Floor Statements

Madam President, on behalf of the Democratic leadership, who intends to bring a comprehensive bill to deal with gas prices to the floor, I have to object at this time.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: I understand we are in morning business?

Let me ask another parliamentary question: I am free to speak at this point without limitation?

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, I am going to speak on the motion, and that is the main purpose of my coming, but I do wish to say that, in fact, we will be having a gas price bill and dealing with those issues on the floor very soon. I know the Senate Democratic leadership intends to bring such a bill, but it will be a bill that is, hopefully, comprehensive in its nature and creates real opportunities to reduce gas prices and meet with the challenges.

One of the factors we have today that we could get going on already is the 68 million acres that the oil industry already has access to and is largely not drilling on. So before we ask for more, why don't they move on that which they already have to drill on?

Secondly--

Madam President, after I make my statement, I would be happy to.

Secondly, I think Americans would be shocked to know that a lot of the domestic production in the country is sold abroad. It is not used here at home. That is something we want to deal with as well, and that will be part of a comprehensive bill that will come forward.

Those are two items that could be dealt with immediately. I think it is critical, and one of those two does not even need a legislative response, although, unfortunately, it is going to have to get one because the industry is not pursuing 68 million acres they already have. So that is alarming.

I am glad to hear that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle finally agree that market speculation is a critical part of this issue. We have been at this for some time, and this is the first time we have heard that is a critical component. It is a big part of what many of the oil industry executives have testified to before Congress.

Finally, I would note it is interesting to me, we brought bills here on critical extenders in the area of making sure that renewable energy sources were incentivized and brought to the mass market concentration we need so we can break our dependency on oil, period, whether it would be foreign or domestic, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle objected. So you cannot have it both ways.

I am happy to yield to the Senator for a question.

Madam President, reclaiming the floor, I will be happy to give my observation. I do not pretend to speak for the majority leader in this regard, but I do believe that, in fact, we will see such action before this recess is over, maybe as early as next week. So I am very hopeful, and believe very much so, that it is every intent of the majority to deal with this in very short shrift.

I would be happy to yield for one more question before I get to the focus of my statement.

Reclaiming my time on the floor, let me simply say, it is always the majority leader's desire to have a full and open debate of the Senate. However, there are those of our colleagues who wish to use that full and open debate to pursue amendments that have nothing to do with reducing gas prices and dealing with our energy crisis or to be able to pursue a course that can bring conclusion to a bill and would give that type of relief to the American people but string it out and string it out on issues that are not relevant. That is when the majority leader has faced the necessity of moving in a different direction.

So I do have the expectation that we will have a good debate and, more importantly, we will have a good bill that will be comprehensive and that will give relief to the people, and I am happy to have answered my colleague's questions.

The main purpose for which I come to the floor as we debate the housing bill is to rise again to be a voice for those who have no voice in this housing crisis. Certainly, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seems to not to hear the cries of children who are being, in one respect, punished through no actions of their own--2 million of them in this country.

I am not talking about homeowners, although I am certainly pleased that the bill we are considering today will have a powerful impact on our Nation's families. I am not talking about those on Wall Street, as they seem to be the first group the administration rushes to support. I am talking about our Nation's children.

I rise on behalf of nearly 2 million children who will be directly impacted by the mortgage crisis. These children are not only taking a huge hit as padlocks get put on their front doors, but now they are likely taking another hit, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle threaten to block a critical amendment that could give them relief.

My amendment authorizes $30 million in additional funding to the existing McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program to support these children. By the way, these children didn't decide to go out and get a mortgage. They had no legal authority to make those decisions. They are the ones who get swept up in this process. They are, for all intents and purposes, the worst victims of this process.

As I said, an estimated 2 million children and young people, including 50,000 children in my home State of New Jersey, 20,000 in South Carolina, to mention one other State, and over half a million Latino children nationwide

will be directly impacted by the foreclosure crisis, placing them at risk of poor school performance, behavioral problems, and other challenges as well. What happens is they lose not only their home, they lose the school they go to. They get moved around. They don't have a home and they get moved from school to school. If you are a student-- and it is not so long ago that I can't remember--and you get yanked in and out of school, in and out of school, your ability to perform is simply undercut dramatically.

In one school district in New Jersey, the number of homeless students doubled--doubled--this year, from 200 last year to 423 this school year, and that is only in one school district. The foreclosure crisis is clearly having an impact, and the time is now to stop any more schoolchildren from being affected.

An infusion of funds into the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program will help to ensure that students who become homeless and are forced to move from their homes do not also have to leave their schools.

There are some who may be able to shrug this off as a small sacrifice. They are the victims of this process or they are the calamities or casualties of this process, but there is nothing small about the impact of changing schools during this type of crisis. These children are less likely to perform at grade level in math and reading, more likely to be held back, less likely to graduate. There are long- term consequences to what for some may seem a short-term crisis.

They are likely to have behavioral issues. One study found that kids forced to move frequently were 77 percent more likely to have behavior problems than their peers. Another study found they were 20 percent more likely to have violent behavior. Now, what is the cost going to be to us collectively in our society when that happens?

At the end of the day, these children are forced to say goodbye to not only their home they grew up in and have had to leave their friends behind, but they also have had to leave behind familiar schools and supportive teachers and return to a strange home at night where their lives are often turned upside down. All stability is gone. They are thrown into a riptide with no lifevest, while we sit here in Washington hoping they survive the storm. Hoping is not enough. We have to do more than hope for them; we have to give them a lifeline. This funding would actually help these children.

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program provides homeless students with a variety of supports such as transportation to school, tutoring, and counseling.

Children are the voiceless victims of the foreclosure crisis. As we lower interest rates, as we support the home building industry, as we reform mortgage lending practices, several children's organizations and education organizations have asked for this amendment as a modest way that our Nation can support the nearly 2 million children who are suffering the consequences of decisions made completely outside of their control.

The foreclosure crisis is damaging our economy, yes, but let us not forget the children are the real victims of this crisis, and--even worse--they are the silent victims. They can't speak up for themselves. They have no lobbyist here in Washington roaming the halls, advocating for them. It is not fair that these children get lost in the paperwork. They deserve our full support.

This amendment is cosponsored by several of our colleagues, including Senator Murray and Senator Brown, and it has the full support of Senator Kennedy. I wish to thank Senator Enzi, who worked with me on the language for this amendment to make it acceptable, and Senators Dodd and Shelby, the chair and the ranking member of the committee, who agreed to include it in their provision in the managers' amendment. Had I known that in fact we were going to have the objection of one of our colleagues to a bipartisan package, I would have sought an individual vote, but I am beyond that ability today.

In conclusion, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune have all written about this critical issue, and a number of respected groups also support this amendment, including First Focus, the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth, the National School Boards Association, and the National Education Association, to name a few.

We have an opportunity to do something for these children. I hear great speeches on the Senate floor about family and values and the value of families and the value of our children and how our children are, in fact, our No. 1 asset, and that is true as a nation. They are also our most vulnerable asset. Yet when it comes time to be able to help these children, the question is: Is Congress going to listen?

Our colleague on the other side of the aisle seems to not be listening to their challenges and their pleas. One Member is likely going to block this and other important amendments, and the result is that our children, once again, are going to be unheard and are going to be the victims of something they had no role in creating; something that, in fact, where they are going to find themselves not only homeless but also having the foundation of their educational opportunities completely disrupted in a way that will more likely create failure than success.

I hope my colleagues who talk about family values understand the important value of helping our children in this regard. We have to reconsider our priorities, and I, for one, don't intend to rest until these children receive our help and get our support.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Fern Goodhart, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, is the business before the Senate that we are in morning business?

Mr. President, for years, we have had an energy policy that was written by big oil for big oil, and the result has been good for big oil but a disaster for the American people.

Gasoline is now at over $4 per gallon, and the Bush-McCain plan is to do more of the same. My colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have continuously sought to help big oil while at the same time they have blocked Democratic attempts to develop real policies to end our addiction to oil. The result is that under the Bush administration the price of oil has shot up to $125 per barrel and more, and the price of gasoline has more than doubled.

Despite this history of gas prices going up and up because of failed policies, the Republican Party continues to block measures that will help create change in this situation. Every time we offer sensible policies to address the oil crisis, my friends on the other side of the aisle say no. They said no to the Consumer-First Energy Act that would finally clamp down on rampant oil speculation and burst the speculative bubble that has caused oil prices to skyrocket. Then they said no to the renewable energy tax extension bill that would help continue the rapid growth of wind and solar and provide an incentive for the purchase of plug-in hybrid vehicles. This would help us begin the transition to new energy sources so we are not so vulnerable to the rising cost of fossil fuels. And then our colleagues said no to climate change legislation that lays out the framework to completely change our economy from one based on oil and other fossil fuels to an economy based on renewable energy.

Democrats have now laid out a sensible plan for change in our energy policy that will make America stronger and more independent in the short, medium, and long term, but all our colleagues can say in return is no--no to the American people and--from what I hear in terms of their response--yes to big oil.

President Bush was right when he told the Nation we are addicted to oil. But what amazes me is their plan is designed to have us continue to act like addicts. Instead of supporting real plans to conserve oil or even transition to sustainable fuels, the Bush-McCain plan is to go out in search of our next oil fix.

Ending a bipartisan 26-year moratorium to open the Outer Continental Shelf to oil is simply not a solution to our oil crisis.

To defend the senseless Bush-McCain plan to open all our shores to drilling, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been playing fast and loose with the facts. They claim opening our shores to future drilling will somehow affect gas prices. As I recently pointed out on the floor, this argument flies in the face of projections by President Bush's own Energy Information Agency. They project that even if we opened the entire Outer Continental Shelf to drilling off the East Coast, off the West Coast, and opened the entire eastern Gulf of Mexico, nothing would happen to gas prices--not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

Now, it seems that Senator McCain cannot keep up the charade any longer. On Monday, he admitted he did not expect his plan to provide relief at the pump, but that his plan would have a psychological impact that would be ``beneficial.'' Psychological games are not going to reduce the price of oil. The American people are sick and tired of Republican politics that try to use political spin rather than sound policy to solve our problems.

Another fact that the other side of the aisle wants to keep from the American people is that 80 percent of the oil and natural gas resources in our Federal waters are already open, already open for exploration. Oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres of oil and natural gas leases where they have not produced any oil or natural gas. I joined my colleagues, Senator Dodd and Senator Durbin, to introduce a bill, the Responsible Ownership of Public Lands Act, that will charge oil companies an escalating fee for leased acres they put aside and do not use for oil and natural gas exploration. This will give these companies the incentives they need to stop hoarding the resources they have instead of seeking access to environmentally sensitive areas.

One other factor that has not been discussed properly in this debate about

high gas prices is the effect of President Bush's disastrous economic policies. The weak dollar means it simply takes more money to buy the same barrel of oil than it did at the beginning of President Bush's term. In 2000, one Euro was equal in value to $1. Today, one Euro is worth close to $1.60.

In large part, this weak dollar has been caused by the enormous domestic budget deficits this administration has rung up to pay for the war in Iraq. Instead of actually paying for this mistake, the administration has been printing money and piling up huge debts. We are spending over $12 billion a month in Iraq, and this foreign policy disaster is now adding up to be a fiscal policy disaster. It is time we finally end the war and get our fiscal house in order. In turn, this would strengthen the value of the dollar and help lower the price of gasoline.

But perhaps the most disturbing thing about the misinformation campaign to sell the Bush-McCain plan to open all our oceans to drilling is that they refuse to discuss how drilling will be economically and ecologically devastating to our coasts.

On June 3 of 1979, an exploratory oil well in the Gulf of Mexico blew out. The resulting 140 million gallon spill was the second largest in world history, over 10 times larger than the Exxon Valdez spill. As you can see from this map, the spill traveled 600 miles to blanket the coast of Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana, causing tremendous damage.

I think we all remember that on March 24 of 1989, the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound, AK. The oil tanker ruptured and spilled over 10 million gallons of oil. The result was an oil spill over 600 miles that created one of the largest environmental disasters in history. We were told we had state-of-the-art technology then, in terms of carriers, tankers, and everything else. Well, that was 600 miles of devastation.

I am about to show images of the devastation following the spill, and certainly I would ask if there are any children watching, or those who are sensitive to the plight of animals, they should probably look away from some of the images.

The Exxon Valdez coated the Alaska shoreline, turning a pristine environment into a toxic waste cleanup site. Over 11,000 people worked to try to clean oil washed up onshore. Even today, there is estimated to still be over 20,000 gallons of oil on Alaska's sandy beaches. The spill killed thousands of animals immediately. It killed hundreds of otters and seals, as many as half a million sea birds, and over 200 of the very symbol of America itself--the Bald Eagle.

Anyone who saw these devastating images from this incident cannot forget them. But what is important to remember from these disturbing images is that if we open the east and west coast to drilling, the same thing could happen to places here in the lower 48.

My colleagues from the Commonwealth of Virginia want to open the coast of Virginia to drilling. They seem to think that oil drilling will only affect the State of Virginia. But oil spills do not sit still. Remember that oil drilling spill in the gulf that traveled 600 miles, and the Exxon Valdez spill off the coast of Alaska was over 600 miles wide. So what would a similar spill look like on the east coast? It would mean a devastated coastline from New York down to South Carolina. The environmental impact would be immeasurable, and the economic impact would be enormous.

The New Jersey shore is a priceless treasure my home State will protect at any cost. But the shore also generates tens of billions of dollars in revenues each year and supports almost half a million jobs in South Carolina; in Myrtle Beach alone, more than $3 billion in revenue. Do we want oil washing up onto Virginia Beach, flowing up into the Chesapeake Bay? Can Maryland's famous blue crabs survive such an environmental assault?

It is time for a real cure, based on a tough examination and reordering of our energy priorities, and not tired old policies of the past. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to end their efforts to block real reform. It is time we unite together to pass the Consumer-First Energy Act to clamp down on excessive speculation and finally burst this oil bubble. It is time we come together and pass the renewable energy tax extension bill that will promote the development of clean energy here at home, help our automakers develop cars that run on electricity, and develop advanced biofuels so we have a sustainable alternative to gasoline.

If we do not do this, we are continuously wedded to the past, continuously wedded to the addiction, continuously wedded to a failed policy. To hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if we opened the east and west coasts, it would go directly, like gas, into your car. We know that is not true. That is simply not going to happen.

The American people are sick and tired of an energy policy written by big oil. It is time for our friends on the other side of the aisle to join us in real reform so we can actually achieve something that moves us in a much different direction.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Is time controlled by the manager of the bill at this point?

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the bill in general.

Let me first congratulate and recognize Chairman Dodd for the incredible job he has done, along with the ranking member of the committee, Senator Shelby, in bringing to the floor this much needed effort for so many Americans, as well as the country in general. So far, by the nature of the bipartisan votes we have seen, we are moving forward in the right direction.

The crisis in the housing market in this country continues to get worse. One in 11 American mortgages is past due or in foreclosure. That is a devastating number, and it is still rising--rising fast, as unemployment spikes and home prices fall.

American families are losing their most valuable assets, bedrocks in their lives, pillars that support their communities. And when those pillars fall, communities come crashing down. All in all, we have experienced the worst quarter for American homeowners in nearly three decades, and it only stands to get worse.

In my home State of New Jersey, over the next 2 years we expect more than 57,000 homes to be lost to foreclosure. That means 57,000 families who will have to hand over the keys to their homes. Families will be forced to say goodbye to the place where they are nurtured and comforted, the place where they live through the good and the bad, the place they come home to every night. In the words of families who know what it feels like to lose their home, they feel like they have lost everything.

Nationwide, the number of foreclosures that is going to happen if we don't act is unfathomable. With almost 8,500 foreclosure filings each day--and additional resets coming in July--what I said a year ago this past March, that we were going to have a tsunami of foreclosures-- though some in the administration said that was an overexaggeration-- well, we have not even seen the crest of that tsunami. Unfortunately, that storm is only going to get worse. So we have come together to take a stand for homeowners; not just for those facing foreclosure, but for their neighbors on their streets, their entire communities, and for generations of home buyers in the future. Today, Senators on both sides of the aisle have come together to support legislation to help suffering homeowners and to set the housing market back on an even keel.

This Chamber has come to understand this crisis is truly a threat to all of us, to all our communities. Whether you live in the North, the South, the East, or the West, whether it is a city in Ohio watching crime rates go up after a string of foreclosures, an entire county in Florida experiencing an economic drought after its residents move away, or a single family in New Jersey in danger of being forced out onto the street, everyone stands to lose from those foreclosures.

Lenders report losing tens of thousands of dollars on each foreclosure, and neighbors see the value of their homes dropping pretty dramatically. When we see that 49,000 Americans lost their jobs a month ago, when we see weak earnings reports from businesses, wild swings in the stock market, and the collapse of a major firm on Wall Street, we can see this housing crisis is truly shaking the entire economy to its core.

I am hopeful that this coming week finally there will be a glimmer of hope for homeowners who have been left to fight the battle alone. It is clear that Members on both sides of the aisle know it is time to act, and it is clear what our goal has to be: Helping families keep their homes.

This Housing and Economic Recovery Act we have before us takes some important steps to that end. It strengthens and modernizes the regulation of the housing government-sponsored enterprises--Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. It modernizes the Federal Housing Administration and creates the HOPE for Homeowners program, which will prevent over 400,000 foreclosures.

The bill also contains language that I championed to improve financial education and housing counseling. I believe this is an important step forward for improving financial education and arming homeowners with the tools to protect themselves.

Because of Senator Jack Reed, this bill includes an affordable housing fund to create affordable housing for millions of American families.

The bill also contains a new tax deduction for property taxes, relief that could be provided to many across the country but nearly half a million people in my home State of New Jersey. The bottom line is this bill takes real steps to help American homeowners, and these steps are much needed.

Having said that, as always, no legislation is perfect. I do have some concerns. I certainly believe the establishment of a strong regulator for government-sponsored enterprises is long overdue, and there is no better time than now. But I have some significant concerns relative to the effective date of the bill. Currently it does not provide for an orderly transition period. GSE regulatory reform would combine the regulatory powers and staff of three separate executive branch agencies to create a new GSE supervisor with far-reaching powers over our Nation's housing finance system. I believe we cannot make these changes at the flip of a switch. We need time to get the transition right.

The House-passed GSE bill would do this by establishing a uniform effective date of 6 months after enactment of this legislation. I think that is a transition period that would ensure an orderly transition to a new GSE regulatory regime.

The bill also includes a separate provision that would limit the ability of the GSE to create liquid markets for high-cost areas, as well as for other typical portfolio products, such as multifamily lending and refinancing families out of subprime loans they cannot afford, by creating an arbitrary bias toward securitization in the portfolio language of the bill.

As we move forward, I urge the Senate to think more broadly about the importance of the GSEs and the role they play in times of crisis and generally in the days ahead.

I would also like to have seen a higher GSE and FHA loan limit included in the final bill. In March, when the Banking Committee held its first hearing to address the subprime crisis, I spoke about the need to raise the FHA loan limit in order to give borrowers more options. Right now, in New Jersey, 12 of the 21 counties are at the FHA and GSE ceiling. Under this bill today, those 12 counties would have their ceiling lowered, and almost all the other counties in New Jersey would see some reduction as well. By lowering the number, I think we are restricting our economic recovery and our ability to provide individuals with better, more affordable options.

While I believe those are concerns, let me reiterate that none of these provisions causes me to question my support for this bill. Chairman Dodd has said numerous times that had he written this bill on his own, without the necessity of the negotiation the Senate is well known for, he would have drafted it differently himself. I certainly commend him for his efforts, as I understand the art of the possible, and I hope we can address some of these concerns as we move forward.

At the end of the day, this bill will help struggling homeowners and will have positive ripple effects on the rest of our country. Having a foreclosed home sit abandoned in a community doesn't benefit anyone. It decreases surrounding home values and it can attract crime and vandalism. The bottom line is that foreclosure destabilizes neighborhoods. The funds in this bill allow communities to stop that spiral before it starts.

I am also proud to have supported a provision in this bill to provide funding for counseling in order to reach and help families at risk of losing their homes. Many Americans are sitting around their kitchen tables looking through their mortgage bills, their finances, and their bank notices, and they simply don't know where to turn. These counselors could offer them real solutions and options to help them avoid receiving the foreclosure notice. The bill puts forward $150 million to make sure counseling reaches those who need it the most.

Some argue that stepping in to help our communities recover from the housing crisis would somehow be a blow to the concept of personal responsibility, because some homeowners made bad choices in signing up for a subprime mortgage. Don't get me wrong, personal responsibility is important, and that is why we need greater support for homeowner education, and for foreclosure counseling and financial literacy, so that anyone thinking about buying a home will be able to understand the terms of their mortgage, even the fine print, and have the tools to protect themselves. But personal responsibility isn't just important for homeowners. As I said at the start of this crisis, every participant in the life of a loan needs to step up and take real responsibility and action. Blaming the homeowner alone is not right, it is not fair, and it is economically disastrous. Every broker, lender, realtor, appraiser, regulator, credit rating agency, and investing firm had a role in this storm, and I will not let the blame fall to only the homeowners.

As we in this Congress are debating how best to help homeowners, how best to end the housing crisis, and how best to get our economy back on track, we have to see the bigger picture. There is a lot at stake, no matter who we are, whether we have a subprime mortgage or not. When the house next to ours gets boarded up, it affects the value of our property, too, and how safe we feel walking around our neighborhood at night. When a neighbor of ours has to declare bankruptcy and is forever saddled with debt they cannot pay, they shop less at stores and purchase fewer of the services our community offers, and that hurts our community's bottom line.

Martin Luther King, Jr., reminded us that ``we are all tied into a single garment of destiny,'' that ``we cannot walk alone.'' This is a crisis we are all in together. There is no reason why we can't all work together to end it. That is why I am proud of the effort of Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby, and I am proud to support this bill. I hope next week we will pass it, move it on to the House, and get some real relief not only for American families, and not only to preserve the concept of home, but also to be able to deal with the very core of what is the economic challenge presently before the Nation and what will be our challenge if we do not act in the days ahead.

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

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

Mr. President, gas prices this summer could easily be triple what they were when President Bush took office. The dramatic increase in oil prices brought prices for food up along with it, and families are facing a painful financial choice when it comes time to fill their gas tank: Put a gallon of gas in the car or put a gallon of milk on the kitchen table. When Americans are paying this much to fill their gas tanks, it is a drain on the whole economy. Businesses are cutting jobs, families have already eliminated nonessentials, and many are now cutting back on meals. Some people are even contemplating changing their job because they can't afford the gas to get to work.

It has become painfully clear that we are in an oil crisis. Some of the forces driving up prices are beyond immediate control--such as the demand from China and India. But some of the factors offer opportunities for action.

First, market experts have testified before Congress that speculators are driving up prices far beyond where the natural forces of supply and demand should take them. Second, we can take steps in this country to reduce our demand and our dependence on foreign oil.

Last week in the Senate, Democrats brought legislation forward that would attack some of the root causes of the skyrocketing price of oil, cut down gas prices that are artificially high, and bring relief to drivers at the pump. That bill, the Consumer-First Energy Act, would have provided that relief by, among other things, ensuring that our commodities markets are functioning fairly so prices can come down from their artificial highs. The supply- and-demand equation is roughly the same as it was 2 years ago. Yet we have seen prices go through the roof. Experts say speculation could be adding anywhere between $50 and $80 a barrel to the price of oil.

In some respects, I am not surprised this is the one place in the market that doesn't seem to be regulated. We can see what happened under the administration of a President and Vice President whose politics have always been tied up with the oil companies for whom they used to work. Here you have the price of a barrel of oil that has risen from about $20 a barrel when President Bush took office to about $140 a barrel right now.

As we have seen that price rise, what happens? As the price of oil has risen, the profits of big oil companies have risen--from about $20 billion when President Bush took office to about $120 billion right now. The price of oil goes up and profits go up as well. And as the profits have risen for big oil, the price of gas that we pay at the pump has risen--from under $1.50 a gallon when President Bush took office, in many cases, to, in some cases, over $4 per gallon right now.

The Consumer-First Energy Act would have made sure that oil is traded on a well-regulated, transparent market free from manipulation. But my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle said no to that legislation. They said no to the American consumer because they obviously feel committed to say yes to big oil.

Yesterday, once again, the Senate had the chance to help free our country from the liquid shackles of foreign oil. The Baucus substitute amendment--had we been able to offer it, had we not been stopped by our Republican colleagues--would have spurred the development of renewable energy by providing almost $20 billion in tax incentives for investment in the production, transportation, and conservation of energy.

In order to encourage renewable energy industries to build to the scale we need them to, we have to send renewable producers the clear message that their product will have continued support in the future. So the bill would have extended investment tax credits for 6 years to ensure the continued development of solar energy, fuel cells, and microturbines, among others.

We have seen how important this is in my home State of New Jersey where the solar industry has created thousands of jobs and helped ``green'' the Garden State.

The bill would have encouraged the production of cellulosic biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol. It would have encouraged the development and use of biodiesel and renewable diesel, encouraged further investments in advanced technology vehicles, and created a tax credit for alternative refueling stations so that the infrastructure exists in our country to make those vehicles viable.

So in the face of a broad-based package to encourage new green energy sources that would have helped bring down gas prices and end our dependence on foreign oil, what did my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle say? They said no again. Republicans said no to helping American consumers because they could not help but say yes to big oil.

It is no surprise then when my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, delivered his big energy speech yesterday, where did he do it? He did it in the oil capital of the United States. The big plan President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress are pushing is another example of big oil writing our energy policy, as they have done for the last 8 years.

And Senator McCain repeats it. That plan comes down to one thing: Drilling, drilling, drilling along the coasts of our country. When John McCain or George Bush talk about opening our coastline to drilling, they make it sound like gasoline is going to gush out from that drill straight out of the ground and right into your car.

What they either do not want to tell the public or simply ignore is that, in fact, it will take at least a decade--a decade--to see any production out of these areas, and even then, the Energy Information Department tells us this will be a drop in the bucket.

Why give the oil companies another handout when they are sitting on 68 million acres of land leased from the American people which they have yet to explore? I find it hard to believe that Senator McCain would say the Federal Government discourages offshore oil production when more than 80 percent of the oil that is offshore is already open for production, and oil companies own more than 30 million acres of leases in Federal waters they have not used--that they have not used.

The vast majority of oil and natural gas resources on Federal land is already open for drilling, and it is not being tapped. Currently, oil companies are not producing oil or gas on 68 million of the more than 91 million acres of Federal land under their control. And 31 million of those 68 million acres are offshore.

Offshore, these companies are producing on only about 20 percent of the acres they hold, while onshore they are producing less than 30 percent of the acres they hold. So one has to wonder, when big oil pushes relentlessly for more and more land and water to drill, even when they have millions of acres they have yet to use, it makes us wonder if they are not just exploiting this oil crisis to expand the reserves on their books in order to inflate their share price. Certainly, the needs of American consumers are not what these CEOs are looking out for.

If the Senate does not act now, billions of dollars' worth of research and development tax credits will expire, impeding innovation and discovery. As the world becomes increasingly globalized and technology driven, we must increase our investments in research and development in order to maintain our position as a world leader in the 21st century.

If the Senate does not act, billions of dollars invested in alternative, clean sources of energy will cease, and so will our progress to become energy independent. I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decry the rising price of gas and talk about developing alternative sources of energy.

But when they had the opportunity yesterday, once again they said no, as they said no last week on having market speculation taken out of the price of oil, therefore the price of gas.

By the way, what would have been offered yesterday had we been able to proceed--and hopefully we can proceed on today--is that millions of Americans subject to the alternative minimum tax, placing unfair and unnecessary tax increases on middle-class families, could have gotten a break under the Baucus substitute. That is all that would have been able to happen.

Finally, here is the bigger picture. We have 2 percent of this world's oil reserves, and we consume 25 percent of the world's oil. We are never going to meet growing domestic demand with shrinking domestic supply. The only way to make these numbers balance is to reduce our dependence on oil by increasing production of renewable fuels.

If we are going to have a secure energy future, there is a lot more we need to do to explore besides oil reserves. We had better start exploring the outer reaches of our creativity, not lining the inner pockets of the corporate oil elite. It is time to say yes to tapping our industriousness, harnessing our powers of innovation, and summoning up the will to change, that change that has made this country great.

We have an opportunity to break our dependence. We have an opportunity to tell the oil companies, too, by the way: Pursue the 68 million acres of land and water you already have licenses and leases for and stop telling us to go potentially risk our environmentally sensitive areas in pursuit of oil that will not be achieved for a decade, will not do anything about gas prices today, when you are not even moving on the 68 million acres to which you already have access. Ultimately, all it would do is increase your profits, but it would cause States, such as my State of New Jersey, where tourism is the second largest driver of its economy, to risk the possibility of an oil spill on the shores of New Jersey's beaches and kill billions of dollars that annually are generated as a result of that.

So I do not want to hear from the capital of big oil, our dear colleague and the presumptive Republican nominee tell us the solution to our problem is to drill more, when 68 million acres that the big oil companies have are already not being pursued, when ultimately it will not produce a penny of reduction in gas prices.

When we had the opportunity to make a real impact last week on the bill that would take the speculation out of the marketplace, stop price gouging, and at the same time, when we have an opportunity today, before the Senate, to make sure that we extend those renewable tax credits, give us better fuel-efficient vehicles, give us better renewable energy sources, and break our addiction to the reality that the reality is that the overwhelming part of oil in this world resides not here in the United States but abroad.

That is our challenge and opportunity. It is time to say yes to American consumers, time to say no to big oil.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Madam President, our deepest obligation as Senators and Representatives of the American people is to make sure our Nation's founding promises are being kept.

With a few strokes of Thomas Jefferson's pen, we were told that life and liberty would be unalienable rights, that a chance to seek happiness would be something to which we were all entitled.

Our rights grew over time, and over time we grew out of restrictions of who was entitled to those rights. African Americans threw down the chains of slavery. Women marched to the polls. People came from all over the world to become full members of our society because of the promise that our country held and the guarantees that our Government made.

But when agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement--also known as ICE--conducted raids in Texas not long ago, one 19-year-old U.S. citizen, who was dragged from her home while she was still in her pajamas, wasn't thinking about that history.

An 18-year-old U.S. citizen, who was shackled at his ankles, handcuffed at his wrists, and tied at his waste, wasn't thinking about that history.

They were thinking to themselves: My God, what is happening to me? What is going to happen to my family? What is happening in my country?

When ICE agents banged on the door of a U.S. citizen named Arturo Flores and pushed their way into his house in Clifton, NJ, without showing a warrant, and when agents in North Bergen, NJ, stormed into the house of a legal immigrant, named Maria Argueta, in the middle of the night and held her without cause, taking her away from her family for 36 hours, those loud knocks on the door quickly woke these law- abiding individuals up from their American dreams.

Now, hearing these examples, some people might not hear well. They may say this is what happens when people enter this country without going through the proper channels. I hear that a lot of the time because it is the mantra of people who defend ICE raids.

But these are not undocumented immigrants getting pulled from their homes in the dead of night. They are U.S. citizens who are targeted because of their race, because of their color, and denied every fundamental right guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Our fellow citizens may not have been surprised that they were yanked from their homes. They might have even known that their immigration status wasn't even necessarily relevant.

They might have heard stories about friends who were U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents but who were seized in immigration raids, detained, and in some cases even deported. I am talking about U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.

They may have known that their accent, their name, the color of their skin, the place where they lived would have put them at risk. They may have known that regardless of what our politicians and historians say, fundamental constitutional rights still might not apply to them in today's America.

We have been hearing these stories for too long, and it is time they were told on the floor of the Senate because together we need to face a blunt reality: Our legitimate desire to control our borders has too often turned into a witch hunt against Hispanic Americans and other people of color.

Common sense repeatedly loses out to hysteria, and agents of intolerance repeatedly jump over the legal protections to which every single American is entitled.

I am going to tell just a few stories today, but there are plenty of others similar to them.

Last year, a 30-year-old mentally impaired man named Pedro Guzman, who was born and raised in southern California, was detained on misdemeanor charges and scheduled to be released.

He is a U.S. citizen, but somehow his accent, his name, the color of his skin must have convinced immigration authorities otherwise. So instead of returning him to his home, they decided to deport him to Mexico.

Even after immigration authorities realized their horrible mistake, they made no significant effort to correct it. Pedro attempted several times to cross the border home to the United States, of which he is a citizen, and was repeatedly turned away. He was forced to wander the streets of Tijuana, eating out of trash cans to survive--a U.S. citizen.

His mother Maria was worried beyond belief and took off time from her job to search for Pedro. Finally, 3 months after he had been illegally deported, Pedro found his way home. When he came back, his mother said after so much trauma, only half her son had returned.

Each of us in this country has to think: What if that happened to me? Why couldn't that happen to me next? What would happen to my children if I was taken away under those circumstances?

Authorities harass U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent in other ways.

Last fall, under the cover of darkness, a dozen immigration agents stormed into the Long Island home of Peggy Delrosa-Delgado, a U.S. citizen and mother of three. They pushed through her 17-year-old son, herded her children into the living room, and one of them drew a gun on a family friend staying in the house. This was the second time they had done this, supposedly looking for someone named Miguel, who had never lived there.

Another U.S. citizen named Gladis was at her home one day when 18 vehicles drove into her front yard and 20 agents jumped out. Agents banged on the door and threatened to throw gas inside the house if they did not let them in. While the children in the house ran and hid in the bedroom, the agents broke down the door.

One of the agents grabbed Gladis and attempted to handcuff her. She said she could prove her citizenship and gave them her Social Security card. After interrogating Gladis and her family for 20 more minutes, the agents left as fast as they came. They had no warrant, no probable cause, no reason for their actions besides suspicion about someone's name, their accent, and the color of their skin. There is one more detail I should mention. Gladis was 6 months pregnant at the time.

Each of us in this country has to think: What if that happened to me? Why couldn't that happen to me? What would happen to my children under those circumstances?

Very shortly, I will be introducing legislation to prevent the unlawful--unlawful--detention of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.

The problem with our detention system is even larger. Beyond the U.S. citizens and permanent residents who are unlawfully detained, there are people who have come to the United States fleeing persecution, people who have committed no crime, who find themselves trapped and squeezed between the gears of the U.S. immigration system.

The Washington Post has recently run a disturbing series on the catastrophic state of our detention system. I encourage all my colleagues to read it. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the first of the Washington Post articles.

Madam President, the series is staggering, revealing deficiencies in our detention system that most of us could not dream up in our worst nightmare. The Washington Post has forced us as a nation to look in the mirror, and I, for one, am appalled at what I see.

We, the United States of America, the greatest democracy in the entire world, have been injecting people with heavy dosages of drugs in order to deport them or to move them around the system with more ease.

Immigration officials drug people going through U.S. facilities, and they drug people who are to be deported. They drug some people so heavily that when they get off the plane, they collapse on the tarmac or have to be rolled off the plane in a wheelchair.

They do not only drug people to make it easier to kick them out. One story that stood out in both the Washington Post article and a segment on

``60 Minutes'' was that of a woman named Amina Mudey.

Last year, Amina fled from Somalia to the United States to seek asylum after she was tortured and her family was killed before her eyes. When she arrived at JFK airport, she was shackled, thrown in a van and driven to a windowless, converted warehouse in New Jersey. Immigration authorities didn't so much as find an interpreter. Instead, they decided to lock her up and decided she was insane, without even talking to her, and decided to inject her full of a drug to treat a disease she didn't even have. The side effects were awful. Her tongue swelled so much she couldn't close her mouth. She drooled and vomited uncontrollably and began to lactate. When she complained, they upped the dose. She thought to herself: Maybe I am going to die here.

Finally, 5 months after she was detained, she won her asylum case in court and was released from the detention center. Without the perseverance of her lawyer, Amina would never have emerged from her drug-induced state. She never would have found the asylum she so desperately needed.

This case sheds light on another grim reality. Medical treatment at our detention facilities is atrocious. Overmedication is far from the only problem. Life-threatening lack of care is also a serious problem. Take the heartbreaking story of Francisco Castaneda. Francisco entered one of our detention facilities battling cancer, although he didn't know it at the time. All he knew is he had significant lesions on his reproductive organs.

Offsite officials who never examined Francisco repeatedly denied him the biopsy he so desperately needed. After 11 long months in custody, Francisco argued for and eventually obtained a temporary release so he could pay for his own biopsy. Life-threatening cancer tumors were found. Despite amputation of the affected area and several rounds of chemotherapy, Francisco died of cancer at the age of 36.

A Federal judge recently noted that this case appears to present ``one of the most, if not the most, egregious Eighth Amendment violations [involving cruel and unusual punishment] the Court has ever encountered.''

The United States of America essentially killed Francisco Castaneda by denying him the medical care he so desperately needed. Why? Because he had entered this country without the proper documentation at the age of 10, when his mother, fleeing civil war in El Salvador--a war the United States helped to fund, a war that sent thousands of refugees such as him to our country--chose to seek freedom.

He was denied care because he tried to make a better life for himself and his family. These are hardly offenses that warrant death. We cannot in good conscience allow these conditions to continue. That is why I have joined together with Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Akaka, Lieberman, Kerry, and Bingaman to introduce the Detainee Basic Medical Care Act.

First, the bill would require the Department of Homeland Security to establish procedures for delivering basic health care to all immigrant detainees in custody. It requires the Department to give people in custody access to any medications they urgently need, both during detention and transfers.

Currently, a bureaucrat in an office can overrule a medical professional who is actually on-site and seeing a detainee. This bill ensures that treatment decisions are made by the professionals who actually see the patient.

Finally, the bill would require the Department to report all detainee deaths to the Office of Inspector General and Congress.

We can never lose sight of the fact that everyone who immigrates to this country, whether they are documented or not, is a human being. A detention should never amount to a death sentence. This kind of action to ensure humane treatment and prevent unnecessary deaths at these facilities is long overdue.

Let us not forget that many in immigration detention are there for minor violations, many because of administrative errors or pending legitimate asylum cases.

At this point, this becomes more than a legal issue; it becomes a human rights issue. It is our job to do all we can to secure our country while also protecting the dignity of all human beings. If we fail to do so, not only do we blemish ourselves, but we lose the moral high ground to be a beacon of democracy and a leader of human rights around the world.

It is astounding to me that human beings could be treated as badly as some are being treated on our soil. When innocent people are drugged, tranquilized, and treated similar to animals, when agents attempt to handcuff a pregnant U.S. citizen, break down the door to her home, terrify her children and her family, when an agency of the Federal Government deports its own citizen, when all this is going on, each of us in America has to think: What is happening in our country? Doesn't my U.S. citizenship, whether by birth or naturalization, protect me from this kind of abuse?

Some officials have claimed these incidents are rare, and some have suggested this is acceptable collateral damage in pursuit of undocumented aliens. Tell that to our fellow citizens who found themselves either detained illegally or deported. Tell that to Pedro, Gladis and Amina and everyone else and all the families who have had to watch this happen. No matter how widespread this pattern of abuse turns out to be, one thing is clear: It isn't rare enough.

There is only one way to prevent that kind of abuse, and it should be a universal policy that before we accuse someone of being undocumented, there is one other document we should inspect first. It is called the Constitution of the United States. It is time for immigration and law enforcement at all levels to rededicate themselves to respecting the rights the Constitution guarantees. That means respecting the need for probable cause and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by the fourth amendment, the right to due process guaranteed by the fifth and fourteenth amendments, and the full benefits of citizenship and equal protection for anyone born or naturalized in this country, guaranteed by the 14th amendment, and the entire range of rights and protections under our Constitution.

It is going to take real leadership at every level of our justice system, from the Attorney General to the Secretary of Homeland Security on down. That is the only way that those who by birth or naturalization have a legitimate right to pursue the American dream and to make sure their lives do not turn into an un-American nightmare.

This issue might not be the legislative business of the Chamber at this moment, but it is always our moral business. It is always our moral business to defend the most fundamental principle on which our Nation was founded: that all of us are created equal. Stopping illegal detentions of Americans based on their race is about more than properly enforcing the law. Above all, it is about respecting people who may be different from us but who share the same birthright.

Martin Luther King said:

We may have come on different ships, but we're all in the

same boat now.

If we are worried about what to throw off the boat, it should be our oldest enemy, which is fear. Once that is gone, we can resume our course on the currents of freedom and let our sails be filled with liberty and justice for all.

We can preserve the Constitution, defend our borders, and, at the same time, make sure no American citizen, whether naturalized or born here, ever faces the discrimination that is taking place widespread across the country in ways in which they are illegally detained, illegally put in detention facilities, their houses are broken into, and where even a U.S. citizen could be deported. That is a shameful time in our history, and I hope the Senate will work to stop it.

To the extent I have any time remaining, I yield it to Senator Durbin for his presentation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, every day Americans are watching the price of oil and gas shoot up higher and higher, and are watching as it gets harder and harder to make ends meet.

This week, the national average price of gasoline broke the $4 per gallon mark. When George Bush took office, gas cost just $1.46 a gallon. This dramatic increase in oil prices has brought prices for food up along with it, and American families are faced with a painful financial choice when it comes time to fill-up--do they fill up their gas tank or do they forgo a gallon of gas to buy a gallon of milk?

Businesses are cutting jobs. Families have already eliminated nonessentials and are now cutting back on meals. Some Americans are even contemplating quitting their jobs because they can't afford the gas to get there. It has become painfully clear: We are in an oil crisis. And we had better start taking action to get out of this mess.

Fuel efficiency, alternative fuels, and mass transit are the long- term answers that I will soon discuss, but consumers need immediate help, and the Consumer-First Energy Act will provide that relief.

The first thing the Democratic bill will do is make sure that our commodities markets are functioning fairly. The supply and demand equation is roughly the same as it was 2 years ago and yet we have seen prices go through the roof.

We all remember the damage Enron did to our Nation's economy by manipulating unregulated electricity markets. The Consumer-First Energy Act will make sure that oil is traded on well-regulated, transparent markets which are free from manipulation. It requires Commodities Futures Trading Commission oversight, sensible margin requirements, and standard participant disclosures.

By making the oil futures market conform to usual standards and practices, we can combat excessive speculation and insure that the markets are free from manipulation.

The Consumer-First Energy Act also makes sure that oil companies are not taking advantage of American consumers. The Bush energy policy was written by energy companies for energy companies. And while it has worked well for energy companies, it has completely failed the American public. The major oil companies made $124 billion in profits last year and will earn even higher profits this year.

Are the oil companies using these enormous profits to give consumers a break at the pump? No. Are they using those profits to invest in new refineries or develop alternative fuels? No. Despite what my friends on the other side of the aisle might claim, big oil is not looking out for the American driver. Big oil is looking out for itself. Our colleagues on the other side offer more of the same.

Yet, despite the fact that big oil is doing all it can to reap record profits at the expense of our economy, big oil is in line to receive over $17 billion in tax breaks.

The Consumer-First Energy Act will fix this problem and make sure that big oil is paying its fair share of taxes, and isn't profiteering at the expense of American consumers. It includes a windfall profits tax which would raise revenue to invest in sustainable, domestic sources of energy and to provide relief to consumers suffering under high energy prices.

We must act now to provide immediate relief to American families. But in addition to relief and protections included in the Consumer-First Energy Act, we also need to think about what we can do to reduce consumption and rein in costs in the long term.

My friends on the other side of the aisle do not want to address this oil crisis. Indeed, they want to exploit it to try to provide even more Government help for their big oil supporters. They tell their constituents that the answer to our oil addiction is to drill,

drill, drill. But feeding the addiction by tapping another vein just drills us into a deeper hole.

The fact is that the world's largest remaining oil reserves are in the hands of foreign governments. That means it is difficult if not impossible for us to control our supply of oil. But the one thing we can control is our demand. In the long term, we need to invest in alternative energy, mass transit, and increasing fuel efficiency.

While we work to make alternative fuel technologies more affordable we need to drastically improve fuel economy. If we had increased fuel economy a modest 2 percent per year since 1981, our fleet would now average 34 miles per gallon. This alone would have cut our demand for oil by 30 percent while saving over 30 billion barrels of oil. 30 billion barrels of oil. According to the Energy Information Agency that is more than the proven oil reserves remaining in the United States. It is commendable that we finally raised CAFE standards this year, but we are going to have to make our vehicles a lot more efficient to make up for lost time.

We also need tax incentives for hybrids and plug-in hybrids, and need to support advanced battery research. Once our transportation infrastructure can run on alternative fuels like electricity or cellulosic ethanol, consumers will finally have a choice. We will be able to choose not to buy oil, and that will force gas prices back to Earth.

The last, but perhaps most important, long-term solution to our current oil crisis is an immediate and substantial investment in mass transit. More people are taking commuter trains, buses, and even ferries now than in the past 50 years.

For millions, having the option to use alternative transportation modes has been essential to getting to work affordably. It is time we finally fully funded mass transit at the level it deserves.

It is time for a real cure, not the tired old policies of the past. This bill gives the American people what they need right now, to get through the immediate problem and start us down the path to real, sustainable, long-term solutions to our energy crisis.

I hope our colleagues seize the moment, vote for the motion, and move us to the type of relief Americans are looking for.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for a moment?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Rhode Island concludes his remarks I be recognized next.

Madam President, I didn't know we were alternating.

Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island. I have a time pressure, and so I appreciate his courtesy.

I thought this debate would be a watershed moment, a moment when we would finally move beyond Republican attempts to deny that global warming exists. But as this debate has evolved, we see we have not gotten very far. Instead of deny, deny, deny, the Republican playbook has shifted to delay, delay, and delay.

The time to act is actually now. We are not going to be able to transition from a fossil fuel-based economy to a green, renewable energy-based economy overnight, and therefore it is critical that we act as soon as possible to begin this transition.

I thank my colleagues who have worked so hard to get this legislation at least to the floor. The mere fact that we are having this debate gets us closer to actually enacting a policy to cap greenhouse gas emissions.

I do hope that in time we can support much stronger legislation. I have concerns about whether this bill speeds our transition to a carbon-free economy quickly enough because of the cost containment measures and the large numbers of offsets in the bill. I am worried some companies might be able to delay cutting back their emissions for over a decade. I also believe we can go even farther in supporting renewable sources and energy efficiency.

I was hoping I would have the opportunity to offer a few amendments to improve upon this legislation. I certainly want to offer them--we have offered them--and I know we will probably not get to them under the procedures we are in the midst of pursuing, but I think they are markers for the future.

The first amendment I had hoped to offer, along with Senators Lautenberg and Sanders, would have shifted transition assistance funding from big oil to renewable energy generators. At a time of record oil company profits, I do not think we need to allow oil companies to pollute for free, especially when that money could be used to help jump-start the development of clean, renewable, affordable American energy.

The second amendment I offered, along with Senator Snowe, would have boosted funding to help developing nations to adapt to changes in the climate they had little to no part in creating in the first place. Making investments to help vulnerable nations isn't just a necessary step to secure an effective international climate treaty, or a way to advance U.S. national security interests, it is a moral imperative.

The third amendment I filed with Senator Kerry would help nations with tropical forests lower their rates of deforestation, a cost- effective way of keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere. Approximately 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation, and if we hope to secure an effective climate treaty, we must be willing to help forested nations create the tools they need to effectively address the problems.

Finally, the fourth amendment I offered, also with Senator Kerry, would require the Government to calculate the cost of inaction on global warming, from the cost of drought to flooding to storm damage. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have spent a lot of time this week bemoaning the alleged cost of solving global warming, but they have completely ignored the horrendous cost of ignoring global warming. We need this study so we are not always looking at half the balance sheet on this issue.

Many of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle are rejecting out of hand any efforts we might propose. They argue that almost anything will cost too much. They suggest any effort to go green on the scale necessary would be too expensive. Saying we can't invest in renewable energy because there is a dollar figure attached sounds like telling someone with a fatal disease that the cure is too costly, or saying to a crime victim that we can't afford to put police on the streets because it has a cost.

There were some who argued it would be too expensive to reinforce the levees in New Orleans, and when Hurricane Katrina hit, we found out what the true cost of that decision was. We can't fail again to be mindful of the words of John F. Kennedy, when he warned us that ``the time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining.''

The question isn't whether an investment needs to be made. The question is whether we want to make that investment now, while we can do it safely, gradually, and inexpensively; or later, when we have to make wholesale changes to our economy in a matter of years rather than decades.

In other words, what we are deciding is not whether to put a cap on carbon emissions. The question is whether we do it now or whether we wait. Do we do it now, when it is cheaper to do it and we can set ourselves up to compete with Europe and Japan in creating new technologies, when we can create jobs in the midst of an economic turndown; or do we do it when our hand is forced, when Americans have already felt the catastrophic effects of climate change, when our coasts are flooded, when storm surges damage our houses and droughts threaten our harvests, when the costs become enormous because we have to change so quickly?

It is going to be far harder and far more expensive to have to stop carbon emissions overnight than to do it now. If we want to slash our carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050, we simply cannot wait until 2030 to get started, unless we want to risk the economic and environmental future of this country.

Today, with the rising price of gas we have to pay at the pump, we see the result of waiting to act until disaster strikes. In the 1970s, because of the Arab oil embargo, we drastically improved the fuel efficiency of our passenger vehicles. In 1976, our cars and trucks got 13 miles per gallon. By 1981 our fleet had improved to 21 miles per gallon. From 1981 to 2006, the average fuel economy of our passenger vehicle fleet actually declined to 20 miles per gallon.

If we had been gradually improving efficiency standards instead of waiting for high gas prices to force our hands, we would all be better off today. If we had increased fuel economy a modest 2 percent per year, our new fleet of vehicles would now average 34 miles per gallon.

Astonishingly, if we had followed this course, our current demand for oil would be over one-third less than it is today, down over 2 billion barrels of oil per year. Cumulatively, we would have saved over 30 billion barrels of oil, and 30 billion barrels of oil is more oil than the entire proven oil reserves remaining in the United States. With such a reduced demand for oil, imagine how much less we would be paying for gas today.

Some of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have been suggesting that taxing carbon emissions would cause energy and gas prices to go up. The reality is, anyone can tell you that prices have been going up and that they will continue to go up under the present policy of this administration unless we end our dependence on oil. That means transitioning to free, renewable fuels, such as wind and solar. We do not have to pay Saudi Arabia for the rights to use the Sun to generate power. We don't have to send money to Nigeria for the right to harness the power of wind. The more we improve the technology that can run our renewable fuels, the cheaper every kind of fuel will be.

Solving global warming is not just about protecting us from catastrophic weather and hostile foreign regimes, it is also about jobs. Renewable energy industries are perhaps the single greatest opportunity to create new, good-paying jobs this country has seen in a generation.

If we want to put up millions of solar panels, it is going to take hundreds of thousands of workers to install them, and those jobs are created at home, unlike what happens when we continue to rely on oil, which is that we create jobs in the Middle East, in Nigeria, and Venezuela, to name a few.

I am proud in my home State of New Jersey we are No. 2 in the Nation in terms of solar capacity, behind only California. We have seen new jobs created because of it.

Global warming is a challenge that faces us all. It is a challenge we must face together. It is not enough to sit back and watch as tragic stories unfold, as heat waves and wildfires strike, as we see floods and droughts more severe, hurricanes, species disappearing, ice caps melting, glaciers melting, sea levels rising. It is not enough to sit back and watch because we have a human moral imperative to take action. It is not enough because someday the door on which tragedy knocks could be our own.

Great change always has its opponents. Instead of arguing that we should be innovative, they will argue that we should be afraid; we should do all we can to hold on to the ways of the past instead of having the courage to prepare for the future.

The American people are tired of being told what they cannot achieve, and they are tired of being told they should be satisfied with the status quo. It is time to put aside our fears, unleash our powers of innovation, and rise to meet one of the defining challenges of our time. For this and future generations of Americans, what the Senate decides ultimately is going to determine the course of our country in ways that are so significant--from the course of the environment that we collectively share both in America and across the globe, from the question of economic opportunity, from the question of national security--not depending on the oil of countries that have totally different views and values than we have. That is all wrapped up in the debate and the votes we will be taking.

I hope we have the courage to move in a direction that ultimately meets all of those challenges and that we act as good stewards for future generations of Americans so we can look at this moment and say history will judge us and ultimately will say we did what was our responsibility to do.

I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for his courtesy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this year we celebrate the centennial of the birth of a man who dedicated his life to the proposition that all of us are created equal. A legislator, a president of the Senate, a President of the United States: Lyndon Baines Johnson.

It wasn't just that Lyndon Johnson was one of the first Presidents to care deeply about the well-being of people of color. It was that he was uniquely capable of turning that desire to help into results.

It is almost impossible to overstate the impact of the legislation he pushed through Congress, impossible to overstate how much better off we are as a nation thanks to his heroic efforts to guarantee civil rights voting rights and educational opportunity for all.

Whatever else people will note about Johnson's life, whatever disagreements anyone had with him, whatever brush historians will use to paint him, there is no one who can convincingly cast doubt on his very real devotion to the interests of the less fortunate.

In 1928, Johnson took time off from teacher's college to teach at a small school for young Mexican Americans in Cotulla, TX. Right before he signed the Higher Education Act in 1965, Johnson thought back on his time in the classroom.

He said:

I shall never forget the faces of the boys and the girls in

that little Welhausen Mexican School, and I remember even yet

the pain of realizing and knowing then that college was

closed to practically every one of those children because

they were too poor. And I think it was then that I made up my

mind that this nation could never rest while the door to

knowledge remained closed to any American.

I was 11-years old when he spoke those words. Seven years later, when it was time for a Latino kid from a working-class family to go to college, I could do it, because of educational assistance from the federal government, assistance Johnson had championed.

Because of him, I could go on to law school. Because of him, I felt that no door in public service could legitimately be closed to me. It is a powerful truth, and it is very clear: I would not be standing here today if it weren't for Lyndon Johnson.

If he were still standing here today himself, still a U.S. Senator, it is hard to believe there would be an atmosphere of hyperpartisanship. It is hard to believe that he would allow compassion to lose out to suspicion in guiding the business of our Nation.

If only he could be with us today, each time we are on the verge of a crucial vote that will test our conscience, if only all Senators could see Johnson's figure towering over them, feel his hand on their lapel, hear his voice in their ear, pushing the legislative process toward a just conclusion.

So as we remember his life this year, there is no better time to rededicate ourselves to the greatest of the principles for which he lived.

There is no better time to make sure that when we sit in the presiding chair, we swing the gavel for justice; that when we speak, we raise our voices for equality; that when we vote, we vote for compassion for fellow human beings regardless of the color of their skin, the language that they speak, or the country in which they were born.

Even in his absence, let us remember his conscience. Let us allow his memory to shame the shadows of bigotry out of this Chamber. And let us fill our hearts with his spirit, so in our Nation, the spirit of progress will endure.

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 for approximately 10 minutes.

Mr. President, as we debate the supplemental, I want to speak about the importance of extending unemployment insurance to our economy and to so many of our fellow Americans.

I know if Senator Kennedy were on the Senate floor today, he would be leading this effort, lending his powerful voice, as he always does, with fervor and passion on behalf of those in this Nation who are in need. I certainly hope and pray that he will be with us once again lending his voice to this and so many other critical issues.

Mr. President, we know there are Americans in need. These are difficult economic times, not just for Americans on the bottom of the economic ladder but for Americans from all walks of life.

In the past year alone, as this chart indicates, losses in the stock market and in home values have totaled $2.7 trillion each--that is trillion with a ``t.'' Foreclosures have risen 130 percent since 2006. Some 20,000 families lose their homes every week. This combination of a credit and housing crisis isn't just affecting Wall Street or homeowners, but it is reaching throughout our economy and putting a strain on businesses, large and small, from factories to restaurants.

Under the pressure of this economic squeeze, the economy has lost 260,000 jobs in the last 4 months alone. Beyond just the loss of the jobs, what is hurting those who have lost a job is the time it is taking to find a new job. These are not individuals who are just sitting back and waiting for someone to offer them a job. These are people who are actively engaged in the labor market and looking for gainful employment, looking for the dignity of a job.

This chart shows us the average length of unemployment has risen to almost 17 weeks--longer than at any time Congress has extended benefits in the past 30 years. In my State of New Jersey, each week some 3,000 more unemployed workers are exhausting their benefits. It is not that they are sitting back at home. They are engaged in the market looking for jobs--many times even outside of their field, simply to be gainfully employed.

While we certainly hope some of the recent efforts we have performed in the Congress to stimulate our economy will be successful, there are still troubling signs. Long-term unemployment is higher now than before the last recession. Mr. President, 17.8 percent of people unemployed find themselves searching for a job for over 27 weeks. That is a 58- percent increase since the year 2001. Statistics show those who are unemployed are going to have a very difficult time finding a job, as there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans competing for only 3.8 million jobs. That is two workers for every job.

Some are struggling more than others. Veterans and minorities have been disproportionately burdened by our struggling labor market. Young male veterans who answered the call to protect our Nation after September 11, 2001, are now faced with an 11.2-percent unemployment rate--well over twice the national average. A total of 21,588 newly discharged veterans are now unemployed and collecting unemployment insurance.

It seems to me the last thing these brave men and women who risked their lives dodging bullets and IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan should have to worry about is finding a job when they come home. And when they cannot, it seems to me the last thing they should have to worry about is not having any income to sustain themselves and their families. Now they are standing in an unemployment line, and pretty soon they will not be able to do that either.

Minorities are also being hit especially hard by our current economic conditions. For Hispanics, unemployment has grown to 6.9 percent. For African Americans, unemployment has grown 8.6 percent. Both are well beyond the national average. We cannot ignore the fact that the subprime crisis has also disproportionately affected some communities more than others. Unfortunately, for many of these hard-working Americans, their hope of obtaining and continuing to keep the American dream has instead become a personal nightmare.

These statistics are not just numbers. The 260,000 jobs lost this year, the 7.6 million Americans who are unemployed, the 21,000 veterans collecting unemployment--this is not just economic data. Behind each number is a story and an American worker who is struggling.

Let's take a moment to imagine what it would be like to be one of these workers. All of the Members of the Senate are gainfully employed. But try to put yourself in the shoes of one of these American workers. Imagine you have two kids, you have a mortgage to pay, and you just lost your job. That alone is a scenario that could lead any family into hard times. If you are also facing foreclosure because of a bad subprime mortgage that has reset to a higher rate, or if losing your job meant losing your health care insurance that provided coverage for your children, imagine how powerless you would feel. Imagine the uncertainty of not being able to find a job, not being able to pay for your child's college education for the next semester, not being able to keep the home in which your children grew up. Imagine what that must be like.

Mr. President, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans facing these very dire circumstances, who know all too well, unfortunately, what it feels like. It is up to us to lend them a helping hand during their darkest days. That is what the extension of unemployment benefits in the supplemental will accomplish.

On top of that, we also know extending unemployment is one of the most effective ways to help the economy. For every dollar the Government provides in unemployment insurance, $1.64 goes right into our economy.

While I, along with many of my colleagues, believed this should have been part of the stimulus we had earlier, I am pleased we have another chance.

Today, as unemployment and the cost of living continue to rise, it is even more imperative to act now and do what is right. Mr. President, 1.4 million workers have been actively looking for a job for more than 6 months--half a year of their life actively looking for a job. As it is becoming harder to find a job, more families are running out of their unemployment benefits. Thirty-six percent of workers exhaust their benefits before finding a job, and many expect that number to increase. In March of this year, 45 percent of New Jerseyans receiving unemployment insurance exhausted their benefits before finding a new job.

We have a chance to fairly and reasonably address the challenges that long-term unemployment are creating for many fellow Americans. Extending unemployment insurance will help those who are hit hardest and give the economy a much needed shot in the arm.

We have this opportunity to act, and act now. I cannot understand when those who try every day, get up and go

out into the market to try to find a job--when we have twice the number of Americans as there are jobs competing for employment--why we are saying to veterans who have come back and others who are standing on an unemployment line that soon that will be cut off as well. It is unconscionable.

We have an opportunity to change that in this supplemental. I hope our colleagues who enjoy the benefits of gainful employment will give the American workers the helping hand they need and stimulate our economy by supporting the extension of the unemployment insurance.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I and my colleagues wish to commemorate Cuba Solidarity Day and the struggle of the Cuban people against a constant denial of their basic liberties. Yesterday, we marked the day in 1902 when Cuba won its independence from Spain. Yesterday, we celebrated the birth of their nation; today, we express our hope that the island will experience a new birth of freedom. Today, we express our solidarity with Cuba's political prisoners, democracy advocates, and human rights activists who risk their lives so that freedom might live.

About 6 months ago I spoke on the Senate floor with my colleague, Senator Martinez, to express outrage that 70 Cuban dissidents were arrested, detained, and harassed. These 70 Cubans, according to the Cuban regime, had committed the crime of peaceful assembly.

These young people were simply walking down a street in Havana. And while they were peacefully walking, they had on their arms this wristband. The simple white wristband says one word; ``cambio''.

Unfortunately, as we have seen for decades from this regime, this denial of a basic liberty was not an isolated incident.

This regime has been marked by fear and repression for decades. For decades, they have denied freedom of press, freedom of speech and freedom to peacefully assemble.

They have refused to hold free and fair elections which represent the will of the Cuban people.

They have denied the most basic human rights to its citizens.

But decades of fear and repression have also led to acts of courage.

And I stand here today in solidarity with all of the brave Cubans who have shown such acts of courage.

Currently, according to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders, the Cuban regime is holding more than 220 political prisoners.

These heroes continue to sacrifice and fight so that one day the Cuban people will finally know freedom.

We in the Senate recently introduced a resolution to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, in recognition of his courageous and unwavering commitment to democracy, human rights, and peaceful change in Cuba.

Dr. Biscet's fight serves as an example to all Cubans as well as a source of inspiration for us here.

Dr. Biscet, the hundreds of political prisoners and all Cubans who live with daily political repression have shown that Cuba will change. And this change will come from the Cuban people.

But they need our help. We must continue to fight here to do what we can to empower them. And we must continue to acknowledge them when they empower themselves.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that title VIII in its entirety, section 1004 of title X, and section 1005 of title X, each violates paragraph 4 of Senate rule XVI in the Reid motion to concur in the House amendment No. 2, with an amendment.

Mr. President, I believe there is time in opposition to this motion?

I wish to claim about 10 minutes of that time.

Mr. President, here we go again. Yet again my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to sell the American people a bill of goods to try to convince them that drilling along our shores will do something to lower gas prices. Opening our shores to drilling was a bad idea in June of last year when we voted down an amendment to the Energy bill--very similar--it was a bad idea when this body voted it down in March of this year on an amendment to the budget resolution, and it was a bad idea when we voted this idea down by well over 14 votes 2 days ago on an amendment to the flood insurance bill.

Ending a bipartisan, 26-year moratoria on oil drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf will do nothing but jeopardize our precious natural resources. The Energy Information Administration projects that even if we opened the entire Outer Continental Shelf to drilling off the east coast, off the west coast, and opened the entire eastern Gulf of Mexico, nothing would happen to gas prices--nothing. Why?

First, because production wouldn't begin until the year 2017. The infrastructure to drill for oil is not just a large oil platform but a network of hundreds of miles of pipelines that transport oil from the platform on to the land and then on to the refineries. This kind of infrastructure simply does not exist on the east coast and in only limited exceptions on the west coast.

The second reason why opening all our shores to oil drilling will not lower gas prices is because by the time full production actually ramped up in 2030, drilling off all of the coasts full tilt--full tilt--would only result in a whopping 3-percent increase in domestic production. Even in 2030, as our continent is rung all the way around by oil platforms, all of this new supply would be eaten up by a 7-percent increase in domestic demand. So the Energy Information Administration predicts: ``Any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.''

The fact is that over 80 percent of the resources in the Outer Continental Shelf are already open for exploration. Since 2001, the Bush administration has issued over 100 new leases. Many of these leases are in the eastern gulf where the oil industry already has much of the infrastructure necessary to go into production. Yet only 12 of these new wells have been drilled. The industry is only developing a small fraction of the area already open for drilling. So why isn't ExxonMobil pumping some of its profits into developing some of these areas? If companies are not interested in developing the large fields already in the Gulf of Mexico, why is it so critical to open environmentally sensitive areas to more drilling?

My home State of New Jersey and the New Jersey shore is a priceless treasure that my home State will protect at any cost. The shore also generates tens of billions of dollars in revenues each year and supports almost half a million jobs. If we open the east coast to drilling, we jeopardize a tourism and fishing economy worth tens of billions of dollars in exchange for a cumulative total of only a half year's supply of oil--a half year's supply of oil--jeopardizing, however, tens of billions of dollars. The people of New Jersey cannot afford the risk that will take place to our wildlife, to our economy and, in fact, I believe, the people up and down the coast as well.

Florida beaches generate billions of dollars each year. In South Carolina, Myrtle Beach alone brought in more than $3 billion in revenue. Do we want oil washing up into the pristine Cape Hatteras National Seashore? What about Virginia Beach? And can Maryland's famous blue crab survive yet another environmental assault?

The bottom line is this proposal will do nothing to lower gas prices, but it will jeopardize coastal economies all along both coasts.

Now to simply say: Well, it is up to an individual State, that doesn't work. The ocean doesn't have neat little boxes which it is divided into. So the reality is that the ability to open the Outer Continental Shelf in one location threatens, if there is an accident, the beaches along the shoreline along that same region. This isn't about making it one versus another; this is a continuity.

There are other things we can do about gas prices. Hopefully the President will soon sign into law the Democratic proposal that passed Congress overwhelmingly to suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through December of 2008. When the people of this country are suffering from paying $4 a gallon for gas and when gas prices are pushing up the cost of food, and the price of oil has broken $125 a barrel, it makes no sense to be buying at this high level and then putting that oil in the ground when we are already 97 percent of where we need to be for the Nation's security, burying this precious commodity when we need it the most. Hopefully the President will sign this important measure and we can truly begin to help gas prices go back down and offer some relief.

But it begs even a bigger question, and that is breaking our dependency on foreign oil, seeking renewable sources, and finding new automobiles which we drive in our country; moving on to mass transit, having greater conservation--these are all of the elements that are necessary. It is also about ending speculation in the marketplace. Why is it that when we have testimony before House and Senate committees that says the price of oil should be somewhere between $50 and $70 a barrel between demand and supply that we are looking at $125? Let's go after the speculators. Let's go through a regulatory process that ensures this one market that is so critical ultimately has the regulation necessary.

Finally, we can't drill our way out of oil addiction. We can't drill our way out of oil addiction. We must promote sustainable alternative fuels and incentivize people to buy more efficient cars, raise the fuel economy standards and--something we don't do well in the United States--help commercialize technologies that allow us to run our cars, for example, on electricity. General Motors plans to introduce a plug- in hybrid in 2010 and Nissan announced it will start selling an electric car that same year. Once we get this type of technology right, our constituents will be able to run their cars much more cheaply. Some studies project electricity will be the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon of gasoline. That as a fuel source for the future is just around the corner. We understand that. We want to incentivize it and move it in the right direction.

On the other side, if all you want to do is create more addiction to the oil, find another vein in which to pop into and go ahead and drill even when all that is already open is not being drilled. It is the wrong policy. We have defeated three times in the Senate over the last year or so such provisions. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Vitter motion to instruct and make sure we keep this bipartisan, 26-year moratoria intact.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time that may be left in opposition, and I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, the Senate has on three different occasions over the last year defeated similar efforts to end the 26- year bipartisan moratoria on the Outer Continental Shelf. This is another attempt to get at it. Even the Energy Information Administration projects that if we opened the entire east and west coasts, we wouldn't achieve anything because it would take up to 2017 to ramp up and 2030 to actually achieve results.

So this isn't about gas prices; this is about tapping into another vein of oil, continuing our addiction, and putting our shores at risk.

I urge my colleagues, particularly from coastal States, to oppose it.