Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Whitehouse pertaining to the introduction of S. 45 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, let me thank the Senator from New York for his very distinguished leadership of the Rules Committee and for the very open and thorough way in which he engaged that committee on these issues of addressing the filibuster and problems that have been caused by its current abuse on the Senate floor. Let me also thank Senators Udall and Merkley, who worked so hard to organize this and who have put together what I think is a very good proposal.

At the outset of my remarks, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the rules resolution that is here, at this point.

The distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley, showed a photograph a little while ago of Jimmy Stewart in ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' That has become the sort of emblematic, signature demonstration of the American Senate filibuster.

There is a scene in that movie that I am sure the Senator is familiar with where a reporter is up in the galleries and is describing the action down here on the Senate floor, is describing Jimmy Stewart--the Senator he represents engaging in the filibuster. The reporter describes the filibuster as ``democracy's finest show . . . the right to talk your head off . . . the American privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form . . . one lone and single American holding the greatest floor in the land . . . bleary-eyed, voice gone.'' That is what we think of when we think of the traditional Senate filibuster. In those days, you stood up and you filibustered against a bill because you were opposed to it, because you hated it, because on principle you wanted to stand and fight against it. That was the old filibuster.

Now when this Chamber is engaged in a filibuster, how does the American public know? When they are watching this floor on C-SPAN and they are looking for a filibuster, they don't see democracy's finest show, they don't see anybody talking their head off, they don't see the American privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form. What they see is a droning, tedious quorum call as the parliamentary staff read off, one by one, the names of Senators who are not present, and this Chamber stands useless during that period. Why is that? Partly it is because when Jimmy Stewart was undertaking his filibuster, he was exercising the right of an individual Senator to take this floor and to hold it and to speak. What is different is that when it is filibuster by party rather than filibuster by one individual Senator, then there is a whole array of procedural mechanisms the minority party has to provoke the majority leader to file for cloture.

Cloture is the filing that allows the majority leader to bring debate to a conclusion and to limit amendments. When cloture is filed, then there is 30 hours mandatory for debate. What has happened here is that the 30 hours mandatory for debate has become the prize, has become the goal of the modern filibuster. That explains why we are no longer filibustering bills we are opposed to when we are in the minority. The minority actually filibusters bills their Members support. They filibuster nominees who get voted through unanimously when the vote is finally held.

What is the filibuster about? It is about forcing cloture and forcing those 30-hour increments of time to be burned up. If you are filibustering the bill itself and you are filibustering the motion to proceed, you have a dual filibuster, and if you are filibustering amendments, you can load on an awful lot of 30-hour periods to the Senate floor and you can prevent anything from being done in those 30- hour periods just by sitting back and doing nothing and objecting when the majority party tries to move to the vote. All it takes is one person waiting in the cloakroom for the minority to force that 30-hour period to run. If you stacked up dozens and dozens of 30-hour periods, what you do is you take up the entire time available to the Senate and you impede this institution in its ability to get its work done.

That is what we are doing right now. That is why I think it is so important that the changes we are recommending restore the Senate to the traditional filibuster. We do it in two ways. First of all, if these rule changes pass, you will not get to filibuster the motion to proceed to the bill and then get to filibuster all over again on the bill and double the filibuster. If you really care about the bill, if you are really opposed to the bill, if you really hate the bill, you can come and talk your head off, but you don't get to do it twice--once on a pure parliamentary measure. That will cut down some of the wasted time, some of these droning hours that you watch on C-SPAN with nothing happening in the Senate and the time being wasted, locked in the filibuster.

There is another rules change that I believe is important. The 30- hour period is called the period for debate. What this rule change would do is, when the debate stops, the 30-hour period stops. Whoever is presiding would simply note that there is no longer debate and would call the vote. You can still debate the whole 30 hours if you want to come here and debate, but when the talking stops, you vote. You are not in a position where you can commandeer 30 hours of Senate time, force the Senate into quorum calls, and defend against going to the vote with one lone Senator back in the cloakroom, able to come out and object whenever the majority tries to move the Senate to a vote and get the Senate back in its business again.

These are two simple repairs to the cloture rule that will make it less of a prize for the minority, that will prevent us from spending all these 30-hour increments droning away in 30-hour filibuster quorum calls, and put the Senate back to where it should be--the great chamber of debate where people actually have to come to the floor, say their piece, and when they are done, we go on to the next piece of work.

I commend everybody who has worked on this. I think it is a very valuable step we are taking. I don't think it is a change away from the traditions of the Senate; I see it as returning to the real traditions of the Senate, of real debate, not just wasting time for wasting time's sake but allowing the Senate to be productive while also allowing Members who have opposition to a bill to state it as forthrightly as they wish, to engage in, as the reporter said in ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' democracy's finest show, the right to talk your head off, the American privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form.

I thank all Senators present for entertaining my thoughts.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we come to the end of this Congress having once again failed to harness the economic potential achievable through reform of our Nation's energy portfolio or to heed the dire warnings put forth by our planet about the effects of our relentless carbon pollution.

The results of our failure are many and are significant.

With our economy now at the forefront of our minds, you would think we would have paid more attention to the economic imperative of energy reform. As the global economic race to clean energy rushes by around us, you would think we would have exhibited more concern at the prospect of being left behind.

Instead, we remain engaged as a nation in a de facto policy of unilateral economic disarmament in the battle for command of tomorrow's energy economy. We are surrendering to China, to the European Union, to competitors around the world.

The United States invented the first solar cell, but we now rank fifth among countries that manufacture solar components. Other countries see the demand for clean energy, and they are moving their companies ahead of ours in the race to meet that demand. The United States is now home to only 1 of the top 10 companies manufacturing solar energy components and to only 1 of the top 10 companies manufacturing wind turbines.

Half of America's existing wind turbines were manufactured overseas. In Portsmouth, RI, we have installed two wind turbines. One was manufactured by a Danish company. The other was manufactured by an Austrian company, its components delivered to Rhode Island by a Canadian distributor.

Even in coal sequestration, in a country where half our power still comes from coal, we are not leading. Only one plant is under construction now with the capability to capture any significant portion of its carbon emissions.

The new energy economy that beckons us has been described in congressional testimony as bigger by far than the tech revolution that brought us our laptops and our iPads and our BlackBerries and the Internet services that are now so important a part of our daily lives. The tech economy is $1 trillion; the energy economy is $6 trillion.

In the race for commanding position in this new energy economy, America designed much of the underlying energy technology that the world is using, but other countries have put the propulsive effect of their government behind their industries, and they are pulling ahead of us in bringing those new technologies--our new technologies--to market. Our competitors are moving to seize an irretrievable advantage in the development and distribution of new energy technologies, and we are letting them.

Our children, I fear, will judge us sternly for failing to protect America's economic self-interest at this pivotal time. But they will judge us for that less sternly than they will judge us for our failure to protect their lands and waters, the air and climate they will inherit. For this, their verdict will be harsh.

Nature's warnings abound. Nature is giving us every signal of distress a prudent person could want or need to begin to take prudent precautions. Nature's voice is clear.

According to NASA, 2010 was the hottest climate year on record, surpassing 2005 as the previous record year.

The acidification of our oceans has reached levels not seen in 8,000 centuries--that is quite a bandwidth to fall out of.

September 2010 saw the lowest recorded Arctic ice volume, at 78 percent below the 1979 level. Researchers warn that the Arctic Sea could be ice free by 2030 and Glacier National Park without glaciers.

Western forests, as Senator Udall just described, are falling by the mile to the ravages of spruce and mountain beetles, as warmer winters fail to kill off these pests.

A warming climate adds energy to our weather systems, loading the meteorological dice for worse and more frequent storms, and we are seeing worse and more frequent storms.

I am particularly alert to our Earth's alarm signals since I represent Rhode Island, the Ocean State. Rhode Island and other coastal States face a triple whammy.

First, we get the same terrestrial effects from climate change as all States: warming climates, changing habitats, and harsher and more frequent storms. Second, we will also suffer from changes affecting our ocean economies: species shifts as bays and oceans warm, lost fisheries, and the pervasive danger of ocean acidification. Rhode Island's productive winter flounder fishery, for instance, is already virtually gone. Third, we coastal States face the local consequences of rising sea levels: protecting coastal infrastructure, rezoning to compensate for new storm surge velocity zones, perhaps even diking and damming to protect low-lying areas from inundation.

We can foresee these consequences, and we can foresee the devastation they will bring.

Beyond our economic self-interest and beyond our responsibility as caretakers of the planet is the fact that climate change presents a threat to our national security.

Leaders of our defense and intelligence communities from both Republican and Democratic administrations and from the career military, outside of politics, have come forward to express their concern.

Respected leaders such as GEN Wesley Clark and former CIA Director James Woolsey have called for us to aggressively reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. In 2007, the nonprofit CNA Military Advisory Board gathered a dozen of the Nation's most respected retired admirals and generals, including former Chief of Staff of the Army GEN Gordon Sullivan and former commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command GEN Anthony Zinni, to produce a report called ``National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.''

Its principal conclusion is that climate change poses a serious threat to national security by acting as a ``threat multiplier'' for instability in some of the world's most volatile regions and presents significant national security challenges for the United States.

As former ADM T. Joseph Lopez states in the report:

More poverty, more forced migrations, higher unemployment.

Those conditions are ripe for extremists and terrorists.

The official position of the U.S. Government is the same--not just at EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, not just in the political elements of the administration. In 2008, the intelligence organizations within our national security structure prepared a national intelligence assessment on the national security implications of climate change.

Testifying before Congress on the report, chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Dr. Thomas Finger, said the impacts of climate change:

. . . will worsen existing problems--such as poverty,

social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual

leadership, and weak political institutions. Climate change

could threaten domestic stability in some states, potentially

contributing to intra- or, less likely, interstate conflict,

particularly over access to increasingly scarce water

resources.

The Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review for 2010 concurred, declaring that climate change will play a ``significant role in shaping the future security environment.''

The review stated:

While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may

act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a

burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries

around the world.

So here we have it, an enormous missed opportunity economically in a time of economic hardship, an unthinkable failure to safeguard the world our children will inherit, an accelerant of instability and conflict at a time when our security is threatened by both and still no action. How could we have ended up here again?

We have ended up here again because of a very unfortunate situation in our country right now.

I will confess, I am an American exceptionalist. Over and over, I have spoken on the floor about this country as a city on a hill, as a beacon in the darkness, as mankind's last, best hope, as leading the world by our example. These are trite comments perhaps, but I say them unashamedly. Our balanced system of government, our founding principles of ordered liberty, our embrace of our diversity, our willingness to fight and die for freedom in foreign lands and then come home, without conquest, with other nations' freedom our only prize, these are exceptional American virtues, and they have changed the course of humanity.

But our exceptional place in the human story does not give us an excuse. It does not give us a pass. It gives us, as Americans, a responsibility. Our American exceptionalism confers on Americans a responsibility. To ignore, as we have, the calm and constant counsels of science is not consistent with that responsibility. To ignore facts that are so plain as to be defacing our planet--her great glaciers and seas, her lands and species--is not consistent with that responsibility. To turn away from leadership at a time when other nations are turning to us for leadership is not consistent with that responsibility. It is not American exceptionalism to be exceptionally wrong or exceptionally blind or exceptionally timid.

James Fallows wrote in a recent Atlantic article about clean coal technology that:

. . . the Chinese government can decide to transform the

country's energy system in 10 years, and no one doubts that

it will. An incoming U.S. Administration can promise to

create a clean-energy revolution, but only naifs believe that

it will.

Is this what the United States has come to, a country so mired in its internal quarrels and bickering, so slave to special interests that we cannot dream big, cannot do what others say is impossible?

An eminent historian once counseled his students about the harsh judgments which it is history's power to inflict on the wrong. We are, by our inaction, by our folly, by our unwillingness to face facts, by our refusal to pick up the mantle of leadership, earning such a harsh judgment. We have chosen to ignore the plain and indisputable signals of our planet, signals that should warn us about the dangers of the path on which we are embarked. We have chosen to ignore both the clear and present dangers apparent around us now and those looming dangers our God-given intelligence gives us the ability to foresee. We have instead chosen to listen to a siren song: the siren song of propaganda, marketed by special interests, indeed, by the very polluters whose carbon pollution is wreaking this damage. That is our choice, and it is a choice for which history's judgment will be justifiably harsh.

The judgment will be harsh because the answer to that choice is wrong--because the perils are real, because the Earth acts by the laws of physics and chemistry and biology. Atmospheric carbon levels cannot be talked down by propaganda; our warming bays and seas cannot be cooled down by corporate spin; our petty politics simply are not part of the equation when these great forces of nature are set in motion. Similar to King Canute, we cannot change this tide by proclamation, let alone by propaganda.

I see the majority leader on the floor. I wish to inquire if he would like me to yield for a moment to him as a courtesy.

I have not.

Thank you, Leader.

Some say we do not have to worry about the consequences that will come from what we see happening around us, that we do not have to attend to nature's warnings about the effects of what we are doing because God will get us out of the mess we are making. Perhaps, but history shows how often God's work is done through the work of human hands, through the gifts of the human mind, through the responsibility of the human conscience. In this, as in so many other things, God's work must be our own. The task for our hands is to address the facts science has long told us will bear on the problem: First and foremost, the rise in carbon pollution. We are now dumping 37 billion tons, or 37 gigatons, of CO a year into our atmosphere. Twenty

years ago, that number was less than 25 gigatons. Twenty years from now it might be over 50 gigatons.

We know what that means. Carbon dioxide persists in the environment for decades. We know that. So as we pile on the gigatons every year, it piles up in our atmosphere. We know that. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has fluctuated in a range between 180 and 280 parts per million over most of the last million years. In 1900, the CO2 concentration had popped out of that range up to 300 parts per million, and today the concentration exceeds 390 parts per million and is climbing at about 2 parts per million every year. We know what that means too.

We have known since the Irish scientist, John Tyndall, figured it out in 1859--the year Oregon was admitted as the 33rd State, when James Buchanan was President, and when, ironically, the first U.S. oil well was drilled--that carbon dioxide traps heat in our atmosphere. It is basic textbook science.

Unfortunately, basic textbook science has encountered basic textbook politics and lost.

The oil-and-gas sector spent $250 million in lobbying expenses while we were working on a climate change bill between January 2009 and June 2010. The electric utilities kicked in another $264 million in lobbying expenditures. The mining industry topped it off with $29 million, for a grand total industry lobbying expense during this period of more than $\1/2\ billion--$543 million, to be exact.

So the judgment of history will be harsh not just because we were wrong, nor just because we were wrong in ways that we were able to understand were wrong. It will be harsh because we in this generation were entrusted with America's great democracy, as other generations before us have been entrusted with America's great democracy, and we will have failed that trust by failing in this challenge to meet the standards of a great democracy.

We fail that trust because this is no innocent mistake. This is not getting it wrong even though we tried our best. This is not even getting it wrong because we were lazy and not paying attention. This is no innocent mistake. This is the power of money in politics. This is the power of propaganda over truth. This is the deliberate poisoning of the public square with defective information, with manufactured doubt, with false choices, with a campaign of calculated deception. In the same ``Atlantic'' article I quoted earlier, James Fallows observed:

Heads of the major coal-mining and electric-power utilities

in United States and China accept as settled fact that

greenhouse gas emissions are an emergency they must confront

because of the likely disruptive effect on the world climate.

Even they get it but not us. We, the generation that lives today, the Congress that serves today, the public servants in office today can begin to turn the tide, and we must if we are to live up to our legacy as Americans and face up to the judgment of history. We can fight the propaganda. We can be servants of the truth. We can prevent manufactured doubt from ruling the day. But we haven't.

Losing another year in which we could have taken the action demanded of us by our economy, by our national security, by our planet was a mistake. Losing this great democracy to the inertia and cynicism of these political times would be a disaster.

But beyond the four walls of this Chamber, I believe there is reason to hope. Each day Americans are waking up to this challenge. Each day young people are joining together in their neighborhoods attempting small but significant local solutions to this large and imposing global problem. Each day our entrepreneurs seek new rays of opportunity in the clouds of dismay, finding ways to serve both their business instincts and their duty as citizens of the planet. Each day business leaders are looking at our inaction with growing regret and worry. And each day ordinary citizens from every walk of life are more and more, with clear eyes, seeing what we must face in the years ahead.

Many things influence our political institutions. Yes, money does; yes, partisanship does. But more than anything else, we are all servants. Each of us, given loud enough calls from our country, from our States, from our communities, will have no choice but to listen.

So even as I communicate to my colleagues my disappointment at this year's failure, I wish to challenge Americans to take into their own hands the job of creating next year's success. Call us. Write to us. Make us do this. You know we will be a stronger America if we do. You know we will be a safer America if we do. You know we will be a more respected America if we do. Make us do this.

Every American generation is given its chance to meet with honor, energy, and wisdom the great challenges of its day. Every American generation can rise to meet those challenges in a way that burnishes the gleam of our city on a hill, in a way that brightens the lamp America holds out in the darkness. That moment is upon us in this time and place, and we must rise to it.

I yield the floor, and I thank the majority leader for his courtesy.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, Senator Harkin be recognized again, followed by Senator Carper, and then Senator Brown.

Mr. President, I rise to make a few brief remarks in honor of Congressman Patrick Joseph Kennedy of Rhode Island.

With Patrick's departure from the House of Representatives to seek new challenges and enjoy some well-earned time out of the political spotlight, my home State of Rhode Island is losing a champion for working families and our country is losing a public servant who did as much as anyone else to care for and lift those in the shadows of life.

It is a moment to thank Patrick for his many contributions to the lives of Rhode Islanders over his 16 years of service in the House but also a moment to reflect on his unique place in the political history of our country.

After all, the 112th Congress will be the first in more than half a century in which no member of the Kennedy family is serving in either the House or the Senate.

In Rhode Island, a State that he adopted, and that adopted him/he first entered public service at the young age of 21, winning his congressional seat a few short years later in 1994, one of only four GOP seats Democrats won in that election.

Over the years, Patrick continually faced capable and well-funded opponents, but his constituents had come to recognize and welcome his humble dedication to their lives, re-electing him seven times. He was my younger, but senior, colleague on our delegation.

The arena of politics is combative--all the more so when your last name is Kennedy--but Patrick persevered, and he persevered despite his own health and addiction challenges.

And instead of running from those challenges, instead of hiding from those challenges, Patrick had the courage and wisdom to realize that the problem he was experiencing was a problem shared by millions of families in America. Instead of hiding from public scrutiny, he stood tall--not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of Americans who needed a champion to bring their struggles to the forefront of the national agenda.

With that, Patrick's campaign for mental health parity took fire, resulting in passage of the landmark Mental Health Parity Act of 2008, an achievement Speaker Nancy Pelosi described as ``the legislative feat of the century.''

In that fine cause, Patrick had the chance to work with a towering champion of civil rights, the lion of the Senate, his father.

Peer to peer, man to man, they hashed out the final bill in conference. The father, with his easy, booming laugh and affectionate camaraderie; the son, with his fierce but quiet determination.

Thus did Patrick help lift up millions of Americans. Thus did he earn a place alongside his father--a man he called his hero, his inspiration. Thus did he emerge as a champion for so many who needed one so badly. Thus did he uphold the best traditions of the family and the Nation he loved.

Patrick has proudly carried on his family's spirit of service and their fight for social justice. And to be sure, he has always been proud to be Teddy's son. ``From the countless lives he lifted,'' Patrick said, ``to the American promise he helped shape, My father taught me that politics at its very core/was about serving others.''

In the service of others, Patrick too brought to the rough and tumble of politics/traits that made him unique, and he left behind accomplishments that allow him to stand on his own as one of the great legislators of our time.

Indeed, of all the descendents of President Kennedy, and of Bobby Kennedy, and of our own late colleague Ted Kennedy, it was Patrick who last held public office, Patrick who longest held public office, Patrick who youngest held political office, and Patrick who most successfully used public office to further the family's mission of lifting up every American.

Patrick's success as a Member of Congress came not easily, not from the charm charisma so characteristic in his family but rather from simple hard work, unshakeable integrity, and his formidable determination to win what others had sought.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote in ``The Ladder of St. Augustine'':

The heights by great men reached and kept,

Were not achieved by sudden flight,

But they, while their companions slept,

Were toiling upward in the night.

The story of Patrick Kennedy is not a story of glamorous sudden flight to glory. It is a tale of long and silent toil, upward, and in the night, in the shadow of his own challenges.

The best part of this story is that Patrick's work is not yet finished. Neither his father nor his uncles got to experience life after public service. But, stepping away from the Congress at the age of 43, Patrick's road stretches ahead for many more miles.

I know that Patrick will continue to look for ways to give back to the State that gave him a chance to serve and the Nation that gave his family a chance to thrive. And he will always enjoy the gratitude of Rhode Islanders whom he has served so well and Americans whose burdens he has helped to relieve. And I will always be proud to consider him a legislative inspiration, a political ally, and a beloved friend.

Patrick, thank you. And I wish you all the best in this new beginning.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I commemorate the extraordinary life of Venerable Ros Mey, the head Buddhist monk and president of the Wat Thormikaram Khmer Temple in Providence. Although he passed away on December 12, 2010, at age 85, his teachings of peace will live on in the vibrant Cambodian community of Rhode Island in which he served.

Venerable Mey was ordained as a Buddhist monk in Providence at age 62 and dedicated himself to his faith, his congregation, and to praying for peace in Cambodia with his fellow worshipers.

Venerable Mey's journey to Rhode Island was a perilous one. He and his family endured forced labor under the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia from 1975 until their escape to Thailand four years later. They made their way to Rhode Island as part of the first wave of refugees from Cambodia. Only several thousand of the 80,000 monks in Cambodia survived the Khmer Rouge.

Venerable Mey turned the adversity he experienced into peaceful teachings by dedicating his life to the Cambodian community in our State. In 1998 he became head monk and president, succeeding the Venerable Maha Ghosananda, also a renowned peace activist. Venerable Mey was a driving force behind a new worship hall at the Wat Thormikaram Temple, which is a spiritual center for Cambodian Buddhists in Rhode Island and across the Nation.

His surviving family, the thousands of Rhode Islanders whose weddings and births he officiated, the Cambodian community, and the people of our State will remember his teachings of peace.

Mr. President, while serving on the impeachment trial committee, I heard evidence that convinced me that Judge Thomas Porteous had a long history of corrupt behavior, deceived this body during the pendency of his nomination to serve on the federal bench, failed to meet the ethical standards we expect of Federal judges, and should be removed from the bench. The Senate was right to convict him and to bar him from future Federal office.

In light of the precedents this body inevitably sets in deciding to remove a Federal judge from office, the Senate must be thoughtful about the implications of our decisions on future impeachments. In this case, I believe that is particularly true with respect to the issue of aggregation of the Articles of Impeachment. Although the outcome of this trial may not turn on that question, it is fairly raised here, and calls to mind the prospect that in the future, House impeachment managers might be tempted to package a disparate bill of complaints against a President or Supreme Court Justice into a single article-- hoping that added together, the charges will attract the votes of enough Senators to convict. I believe we should mark in this proceeding our view that the House of Representatives must be scrupulous about properly crafting Articles of Impeachment in all future cases.

Senators who have served as prosecutors will know that, under the ``duplicity'' doctrine, a prosecutor cannot join

together two or more distinct offenses into a single count of a criminal indictment. Thus, a single count cannot charge a criminal with kidnapping and murder. Instead, each charge must be placed in a different count so that the jury can vote separately on each count of the indictment.

This prohibition against aggregated or duplicative counts in an indictment protects a defendant's constitutional due process rights, including rights to fair notice and to a unanimous jury verdict. The First Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that this prohibition ``arises primarily out of a concern that the jury may find a defendant guilty on a count without having reached a unanimous verdict on the commission of any particular offense.'' The Third Circuit explained, in United States v. Starks: ``there is no way of knowing with a general verdict on two separate offenses joined in a single count whether the jury was unanimous with respect to either.''

An impeachment trial is not a criminal proceeding. The charges against Judge Porteous are described in Articles of Impeachment, not counts in an indictment. The constitutional rules of criminal procedure do not bind this body sitting in an impeachment trial. Rather, the Senate works with the constitutional standard of ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' the latter language of which does not define the specific elements of a removable offense. Because of numerous important differences between an article I Senate impeachment trial and an article III criminal trial, I think Articles of Impeachment need not be divided into distinctive counts to the full extent that a criminal indictment must.

Nonetheless, there are principles of fairness at the heart of the doctrine of duplicity that should be honored. Article I, section 3 of the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the present Members of this body to convict a defendant during an impeachment trial. This suggests that there should be in the Senate a minimum level of agreement on the offense--67 votes, to be exact of which the defendant is convicted.

It would strike me as suspect, for example, to convict a defendant of a single article that alleged that the defendant had committed treason and, 10 years later, had committed bribery. In that case, 30 Senators might believe he was guilty of bribery, and 40 Senators might believe he was guilty of treason. That would add up to 70 votes to convict even though 70 Senators believed he had not committed bribery, and 60 believed he had not committed treason. Surely that was not the Founders' intent.

Under another scenario, however, an article of impeachment might allege that a defendant, on one tax return, failed to disclose income from an investment, failed to disclose another investment entirely, and took a false deduction on yet a third investment, and then lied to IRS investigators during the following audit. I believe the Senate should be able to convict such a defendant for a single high crime or misdemeanor of willful tax evasion.

I understand the school of thought that the only procedural protection an impeachment defendant enjoys is the supermajority requirement of 67 votes, and that it acts as a catch-all: Whatever procedural concerns there might be are swept away if a two-thirds supermajority agrees. Under this view, the duplicity concern, or any other, simply doesn't matter. Sixty-seven votes solves that--and every other procedural problem. I am not comfortable with that view.

Instead, it is clear to me that there should come a point where an Article of Impeachment must be rejected for inappropriate aggregation of multiple offenses. That line falls in a different place in the impeachment context than it does in the criminal justice context, but exactly where it falls and how to define it is no easy question.

Each Senator must arrive at his own standard for what conduct may be aggregated within a single article. However, as a general rule, I would suggest that the distinction between an unacceptably aggregated Article of Impeachment and an imperfectly drafted, yet ultimately acceptable, article turns on whether, at bottom, the article is alleging a single core offense. And I believe the appropriate remedy when a Senator concludes that an article is improperly aggregated is for the Senator to vote ``not guilty'' on that article.

I voted against the defense's motion to dismiss the articles on the basis that they improperly aggregated multiple factual charges that belong in separate articles, and its incorporated request that the Senate carve up the Articles of Impeachment brought by the House into small pieces for the purposes of voting. I don't think that is our role. The House chose to draft the articles as it did, and the Senate-- in the role of adjudicator--should not be in the business of rewriting the prosecutor's charging sheet. The House was entitled to an up-or- down vote on each article, not on only portions of each article. It sets a bad precedent to put the Senate in the position of drafting or altering the charging document on which it must vote.

In contrast, I voted against the second Article of Impeachment. It alleges multiple separate and distinct offenses, united by a common thread: the judge's ``corrupt relationship'' with the Marcottes, which spanned over 20 years. The aggregation of multiple distinct offenses within the article, tied by only a ``relationship,'' creates significant uncertainty about what the Senate is voting on. Some Senators might find Judge Porteous guilty on allegations of corrupt bond-setting. Others might believe that the Judge did not set bonds improperly, but acted corruptly in expunging the sentences of employees of the Marcottes. Still other Senators might believe that this pre- Federal conduct was not proven, but that the Judge should be convicted based on a series of lunches he participated in as a federal judge, or setting the Marcottes up with a successor judge. Put simply, this body could conceivably find Judge Porteous guilty of article II without agreeing which of multiple separate offenses linked by a long-term relationship was the ground for the conviction. The aggregation of charges in this article falls too close to the line for me, and so I voted ``not guilty'' on article II.

The remaining articles raised no comparable concerns, so I have voted to convict on each.

The first article of impeachment alleges that Judge Porteous improperly denied the recusal motion in the Lifemark case; in the course of doing so, failed to disclose his relationships with attorneys practicing before him; failed to disclose that he had improperly solicited and accepted thousands of dollars from those attorneys while the case was under advisement; and ultimately resolved the case in a manner suggesting that his decision was affected by his financial and personal relationship with the attorneys. Fundamentally, these allegations can be considered together to constitute a single impeachable offense of corruptly handling a single case; indeed, at its heart, a single motion to recuse. I believe that the House proved these allegations, and so voted to find Judge Porteous guilty on this article.

Article III makes several allegations related to Judge Porteous's bankruptcy. But these can be grouped together under the single rubric of bankruptcy fraud related to a single filing: the false name, failure to disclose assets, and assumption of unlawful debt were all part of a single scheme to defraud the creditors in his own bankruptcy proceeding. I am comfortable that the House proved these claims, and so voted to convict Judge Porteous on article III.

Similarly, although article IV alleges that the Judge failed to disclose various types of conduct at various stages of the confirmation process, this conduct is fairly characterized as establishing a single high crime or misdemeanor of knowingly making material false statements in order to secure Senate confirmation. All of these allegations relate to a single confirmation, and the preparation of a single confirmation package for Senate review. Again, I believe that evidence supports these allegations and that Judge Porteous should be convicted of article IV.

Having voted to convict on these three Articles of Impeachment, I voted to bar Judge Porteous from future federal office.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage the chairman in a brief colloquy regarding this legislation.

I thank him for his leadership, for his compassion. I was proud to join him as a cosponsor of his legislation. It is disturbing to me that his effort to speak for these families who have lost their loved ones has fallen on deaf ears and on a procedural objection that could just as easily have not stood. As we stand here in this empty room, where right now we could be voting on help for these 11 families, instead, we are milling about, killing time and waiting for something to happen.

I want to ask the chairman: If this oil rig that exploded and burned had been on land and these same 11 workers had been killed, would they be treated differently and far more generously, and would their families be treated differently and far more generously than in this actual case just because it happened to be out in the ocean as a deepwater drilling rig?

Under the circumstances of this case, I know the objection was founded upon concern that this would defeat the expectations of potential defendants who might otherwise have to pay this verdict. As I understand it, the two most likely responsible parties--indeed, the one already decreed by the government for pollution purposes to be the responsible party--are BP and Halliburton, two enormous multinational corporations. If I am not mistaken, what we have done today is to send 11 American families, whose father, brother, or husband was lost through no fault of that individual from a tragic accident that has been described as being the result of real ineptitude and very poor safety practices out on that rig by big corporations, we are now taking the side of BP and Halliburton against those 11 families here on the eve of the Christmas holidays, taking away rights they would have if this accident had happened on the land.

My question is, don't we think that BP and Halliburton could afford this? It is not as though it is the little Sisters of Mercy whom we are going to put out of business if we allow this to go forward.

I thank the chairman for his leadership and for his compassion. I am proud to join him today in this effort.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, may I first say how proud and privileged I feel to have been on the floor during the distinguished speeches of the senior Senator from Iowa on behalf of his friends and colleagues, many of decades' duration. I am still in my first term here. I know I still have a lot to learn, but one thing I have learned is that this place operates on friendship and that the friendships here are special ones, forged in cooperation, tempered in combat, and sustained in mutual respect. The Senator's eloquent words about our colleagues are a great testament to that fine characteristic of this body. So I felt very touched and pleased to be here.

Madam President, I am here to draw attention to what I consider to be an urgent need that we include an extension of the Treasury grant program for renewable energy projects in any upcoming tax legislation considered by the Senate. These are called 1603 grants because they were created by section 1603 of the Recovery Act. This grant program has been vital to the renewable energy industry, which creates jobs, promotes energy independence, and is a vital foundation of the emerging clean energy revolution.

Section 1603 of the Recovery Act allows for cash grants in place of the 30-percent investment tax credit for renewable energy projects. That direct cash payment provides an immediate jump-start to renewable energy projects. Many renewable energy projects were funded using what were called tax equity partnerships, and much of this funding dried up during the recent credit crunch.

The 1603 grant program is a lifeline to renewable energy developers, and it has allowed hundreds of projects to go forward that otherwise would have stumbled or failed. According to the American Wind Energy Association, the cash grants enabled the construction of 10,000 megawatts of new wind capacity in 2009, while just 4,000 megawatts would have been built without the program.

The transition for America to a clean energy economy is long past due. This country has run on the same fuel at basically the same efficiency levels since the start of the Industrial Revolution at the Slater Mill in Pawtucket, RI. This was acceptable maybe in 1900, perhaps even in 1950, but where does it leave us today in 2010? Sadly, it leaves us behind the international competitive curve.

The next big economic revolution--the green, clean energy revolution--will dwarf the digital revolution in terms of jobs and wealth creation. We have heard testimony in this Senate that the Internet is a $1 trillion industry worldwide, while energy is expected to be a $6 trillion energy industry. That means jobs. We know other countries are making significant investments in clean energy to claim those jobs and to claim a commanding position in the race for leadership to a clean energy future for our planet.

Half of America's existing wind turbines were manufactured overseas. Of the two wind turbines installed in Portsmouth, RI, one was manufactured by a Danish company and the other by an Austrian company. Meanwhile, our pace of wind turbine installation is also lagging behind. It looks like in 2010, the United States will have installed about one-eighth of the wind power installed by Germany. The United States invented the first solar cell, but we now rank fifth among countries that manufacture solar components. The United States is home to only 1 of the top 10 companies manufacturing solar energy components and to only 1 of the top 10 companies manufacturing wind turbines.

Companies in other countries see the demand for clean energy, and they are moving swiftly ahead of us in the race to meet that demand. An extension of the section 1603 Treasury grant program would help us create and sustain jobs and build the foundation for our long-term economic growth.

A study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that wind energy projects made possible by section 1603 were responsible for more than 55,000 jobs. Extending the grant program would continue this impressive job creation in a sector of promising growth and at a time when it is desperately needed.

Already I have seen the seeds of green innovation take root in Rhode Island. The U.S. Navy is decommissioning part of a naval station in Newport that it no longer needs. Instead of that land going to waste, a Portsmouth developer is planning to convert 85 of these acres for a large solar power energy project. His plans also include an incubator space for renewable energy projects and a green technology museum.

We have a company based in East Greenwich that develops renewable energy technologies and products to maximize energy efficiency. In the past year, the company has filed for patent protection on three different renewable energy technologies, including an exciting new technology that will generate electrical power from wind turbines mounted on boats and marinas.

Another example is Hodges Badge, the largest manufacturer of ribbons, buttons, and medals in the country. It is located in Portsmouth. If your kids have ever won a ribbon at a track meet or a horse show or some other competition, it was probably made at Hodges Badge in Portsmouth. This family-owned company is on track to become the first manufacturer in Rhode Island powered entirely by clean energy, having just broken ground this month on installation of a 149-foot tall wind turbine behind the factory.

Company President Eric Hodges said:

It'll be nice to say we're first, that we're 100-percent

renewable. It's a nice marketing message. But really it's

because it's the right thing to do.

Putting up the turbine will cost about $900,000 and Hodges readily admits that he wouldn't have pursued the project if it were not for renewable energy grants from the State and Federal Government. That project and its jobs would be lost. Hodges Badge does the type of traditional manufacturing that Rhode Island has unfortunately been losing for decades, that our country has been losing for decades. Finding a way to save on energy is one way to ensure this company, which has 95 employees in Rhode Island, can succeed and doesn't leave our State. Extending the section 1603 program would proliferate hundreds of small renewable projects across the country.

For example, in Rhode Island the program would help a 100-kilowatt project at a low-income housing project in Portsmouth, a 1.5-megawatt project at a water treatment facility in Jamestown, and a 300-kilowatt solar project in Wakefield. Without the grant program, these types of projects and the jobs associated with them would dry up. That goes for large-scale projects too. A renewable energy company in Rhode Island has proposed the country's largest offshore wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island, a 200-turbine, 1,000-megawatt project with a goal of starting construction in 2014. This impressive project would provide power to States all along the east coast. We cannot let innovative projects such as these, job-creating projects such as these, entrepreneurial projects such as these, be stopped in their tracks by this bill.

What would extending the Treasury grant program cost? The tax cuts for wealthy Americans that are part of the newly announced tax deal would pay for the extension of the Treasury grant program supporting these renewable jobs 20 times over.

It is time for us to lead again. Just imagine if every one of the wind turbines to be sited in Rhode Island waters and all up and down the Atlantic coast was manufactured in the United States or imagine if we converted brownfields across the country to solar farms, creating a profitable use for this property and bringing jobs to blighted neighborhoods or finally, for a minute, imagine 1 million more manufacturing facilities like Hodges Badge running their assembly lines entirely on solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable energy sources and no longer being held hostage to rising fuel costs. A clean energy economy beckons with vast promise and jobs, efficiencies, and entrepreneurship. We must not, we cannot ignore the call.

I urge our leaders to include in any tax compromise we take up an extension of the renewable energy tax credits and the 1603 program.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Oregon for his patience and yield the floor.

Mr. President, Rhode Island seniors get an average Social Security benefit of $13,500 a year, which makes it tough sledding to live on in the cold Northeast in the wintertime.

The COLA adjustment is misfiring for seniors. Their heating costs go up, their prescription costs go up, their pharmaceutical costs go up, and we have missed the COLA twice. We fixed it in 2008 with a one-time vote. We fixed it in 2009 with a one-time vote. Let's please do it again for 2010 and support Senator Sanders' amendment and not be scrooges to our seniors while we are being fabulously generous to megamillionaires.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of S. 4005, the Preserving Criminal Assets for Forfeiture Act of 2010, which I recently introduced with my distinguished colleague Senator Cornyn. This bill will help keep the proceeds and instrumentalities of crime out of the hands of foreign criminals. It will also encourage foreign countries to assist the United States in recovering the overseas assets of U.S. criminals.

The U.S. Government is currently authorized to assist foreign nations seeking to enforce their forfeiture judgments, for example by seizing the proceeds of large-scale international fraud, drug trafficking, or money laundering. Recent judicial decisions, however, have interpreted existing statutes as not providing our courts with the authority to restrain known criminal assets located in the U.S. prior to the issuance of a foreign forfeiture judgment. Criminals are therefore able to move and hide the assets they hold in

the United States as soon as they find out they will be subject to foreign forfeiture proceedings, or even while the proceedings are ongoing. This leaves U.S. courts with no property to freeze once the foreign forfeiture judgment is entered.

Because of this hole in the law, foreign criminals have already been able to shield hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ill-gotten property, allowing them to continue their criminal enterprises and frustrating the efforts of law enforcement. In recent months alone, our government has been unable to restrain more than $550 million that had been identified for forfeiture by foreign governments in connection with criminal investigations and prosecutions. This money will remain a continuing resource for criminal organizations, allowing them to fund extensive additional criminal activity, some of which may well target Americans.

The U.S. Government's lack of authority to preserve criminal assets in advance of a foreign forfeiture judgment also threatens the cooperation we receive from foreign nations in our own criminal cases. The United States regularly seeks our allies' assistance in issuing prejudgment restraints to preserve the ill-gotten assets of U.S. criminals who have hidden their proceeds overseas. For example, in April of this year, Panama repatriated approximately $40 million in gold and jewelry from a drug money laundering case, which had been restrained there for years at our request. The forfeited assets will be liquidated, with the final proceeds from those sales placed into the Department of Justice's assets forfeiture fund, and used to enhance future domestic and international criminal investigations and law enforcement initiatives. As another example, in the major international fraud case involving Allen Stanford, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Canada have restrained a combined $400 million on behalf of the United States pursuant to our forfeiture proceedings.

Comparable future forfeitures could be in jeopardy because, before executing a request from the United States, most countries require assurances of reciprocity. In fact, a number of these reciprocity agreements are codified in treaties. If we fail to provide our government with authority to restrain assets pending foreign forfeiture judgments, we may ultimately enable criminal organizations in the United States to dissipate foreign assets that should be subject to U.S. forfeiture proceedings. That puts at risk hundreds of millions of dollars in criminal proceeds that may not be able to be returned to fraud victims or that criminals will reinvest in drug trafficking offenses or other crimes that affect our communities.

The bipartisan Preserving Criminal Assets for Forfeiture Act of 2010 will fix these problems by preventing criminals from removing illicit assets from the United States during the pendency of foreign forfeiture proceedings. The bill would amend 28 U.S.C. Sec. 4267(d)(3) to clarify that U.S. courts have the power to issue restraining orders freezing the proceeds and instrumentalities of foreign criminals until foreign forfeiture proceedings have concluded. In doing so, the legislation brings the treatment of international criminals' assets in line with that of domestic criminals.

The bill includes due process protections analogous to those used for restraining orders in anticipation of domestic forfeiture judgments, to make sure that only criminal assets are targeted. It also requires the U.S. court to ensure that the relevant foreign tribunal observes due process protections, has subject matter jurisdiction, and is not acting as a result of fraud.

The bill is supported by the Department of Justice, and I thank the attorneys of the Department for their expert advice on this legislation. I also particularly thank Senator Cornyn for his leadership on this issue. It has been a great pleasure to work with him in introducing this legislation. I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with us to enact this much needed bill into law.