Floor Statements

Let me thank my distinguished colleague and the chairman of the committee from Massachusetts for his kind words. Above all, I wish to commend him for his incredible leadership, for standing up for the Nation's students, and for putting forth a bill that will make a tremendous difference for students across the Nation who are struggling to afford college.

I know in an era in which we lament the lack of bipartisanship, I also wish to commend the ranking Republican on the committee, Senator Enzi. I was privileged to be sitting in the chair when he was talking about this bill. I appreciate very much the same spirit he brings to this legislation, the leadership he has also shown working with Senator Kennedy to make the legislation that has come to the floor that I think should receive the very broad support of the Senate.

Certainly, I wish to rise in strong support of the Higher Education Access Act, which takes some critical steps to making higher education more accessible and more affordable for our Nation's young people. In a world that has been transformed by technology, in which the boundaries of mankind have largely been erased in the pursuit of human capital, for the creation of a product and the delivery of a service, so that an engineer's report that is created in India and transmitted back to the United States for a fraction of the cost or a radiologist's report may have been done in Pakistan and read by your doctor in your local hospital or if you have a problem with your credit card, as I recently did, you end up with a call center in South Africa.

Well, in the pursuit of human capital, we are globally challenged. So for America to continue to be the global economic leader, it needs to be at the apex of the curve of intellect. That means the most highly educated generation of Americans the Nation has ever known. Of course, to achieve that, there must be both access and affordability for this next generation of Americans to be able to be the scientists, the engineers, the mathematicians who can fuel our competitiveness in the world.

This bill, in my mind, in addition to providing educational opportunities, is about meeting the Nation's challenge in this global competitive marketplace we are in.

The bill begins to right the imbalance that has plagued student financial aid. For far too long, students struggling to afford college have seen their grants shrink, their loan rates go up, their debt explode--their debt explode.

This bill turns that trend around, by increasing grant aid for the neediest students and making a $17 billion investment in student aid, the largest since the passage of the GI bill.

We all know that education is the key--the key--that unlocks social mobility and economic empowerment and opportunity in this country. I know that, as Senator Kennedy suggested, from my own personal experience. I have said before, that as someone who is the first in his family to go to college, the reality is, but for the power of the Federal Government's financial assistance, without Pell grants, one of the programs we are talking about today, I certainly would not have been able to afford college or go to law school, nor would I have had access to opportunities that my college education afforded me, and I certainly would not be here today as the junior Senator from New Jersey, without that educational foundation and opportunity.

I am not alone. Millions of young people across this Nation have dreams of earning a college degree, of having access to that key that unlocks their own economic empowerment of fulfilling their God-given potential.

Some dream of building a successful career or going on to graduate education or, as in my case, to be first in their family to graduate from college. The power of those dreams is why our students and their families are making sacrifices to meet the high cost of college, why they are scraping together what they can to finance education that will let them fulfill their dreams.

That reality is becoming harder and harder in terms of achieving that goal. Every year, nearly half of all college students, college-ready students, and families with incomes under $50,000 cannot go to a 4-year college, not because they do not have the ability, not because they did not gain admission but because the cost is too much of a barrier.

Despite current aid, grants and money that students earn working, many students face a growing gap between the aid they receive and the cost of college. As a matter of fact, lowest income students at a 4- year college face almost a $6,000 gap in unmet needs.

I worked when I was going through college. I understand those challenges. You are getting financial aid, you are working, and still you have an unmet gap. That means debt. That means debt. The lowest income students at 4-year colleges face roughly $5,800 in unmet needs after a standard financial aid package, after their loans, and after the amount their families contribute. The fact is that for the neediest students, current aid is simply not enough. The fact is students have been squeezed on two ends, one by declining Federal aid that has sent students the message they are on their own; and, two, by having to rely increasingly on student loans, which in essence, is debt.

We are supposed to provide a needed boost to students but instead have left them with deals that are not in their best interests. I am proud of this bill because it will put money where it is needed most, Pell grants and other critical financial assistance that benefits our Nation's students with the most need.

Instead of another empty promise to increase Pell grants--we have heard

plenty of those--this bill will increase the maximum Pell grant to $5,100 next year, and beyond that, climbing to $5,400. There simply is no excuse for the fact that Pell grants have not increased by even $1 over the last 5 years.

Tell any family that is trying to have their child fulfill their dream. We have seen tuition rates go up. We are seeing costs again go up. But we have seen the Pell rate stagnant. That means, in terms of buying power, that has even meant far less.

With this bill, we are ending the neglect of our Nation's neediest students. We also will expand who is automatically eligible for a Pell grant. Currently, a student is eligible for Pell grants if their family makes $20,000 per year. This bill increases the annual income limit to $30,000, so more students can be eligible to benefit from Pell grants.

That is the reality of having so many of our families be able to at least get some assistance in this respect. This bill works to protect students working hard to stay in college by doubling the amount a student can earn but remain eligible for aid from $3,000 to $6,000. This bill ensures a student will not lose their financial aid from simply working to make extra money.

Let me tell you, when I went to college back in New Jersey at St. Peters College, for the first month I did not have the money to get to St. Peters College, which was in a neighboring community from where I lived but a good several miles away.

For that first month, until I entered the work study program and started to earn money for transportation, I walked. Now, I was a lot leaner as a result of it, a lot thinner as a result of it. But the bottom line is that as a result of working, I was able to get the transportation funds I needed.

But when we, in fact, say to a student: We want to reward work and we want them also to have the sense that when they work there is a benefit, not a punishment, in fact, that has worked to the contrary. So Senator Kennedy and the committee have done something that is exceptional. As someone who had to work in order to get to school, this actually incentivizes the opportunity to do so but does not penalize them.

This bill also helps students who are struggling to pay back their Federal loans by capping the amount they will pay at 15 percent of their income. This helps ensure they are not paying back more than they can afford. One of our challenges is that our students graduate under a mountain of debt. Then, as they try to fulfill their hopes and dreams, they are squeezed even more in terms of the repayment process. This is a critical step toward ensuring that loan repayments are affordable and not overly burdensome for some recent graduates.

I also am extremely pleased this bill builds on a proposal I have supported for a long time from my days in the House of Representatives, expanding loan forgiveness for those who are working in jobs that serve the public.

By providing some of the our most needed public servants, our teachers, police officers, early educators, social workers, school librarians the chance to have their loans forgiven after they have been working hard to pay off those loans, we are sending a powerful message.

We have a whole new generation of teachers we are going to need in this country. We have an explosion, a bubble that is about to burst of those who are, in fact, going to be in the retirement age and will be retiring.

As I said earlier, in this global challenge, education is the key to being the continuing global leader in competitiveness; having the most highly educated generation of Americans ever. That means having the firm foundation to ultimately be able to achieve higher education. That means having a cadre of educators who are among the most highly skilled and educated professionals we have ever had.

This incentivizes people to head in that direction. We are sending a powerful message. We are saying: If you are willing to serve the public, we will give back. If you make sacrifices in your daily job, we appreciate that sacrifice, and we want to lessen the financial burden. We will help ensure that today's students do not shy away from a career in public service simply because they think they cannot afford it.

I am proud of the direction this legislation takes. This bill is sensible. It is reasonable. It is fair. It makes our priorities clear. Instead of subsidizing lenders, we should be putting every last dollar possible into the pockets of students.

In addition, we are providing $17 billion in new aid to students without charging taxpayers a dime. In this bill, we are actually also putting nearly $1 billion toward deficit reduction. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I am pleased to see this bill recognizes the responsibilities we have, not just to our students but to future generations who do not deserve to be saddled with the Nation's rising debt.

I look forward to, as a member of the Senate Banking Committee, working with our chairman, Senator Dodd, to deal with these issues in this bill. In my mind, this is integral to making higher education more accessible, more affordable for this next generation. It is a step forward to ensuring the student loan system works for students and their families; that is who it is supposed to work for, for students and their families.

It is a key to preserving the integrity of our Nation's higher education system. It is a key to having a continuing ability to be the global economic leader. It is the key to fulfilling the American dream.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act. This legislation will bring long needed reforms to the transition process between the Department of Defense and the VA.

The controversy at Walter Reed again brought to light the shortcomings in the process our returning veterans must deal with in their difficult transition from soldier to civilian. Just as the living conditions that came to light are unacceptable, so too are the countless stories detailing the maze of forms, hearings, and medical evaluations that prevent so many of our veterans from getting the health care and benefits they need and a grateful nation wishes to provide them.

Too often, it seems that rather than thanking the soldier for their sacrifice, this system sets up yet another battle of bureaucracy. Too often, it seems that the system is stacked against the very soldiers it is designed to help. Too often, veterans must seek out their own treatment options and benefits or risk missing deadlines and losing benefits. It doesn't have to be this way. We have an obligation not only to fulfill the promises we make to America's fighting men and women, but to do so in a manner that ensures the benefits we owe them are made readily available.

That this bill will push DOD and VA to prepare a comprehensive and coordinated strategy to help the soldier in their transition to civilian is a critical correction to a long-flawed process. Currently, soldiers can be discharged with little more than directions to the nearest VA and a stack of paperwork a team of lawyers would struggle to complete. The chasm that currently exists between DOD and VA has swallowed too many bright and talented individuals trying to put their life back together after sacrificing so much for this great Nation.

This amendment requires a comprehensive policy on the transition of our wounded soldiers back to civilian life. It will push the reform of such problem areas such as the medical hold status, a situation in which soldiers can sit for months on end with their life on hold while DOD decides what to do with them; the medical evaluation process where soldiers' disability ratings are chronically underrated; and improved sharing of records between DOD and VA, amazingly not a common practice even in this day and age.

I am particularly proud to support this bill because of the priority it places on treatment of traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder. Medical research still has a long way to go before we can wholly treat TBI's and PTSD, but this bill goes a long way towards creating an extensive strategy for diagnosing and rehabilitating servicemembers afflicted with these conditions.

We must lift the stigma and educate soldiers that these conditions are as real as a bullet wound, and can be just as deadly. This bill does just that. The emphasis on pre-and post-deployment assessments will revolutionize the military's process of diagnosis and treatment.

Due to the unique nature of these injuries and the delay in symptoms that so often occurs, many veterans have gone without treatment and suffered a lifetime of pain and anguish because we have not had these safeguards in place. Thankfully, with this bill the Congress is saying, ``no longer.'' No longer will we stand idly by while veterans are discharged from DOD and fade into the shadows of society. No longer will we turn a blind eye to cries for help from America's bravest. No longer will we ignore the needs of veterans who have sacrificed so much for their country.

I am proud to support this proposal extending health care to medically retired servicemembers for 3 additional years. Sometimes we forget that when these veterans leave the military, they leave behind their career, their pay and their way of life. By allowing them steady access to health care, we give them some sense of normalcy as they begin a new chapter in their lives.

I do believe there is much work left to be done, and as a Congress we must remain vigilant to ensure that the spirit as well as the letter of this legislation becomes law and the reforms are carried out to their fullest. One way of remaining vigilant in the pursuit of a smooth transition from solider to veteran is to provide resources to outside watchdogs to help ensure transparency and advocacy in the process. That is why I have introduced the Veterans Navigator Act, which will provide $25 million in Federal grants over the next 5 fiscal years to create a pilot program to fund ``Navigators'' to help veterans enter the system and will build on existing programs run by veterans service organizations, VSOs, and other experienced organizations. While the dignified treatment of wounded warriors amendment will bring about many long-overdue reforms to the transition process, veteran navigators could be particularly critical as independent nongovernmental sources of information and advice for the veteran during their transition. In fact, navigators could play a vital role in the successful implementation of the changes made in the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, as they can be watchdog and counsel, whistleblower and advocate. In short, because the veteran navigators will not be part of the government system, they will be better able to advocate for veterans.

The very least that we can do is ensure that all of these brave men and women are able to access the medical benefits to which they are entitled and the care which they require, particularly in this, their time of greatest need. At some point in each of our lives, we might need a guiding hand to help us find our way. These brave men and women went out across the world for us, with this bill I believe we are stepping out for them.

Reserving the right to object, and I don't intend to object, I ask my colleague from Kentucky if he would amend his request to have myself recognized after he finishes speaking.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak out once again against the war in Iraq and in support of our troops. Today, we had an opportunity to do just that--to support the troops, troops such as these who are pictured here who actually have been serving our country and recently became U.S. citizens.

``Support the troops''--how many times have we heard that said on the floor of the Senate? We have heard that refrain time and time again from the very people who earlier today voted against the very essence of what it is to support the troops.

From the beginning of the Iraq war, we have heard its supporters say that somehow supporting the war equals supporting the troops. But from the beginning of this fiasco, it has been clear that the troops have been a secondary consideration for those who were bent on rushing into an ill-conceived war. Going to war without a postwar plan to stabilize Iraq, is that supporting the troops? Refusing to listen to generals about the troop levels needed to win the peace, is that about supporting the troops? Sending our soldiers into a war zone without the appropriate bulletproof vests, without the appropriate vehicles, with inferior equipment, is that supporting the troops? Letting Walter Reed's conditions worsen, is that supporting the troops? Extending tours of duty without regard to the consequences to our soldiers and their families, is that supporting the troops? Giving our soldiers only a brief stop at home before shipping them back in to a civil war in Iraq, is that supporting the troops?

It seems to me that the very least we can do for our brave men and women who carry out their orders with exquisite skill and bravery in an unimaginable situation in Iraq is to give them enough time to catch their breath before they are sent back.

Clearly, never have so few been asked to do so much in these continuing deployments. If one thinks about it, the number of men and women who are presently deployed and have been deployed compared to 300 million people in this country, how is it so few have been asked to do and sacrifice so much.

Today, the Republican leadership wouldn't even let them have the right opportunity for the respite they need in between these continuing deployments, deployments that are taking our troops and virtually grilling them into the ground. A Republican minority stopped a majority of the Senate and overwhelmingly the will of the American people in supporting the troops through a procedural roadblock. This should not have been a partisan effort by Republicans. It should not have been. In essence, those who put those roadblocks up have voted once again to stay the course, no change to the President's failed war policy, no alteration to this dead-end course, not even to give our troops some well-deserved rest.

I applaud my colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb, as well as my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel,

both decorated combat veterans who stood up for our troops in their amendment. They know personally--this is not esoteric for them--they know personally of the sacrifice our soldiers make each and every day for the country they love, the country we all love. But they are not pawns. They are the best and bravest, and they deserve better than what the Senate did today.

I hope the American people speak out in support of our troops. I ask those Senators who oppose giving them the appropriate recess between deployment, the appropriate time so that they, even having to go back into the war, could have the appropriate time, as the military itself devises and has as goals as to what it should be, that at least for whatever time they are deployed abroad, that they have that time back here at home, back here with their families, back here to be able to rejuvenate themselves and go back to do the mission which they willfully do, could we not do that much for them? I hope the American people will speak out with an incredibly loud voice to our colleagues who don't believe they deserve that much, who used a procedural roadblock.

Mr. President, I am outraged.

As someone who voted against the war, I am outraged that 4 years after the start of an elective and unnecessary war which we were led into based on false premises and false promises, we have not yet ended it.

I am outraged that every delay in moving toward a transition out of Iraq and ending the war in Iraq means more American lives lost.

I am outraged that we have spent $450 billion on this war and that for each additional month we continue to be engaged in Iraq under the present course, we spend another $10 billion a month.

I am outraged that the President's war has cost us our prestige and influence abroad and has undermined our security around the world.

I am outraged that the war in Iraq has kept our focus away from the war in Afghanistan, the birthplace of the Taliban, home to al-Qaida, the land of Osama bin Laden, and the place where the attacks of September 11 were planned.

I am outraged that we always hear the same story and the same promises from this administration.

As I listen to some of my colleagues, as well as the administration, fear should not be the basis for our policy. But that is what the administration and its supporters in the Senate offer each time--fear. The Bush administration always says that change is just around the corner, that we should wait just a little longer for success. The Bush administration always has a new plan with new benchmarks and new deadlines, but they never meet those benchmarks or those deadlines, so they just change them. The Bush administration always says we are making progress on the ground. Yet the facts contradict them.

The truth is that we still haven't stopped the insurgency, that hundreds of Iraqis are still being killed each day, and that the Iraqi Government still hasn't acted on key benchmarks. The truth is that we are being driven down a dead-end street by an administration without a roadmap for a lasting peace.

So I say, as Senator Robert Kennedy did in March of 1968 in a speech about Vietnam:

We are entitled to ask--we are required to ask how many

more men, how many more lives, how much more destruction will

be asked, to provide the military victory that is always just

around the corner, to pour into this bottomless pit of our

dreams?

But this question the administration does not and cannot

answer. It has no answer--none, but the ever-expanding use of

military force and the lives of our brave soldiers, in a

conflict where military force has failed to solve anything in

the past.

Those were his words then. I believe they ring true today. Today, we are living with the consequences of the administration's failed policy. Over 3,600 American troops have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of this war, including 87 servicemembers with ties to my home State of New Jersey. April and May was the deadliest 2-month period of the war for U.S. troops, with 230 servicemembers killed. We have now spent over $400 billion on the war in Iraq. We continue a burn rate of about $10 billion a month. Frankly, as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I never believed the administration's estimate that the so-called surge would cost only $5.6 billion, and these new numbers prove once again that we have been misled.

This was a terrible weekend, with over 250 people killed in Iraq, including 150 Iraqis who perished in a bombing that the New York Times described as ``one of the deadliest, if not the deadliest'' single bombing since the start of the war. Suicide attacks have more than doubled across Iraq, from 26 in January to 58 in April.

In terms of reconstruction, oil production in Iraq is still lower than it was before the war 4 years ago. Baghdad is getting under 6 hours of electricity a day, significantly less than before the war. And the President's escalation plan, the so-called surge, simply isn't achieving the results we were promised.

Imagine that, another broken promise. Just like when we were told: We know where the weapons of mass destruction are. Just like we were told about the yellow cake uranium from Niger, when the President came before the Congress in his State of the Union speech and used that term to engender support for his war policy. We found out it wasn't true, and that ended up having a CIA agent outed because her husband, a former United States Ambassador, proved that, in fact, that wasn't true. If that had been under any other administration, it would have been called treason. Just like we were told: We will be greeted as liberators. Just as the President landed on the aircraft carrier with a big banner behind him saying ``Mission Accomplished.'' How many lives have been lost since mission accomplished? Just like ``the insurgency is in its last throes.'' We have heard that so many times.

Well, it is about time to add the surge to that infamous list. I think we all knew that the strategy to secure Baghdad would simply lead insurgents to move into other areas, and that is exactly what has happened.

As Anthony Cordesman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies said in recent testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee:

The U.S. is having to expand its counterinsurgency

operations broadly outside Baghdad. Limited tactical

successes really don't matter unless such casualties include

substantial cadres of leaders and experts that cannot be

easily and rapidly replaced. The insurgents can simply

disperse, stand down, and regroup.

Now, I know the administration likes to tout victories in individual Iraqi provinces or cities as markers of success, but I believe all we are seeing is what is sometimes called the balloon effect. We clamp down on insurgents in one area, they spring up in another. We never actually solve the problem.

Let's be frank about the status of the Iraqi Government. The New York Times describes the Iraqi Parliament and Cabinet as ``barely able to function.'' Apparently, 12 Cabinet members aren't even attending Cabinet meetings anymore; 74 out of the 275 Members of Parliament are boycotting the Parliament. And numerous others don't attend anyway.

We have heard a lot about benchmarks. They keep changing, of course. It is now clear to anyone and should be to everyone that the Iraqi Government will not meet any of the much-touted benchmarks the Bush administration has outlined. I believe we are engaged in a ceaseless act of repetitive denial by this administration.

In fact, the Bush administration is shortly going to try to present a completely new set of ``accomplishments'' and downplay their previous benchmarks. A recent Washington Post article notes:

Those achievements are markedly different from the

benchmarks Bush set when he announced his decision to send

tens of thousands of additional American troops to Iraq.

Let's take a look at the benchmarks the Bush administration told us would be met.

We were told that by the end of 2006 a provincial election law would be approved and new election laws would be put in place. It is the middle of 2007. That benchmark has not been met.

We were told the Iraqis would approve a law for debaathification. But that benchmark has not been met.

We were told the Iraqis would create a law to help restrain sectarian militias. That benchmark has not been met.

We were told the Iraqis would establish a law to regulate the oil industry

and share revenues. That benchmark has not been met.

We were told by March the Iraqi Government was supposed to hold a referendum on constitutional amendments. But, again, that benchmark has not been met.

As I have said time and time again, benchmarks without consequences are just aspirations. And I am sick and tired of hearing about goals that are never met. Yet despite this lack of results, the administration refuses to admit their strategy has failed. Instead, they want to move the goalpost. They just want to alter their perception of reality.

Finally, I cannot close without discussing the cost of the war in Iraq. Our expenditures in Iraq saddle our Nation's finances and our children's future. We spend approximately $10 billion a month in Iraq. We spend $2.5 billion a week in Iraq. We spend more than $328 million every day in Iraq. And we spend more than $13.5 million an hour--an hour--in Iraq.

Let me just put our Iraq spending in perspective. For what we spend in a month and a half in Iraq, we could fully fund No Child Left Behind next year, ensuring that every school district in the United States has the funds promised to them to meet the goals of the law for a quality education for every child. Just for what we spend in 1\1/2\ months, we could meet all of that goal next year.

For what we spend in approximately 3 days in Iraq, and with an additional $1 billion, we could substantially improve security at our Nation's ports, including increased scanning of cargo containers. I represent one of the largest ports on the eastern seaboard, clearly one of our huge gaping holes to our domestic security.

For what we spend in just over 2 months in Iraq, we could pay the $21 billion cost of implementing the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations to secure our homeland, implementations that would truly make our country, its communities, and its families far more secure. Yet we need to look beyond the economic cost of the war at its true cost: 3,609 American lives. That has no price to it. It is invaluable. These are the sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives of fellow Americans, and we now have more than 26,695 sons and daughters of America who are wounded in ways that will affect their lives forever. I hope a grateful nation remembers them now and in the future.

In conclusion, I ask, Mr. President, how many more deadlines will be missed? How many more benchmarks will be set, not met, and then forgotten? How many more times will we be told to wait just a few more months? How many more times will the administration say that change will happen soon, 4 years later? How many more broken promises? And how many lives must be lost in the meantime? How long will this administration wait to come to the inevitable conclusion that we must transition out of this war?

Mr. President, it is over. Your failed strategy, your ill-conceived war must come to an end before more damage is done, before more lives are lost, before more national treasure is squandered. Let's get our troops home so we can start the hard work of meeting our domestic homeland security challenges, of meeting our security challenges elsewhere in the world--for which we have real challenges--of strengthening our foreign policy and mending our international relations.

I know as I visit back in New Jersey, so many of my constituents say to me: Why is it that you all in the Senate cannot just simply put an end and seek the transition to this war? To do that, we truly need profiles in courage in the Senate. We need bipartisan support. Democrats do not have the 60 votes in the Senate to stop a filibuster, the procedural process by which the Republican minority thwarts the will of a majority of the Senate and the American people, nor do we have the 67 votes needed to override a Presidential veto. It will take colleagues from both sides of the aisle to meet that challenge.

I challenge my Republican colleagues, who now say they are dismayed and have a different view than the President--and I applaud them for coming to that conclusion. And I say it is time to back their words with meaningful votes here on the floor of the Senate--now, before we lose more lives and national treasure. Now is the time, not tomorrow. Now is the time, not next month. Now is the time, not next year.

I will end today by reminding all of us of what Senator Robert Kennedy said about the war in Vietnam. He said:

Past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation. Tragedy

is a tool for the living to gain wisdom, not a guide by which

to live. Now, as ever, we do ourselves best justice when we

measure ourselves against ancient tests, as in the Antigone

of Sophocles, where he said, ``All men make mistakes, but a

good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and

repairs the evil. The only sin is pride.''

The only sin is pride. The only sin is pride. Let's not allow pride to be the obstacle to changing our course in Iraq, to making sure we save more lives of the men and women who bravely answer the call of the Nation's trumpets. Let's make sure ultimately we strengthen our security by having the resources both at home and abroad to meet our real challenges. Let's change the course. And over the next week, we will have that opportunity.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I appreciate the Senator yielding. I don't know whether he voted for cloture on the amendment offered by Senator Webb and Senator Hagel. But when we talk about supporting the troops, here are two Members of this body who are distinguished, decorated combat veterans who know what it is to fight a war, and they both, as well as others, said it is critical for our troops to have a rotational cycle

that gives them some respite equal to the time they are deployed. I don't know why we couldn't have had a straight up-or-down vote. That would be about supporting the troops.

Last, I say to my distinguished friend, we can have differences on the war. I believe that, in fact, having these blinders in which we continue to say ``stay the course regardless of consequences'' is ultimately leading us down a road that is not in the best interests of the United States and its security. So we differ.

I hope you will consider voting for the Levin-Reed amendment. That will give us an opportunity to begin the end of the war and transition out in a way that ultimately will secure the United States.

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

Mr. President, from my State of New Jersey and that part of the State in which I live, we can almost touch Lady Liberty. She is that close to us from a State park called Liberty State Park, an area I had the unique privilege of representing in the House of Representatives for 13 years and an area I still represent as the junior Senator from New Jersey, an area I have fond memories of because of the power of what it means. From that same park we can cross a bridge and go to Ellis Island, a place to which millions came to America to start a journey, a journey that contributed enormously to its great promise, enormously to the great country that it is today.

I rise to discuss the recent cloture vote on immigration with that context in mind. The Senate had a historic opportunity to move forward today with comprehensive immigration reform that truly secured our borders, that realized the economic realities of our time and allowed people the opportunity to come out of the shadows into the light to earn their legalization.

Unfortunately, the Senate decided to maintain the status quo, a status quo of broken borders, that does not meet our economic challenges, and that permits human exploitation and trafficking to take place.

As someone who was part of the early negotiations back in March of this year on the question of immigration reform, I maintained then that the administration had leaped away from the largely bipartisan bill of last year that received 23 Republican votes and 39 Democratic votes to a much more conservative, much more impractical, and a much more partisan proposal this year. I was unable to join several of my colleagues in what has become known as the grand bargain. I acknowledge and appreciate several of those who advocated, because we were only on the floor on immigration reform, truly a critical issue for this country, as a result of their leadership, colleagues such as Senators Kennedy and Salazar and Graham, to name a few, who truly believed in that opportunity; at the same time, because of the leadership of the majority leader, who was willing to take on one of the most contentious issues, an issue that has been contentious throughout our country's history. I have often remarked on the floor how on the question of immigration, it is interesting to have heard the language of those debates at different times in our history.

Ben Franklin referred to no longer being able to accept those who were coming to our shores in negative terms. He was talking then about the Germans. The former Governor of Massachusetts, in the early 1900s, said that, in fact, they are sending the most illiterate of their people to our shores. He was talking then about the Irish. In 1925, in an official report of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, they said: We need the Mexicans because of their bending and crouching habits which the whites cannot attain themselves to in order to pick our produce. We had the Chinese exclusionary provisions.

So while this has always been a welcoming country, the debate has not been as welcoming. On that day when the ``Grand Bargain'' was announced, I came to this Chamber to express my opposition to the deal that was announced because I believed it was deficient in some regard and to say that I would work to improve it. Looking back at what I said then, in light of today's vote, it was strikingly clairvoyant to me, to say the least.

I said on that day we must come together not as Democrats and Republicans or liberals and conservatives but as statesmen and, in doing so, honor the traditions of the Senate as a body that values reasoning, honest debate, and compromise over sound bites and talking points but especially over the politics of fear.

Unfortunately, today, the voices that appealed to that fear and the lowest common denominator won out. Only 12 of our Republican colleagues were willing to stand up and vote to invoke cloture, almost half of those who voted for last year's bipartisan immigration bill.

Only 12 Republican colleagues were willing to move forward, at least for the final essence of debates and amendments, and to a final vote, which is about half of those who voted last year for immigration reform.

Now, personally, I still had serious concerns about the direction of the bill, but I voted to keep it alive because I wanted to work to make it better and because I believe in comprehensive immigration reform as something that is in the national interest and national security of the United States and because America's promise and its security should not have been snuffed out by one single vote.

I said back on that day in May that I could not sign on to the agreement because it tore families apart, and it says to many they are only good enough to work here and give their human capital and slave but never good enough to stay here. But instead of responding to those erstwhile concerns from those of us willing to be supportive of comprehensive immigration reform, the appeal was constantly made to the right of the spectrum, to those who actually achieved some of the things they wanted in the bill but, obviously, never even intended to vote for comprehensive immigration reform--not even to vote to allow it to move forward. As it moved to the right, it got less and less support from the right.

Unfortunately, instead of working with those of us who were willing to not only work to improve this bill but also put our votes where our mouths were, they kept giving in to demand after demand from conservative Republicans, and in turn this bill moved further and further to the right.

In fact, at least two Members who were at the press conference on May 17 and got things included in the bill voted against keeping this process moving forward by voting against cloture today.

Ultimately, in my mind, this came down to a President and a party who was, once again, there for the photo

ops and the press conferences but was not willing to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work to improve this bill and help it move forward for our Nation: a Republican Party that was not about progress but about partisanship; a Republican Party that was not about solving our Nation's problems but seeking political gain by stopping progress of any sort in this Senate; the same President who used large amounts of political capital misleading our country into a disastrous war in Iraq, with little political capital on truly improving our Nation's security through tough yet practical and comprehensive immigration reform; a President who used political capital on tax cuts for the wealthiest in our country but not on truly meeting our Nation's economic needs through fair and comprehensive immigration reform; and it is either a President who has no political capital or one who was not willing to use it.

Finally, throughout my life, and most recently on the Senate floor, I have heard the phrase ``those people''--``those people.'' Those who use that phrase are the voices of division and discrimination. They are the xenophobes who exist today and have existed at different times in our Nation's history but whose voices have ultimately been overcome to give way to the greatest successful experiment in the history of mankind-- the United States of America that we know today.

But the last phrase of Emma Lazarus's poem emblazed on the inner wall of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty says:

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Maybe today that lamp is somewhat dimmer, but it will shine again. The course of history is unalterable, the human spirit cannot be shackled forever, the drumbeat for security, economic vitality and, most importantly, justice will only grow stronger.

Finally, to those who have often referred to ``those people'' in this debate, let me say on behalf of ``those people,'' we have seen the light, and we simply will not be thrust back into the darkness.

I appreciate the majority leader yielding for a question. My question to the majority leader is----

My question to the majority leader is: Is it his understanding that the next amendment that is up in the divisions is the Menendez-Obama-Feingold amendment that would, in essence, give the right to U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents the ability to be able to claim their family under the new point system that is envisioned under the bill, where that point system would, in fact, allow for up to 10 points, out of a 100-point score, to be subscribed on the basis of----

With an understanding that in doing so it does not guarantee a family member ultimately being able to achieve a visa but would, in fact, give them a fighting chance under the 100-point system to at least have the ability----

And would also give them the wherewithal at least to have a fighting chance to come in under our visa system.

I was asking a question, Madam President. I am asking the majority leader for his understanding.

Mr. President, today I honor Joseph Simunovich for his leadership, dedication, and accomplishments at Hackensack University Medical Center and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority. Joe retired as chairman of the board of these great New Jersey institutions earlier this year.

Joe's life of public service spans more than three decades. In 1972, he was elected to serve as a Hudson County freeholder, a position he held for 12 years, 3 of them as director/chairman of the board. In 1986, Joe was appointed by New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean to serve on the New Jersey Economic Development Authority. Reappointed by Governors Jim Florio and Christine Whitman, for a total of six consecutive terms, Joe is the longest serving member in the organization's history.

In 2002, Joe was chosen by Governor James McGreevey to serve as the chairman of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, where he led the organization through the consolidation with

the New Jersey Highway Authority. Additionally, Joe oversaw the remediation of New Jersey's E-Z Pass system, and the introduction of Express E-Z Pass.

Over the past 17 years of Joe's service on the Board of Governors of Hackensack University Medical Center, no one has had a greater hand in making Hackensack the respected and sought out institution it is today. As chairman of the board, Joe has worked tirelessly to raise money for the expansion of hospital programs. This money means more access to medical treatments, increased technology, and better financial assistance for low-income patients.

Additionally, Joe has dutifully served on numerous boards of directors, including New Jersey City University, the New Brunswick Development Corporation, the National Association of Water Companies, and the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships. As a result of his hard work, Joseph Simunovich has helped improve the quality of life for thousands of families living throughout New Jersey.

Dedicated to both his community and family, Joe is married and has two children and several grandchildren. He received his bachelor's degree from Colgate University and masters in business management equivalent from Fairleigh Dickinson University, and completed postgraduate coursework at the Carnegie Institute and guest lectured at Rutgers University School of Business.

There is no doubt Joseph Simunovich is an exemplary leader and a profoundly committed individual who is a true role model for the nation. Therefore, I am pleased to pay tribute to Joseph Simunovich, and know my colleagues will join in wishing him continued success.

Mr. President, I rise in support of including Puerto Rico in the Federal Weatherization Assistance Program. I want to thank Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Ranking Member Pete Domenici for accepting this amendment as part of the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. This is simply a matter of fairness and of equity.

Puerto Rico is currently ineligible for Weatherization Assistance, and only receives a small set aside from the LIHEAP program. To include Puerto Rico in the weatherization program would cost less than 1 percent of the program's funds but would make a huge impact.

Though Puerto Rico is blessed with warm weather, the Weatherization Assistance Program is desperately needed there. Because it is an island that must import the fuels it needs, energy costs are extraordinarily high. The average cost of electricity in the U.S. is under 10 cents a kilowatt-hour, but in Puerto Rico, electricity costs almost twice that at 18 cents per kilowatt-hour.

And these high energy costs have a devastating impact on the Commonwealth's low-income population. Approximately 45 percent of the population is under the U.S. poverty line.

Many homes rely on old, inefficient air conditioners to cool their homes and much of the low-income housing has not been built or maintained with energy efficiency in mind.

Puerto Rico already has an active program to educate people about the importance of energy efficiency and to increase the energy efficiency of government buildings. But the weatherization program would help Puerto Rico offer weatherization assistance to low-income households and incentives for energy efficient appliance purchases, solar water heaters, lighting replacement, and other energy-saving measures.

The CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 expands authorization for the Weatherization Program from $700 million per year to $750 million per year. This vital program helps thousands of low-income families keep their energy costs down and also helps the environment by making energy consumption more efficient. It is time we help the low-income families of Puerto Rico gain access to this vital program.

I again thank Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Ranking Member Pete Domenici for their leadership in accepting this critical amendment.

Mr. President, am I next in the order?

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Employee Free Choice Act, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. This bill will level the playing field for workers seeking a voice at work and ensure they have the freedom to choose to join a union without coercion. I applaud Senator Kennedy for his passion to move this bill forward and his relentless fight to improve and uphold the rights of workers.

Some may ask why this change is needed. They may think that in 2007, in this great democratic Nation, the right of an employee to seek representation in their workplace is alive and well. It should be. But the fact is, under current law, there are loopholes that have

been exploited, tactics that have been utilized, and actions taken against employees that have undermined the basic rights to which employees should be entitled.

We have a chart that shows the number of workers facing roadblocks trying to form a union. From start to finish, workers often face roadblock after roadblock in trying to seek union representation. Active union workers are fired; employers challenge and file appeals with the NLRB; and employers can simply stall the process and prevent it from moving forward.

We cannot ignore that there are some concerted and disturbing efforts that have tainted what should be a fair process. In that process, employees are fired in roughly one quarter of all private-sector organizing efforts. One in five workers who openly advocate for a union during an election campaign is fired.

In 2005 alone, some 30,000 workers experienced some form of discrimination for their participation in an organizing effort, resulting in lost wages or lost jobs. And, in an increasingly common trend, a vast majority of private employers are hiring union-busting consultants to fight unionization drives.

Clearly, existing law has not been enough to deter these types of tactics. The Employee Free Choice Act would close loopholes that have allowed employers to abuse the labor process without repercussion, and it would beef up the penalties for violation. Part of the problem is that under current law, there is not a strong enough incentive to follow the law.

While employers face stiff penalties for firing an employee based on race, gender, or disability, they face minimal penalties for firing an employee for union organizing.

In addition to enacting stronger penalties, this legislation would essentially enforce the steps that are supposed to take place, but often do not. A key part of this bill is that it will bring people to the table. It would ensure that when employees make their voices heard, the process moves forward. This is not forcing the hand of employers or employees, but it simply ensures that negotiations that are supposed to take place will take place.

Currently, employees can agree to join a union, but then the process is dragged out for months or years. This is not the spirit of the law. The Employee Free Choice Act will restore that spirit and uphold the meaning of the rights employees are supposed to have.

Improving the rights of workers is not just about fairness--it is also about equity. We know that workers who have a voice at work have better benefits and are able to provide a higher quality of life for their families. When nearly half of all Americans report having just ``enough to get by,'' it should be obvious that we need to take action to improve the economic standing of many of our workers.

The fact is, union membership means higher wages. According to the Department of Labor, union workers earn 30 percent higher weekly earnings than non-union workers--that is an average of $191 dollars per week, or more than $9,000 per year.

This is especially true for minorities. Latinos represented by unions typically earn median wages that are 46 percent higher than non- unionized Latinos. Women and African-Americans typically earn more than 30 percent higher median wages when they are unionized. By opening the door for more workers to seek union representation, we are helping ensure a pathway to fairness and hopefully, a pathway to a better quality of life.

Hardworking Americans deserve the chance that this bill provides. They deserve a strong law that will not allow employers to skirt its meaning; a law that will protect their decisions and ensure their voices will be heard.

That is why I support this bill. I believe a majority of voices should be upheld and I believe that our workplaces should be the very best they can be for our Nation's workers.

So I urge my colleagues to support the Employee Free Choice Act to protect and enforce the rights of any worker to freely join a union; free from intimidation, free from back-door tactics, free from fear of retribution. That is a right. That is a right that no worker in America should be denied.

I hope we will have the support of our colleagues when this comes to a vote on the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment to the Warner amendment No. 1578, and I ask that it be called up.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I appreciate and respect the desire of the Senator from Virginia to be an advocate for his State for the pursuit of whatever natural resources it may have. However, the ocean is not refined to defined blocks that can be confined in terms of consequences. We share that Atlantic Ocean along many States. So the decision of one State, while it may be seen to be sovereign to it, actually has a ripple effect to other States, and the consequences can be very significant.

Now, the Warner amendment, far from helping end our dependence on oil, is seeking to tap another vein to feed our oil and our fossil fuel addiction. I would say to all of my colleagues in this body, all States and Members of those States who reside within the Outer Continental Shelf should be paying a lot of attention to this amendment because the undoing of the moratorium for one State can create a domino effect that will undo the whole basis of the moratorium throughout both the east and west coasts. That moratorium has existed for a quarter of a century, and for good reason. It has existed for a quarter of a century, and for good reason because it is about preserving the very essence of other natural resources as well--the shorelines of those States which often generate billions of dollars in economic activity-- and also about being good stewards of the land for future generations of Americans.

Now, I appreciate that the Senator from Virginia has in his amendment a percentage of the proceeds, some which will go to the Commonwealth of Virginia, some which will go to a fund to potentially mitigate damages, but that recognizes, in fact, that damage is possible to other States. I don't want to be in a position of New Jersey having to mitigate damages caused to its coastal shoreline which is critical in estuary capacity, critical in terms of the economy of our State, critical to the fishing industry of our State, critical to the tourism of our State, and critical to the State of New Jersey. I would replicate that through other States throughout the Atlantic seaboard as well as on the Pacific seaboard. So having a fund that says to other States: Well, if there is damage, we will work to mitigate it, is not very consoling. And to think that one would say: We will only drill for gas, don't worry about it, it is not about oil, we are only going to drill for gas, but if while we are drilling for gas we happen to hit oil, to believe that, oh, we are going to stop and plug it up and we are not going to pursue oil exploration I think is rather ludicrous.

The Clean Energy Act of 2007 which we are debating is supposed to be--supposed to be--about transforming our economy from one based on fossil fuels to one based on renewable energy; from an economy which threatens our planet to one which is sustainable; from energy sources which are old and inefficient to ones which conserve our resources and use them efficiently. Instead, this amendment would promote oil and natural gas drilling in the mid-Atlantic. To me, that is an unacceptable threat to New Jersey's coastline.

The area the Senator from Virginia is interested in opening to drilling is about 75 miles from Cape May, NJ--more than close enough for spills to pollute New Jersey's beaches. Furthermore, any drilling in the mid-Atlantic puts us on a slippery slope toward a day when oil rigs are the norm along the entire eastern coast. One of the greatest jewels of New Jersey is without a doubt our shore. Millions of people visit the Jersey shore every year, bringing an estimated $20 billion into the State's economy--$20 billion into the State's economy--and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. We simply cannot afford to put our shoreline at this type of risk.

Mitigation doesn't help us. We had a time in New Jersey history where oil slicks, where garbage came up on New Jersey's beaches and shores, and the consequences were enormous for the State's economy, for the vitality of the communities that are along the shoreline, consequences in employment. We worked very hard at cleaning up through the Clean Water Act and other initiatives to make sure the shoreline was preserved for future generations of New Jerseyans and, for that fact, the entire Outer Continental Shelf for the future generations of Americans who call that part of our country home.

Now, the proponents of this amendment say that other States on the east coast will have the opportunity to provide input into any drilling decision, but to be very honest, the Secretary of the Interior will have the ability just to ignore their views and approve a recommendation for drilling anyway. Actually, this administration has already, through the mineral-mines management part of the Interior Department, been promoting a plan that actually seeks to create more drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf. It is an advocate of that regardless of any potential consequences to natural resources. So I have no faith in a Secretary of Interior directed by an administration that promotes drilling, and all he has to do is say: OK, I heard you, New Jersey; thank you, but no thanks. That doesn't do anything to safeguard the sovereignty of any State that may be affected by the decisions of another State as it relates to the Outer Continental Shelf. This would leave States well within the scope of environmental impacts helpless--helpless--to stop most leases and, more importantly, for the circumstance at hand in my home State of New Jersey, we could not object to any drilling off the coast of Virginia--object in a way that would ultimately have a consequence--even though this drilling could seriously endanger our coast.

Now, the proponents of this measure also claim drilling for natural gas will not have any negative environmental impact on our shores. With all due respect, that assertion is just simply not rooted in science, and it couldn't be more wrong. Massive amounts of waste muds and drill cuttings are generated by drilling operations. Most of this waste is dumped untreated into surrounding waters. Drilling muds often contain toxic metals, including mercury, lead, and cadmium. Mercury in particular has been found in very high concentrations around rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and has raised significant concerns about contamination of fish.

In our own State of New Jersey, one of the challenges--and I know Virginia has very significant port activity as part of its economic generation--where there are ports, in the nature of the activity that takes place in those ports, there is often contamination of various sites. We had that reality as we dealt with the Port of Elizabeth in Newark and the Port of Newark in New Jersey, the megaport of the east coast. So the reality is that drilling muds often contain toxic metals, and mercury in particular is one of those.

A second major polluting discharge is called produced water. Produced water typically contains a variety of toxic pollutants, including benzene, arsenic, lead, naphthalene, zinc, toluene, and can contain varying amounts of radioactive pollutants. All major field research programs investigating produced-water discharges have detected petroleum hydrocarbons, toxic metals, and radium in the water column down-current from the discharge. Again, these pollutants have a devastating effect on fish populations that are already under considerable stress, particularly along the eastern seaboard, and those industries are very important, not only to the economies and the jobs they create and the economies of those States but to the consumers of those States who seek to have fish as part of their daily diet.

Now, even if offshore areas are leased for gas exploration, there is always the possibility that oil could also be found, and if oil is found, the exploration company will surely drill for it since there has never been an instance where a lease prohibits--prohibits--an oil company from developing oil if oil is found in a ``gas-prone region.'' Without such a restriction included in the lease, there would be no assurances that oil, in fact, would not be developed, raising the possibility of an oil spill.

According to the Department of the Interior, 3 million gallons of oil spilled from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas operations in 73 incidents between 1980 and 1999. Oil is extremely toxic to a wide variety of marine species. Even if oil is not found, liquid natural gas condensates and can also spill. These gas condensates are highly toxic to virtually all forms of marine life.

Those are just some of the environmental concerns. But beyond these environmental impacts, the Department of Defense has specifically expressed grave concerns about drilling off the coast of Virginia. In a letter drafted on April 10, 2006, to the Minerals Management Service, the Department of Defense made it clear that drilling off the coast of Virginia would interfere with the Department of Defense training and testing exercises.

The letter states in part that proposed drilling would compromise the Virginia Cape's operations area. The Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps all use the Virginia Cape's operation area for critical training that could not be accomplished elsewhere.

The letter makes clear that any structures built in the water where these types of activities are conducted would severely restrict military activities to test missile systems or have amphibious or air training missions. The letter by the Department of Defense concludes by saying:

[b]ecause hazards in this area to operating crews and oil

company equipment and structures would be so great, the

department opposed oil and gas development activity in this

Outer Continental Shelf planning location.

The moratorium this amendment would begin to undo began in 1981, and it has continued ever since then. Congress has imposed restrictions on the Outer Continental Shelf leasing in sensitive areas off the Nation's coasts. These moratoria now protect the east and west coasts of the United States and a small portion of the eastern Gulf of Mexico near Florida.

The moratoria reflects a clearly established bipartisan consensus on the appropriateness of OCS activities in sensitive areas of the country, and they have been endorsed by an array of elected officials from all levels of Government and diverse political persuasions.

In a moment, I will be happy to. I strongly oppose lifting these protections because not only is there concern for my home State of New Jersey, which has enormous consequences, but at the same time, the incredible domino effect it can have as it relates to the overall moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf. Anyone who believes it can just be done for Virginia and that others will not pursue it and they have at least under this amendment's procedures very little to say--they can raise a clamor, but they have no real ability to do anything.

My amendment simply says, if we are going to let this happen, those States within 100 miles from where the drilling should take place should have some significant say, the ability to have a significant say about their future as well, their economies as well, and the right to be good stewards of the land for future generations of their States and of this Nation as well.

I am happy to yield to my distinguished colleague from California.

I appreciate the Senator's question. The reality is that for a quarter of a century, we have had a moratorium exactly because we have come to understand that the values that are generated by our coastal regions, in economic terms, in terms of the environment, in terms of marine and aquatic life, in terms of all the ripple effect that means, has a greater value than any of the deposits that might exist there.

The Senator from California is absolutely right as well, if all we are going to do is go back to what this bill seeks to undo, which is our dependency on oil, whether that oil is foreign or that oil is domestic, at the end of the day, it is a nonrenewable source, it is a highly polluting source, and it has consequences to the ozone. Yes, the Senator is absolutely right. That is why I oppose it.

I think the latest copy of the amendment that was filed, the final copy that was filed by Senator Warner only says the State of Virginia, if I am not mistaken, on page 2 at line 21. But I do believe, however, that the consequence of opening the Outer Continental Shelf, even for one State, has a ripple effect to all the States the Senator mentioned.

Yes. The answer, in my view, is clearly yes. I appreciate that Senator Warner says this is drafted only for the State of Virginia. It is drafted only for the State of Virginia so far as that State will make a determination as to whether to exempt itself from the moratorium. But the consequences of that action clearly have, in my mind, consequences to other States that will be absolutely neutered in their ability to do anything more than to vociferously object but without consequence. So, therefore, a drilling takes place. Even the Senator recognizes by virtue of having in his amendment a provision where some of the royalties go to the State of Virginia, some go to a fund for the purposes of damages done by a spill. So, therefore, there is a recognition of the possibility of damage, and who is that damage to? To other States.

I don't want to be in a position of having to draw on a fund because my State has been damaged. I wish to avoid the damage in the first instance, and that clearly cannot be done under the amendment as offered. That is why my second-degree amendment is so critical to States for them to have a say as well about their well-being.

Parliamentary inquiry.

I will be happy to yield. I wish to make sure I have not yielded the floor.

I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Virginia for the purpose of propounding his questions.

Reserving the right to object.

I will not ultimately object, but I would note that it is not just the potential from drilling and it is not just the potential of oil spills from drilling. I have listed in my remarks a series of other consequences environmentally from drilling, but it is also the consequence of when drilling takes place and then we have, during hurricane seasons, the consequences to those drill rigs and how that can create a disruption.

So there are many facets that are involved that are not addressed by the National Academy of Sciences information. But as it relates to the Senator's unanimous consent request, I will withdraw my objection so that he may enter that into the Record, and I will reclaim my time.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the dialogue, and if the Senator from California would like to respond, I will yield to her.

Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I see my colleague from the State of Florida is here, and he has a lot of experience in the situation, so I will be happy to yield to him for his comments.

I will be happy to yield.

Well, I appreciate the Senator from Florida asking a question and raising a concern. I expressed it in my comments. I am familiar with the letter of the Department of Defense to the Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior that made clear that drilling off the coast of Virginia would interfere with the DOD's training and testing exercises, and it went on for a variety of reasons and then concluded by saying:

Because hazards in this area to operating crews and oil

company equipment and structures would be so great, the

Department opposes oil and gas development activity in this

OCS planning area.

So, yes, I am aware, and it is an additional concern. However, I know the Senator from Virginia has an exceptional record, which we all admire, in his support of the Nation's military forces. I am sure that somehow he believed he could overcome that objection. Nonetheless, it is an objection on the record in addition to the objections of States such as my own.

What I hope, in reality, is that the second-degree amendment I have offered to the amendment from the Senator from Virginia would be accepted and we could move forward because it still would allow Virginia to move forward, but it would give those States whose coastline is within 100 miles of the coastal waters of Virginia the real opportunity to work between States to come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. I think that is a reasonable effort to try to achieve some compromise.

I know the Senator from Virginia raised previously with the chair of the Environment Committee: Well, does it mean that we shouldn't drill anywhere else? Well, the gulf coast had already

been drilling. It had been well established. But there is a reason there is a moratorium for other parts of the country, and the distinguished Senator from Florida wanted to preserve what is a critical part of the Florida coastline, which means so much to Florida's economy and to all of us who visit, as Americans, the great State of Florida--what it means to us as Americans, as one Nation.

Yes, there isn't a one-size-fits-all policy, I say to my friend from Virginia. Just because the gulf coast has for quite some time pursued it, there are limitations, limitations the Senator from Florida created to ensure its coastline.

Last, we talk about the cost. What is the cost of an oilspill? What is the cost of a leakage? What is the cost of the consequences? What is the cost of a hurricane? What is the cost to the other States, not just New Jersey, but the other States within 100 miles of the coastal waters of Virginia?

I believe our amendment allows Virginia to move forward, but it has to move forward in concert with those States that can most profoundly be hurt, potentially, as is recognized by the amendment of the Senator by virtue of the fact of creating a fund for damage, so they can work together and come to a conclusion.

In the absence of that amendment being accepted, I have to notify the body that this is such a critical issue to my State and to others along the Outer Continental Shelf that this Senator is willing to spend as much time on the floor as is necessary to pursue the full discussion of this matter and, if necessary, to raise it to a 60-vote level because it is that critical an issue.

I thank the Senator from Florida for his observations. I thank him for his leadership in this regard, both past and present.

With that, I yield the floor.

I am happy to answer. What it is is an opportunity for those Governors within 100 miles of the coastal waters of the State of Virginia to work together to ensure that their interests are protected and maybe come to a collaborative approach as to how it might be done, which the Senator from Virginia does not, under his amendment, permit in any way whatsoever.

If I can respond to my friend from Virginia, I would say under the amendment of the distinguished Senator, clearly there are no States' rights for those States that will be affected by the amendment of the Senator. Second, there can be no negotiation of any consequence if there is not some sound footing under which one can negotiate. If you have no right, then there is very little to negotiate.

If the Senator will yield, first of all it is all Governors within 100 miles, not 100 States.

But the distinguished Senator from Virginia has a very significant port operation in his State, and his trucks come through the interstate into the State of New Jersey and do quite a bit of damage on the roads of New Jersey along the way, in terms of the wear and tear, in terms of the movement of its product. Some of that product is not the most fanciful product we might all enjoy. That is the collectivity of our consequence as a Nation.

There is a reason there is a moratorium that we, collectively as a body, the Congress, have adopted for 25 years. The distinguished Senator, whom I admire so much on so many issues, wants to aggregate what the Congress has done as a body for his State, without recognizing there are consequences to others. I simply offer an amendment that says we will allow Virginia to do what they want, but they must do it in concert with those within 100 miles of its territorial waters. I didn't say the whole eastern seaboard but within 100 miles of its territorial waters, to make sure those States rights are not affected.

Reserving the right to object, if there would be equal time, 10 minutes on each side, I would not object.

Mr. President, am I to assume the unanimous consent request is for 5 minutes additional for each side?

I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.

I yield to the senior Senator from New Jersey 5 minutes and reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. President, I hope all States within the Outer Continental Shelf understand the passage of the Warner amendment begins the undoing of the moratorium. For if one State is able to do this, the domino effect that could undo the whole basis of the moratorium that has existed for a quarter of a century will begin to be undone.

Secondly, this is not simply about Virginia's waters. These are Federal waters. This is the Federal Outer Continental Shelf. It is a national context in which we look at it. That is why we have a national moratorium.

Thirdly, even the Senator from Virginia recognizes that damage to other States can take place, because he creates a fund in his amendment to mitigate damages that may take place as a result of such drilling. I don't want my State or any other coastal State to have to deal with damages and to mitigate damages. I want to prevent those damages.

Fourthly, anyone who believes we are going to drill for gas and then maybe find oil and plug it up and not pursue the oil is living under a different set of illusions. That is the reality.

Lastly, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the April 10, 2006 letter from the Department of Defense to the Department of the Interior opposing such efforts for drilling off of Virginia.

I believe on all of these scores, this is not pursuing the renewable energy sources the underlying bill is all about. This undermines the moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf. This puts at risk other States. This is not about Virginia alone. This is about the entire Federal Outer Continental Shelf. Other States have interests when one shore can ultimately create consequences on the rest of that coastline. Also the Department of Defense takes the position that it is in opposition. For all of those reasons, it is fitting and appropriate that we oppose the Warner amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as a member of the Energy Committee, I know a tremendous amount of work has been put into making this a strong energy package that will help us achieve energy self-reliance, lower gas prices, and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Under Democratic leadership, we are headed into a new cleaner, greener, and more affordable energy future, one where we do not seek to treat our addiction to oil by drilling for yet more oil in the Arctic or off the east coast. This bill represents a bold step forward toward an economy that is based upon energy efficiency and renewable rather than fossil fuels.

I do believe, however, that there are a few key amendments that will make this good bill even better. The most important of these is Chairman Bingaman's renewable portfolio standard amendment, requiring that 15 percent of the Nation's electricity be produced from renewable sources by 2020. This forward-thinking provision is a declaration that our country is ready to be a renewable energy leader.

I often hear in the Halls of Congress that energy is a regional issue. If you represent a cold State, you probably support one set of policies; if your State grows corn or drills for oil, you support other policies.

I understand the passionate advocacy one must undertake on behalf of one's home State. But energy can no longer be viewed as a parochial issue that only affects local interests. We in the Senate have a responsibility to ensure that our local interests do not jeopardize the Nation's interests as a whole, nor can we stand in the way of this great Nation becoming a global leader on what has become a global issue.

For most of the past two centuries, this country has been blessed with an abundant supply of domestic energy, bountiful enough to provide us with all of the heat and power we have needed. But for the last 40 years we have increasingly had to look abroad to secure supplies of oil. This quest to feed our seemingly insatiable appetite for oil has unquestionably shaped our foreign policy.

We pay the price for our oil habit when a corrupt regime such as Iran feels emboldened to threaten its neighbors with nuclear weapons, and do so with impunity because their access to oil makes it possible for them to buy influence around the globe.

As New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has pointed out, it is not a coincidence that when oil was $20 a barrel, both Russia and Iran launched internal reform programs to increase democratic participation. As the price of oil has soared past $70 a barrel, both of those countries have reversed course and used their burgeoning treasuries to stifle dissent and roll back democratic progress.

The same story can be told across the world, from the corrupt royal governments and pseudo-theocracies of the Middle East, to the iron- fisted dictators who hold sway in the former Soviet countries in Central Asia, to the petro-populism of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Many of the countries that sit on the largest reserves of oil are the same countries that are now resisting reform and creating global instability.

If the story of the 20th century was of a tidal wave of democracy sweeping across the globe, the emerging story of the 21st century is of that wave being swallowed underneath a floor of crude. As long as there are tyrants who have the lucky fortune to sit on top of massive oil reserves and prop up their regimes through huge petroleum profits, there will be no reform. Finding alternatives to oil is a key to democratic, economic, and social reform in much of the world.

In response to this energy security challenge, some of my friends and colleagues will undoubtedly advocate Federal support for efforts to support a liquid fuel from coal. They point out that we have an abundant supply of coal, that we are the ``Saudi Arabia'' of coal. This line of thought ignores the threat of global warming.

The lifecycle emissions of liquid fuel made from coal are over twice that of gasoline. If we substitute oil for coal, a fuel that releases even more greenhouse gasses than oil, we are setting our planet up for disaster. Global warming is happening. It is caused by human activities. It is threatening our very existence.

Recently, the New Jersey Research and Policy Center catalogued the impacts of global warming in my State over the next century. If we do not act quickly and decisively, Cape May Beach will erode between 160 to 500 feet inland. The Holland Tunnel will be forced to close due to repeated floods. Heat-related deaths in our cities will rise fivefold, and flooding along the Delaware River will cause millions of dollars in property damage.

Similar devastating impacts will be seen all over the world. Floods will require the evacuation of millions in India and Bangladesh. East Asia will experience increased water shortages. Central Africa will see ever worsening

drought conditions. Warmer ocean surface temperatures will lead to stronger hurricanes and cyclones.

In order to address our energy challenges, we must keep these worldwide impacts in mind, but that does not mean we should not act locally to achieve our national goals. Just this past weekend, the Washington Post ran an article with the headline, ``Cities Take Lead on Environment As Debate Drags at Federal Level.''

The article detailed the actions that mayors have taken to fill the void left by the President's lack of leadership on climate change. Hundreds of mayors have created energy efficiency projects, promoted renewable energy, and vowed to meet the greenhouse gas reductions laid out in the Kyoto Protocol.

To foster this local spirit in our cities to tackle climate change, I, along with Senator Sanders, have included a provision in this bill to create an energy and environmental block grant program. This program will allow cities and counties to get Federal grants to make their buildings more efficient, create new renewable energy projects, and continue their leadership in reducing U.S. carbon emissions.

Mr. President, not only does the Clean Energy Act of 2007 lower greenhouse gas emissions and help us achieve energy self-reliance, but the bill also promises to reduce prices at the pump. First, the bill creates real competition for oil by increasing the production of renewable biofuels from 8.5 billion gallons per year in 2008 to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022.

Second, the bill lowers the demand for oil by requiring the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to achieve a nationwide fleet fuel economy of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 for passenger cars and light trucks.

Third, the bill expands the Federal research into plug-in hybrid technology so that electricity can compete against liquid fuels as a power source for our vehicles.

Finally, by cracking down on price gouging, the bill will ensure that oil companies cannot drive up costs without justification. For too long companies have been allowed to squeeze motorists for record profits without economic justification. This bill will make oil markets more transparent and institute tougher civil and criminal penalties for market manipulation.

Taken together, these measures will create more supply, put downward pressure on demand, and create a more competitive marketplace. In turn, this will lead to drastically lower prices for all drivers.

Mr. President, in closing, each of us comes to the Senate as a representative of our respective State, but our responsibilities do not end at our State's borders. As national leaders, we also have a responsibility to come together and address issues such as our global energy challenges.

When it comes to these issues, whether it is national security or global climate change, we must rise above local interests and show national leadership. Then, and only then will we be able to effect change that benefits consumers, improves our energy security, and establishes the United States as a leader in the fight against global warming.

I salute Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici in this effort. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in support of Senator Bingaman's renewable portfolio amendment which would require that 15 percent of the Nation's electricity be generated from renewable sources by 2020.

I have heard from my office some of the debate which has taken place today. I was surprised that some of my colleagues have characterized this amendment as some sort of Federal giveaway for the wind industry. The renewable portfolio standard will not just benefit the wind industry, of course, but it will also benefit the production of energy from solar, biomass, electricity from biogas, small hydro, geothermal, and ocean and tidal energy projects as well.

This diverse set of energy sources will help protect us from the fuel price increases, such as those we have seen in natural gas recently. In turn, this reduction in demand for natural gas might even cause natural gas prices to fall, causing electricity prices to also fall.

Another economic benefit of the renewable portfolio standard is that it would help these emerging technologies flourish in the United States. Right now there are renewable energy firms in Europe that are outpacing their U.S.-based competitors. But by driving up demand for renewable energy domestically, we will help develop these industries at home, creating jobs and allowing us to develop energy as a domestic economic engine. At the same time we are meeting our energy challenges, at the same time that we are meeting the economic imperative of our energy challenges, at the same time that we undermine foreign countries--for which we are giving our dollars abroad in terms of our addiction to those energy sources--we can also fuel a domestic economic engine by pursuing these sources.

Of course, the most dramatic effect of the amendment will be its positive impact environmentally. According to the Energy Information Administration, it will reduce carbon emissions by 222 million tons per year by the year 2030, and other reports project reductions of as much as 10 percent per year from the electricity sector. This would be the equivalent of removing 71 million cars from the road. Think about it-- removing 71 million cars from the road.

I also want to point out what this amendment will do for the solar energy industry. This amendment will provide triple renewable energy credits to solar energy. As a result, it has been estimated that this will result in a 500-percent increase in solar energy production.

Solar needs to be a significant part of America's energy future. When you have a way to generate energy that produces no carbon emissions, has no moving parts, makes no noise, and results in no adverse wildlife impacts, that is something we as a nation need to be pursuing.

My home State of New Jersey realized this a few years ago and set about enacting policies designed to spur the growth of its solar market. The results have been extremely successful. New Jersey has the second largest solar market in the entire Nation, from 6 installations to nearly 2,000 in just 5 years, over 7 megawatts of installed capacity, and tens of millions of kilowatt-hours produced each year. New Jersey, of course, is blessed with many things, but it is not blessed with more Sun than most of the rest of the Nation. The State simply recognized that by being visionary we could not only start generating large amounts of pollution-free energy in our own State, but we could also provide a kick-start to a whole new industry. That industry, of course, generates not only great energy, truly clean energy, truly renewable energy, but at the same time creates a very significant economic positive consequence as well.

What New Jersey has done we must do as a nation. The renewable portfolio standard amendment, along with the extension of solar tax credits, will help expand the use of solar energy, and, most importantly, lower the cost.

I also want to urge my colleagues to oppose the Domenici amendment-- the amendment that Senator Domenici has offered to Senator Bingaman's renewable portfolio standard amendment. That amendment would stall the development of renewable energy and thereby undercut the entire point of this bill. There are some who don't want to challenge the industry. There are those who don't want to bring us to a higher standard. For them, the Domenici amendment to Senator Bingaman's renewable portfolio standard is their out. That is their out.

For those Members of the Senate who don't want to bring us to a higher challenge, who don't want to challenge the industry, who, in essence, are happy to support the status quo, the Domenici amendment is their solution.

The Domenici amendment, however, has numerous problems. To begin with, the substitute would allow States to opt out of the standard for just about any reason--just about any reason. If a State can opt out, the renewable industries will be hesitant to adequately invest in these projects and, therefore, we won't move forward.

The substitute will also weaken renewable requirements by including nonrenewables, such as nuclear power. This would divert money from renewables to an already well-subsidized energy source.

The Domenici substitute would also allow the Department of Energy to designate ``other clean energy sources'' to qualify for clean energy credits without any restrictions on the Secretary--without any restrictions on the Secretary. Who knows what would be included under such a definition. This would leave discretion for the Secretary to include ``clean coal'' or any other source of energy one could put the word ``clean'' in front of.

In addition, the Republican substitute would include energy inefficiency projects and demand-response programs. The more things we add to the standard, the less meaningful the standard becomes. We cannot pit efficiency against renewables. We need both efficiency and renewables to flourish in partnership and not compete for investment dollars.

Once again, I praise Senator Bingaman, the chair of the Energy Committee, on which I have the privilege of sitting, for his amendment, for his vision, for bringing us and challenging us to a higher standard, one that the Nation clearly needs. It will be beneficial for our environment, it will boost our domestic economy, and it will reinforce the actions taken by 23 States that have already shown leadership by instituting renewable portfolio standards. If the States have already shown leadership in this regard, the Nation and the Senate need to show the same leadership.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of that important amendment and against efforts to weaken this important provision. Those are, I hope, words that Members of the Senate will take to heart.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 111; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 234, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following calendar items be indefinitely postponed: Calendar No. 61, S. Con. Res. 10; Calendar No. 87, S. 261; Calendar No. 100, S. 624; and Calendar No. 130, H. Con. Res. 118.