It is a message my colleagues are hearing from their constituents in every part of the country.

Because of this widespread opposition, some here in Washington have apparently concluded they could not pass this proposal on the Senate floor in an open and public debate. Rather than give up on this unpopular proposal, they are, instead, adopting a stealth strategy. It has been widely reported that many in the minority party are now seeking to move a bill through the Senate without the private accounts or painful benefit cuts included in the President's plan, not because the President has abandoned privatization or benefit cuts but, instead, because they recognize this is the only means available to them to get their flawed plan adopted by Congress.

Under this bait-and-switch strategy, what the Senate says or does on private accounts or benefit cuts during its consideration of legislation would be largely irrelevant. The Senate would pass a bill lacking private accounts or significant cuts and send it to conference with the House, which would be controlled by a handful of privatization supporters. These supporters would work behind closed doors to ensure that private accounts emerge in the conference report.

We will not allow that to happen. In recent weeks, we have seen new evidence that this is, in fact, the administration's strategy. Last week, for example, bills were introduced in the Senate and the House that were advertised as establishing private accounts with no pain whatsoever. But these proposals are nothing more than political gimmicks. In truth, they still would threaten benefits, they still would require massive borrowing from foreign countries, and they would still fail, at one day, Social Security's solvency. In fact, like the President's plan, the private accounts they propose would make matters worse.

No one is going to be fooled by this type of gimmickry, and Democrats are not naive or foolish enough to fall for a bait-and-switch strategy that has been widely advertised in advance.

So I call on the President and his supporters to face reality and give up on privatization. Rather than continuing to push for this radical and ideologically driven proposal, which is a buzzword for getting rid of Social Security, I propose they listen to the words of another Republican President from 50 years ago, Dwight D. Eisenhower. This is what General Eisenhower said back then--This is not some Democratic Senator, Democratic Governor, Democratic State legislator, or Democratic Member of the Senate. This is President Eisenhower:

Should any political party attempt to abolish Social

Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws

and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in

our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of

course, that believes you can do all these things. Among them

are H.L. Hunt . . . and a few other Texas oil millionaires,

and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas.

Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

President Eisenhower.

As I have said, I want to make sure these words are not coming from me. These are President Eisenhower's words. But if President Eisenhower's view is not persuasive to our current President, I would propose he listen to the words of another Republican President, his dad. In 1987, the first President Bush called privatization, ``nutty.'' As he said at the time: ``It may be a new idea, but it's a dumb one.''

That is what two Republican Presidents said about privatization. They are right.

So I hope we can move beyond privatization, move beyond gimmicks, move beyond the attempt to secure private accounts through a transparent strategy of bait and switch. Instead, let's agree to strengthen Social Security and to do it on a bipartisan basis. That would be the right thing to do for America's workers and our country.

Is it my understanding the distinguished Senator from Texas wants to speak in time that has been reserved to the minority?

I don't think we have anyone coming, so you are sure welcome to use our time.

Mr. President, many years ago, when I attended school in Searchlight, I walked to school. And when it was time for high school, I hitched a ride into a town forty miles away and had to stay with family during the week. There weren't many options back then. That was the transportation system in rural America: walk or hitchhike.

Now, of course, we have school buses to get children to school.

Unfortunately, rural school districts across America are strapped. They can't afford to buy newer, safer buses. And skyrocketing gas prices have only made the problem worse. As a result, many rural areas have no choice but to operate outdated, unsafe school buses for as long as they can pass inspection.

Last year, I met with the school superintendents in my State. While each district identified their own, unique challenge, they all had an urgent need for school buses. I was astonished to learn that the school buses in some rural Nevada counties travel a combined million miles in a single school year.

The superintendents asked for my help, and I want to help. And based on conversations with some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am pretty confident the need for newer and safer school buses is not unique to Nevada's rural school districts.

I am introducing legislation today that will help rural districts transport children to school in a way that is safe, affordable, and environmentally sound.

The ``Bus Utility and Safety in School Transportation Opportunity and Purchasing Act of 2005''--or BUS STOP--authorizes the Federal Government to provide $50,000,000 in grants on a competitive basis to rural local education agencies seeking Federal share assistance to purchase school buses. The Federal share will be 75 percent.

Some may wonder why we need such a program when the Environmental Protection Agency already has a cost-share grant program to help school districts purchase new buses powered by natural gas or other alternative fuels.

Unfortunately, most of the rural districts in my State, and, I would imagine, across the country cannot apply for these grants because they don't have the infrastructure in place to support this technology.

However, working in the spirit of clean air and healthy children, my bill will help rural school districts buy newer buses that are better for our air, and safer for our children.

There are many small, rural towns in America, like Searchlight, where the kids need our help. They deserve no less than safe. clean, economical buses to get them to school.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, many years ago, when I attended school in Searchlight, I walked to school. And when it was time for high school, I hitched a ride into a town forty miles away and had to stay with family during the week. There weren't many options back then. That was the transportation system in rural America: walk or hitchhike.

Now, of course, we have school buses to get children to school.

Unfortunately, rural school districts across America are strapped. They can't afford to buy newer, safer buses. And skyrocketing gas prices have only made the problem worse. As a result, many rural areas have no choice but to operate outdated, unsafe school buses for as long as they can pass inspection.

Last year, I met with the school superintendents in my State. While each district identified their own, unique challenge, they all had an urgent need for school buses. I was astonished to learn that the school buses in some rural Nevada counties travel a combined million miles in a single school year.

The superintendents asked for my help, and I want to help. And based on conversations with some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am pretty confident the need for newer and safer school buses is not unique to Nevada's rural school districts.

I am introducing legislation today that will help rural districts transport children to school in a way that is safe, affordable, and environmentally sound.

The ``Bus Utility and Safety in School Transportation Opportunity and Purchasing Act of 2005''--or BUS STOP--authorizes the Federal Government to provide $50,000,000 in grants on a competitive basis to rural local education agencies seeking Federal share assistance to purchase school buses. The Federal share will be 75 percent.

Some may wonder why we need such a program when the Environmental Protection Agency already has a cost-share grant program to help school districts purchase new buses powered by natural gas or other alternative fuels.

Unfortunately, most of the rural districts in my State, and, I would imagine, across the country cannot apply for these grants because they don't have the infrastructure in place to support this technology.

However, working in the spirit of clean air and healthy children, my bill will help rural school districts buy newer buses that are better for our air, and safer for our children.

There are many small, rural towns in America, like Searchlight, where the kids need our help. They deserve no less than safe. clean, economical buses to get them to school.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

First, I underscore what the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee said. We all hope that Chief Justice Rehnquist's health permits him to continue serving on the Court. I became an admirer of his during the impeachment proceedings. I got to know him. He has a great sense of humor, and we all know he has a tremendous intellect. I wish him the very best health. So I hope we do not have to consider a vacancy in the Supreme Court.

I would say to my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we on this side of the aisle, as most all of the Senate, have the greatest respect for Arlen Specter. We are very happy with the relationship he has with the ranking member, Senator Leahy. They have a relationship that is going to allow us to get work done in the Judiciary Committee. They have respect and admiration for each other.

I always joke with Senator Specter that I am one of the people who have read his book--and I have read his book. But my feelings about the Senator from Pennsylvania have only increased in recent years, especially during the last few months when he has responded so well to the illness that he has. We are all mindful of the physical strength this man has. So anything we do in the Judiciary Committee is never disrespectful of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

I would say, I attended one of the press events, and I think there was only one, dealing with the Supreme Court, that we talked about today. It was not a battle royal. It was a very constructive statement that we all made.

We are hopeful and confident the President will follow through. Like Senator Hatch's relationship with President Clinton, it was a good way to do things. As a result of the work done with President Clinton and then Senator Hatch, we were able to get two outstanding Supreme Court Justices--Ginsburg and Breyer. No one can complain about the intellect or the hard work and what they have done for our country and for the Court.

We believe there should be advice and consent on all judicial nominations but at least on the Supreme Court. As the Senator from Pennsylvania said, the President a month ago indicated he was going to do that, and we, today, wanted to remind the President, in the letter we sent to him, that he should follow what he said before.

We look forward to a hearing. I have spoken to our ranking member, Senator Leahy, and he is in the process of working with the Senator from Pennsylvania to come up with a protocol, how we proceed on Supreme Court nominations.

This is a very unusual time in the history of this country. We have gone more than 11 years without an opening in the Supreme Court. As a result of that, staff is not as familiar with how things have happened in the past, and most Senators were not even here when the Supreme Court vacancies were filled last time--at least many of the Senators.

So I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, we look forward to working with you and the administration if, in fact, there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. And even if there is not a vacancy on the Supreme Court, I believe it is important that you and Senator Leahy work toward a protocol so when

one does come up, it is not catchup time. I say if there is no Supreme Court vacancy, we look forward to working with you on the many things over which the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction. We are confident your experience and intellect and love of the law will allow this body to be a better place.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to a particular section of H.R. 6, the Energy bill that would lead to Nevada and Washington ratepayers being relieved of $480 million in fees under fraudulent contracts entered into with Enron, the defunct energy company.

The largest utility in my State, Nevada Power, had a $326 million contract with Enron for power. The contract was terminated once it became impossible for Enron to hide its financial frauds any longer and instead was forced to declare bankruptcy. Nonetheless, Enron has asserted before the bankruptcy court the right to collect all of the profits it would have made under the contract through so-called ``termination payments.'' Enron has made this claim even though Enron never delivered the power under the

contract, even though Enron had obtained its authority to sell power fraudulently, and even thought Enron was in gross violation of its legal authority to sell power at the very time the contract was entered into.

The energy bill ensures that the proper government agency will determine whether Enron is entitle to more money from Nevada. That agency is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC. When FERC was established by Congress, its fundamental mission was, and remains, to protect ratepayers. FERC has specialized expertise required to resolve the issues surrounding some of the contracts that Enron entered into and eventually terminated. The provision is an outgrowth of the Enron criminal conspiracy to rip off ratepayers throughout the West.

Enron is still seeking to extract an additional $326 million in profits from my State's utilities for power that was never delivered. Enron, after all of its market manipulation and financial fraud, is still trying to profit from its wrong-doing at the expense of every Nevadan.

Starting in December 2000, Nevada utilities entered into long-term contracts with Enron to meet a significant portion of their long-term needs. No one was aware of Enron's fraudulent activities to manipulate electricity markets. The prices that Nevada Power agreed to pay were three times as high as the threshold that FERC had established as a ceiling price. In November 2001, Nevada Power asked FERC to review the rate to determine whether those contracts were just and reasonable. Two days after the complaint was filed against Enron, Enron filed for bankruptcy. There is an issue in the bankruptcy case as to whether Enron can enforce contracts that it terminated. The bankruptcy court is responsible for enhancing the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of creditors. FERC, on the other hand, sees a more complete picture which includes protecting the interests of the general public.

This issue is of paramount concern to my constituents. It will decide whether they will be on the hook for more than a hundred million dollars, an amount that when spread out over a relatively small number of ratepayers, would translate into rate increases. It is critical that this issue be decided by the forum with the specialized expertise in matters relating to the sale of electricity with a stated mission of protecting ratepayers, and that is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

I would like to especially thank Senators Bingaman, Cantwell, Domenici, and Ensign for their assistance on this provision. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support up until this point, and for their continuing support in making sure that this critical measure is included in the legislation that emerges from the conference committee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday at the White House it was reported that President Bush told Republican leaders to keep fighting to get Mr. Bolton, the President's nominee to be U.N. ambassador, an up-or-down vote. Keep fighting--that was the message delivered by the President.

I understand the need for an occasional pep rally to bolster discouraged members of his party, but the American people are tired of the fighting and the bickering. They want us to tackle the hard issues confronting this country and deal with the crisis in health care where 45 million people have no health insurance and millions of others are underinsured, to deal with education, the ability of parents to send their children to college and then the deteriorating nature of our public school system, part of which is directly related to the Leave No Child Behind Act. We are approaching 1,800 dead American soldiers in the war in Iraq. We are approaching 20,000 who have been wounded. We do not know the exact number of Iraqis who are dead, but it is well over 100,000.

Of course, we have the President's ongoing direction to privatize Social Security. He has not directed his attention at all, as we should, to retirement security. United Airlines basically defaulted on their pension obligations to their employees. Delta, Northwest, other airlines, and other companies are standing by. Unless they get help from the Congress, they too will default on their obligations to their employees' retirement programs.

They, the White House, want the John Bolton matter resolved. It can be resolved easily and quickly in two ways. First, the President can take the advice of the distinguished Republican, the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, and offer a new nominee. Over the course of the Foreign Relations Committee hearings, it became quite clear that John Bolton is simply not the right man for this most important job. John Bolton has attempted to manipulate intelligence, intimidate intelligence analysts, and has shown outright disdain for the international system and the institution for which he was nominated to serve.

The administration would have everyone believe that Mr. Bolton is the only man capable of delivering the reform message to the United Nations. We all agree that the United Nations needs reform, but I would submit that there are dozens, scores of tough reform-minded conservatives who could be confirmed rapidly with broad bipartisan support.

We have quickly approved the White House's two previous selections to this post, Negroponte and Danforth, and we are prepared to do so again.

When Senator Danforth decided to step down as our Representative to the United Nations, the administration had a choice to make: Did it want to pick someone along the lines of its two previous nominees who could have been quickly confirmed and on the job fixing the U.N. or did it want a fight in the Senate? It appears a fight was more in line with what they felt was appropriate.

Unfortunately, the administration, as I have said, knowingly chose a fight. They were told prior to sending his name to the Senate that it was a problem. The White House's choice and subsequent actions demonstrate that reform in Washington is needed as much as it is at the United Nations.

If the administration does not want to withdraw Mr. Bolton's nomination, and that appears to be clear, there is another path. It can take the advice of former majority leader Trent Lott, who said yesterday on Fox News that the administration should provide the information that has been requested by the Senate. This is Senator Lott saying this, not me, even though I have said it also. Speaking to Fox News, the Senator from Mississippi further said:

My colleagues have a right to know that information. . . .

I think the [Administration] ought to give the [Senate] the

information.

The distinguished Senator from Mississippi, my friend, also went on to say what this fight is really all about:

We are saying to the White House, we're a coequal branch of

government here, other Senators have done this in the past,

we're seeking this information which we have a right to . . .

That is also a view shared by the Republican Senator from Rhode Island who sits on the committee, Lincoln Chafee, who, when asked whether the White House should turn over the information about Mr. Bolton, said, as he usually does, in very short, concise statements: ``I like full disclosure.''

Full disclosure is exactly what we need. We should shed light on whether this nominee tried to stretch the truth about Syria's weapons of mass destruction programs, and it should explain why Mr. Bolton needed to see what Americans--perhaps his own superiors at the State Department--were saying about him in these NSA intercepts.

I have said it before and I will say it again: This fight is not about Mr. Bolton. It is about whether this administration will recognize that the Constitution established that Congress is a coequal branch of Government with certain powers and responsibilities. If the President turns over the information, not part of it or a summary of it but turns over all of the information requested, the White House will get their up-or-down vote on Mr. Bolton.

Unlike the advice offered by the President yesterday, continued fighting will not advance his troubled nominee. Working with the Senate will. By taking the advice of my friends from Ohio, Senator Voinovich; Mississippi, Trent Lott; and Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island, all Republicans, the President and the Congress can put this matter behind them and move on to the critical issues facing the Nation and the United Nations.

Mr. President, I will use my leader time.

Mr. President, global warming constitutes one of the greatest challenges of our time. I believe that. Greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have threatened not only our environment but also our economy and public lands. Should we continue unabated our current rate of polluting, we threaten to disrupt the delicate ecological balance on which our livelihoods and our lives depend.

Addressing this growing environmental threat demands strong leadership. I am afraid such leadership has been sorely lacking by this administration. Instead, the White House has been doctoring information about global warming in reports by Government scientists. A White House senior official named Philip Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate change research that scientists had already approved. Mr. Cooney previously worked as a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute before joining the administration in 2001. A few days after resigning from the administration, Mr. Cooney had the audacity, and ExxonMobil had the misfortune and the inability to see how wrong they were, they hired him. ExxonMobil hired him--the same ExxonMobil that has opposed measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and has funded groups of global warming skeptics.

It is time for the administration to bypass the filtering by White House officials and hear directly from the scientists, the international community, corporations, and a growing number of Republicans who are calling for a Federal policy to reduce global warming pollution.

The President is increasingly isolated on this issue, as highlighted recently in a number of ways. First, in advance of the G8 summit next month, the National Academy of Sciences and the equivalent organizations from 10 other countries said last week:

The scientific understanding of climate change is now

sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.

It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps

that they can take now to contribute to substantial and long-

term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.

Even ``The Terminator,'' California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, recently said, ``The debate is over,'' and announced a goal of cutting the State's emissions by 80 percent by the year 2020.

A bipartisan group of mayors from 158 American cities issued a statement calling on the Federal Government to reduce global warming. The mayors, who represent 32 million people, acknowledged the clear public mandate to address this issue and opined that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will help ensure our energy security for this country.

Even industry is breaking ranks with the White House. General Electric, one of the largest companies in the Nation, if not the largest, recently joined a growing list of businesses calling on the Federal Government to provide stronger leadership on global warming. Fortune 500 companies, such as Alcoa, British Petroleum, DuPont, Eastman Kodak, IBM, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, and Nike, to name a few, have all made significant reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions.

The United States accounts for about 4 percent of the world's population. Yet it is responsible for more than 25 percent of the world's global warming pollution. U.S. leadership on global warming is critical to building international support for future global reductions, and America's industry needs to be part of the solution to drive the technology that will make technology solutions feasible to all nations. We must set the example.

The McCain-Lieberman amendment would cap greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 at 2000 levels and establish a mandatory economywide cap-and-trade program. The amendment would limit emissions of global warming pollutants by electric utilities, major industrial and commercial entities, and refiners of transportation fuels.

The amendment would allow businesses to devise and implement their own solutions using a flexible emissions trading system that has successfully reduced acid rain pollution under the Clear Air Act at a fraction of anticipated costs. By setting reasonable caps on emissions and permitting industry to trade in pollution allowances, this creates a new market for reducing greenhouse gases. We cannot afford to defer action to address global warming.

I commend and applaud these two great Senators for joining together to bring to the attention of the Senate a world problem that takes the United States, via example, to solve.

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

Reserving the right to object, I think this is fair. I would just note for the record, so there is no confusion, the reason we are concerned about the Warner amendment is we want to make sure that the Parliamentarian has a chance to look at the amendment prior to Senator Frist and I making a decision on whether it should come up tonight.

If the Senator will yield, there is no one in this body--no one--I respect more than Senator Warner, and I know he would never in any way do anything other than what he just said. What he said is, as long as someone comes and speaks in opposition to his amendment and if the Parliamentarian has ruled at that time, he will withdraw the amendment. For me, that is better than any unanimous consent agreement you could have.

Two, you and me or you and Senator Corzine.

And it is regardless of the Parliamentarian making a decision as to what he said.

He will withdraw the amendment.

Senator Warner does not play games.

Votes in relation to your amendment. It could be some other motion, but we will get a vote on or in relation to your amendment.

Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico has the floor. I would like to speak for a couple minutes before that.

I think maybe 5 more minutes, and then we will get to him.

We will be very quick.

I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the Senator from California be recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I have stated on a number of occasions publicly my great affection for my friend from Illinois. We came together to Congress. He has been a very close personal friend. I have such great admiration for him. He has been a great whip during the 5 months that I have been the leader. As we know, he has been a strong supporter of the troops. He has worked for the Guard and Reserve especially, more than anyone I know in the Senate. I know how hard it was for him to come and speak as he has today.

I have said things in the past that I wish I hadn't said. In the last 6 or 7 months, they have been noted more than in the past. So I certainly appreciate the strength and the courage of my friend from Illinois.

I also want to say a word about my friend who is not on the floor now, John McCain. He and I came to this body also with Senator Durbin. He and I have been very close in seniority. He is one ahead of me because the State of Arizona is larger than the State of Nevada. That is what happened when we came to the Senate. For someone with his military background to say what he just said about Senator Durbin is very typical for John McCain. Not only do I express my appreciation for the statement of my friend from Illinois but also for the statement of the Senator from Arizona. It was a very typical John McCain statement, and it shows that he is a person who speaks from the heart.

If I may impose on my friend from Oklahoma, the other Senator from Illinois is here. Senator Feinstein has 2 minutes. May I give him 2 minutes?

I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Feinstein, Senator Obama be recognized for 2 minutes.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lautenberg, I call up amendment No. 839 and ask that once it is reported by the clerk, it be set aside.

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

Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished majority leader. It would be good if we did not have to file cloture. Having said that, I do not know what it takes to get people to come over and offer amendments. Thursday afternoon, we were here. The two managers were willing to stay as long as necessary to meet whatever amendments were offered by Senators. I realize last week was somewhat disjointed because of the various events, but there was no reason on days and evenings when we were actually here and able to take amendments that people could not offer amendments.

Today, we have 3 hours to offer amendments on this bill. It will be interesting to see how many show up to offer amendments. I guess the alternative would be to see if we could get a finite list of amendments and have those the only amendments that would be in order prior to this bill's termination.

The other problem we have this week is that all over the country, there are base-closing hearings being held by the BRAC hearing commission. For Senators who are involved in these issues, they involve thousands of members of the military and thousands of civilians

who are tied to these bases, and they are going to leave and go to these hearings. Everyone should know that to wait around here and want to make sure that all of the Senators are here for a given vote--it will not work because I think there will be Senators gone virtually every day this week. I have received word from a couple of Senators who will not be here tomorrow. I know some of the hearings are going to be held in New Mexico, and I understand the two Senators from New Mexico are going to leave late in the afternoon on Thursday. They are the managers of the bill. So I hope that we can work into the night on this bill this week because if we have any hope of doing those appropriation bills next week, we have to finish this bill this week; otherwise, we will spend all next week on this bill, spending a lot of time in quorum calls waiting for people to come and offer amendments.

I am a little frustrated because I know there are people on both sides of the aisle who say they have amendments but they are not quite ready or they want to do it at a more convenient time. The convenient times are over. We will not have 100 Senators here on any day this week. That is the way it is going to be. So some of these very tough, tight amendments are going to have to be decided on the votes of less than 100 Senators.

That is what we said.

I would be totally opposed to cloture being invoked if I felt the majority was somehow stopping us from offering amendments, but that has not been the case. There has been ample opportunity for people to offer amendments. So I think we either have to have a list of finite amendments the two managers can agree on or it appears cloture would have to be invoked.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Chef Andre Rochat, the Dean of Las Vegas Chefs. Twenty-five years ago, he opened the doors to his first restaurant, Andre's French Restaurant. In the decades since, he has served patrons--including my wife Landra and I-- the finest French cuisine in the city.

I first encountered Andre in the 1970s--a few years before he opened Andre's. At that time, he was operating the Savoy French Bakery and selling the most wonderful pastries you could find. Bolstered by the bakery's success, he opened Andre's in 1980 in a converted Spanish- style home one block east of Las Vegas Boulevard. It was an unlikely location for a restaurant--but he quickly found success.

Twenty-five years later, Andre's has become what some have called the ``most honored, awarded and respected restaurant in Las Vegas.'' The restaurant's intimate dining rooms, wonderful food and outstanding service have made it a landmark.

Andre's arrival in our city was the result of hard work and determination.

He was born in the Savoie region of the French Alps and inherited a love for his trade from his parents, who owned a delicatessen and butcher shop. At 14, Andre left home and began an apprenticeship at Leon de Lyon, in Lyon, France. After serving in the French Navy, Andre came to the United States in 1965, landing in Boston with just $5 and his knives. Eventually, he made his way to Las Vegas and forever changed the city's dining scene.

Today Las Vegas is home to many great chefs. But Andre was one of the first. He now has two more restaurants in the city, and both of them continue in the award winning tradition begun by Andre's French Restaurant 25 years ago.

I congratulate Andre on 25 great years and thank him for sharing his outstanding gifts. Las Vegas is privileged to be able to enjoy his world-renowned talents, and it won't be long before Landra and I return to Andre's to enjoy our favorite meal, the Imported Dover Sole Sauteed Veronique with Lemon Tarts for dessert.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Drake DeLanoy of Las Vegas, NV as he reaches two incredible milestones in life: his 55th wedding annirersary and his 77th birthday. For four decades, Drake has been a friend and mentor of mine, and I wish him and his wife Jackie all the best as they mark these two occasions.

Drake DeLanoy was raised in Reno. He graduated from the university of Nevada, Reno, and married Jackie on June 19, 1950. Drake earned his law degree from Denver University.

Following law school, Drake served in the United States Air Force and eventually returned to Nevada to practice law, which is where I had the good fortune of working with him.

Drake and I practiced together for 13 years, beginning in the mid- 1960s. When we started working together, I was right out of law school and an inexperienced attorney. But Drake and his partners William Singleton and Rex Jameson took me under their wing.

These three men were great teachers who gave me the freedom to learn and grow. They let me take the legal cases I wanted to pursue, and they allowed me to watch them in the courtroom

and observe them work during trials. They also gave me the opportunity to be politically involved, and I have no doubt that the freedom and support I enjoyed with them allowed me to serve and now be in the U.S. Senate.

At the age of 77, Drake DeLanoy continues to build on his strong career. As an appointee of the Governor, Drake now serves on the Governing Board of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, which protects and preserves the beauty of the Tahoe basin.

I will forever be grateful to Drake DeLanoy. The lessons he taught and the experiences he provided have stayed with me all these years.

As Drake and Jackie celebrate their 55th anniversary and Drake looks forward to another year, I congratulate them both and wish them many more years of happiness together.