Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal to some of the bravest soldiers ever to wear this country's uniform--the prisoners of war from the Bataan Death March.

For the thousands of soldiers who were surrendered to enemy forces on April 9, 1942, the years that have passed since have been filled with memories of what occurred that day and in the hundreds of days that followed: starvation, torture, forced work, captivity and death.

But in the 66 years since, the events at Bataan have conjured other ideas for the rest of us: bravery, sacrifice, and an unbreakable demonstration of courage.

``The Battling Bastards of Bataan,'' they were christened by Frank Hewlett, one of the last journalists to report on the troops before they were surrendered. For 4 months they fought, battling daily against the enemy, against illness, and against time. And when there was no fight left, when the time for surrender was upon them, they were alone. Neither planes in the skies nor boats in the sea appeared, ready to give the boost of firepower that would turn the tides. Instead, the men at Bataan laid down their weapons and walked into a hell that would last over 3 years.

Many survivors never recovered from their experience. Half died within a few years of returning home. Others lived on in physical and mental pain for the rest of their lives--a daily reminder of the experience they had endured.

But the story of Bataan is not just about surrender or the suffering that followed. By holding off enemy fighters longer than expected, the Bataan forces gave the Allies time to regroup after Pearl Harbor. Their sacrifice allowed Allied commanders to take the fight to the enemy. And they made a future victory possible.

The soldiers of Bataan also gave America something we needed as much as guns or tanks. They gave us an example. Their story inspired American soldiers to fight and committed American commanders to retaking the Pacific. Just as an earlier generation of Americans had remembered the Alamo, our soldiers in World War II remembered Bataan. We should remember it today as a place where America's fighting spirit showed itself to the world.

For those of us from New Mexico, the events at Bataan strike home particularly hard. Eighteen hundred men from New Mexico's 200th and 515th regiments left their homes to fight; half returned. These soldiers earned the honor of being the ``first to fire'' on the enemy on December 8, 1941--the day after Pearl Harbor. They and their families have spread the story of Bataan to their New Mexico neighbors. We feel the suffering they saw. And we take pride in their heroism.

For six decades, the Western world has enjoyed the freedom that the Bataan veterans helped to win. For six decades, our world has been more peaceful because of the sacrifices they made. And for six decades, those men have not received the honor that is their due.

This failure of memory hits particularly hard because so many of the men who suffered at Bataan were Hispanic. They fought and died in the uniform of a nation that treated them as second class citizens. While in uniform, many faced discrimination if they had Hispanic surnames or were caught speaking Spanish. This legislation will honor American heroes, including those who were asked to sacrifice and then forgotten when the fighting was over.

We must always remember the sacrifice of our soldiers, particularly during times of war. The men and women who risk their lives today must know that America never forgets those who sacrifice in her name. By recognizing the heroes of Bataan, we show our commitment to the heroes of Kabul and Baghdad--and to the heroes of the future.

I thank Senator Bond for joining me as the lead cosponsor of this legislation. His home State of Missouri had hundreds of soldiers at Bataan, including one, John Playter, who passed away recently this year but never stopped telling his story. I also want to thank Senators Bingaman, Inouye, Landrieu, Levin, Kerry, and Udall for being original cosponsors. I also thank the VFW and AMVETS for their support of this legislation.

I hope you will join them--and so many others--in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, on March 15, Air Force SSG Timothy Bowles decided to help a fellow soldier. A friend was scheduled to visit a school near Kot, Afghanistan, as part of his provincial reconstruction duties, but he was feeling sick. Timothy offered to take his place.

He never returned from that trip. Timothy Bowles was killed when his vehicle was destroyed by a roadside bomb. He was 24.

We all celebrate the remarkable bravery of our men and women in uniform. But Timothy was not just a brave soldier; he was a deeply kind and caring man. He displayed not just the martial virtues of the soldier, but the simple kindness that we all hope to find in our friends, our families, our fellow citizens.

Timothy grew up in the Air Force. His dad, Air Force Msgt Louis Bowles, fought in the first gulf war. As a child, Timothy moved from base to base while his dad served our country. He knew the hardships that the military can bring. But when he turned 18, he quickly signed up to serve.

We tend to think of that decision as one of physical bravery. Every soldier accepts the risk of injury or death. They commit themselves to challenges that many Americans will never know. And they put in the effort that will transform them from civilians into soldiers--the effort that makes the U.S. military the finest fighting force in the world.

But the decision to become a soldier is also an extension of values that we all share. It is the act of a good neighbor pledging to help keep the neighborhood safe. Of a good father telling his family they can count on him. Of a good citizen who puts his community before himself.

Please join me in honoring Timothy Bowles and extending our sympathies to his father Louis, his mother Lisa, his sister Heather, and all of the Bowles family.

Timothy was a good soldier and a good friend--to his fellow soldiers, and to all of us.

Thank you, Madam President.

I thank the chairman for his excellent presentation today on the budget. I have been listening to a lot of this debate, and one of the things we all know is that a budget reflects our values. The President and the chairman of the Budget Committee have talked about how the four major things we are trying to do in this budget are health care, education, energy, and global warming, and also reducing the deficit.

I have seen over the years the chairman work on deficit reduction, and I know this bill is a very serious bill in terms of moving us toward that goal, as the President has said, over 4 years to try to get this budget under control. I certainly appreciate his hard work.

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

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Airline Personnel Training Enhancement Act of 2009 and to ask for Senators' support for this important measure to improve safety in the air and on the ground.

The story of this legislation begins with a tragedy. On November 11, 2006, Paul and Renee Gonzales were driving back from a soccer tournament with four of their daughters. They were roughly 1 hour from their home in Las Vegas, NM, when they saw Dana Papst's vehicle. Papst had been driving on the wrong side of I-25 for about 5 miles before his car collided with the Gonzales's minivan at 60 to 75 miles per hour. Five of the six members of the Gonzales family were killed. Papst later died at the hospital.

I cannot say for certain whether this tragedy could have been prevented by a change in laws. But I do know this: A few hours before Dana Papst took six lives, including his own, he was flying back to Albuquerque after a business trip. On that flight, he was noticeably intoxicated. Yet he was served alcohol by airline personnel. When his truck collided with the Gonzales's minivan, his blood-alcohol level was four times the legal limit.

When I heard about Dana Papst and the Gonzales family, I began to look for legislation that could prevent tragedies like this in the future. I learned that under existing law, Papst should not have been served alcohol on his flight. In fact, somebody as drunk as Papst never should have been allowed on that flight. But airlines are not required to teach their personnel how to handle an intoxicated passenger.

To address this problem, I introduced the Airline Personnel Training Enhancement Act in the other body during the last Congress. I am introducing it again today.

This legislation requires air carriers to train their employees on recognizing and dealing with drunk or disruptive passengers. This training will help employees make informed decisions when allowing people to board flights, when deciding whether a passenger should be served alcohol, and when dealing with belligerent passengers. Many States require people who serve alcohol in restaurants and bars to be properly trained. This legislation simply closes a large and potentially deadly loophole. I hope it will lead to fewer deaths on our roads.

New Mexico, like so many other States, has too many crosses on its highways, too many stories of loss and regret. Drunk driving claimed 155 New Mexico lives the year Paul and Renee Gonzales were killed. It claimed 188 the year before, and 211 the year before that. We have the power to help reduce these numbers. I hope we will use it.

But my legislation is not just about drunk driving. As I began to study the training of airline personnel, I discovered a large and frightening threat to the traveling public. Outbursts by belligerent passengers are more and more common. But airline personnel are rarely trained on how to handle these situations.

Incidents of ``air rage'' increased 400 percent since 2000. There are an estimated 10,000 cases each year in the United States alone. Airline security experts estimate that alcohol is the underlying cause of the majority of incidents. These incidents can pose a serious threat to passengers and personnel. In some cases, flights have been diverted from their destination in order to land where threatening passengers could be arrested.

Airline personnel are on the front line for ensuring flight safety. Gate attendants are in the best position to keep drunk or belligerent passengers off flights. Today, flight attendants are often the only personnel capable of maintaining order in a plane's cabin.

Before 9/11, a flight's captain or co-pilot would leave the cockpit to assist the flight crew when a passenger made threats or became abusive. Today, the cockpit door is locked for safety. Flight attendants have more responsibility for keeping passengers safe.

Unfortunately, airlines do not have to give their employees the skills to meet their responsibilities. One study found that ``the lack of attention paid by the aviation community to the importance of the flight attendant's role in a commercial flight has led to recurring instances of abuse of cabin crew by passengers and the inability of the cabin crew to restrain violent passenger[s]. . . .''

The Airline Personnel Training Enhancement Act will help remedy this unsafe and unacceptable situation. This legislation is supported by the Association of Flight Attendants and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It is also a commonsense response to a serious problem. It will make our skies and our roads safer. I hope Senators will support it.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Airline Personnel Training Enhancement Act of 2009 and to ask for Senators' support for this important measure to improve safety in the air and on the ground.

The story of this legislation begins with a tragedy. On November 11, 2006, Paul and Renee Gonzales were driving back from a soccer tournament with four of their daughters. They were roughly 1 hour from their home in Las Vegas, NM, when they saw Dana Papst's vehicle. Papst had been driving on the wrong side of I-25 for about 5 miles before his car collided with the Gonzales's minivan at 60 to 75 miles per hour. Five of the six members of the Gonzales family were killed. Papst later died at the hospital.

I cannot say for certain whether this tragedy could have been prevented by a change in laws. But I do know this: A few hours before Dana Papst took six lives, including his own, he was flying back to Albuquerque after a business trip. On that flight, he was noticeably intoxicated. Yet he was served alcohol by airline personnel. When his truck collided with the Gonzales's minivan, his blood-alcohol level was four times the legal limit.

When I heard about Dana Papst and the Gonzales family, I began to look for legislation that could prevent tragedies like this in the future. I learned that under existing law, Papst should not have been served alcohol on his flight. In fact, somebody as drunk as Papst never should have been allowed on that flight. But airlines are not required to teach their personnel how to handle an intoxicated passenger.

To address this problem, I introduced the Airline Personnel Training Enhancement Act in the other body during the last Congress. I am introducing it again today.

This legislation requires air carriers to train their employees on recognizing and dealing with drunk or disruptive passengers. This training will help employees make informed decisions when allowing people to board flights, when deciding whether a passenger should be served alcohol, and when dealing with belligerent passengers. Many States require people who serve alcohol in restaurants and bars to be properly trained. This legislation simply closes a large and potentially deadly loophole. I hope it will lead to fewer deaths on our roads.

New Mexico, like so many other States, has too many crosses on its highways, too many stories of loss and regret. Drunk driving claimed 155 New Mexico lives the year Paul and Renee Gonzales were killed. It claimed 188 the year before, and 211 the year before that. We have the power to help reduce these numbers. I hope we will use it.

But my legislation is not just about drunk driving. As I began to study the training of airline personnel, I discovered a large and frightening threat to the traveling public. Outbursts by belligerent passengers are more and more common. But airline personnel are rarely trained on how to handle these situations.

Incidents of ``air rage'' increased 400 percent since 2000. There are an estimated 10,000 cases each year in the United States alone. Airline security experts estimate that alcohol is the underlying cause of the majority of incidents. These incidents can pose a serious threat to passengers and personnel. In some cases, flights have been diverted from their destination in order to land where threatening passengers could be arrested.

Airline personnel are on the front line for ensuring flight safety. Gate attendants are in the best position to keep drunk or belligerent passengers off flights. Today, flight attendants are often the only personnel capable of maintaining order in a plane's cabin.

Before 9/11, a flight's captain or co-pilot would leave the cockpit to assist the flight crew when a passenger made threats or became abusive. Today, the cockpit door is locked for safety. Flight attendants have more responsibility for keeping passengers safe.

Unfortunately, airlines do not have to give their employees the skills to meet their responsibilities. One study found that ``the lack of attention paid by the aviation community to the importance of the flight attendant's role in a commercial flight has led to recurring instances of abuse of cabin crew by passengers and the inability of the cabin crew to restrain violent passenger[s]. . . .''

The Airline Personnel Training Enhancement Act will help remedy this unsafe and unacceptable situation. This legislation is supported by the Association of Flight Attendants and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It is also a commonsense response to a serious problem. It will make our skies and our roads safer. I hope Senators will support it.

Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the Serve America Act. This bill has broad, bipartisan support--and it should. One of my colleagues said earlier that it combines the best of liberal and conservative. I would say that it appeals to something that transcends political labels--a core belief that if citizens want to serve our country, we should help them.

But there are a few opponents of this bill, and I want to speak briefly to their concerns.

The basic argument against this legislation--as I understand it--is that government should not have to pay for voluntarism. I understand that argument. But I think it represents a basic misunderstanding of what public service is all about.

The AmeriCorps Web site says that that program offers young people an ``opportunity'' to serve.

And it is true. Community service is an opportunity. We could spend hours listing prominent public careers that started in the public service program. One of our colleagues got his start that way, and I know he appreciated that first opportunity to serve.

Alexis de Tocqueville--probably the most famous observer of American civil society--referred to our volunteer organizations as ``schools of democracy.'' And they are.

Volunteers learn to be citizens--in the fullest and truest sense of that word. A Teach for America volunteer in Gallup doesn't just teach his students. He learns a new culture. He learns compassion for a community that is not his own. And he learns how to take responsibility for himself and for others.

Imagine, briefly, if we accepted the idea that the Government should not pay for national service. Incoming AmeriCorps volunteers would be asked if they or their parents can afford to pay for a year's worth of food, clothes, and housing. Peace Corps volunteers would need enough money to spend a year abroad with no source of income. Our communities would not be served. And America's schools of democracy would be closed to all but the wealthiest Americans.

I do not want to live in a country where willing volunteers are denied the opportunity to serve because it is unaffordable.

The Serve America Act reflects the belief that we should encourage all our citizens to serve. We should give them more opportunities to be active citizens. Because a nation of volunteers does not just have better social services--it has a better citizenry and a stronger democracy.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the Serve America Act.

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

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

Mr. President, today I rise to honor two American heroes. The first is Army SGT Daniel Tallouzi. Sergeant Tallouzi was the kind of soldier who hated getting injured--not because of the pain, but because it stopped him from doing his job. A fellow soldier describes meeting Dan when Dan was recovering from an injury at Fort Hood. The soldier recalls:

Another person might have been seriously injured, but Big

Dan Tallouzi shook it off,

refused any pain meds, and only wanted to get back to his

crew and back to the job that he loved.

On September 25, 2006, Dan Tallouzi had just gotten off duty at Camp Taji in Baghdad when a mortar exploded nearby. A single piece of shrapnel--roughly the size of a quarter--reached the spot where he stood. It hit him behind his right ear and entered his brain.

Big Dan Tallouzi would never be the same. He returned to the United States in an ``eyes open'' coma, unable to speak, walk, or even eat on his own. Last week, he died in Albuquerque, NM, the town where he was raised.

The other hero I want to honor today is Mary Tallouzi, Dan's mother. When our soldiers serve in harm's way, the burden is borne by families, not just individuals. Dan Tallouzi understood this as well as anyone. He adored his family, and they adored him. Mary remembers Dan coming home on leave with flowers for his sister and hugs for the whole family. Home videos show him clowning for his cousins, infecting those around him with his warmth and his joy.

When Dan returned from Iraq after his injury, his mom quit her job to follow him through his treatment. First, she left New Mexico for a hospital in Germany. When Dan was transferred to Walter Reed, Mary followed. Then in search of a miracle, she had Dan transferred to the Kessler Institute in New Jersey.

At Kessler, Mary spent 12-hour days by her son's bed. In the morning, she would shave Dan's face, brush his teeth, and put on his favorite cologne. Nurses knew that Mary was watching her son's care like a hawk.

When I met Mary last May, she was back in New Mexico with Dan. After traveling for more than a year, Mary had lost her home and was struggling to find a place that could accommodate her son's needs.

What struck me about Mary was the satisfaction she felt in Dan's achievements. After all she had experienced, all she had suffered, Mary Tallouzi would still light up when she talked about her son. You could see her picturing the old Dan, and you could feel how proud she was.

Mary should be proud of Dan, and she should be proud of herself. She raised a good soldier, a good son, a good man. She bore the sacrifice that war brings, and she bore it well.

Please join me in recognizing the sacrifice of Dan, Mary, and the entire Tallouzi family.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, as I rise today, flags across New Mexico are at half staff. Our State is recognizing a New Mexican who gave his life in service to our country. Army SPC Darrell Fernandez, age 25, died on Saturday, January 31, in Kirkuk, Iraq, when the car he was riding in flipped over.

At times like this, the words of elected officials seem inadequate. Death brings suffering. It is no less heartbreaking when the deceased, as in this case, was a brave young soldier. Words will not ease the pain of Specialist Fernandez' wife, Katrina Fair, or of his mother and stepfather, Susie and Bill Smith. Nor can words add to the glory that Specialist Fernandez has earned through his actions.

But a death like this demands something of the living.

In the best tradition of service and sacrifice, Specialist Fernandez died for us. We owe it to him to acknowledge that, to be grateful, and to remember. His death was not an accident. He died in one of the disasters that war makes commonplace. He died because he chose to serve his country. And he did serve.

A Senators or as citizens, we cannot fully experience the sadness of this day of mourning, the sadness experienced by Darrell's family and friends. But when a soldier dies, the Nation as a whole feels the loss. We are linked to Specialist Fernandez by the ties that bind a grateful Nation to its faithful servant. His loss is ours.

As your colleague and your friend, I ask you to participate in my State's day of remembrance. As the flags fly at half staff and the people of my State grieve, join us in celebrating the heroism of Army SPC Darrell Fernandez, who gave all he had for us.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today I mourn an untimely death and to celebrate a full and remarkable life. Patty Jennings--committed activist, loving wife and devoted mother--died of cancer on February 14.

The world's libraries are full of quotes about turning adversity into achievement, and I might have thought that everything on the topic had pretty much been said. But last week I heard one of the more eloquent statements on the topic. It came from Senator Tim Jennings, Patty's husband.

Cancer is horrible, Senator Jennings told the 18,000 people at Patty's memorial service, ``but it's not all bad. We have met some of the nicest people in the world because of it.''

Tim's response to his wife's death tells you a lot about the couple. Patty and Tim rarely had it easy, but, as Patty put it, they didn't spend much time wishing things could be different. They took comfort in the people they loved--those they worked with and those they tried so hard to help. They responded to their own struggles by struggling on behalf of others.

When Patty's daughter could not get health insurance because of her Down syndrome, Patty and Tim fought to create an insurance pool that would allow high-risk New Mexicans to get health care. Patty spent her limited free time fighting for the developmentally disabled--both as an advocate for systemic reform and as a caring supporter of individual young people.

And she responded to her own breast cancer by helping to fund lifesaving research on the disease. The University of New Mexico's breast cancer program will soon be known as the Senator Tim and Patty Jennings Program for Breast Cancer. I can think of no more fitting tribute.

While we cannot fully know the sadness that Patty's devoted family is feeling today, all New Mexicans are worse off for having lost Patty Jennings. Her compassion should continue to inspire us as we fight to complete her work. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this remarkable woman.

Madam President, today I wish to honor Ed Romero, a great New Mexican. Mr. Romero recently won the Senator Dennis Chavez Civil Rights and Leadership Award. The award is richly deserved.

When the U.S. Congress placed Senator Chavez's statue in Statuary Hall, Reverend John Spence summed up the man nicely. Senator Chavez, Spence said, was ``ever a champion of the underdog, the poor and oppressed.''

In everything he did, Senator Chavez showed his concern for the underdog. He fought for public education, because he knew what it could do to help the children of struggling families become successful adults. He supported farmers, because he knew how difficult life can be in the small communities where the trains don't stop and the roads don't go. And he fought for civil rights, because Chavez believed that equality of opportunity is the core of the American creed.

Dennis Chavez fought for the underdog because he was an underdog. Born into poverty in Valencia County, NM, when the State was still part of Mexico, Chavez walked a long and difficult road to the pinnacle of political power. A child of an isolated small town, he would see the world and help to shape it. A high school dropout, he earned a law degree and became a lawmaker. A victim of ethnic discrimination, he wrote legislation that would eventually make employment discrimination illegal and then unthinkable.

Ambassador Ed Romero also has been an underdog. Those who know him as an international businessman might be surprised to know he started his career working in the fields. Ed Romero had to fight for his business successes. And he fought for the political power that he has used to make this world a better place.

If Ed Romero had just one career, he would be impressive.

If he had only risen from poverty to become a successful businessman--sought-after for corporate boards and respected by his colleagues around the world--that would be an achievement.

But Ed Romero also has devoted his life to sharing what he has earned. As an activist, he has spent his time helping other underdogs play an active role in their government. He has helped America work with its allies to promote peace and human rights across the world. And, much like Senator Chavez before him, he has worked to ensure that men and women of color are represented in this country's corridors of power.

Ed Romero has shown leadership at home and abroad. He is a founder of the Hispanic Cultural Foundation and the National Hispanic Cultural Center in New Mexico. He cofounded the Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce and serves on the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute executive board. He has served as a delegate to the Helsinki accords, and we are very proud that President Clinton named him U.S. Ambassador to Spain.

Linking these two great New Mexicans is very appropriate. Each man turned his own personal struggle into a lasting compassion for life's victims. Both men fought for their people--and for every people that have tasted the bitter fruit of injustice. Both men make me proud to be a New Mexican.

Men like Ed Romero keep America true to its ideals. New Mexico is proud to call him a native son. And I am proud to call him a friend. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ambassador Ed Romero on receiving the Senator Dennis Chavez Civil Rights and Leadership Award.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Principles of Integrative Health: A Path to Health Care Reform'' on Monday, February 23, 2009. The hearing will commence at 2 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to establish a Federal renewable electricity standard. Before I talk about what that will do, let me tell you a little bit about the people it will help.

Luna County, NM has a double-digit unemployment rate. More than half of its children live in poverty. It was in recession before our current economic crisis. If nothing changes, it will be in recession long after the rest of the country recovers. Now, let me be clear. Luna County deserves help, but I'm not looking to spend a lot of money. We usually think of economic development as something you pay for. But the proposal I am introducing today does not spend a dime. In fact, my plan will generate tax revenue.

Luna County has something else worth noting. When you look at the United States on a map that measures solar thermal energy, Luna County is red hot. Like hundreds of small communities across our country, Luna has immense untapped potential for renewable energy. If Luna can find a way to sell its sunlight, its future will be secure. But Luna has a problem. America's energy markets do not value Luna's sunlight the way they should. These markets ignore three critical things. First, growing demand and stagnant supply mean rising prices for fossil fuels. The price of natural gas has more than tripled since 1995. Unless we act, we can expect more price spikes in the future, spikes that threaten the economy. But it is easier for utilities to buy a little more natural gas than it is to invest in clean technologies. The result is that we are moving forward as if our energy use is sustainable, when we know it is not.

In most markets, this would be bad enough, but our energy markets have two other problems. Americans care whether our energy comes from farmers in Iowa or mullahs in Iran, but our markets do not. When we buy solar energy from Luna County, we keep our money in this country, and we make ourselves less dependent on countries such as Russia and Iran, countries that have shown their willingness to use our dependence against us. America's energy markets also ignore global climate change. Right now a clean electron produced by the sun costs as much as an electron produced by burning carbon. Our markets don't care whether the energy we consume is leading to fewer farms and more forest fires. They don't care whether our grandchildren will be able to live comfortably on this Earth. They just don't care. And we are paying the price. Even the most conservative economists will tell us that energy is a classic case of market failure. The energy market ignores our economic security, our national security, and the future of our world. Economists call these things externalities. I call them the basis of our way of life.

So what do we do? I am proposing that we demand a little bit more from our utilities. Let's require that they produce 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Thanks in large part to Senator Bingaman, the Senate has already passed a similar proposal three times. Last year I was proud to help pass a proposal such as this in the other body.

Renewable electricity standards have succeeded at the State level. In fact, more than 28 States have renewable standards, including the State of New Mexico. But a national RES has never become the law of the land. It is time for Congress to make it so.

There are many reasons to support this plan. To start, it is good for consumers. Scientists looking at a 20-percent standard concluded that it could save utility customers $31.8 billion. A 25-percent standard would save even more. A renewable energy standard would also strengthen rural communities and provide new income for farmers and ranchers.

This plan will make America safer. The billions of dollars it will generate are dollars that cannot be used to hold our foreign policy hostage.

Most importantly, a national renewable standard will create hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs, jobs that cannot be outsourced. Study after study shows that shifting capital to renewable energy increases job creation. Not only will this plan stimulate job creation today, it will put us on a path toward dominance in the industries of the future.

Some of my colleagues will probably say a renewable standard makes sense for sunny New Mexico, but it won't work for their States. I urge them to take another look at their States. Scientists predict that Florida could one day meet one-third of its energy needs by tapping the power of the gulf stream. Louisiana has wind energy potential offshore, and New Orleans has already begun to rebuild its economy by creating jobs developing solar energy. Alaska has wind energy potential all over its coast and geothermal potential in the south. The State of Tennessee concluded its existing investment in renewables could yield 4,500 jobs and additional investment could yield 45,000.

Everywhere we look, America has untapped renewable energy potential. But for the sake of argument, let's say that Louisiana might have to import some energy from Florida under a national renewable standard. Louisiana already

imports a big chunk of its energy. As consumption rises, more and more of Louisiana's energy comes from imports. Today those imports come largely from natural gas, and 43 percent of the world's natural gas is under Russia and Iran. So Louisiana is bidding up the price of a commodity that is largely controlled by countries that don't like us. I would rather buy hydropower from Florida than fossil fuels from Iran.

The choice is not between importing and not importing. It is between Charlie Crist and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is not a tough choice.

Of course, some people say they support a renewable standard, but not yet. They say America cannot afford to reduce our contribution to climate change because the growth of China and India will drown out the impact of our emissions reductions. This concern is very real, but it represents a failure of our moral imagination. If we are to have a future as a country and as a global community, we cannot see the world's aspiring middle class as potential threats. We have to see them as potential customers. And we should be racing to develop the technologies they will need.

Waiting for China to address its emissions problem before we address ours is like waiting for an opponent to finish the race before we start to lace up.

Right now, the world is engaged in a high-stakes competition; America just does not always admit it. As the world's citizens see the impact of climate change, we are demanding energy supplies that do not endanger our collective future. That means soon clean energy will not be an alternative, it will be the standard. When that happens, whichever country dominates the clean energy industry will be able to create jobs on a grand scale.

Do not take my word for it. The CEO of GE Energy has testified before the Congress that ``wind and solar energy are likely to be among the largest sources''--largest sources--``of new manufacturing jobs worldwide during the 21st Century.'' Think about what he said:

[W]ind and solar energy are likely to be among the largest

sources of new manufacturing jobs. . . .

We hear a lot of discussion on this floor about new manufacturing jobs and us losing manufacturing jobs. Well, this is where the new manufacturing jobs are going to be.

A growing chorus of economists and business leaders agree with what this GE Energy CEO has said.

America cannot afford to let another country become the world's clean energy leader. But right now we are falling behind. Countries that have done much more to shape their energy markets have already created thriving green energy industries. With a population roughly one-quarter as large as America's, Germany has more than twice as many workers developing wind energy technologies. Spain has almost five times as many workers in the solar thermal industry as America. China has more than 300 times as many.

America is not falling behind because our scientists are not smart enough. Some of the big ideas now powering the economies of Europe originated right here. From 1970 to 1996, Los Alamos National Lab developed a technique for cleanly and efficiently using the Earth's heat to generate electricity. Estimates indicated the technique could eventually power the Earth for hundreds of years. But without market incentives to encourage continued development, progress stagnated. Germany took that technology and brought it to market in just 3 years. They now have 150 geothermal plants nearing completion. Think of the jobs that will create. Those could be our jobs. Those should be our jobs.

A renewable electricity standard would let America catch up and take the lead. We still have the world's most productive workers. We still have the most creative entrepreneurs. Our culture encourages individual initiative to solve tough problems. But if we want to win, we have to act now.

The American people are ready for this. I have driven to every county in New Mexico, and everywhere I saw innovation. I saw wind turbines going up in Little Texas. I saw the spot in Deming, NM, where the world's largest solar plant will sit. At Mesalands Community College in Tucumcari, NM, I saw a classroom in a wind turbine hundreds of feet over the desert. Even Luna County is starting to develop its resources. They just need help.

The Federal Government is late to the party. We should be leading the clean energy revolution. Instead, our constituents are leaving us in the dust. The private sector is working hard, but they need us to create a market that supports their efforts. They need a market that values our economic security, our national security, our environmental security.

Mr. President, it is time for us to lead.

Now, you might have noticed that we New Mexicans are passionate about renewable energy. As I said earlier, Jeff Bingaman has led on this issue for years. As I said earlier, he has passed a renewable standard in the Senate three times. I introduced this legislation today because I want to help Senator Bingaman win this fight. I look forward to working with him and with all of you to get a renewable electricity standard signed into law.

I am also pleased to be introducing this legislation with another Senator, a Senator with a very distinguished last name: my cousin, the senior Senator from Colorado. We spent a decade in the other body together. And much of that time was spent working to pass a renewable electricity standard. We were both attracted to his proposal because it reflects the kind of Western pragmatism that people in Colorado and New Mexico like. I know this issue is important to both of us. I want to thank the Senator for continuing this effort with me, and for his support through the years.

Instead, our constituents are leaving us in the dust. The private sector is working hard, but they need us to create a market that supports their efforts. They need a market that values our economic security, our national security, our environmental security.

Is time for us to lead.

Now, you might have noticed that we New Mexicans are passionate about renewable energy. As I said earlier, Jeff Bingaman has led on this issue for years. I introduce this legislation today because I want to help Senator Bingaman win this fight. I look forward to working with him and with all of you to get a renewable electricity standard signed into law.

I am also pleased to be introducing this legislation with another Senator, a Senator with a very distinguished last name: my cousin, the senior senator from Colorado. We spent a decade in the other body together, and much of that time was spent working to pass a renewable electricity standard. We were both attracted to this proposal because it reflects the kind of Western pragmatism that people in Colorado and New Mexico like. I know this issue is important to both of us. I want to thank the Senator for continuing this effort with me, and for his support through the years.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to establish a Federal renewable electricity standard. Before I talk about what that will do, let me tell you a little bit about the people it will help.

Luna County, NM has a double-digit unemployment rate. More than half of its children live in poverty. It was in recession before our current economic crisis. If nothing changes, it will be in recession long after the rest of the country recovers. Now, let me be clear. Luna County deserves help, but I'm not looking to spend a lot of money. We usually think of economic development as something you pay for. But the proposal I am introducing today does not spend a dime. In fact, my plan will generate tax revenue.

Luna County has something else worth noting. When you look at the United States on a map that measures solar thermal energy, Luna County is red hot. Like hundreds of small communities across our country, Luna has immense untapped potential for renewable energy. If Luna can find a way to sell its sunlight, its future will be secure. But Luna has a problem. America's energy markets do not value Luna's sunlight the way they should. These markets ignore three critical things. First, growing demand and stagnant supply mean rising prices for fossil fuels. The price of natural gas has more than tripled since 1995. Unless we act, we can expect more price spikes in the future, spikes that threaten the economy. But it is easier for utilities to buy a little more natural gas than it is to invest in clean technologies. The result is that we are moving forward as if our energy use is sustainable, when we know it is not.

In most markets, this would be bad enough, but our energy markets have two other problems. Americans care whether our energy comes from farmers in Iowa or mullahs in Iran, but our markets do not. When we buy solar energy from Luna County, we keep our money in this country, and we make ourselves less dependent on countries such as Russia and Iran, countries that have shown their willingness to use our dependence against us. America's energy markets also ignore global climate change. Right now a clean electron produced by the sun costs as much as an electron produced by burning carbon. Our markets don't care whether the energy we consume is leading to fewer farms and more forest fires. They don't care whether our grandchildren will be able to live comfortably on this Earth. They just don't care. And we are paying the price. Even the most conservative economists will tell us that energy is a classic case of market failure. The energy market ignores our economic security, our national security, and the future of our world. Economists call these things externalities. I call them the basis of our way of life.

So what do we do? I am proposing that we demand a little bit more from our utilities. Let's require that they produce 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Thanks in large part to Senator Bingaman, the Senate has already passed a similar proposal three times. Last year I was proud to help pass a proposal such as this in the other body.

Renewable electricity standards have succeeded at the State level. In fact, more than 28 States have renewable standards, including the State of New Mexico. But a national RES has never become the law of the land. It is time for Congress to make it so.

There are many reasons to support this plan. To start, it is good for consumers. Scientists looking at a 20-percent standard concluded that it could save utility customers $31.8 billion. A 25-percent standard would save even more. A renewable energy standard would also strengthen rural communities and provide new income for farmers and ranchers.

This plan will make America safer. The billions of dollars it will generate are dollars that cannot be used to hold our foreign policy hostage.

Most importantly, a national renewable standard will create hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs, jobs that cannot be outsourced. Study after study shows that shifting capital to renewable energy increases job creation. Not only will this plan stimulate job creation today, it will put us on a path toward dominance in the industries of the future.

Some of my colleagues will probably say a renewable standard makes sense for sunny New Mexico, but it won't work for their States. I urge them to take another look at their States. Scientists predict that Florida could one day meet one-third of its energy needs by tapping the power of the gulf stream. Louisiana has wind energy potential offshore, and New Orleans has already begun to rebuild its economy by creating jobs developing solar energy. Alaska has wind energy potential all over its coast and geothermal potential in the south. The State of Tennessee concluded its existing investment in renewables could yield 4,500 jobs and additional investment could yield 45,000.

Everywhere we look, America has untapped renewable energy potential. But for the sake of argument, let's say that Louisiana might have to import some energy from Florida under a national renewable standard. Louisiana already

imports a big chunk of its energy. As consumption rises, more and more of Louisiana's energy comes from imports. Today those imports come largely from natural gas, and 43 percent of the world's natural gas is under Russia and Iran. So Louisiana is bidding up the price of a commodity that is largely controlled by countries that don't like us. I would rather buy hydropower from Florida than fossil fuels from Iran.

The choice is not between importing and not importing. It is between Charlie Crist and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is not a tough choice.

Of course, some people say they support a renewable standard, but not yet. They say America cannot afford to reduce our contribution to climate change because the growth of China and India will drown out the impact of our emissions reductions. This concern is very real, but it represents a failure of our moral imagination. If we are to have a future as a country and as a global community, we cannot see the world's aspiring middle class as potential threats. We have to see them as potential customers. And we should be racing to develop the technologies they will need.

Waiting for China to address its emissions problem before we address ours is like waiting for an opponent to finish the race before we start to lace up.

Right now, the world is engaged in a high-stakes competition; America just does not always admit it. As the world's citizens see the impact of climate change, we are demanding energy supplies that do not endanger our collective future. That means soon clean energy will not be an alternative, it will be the standard. When that happens, whichever country dominates the clean energy industry will be able to create jobs on a grand scale.

Do not take my word for it. The CEO of GE Energy has testified before the Congress that ``wind and solar energy are likely to be among the largest sources''--largest sources--``of new manufacturing jobs worldwide during the 21st Century.'' Think about what he said:

[W]ind and solar energy are likely to be among the largest

sources of new manufacturing jobs. . . .

We hear a lot of discussion on this floor about new manufacturing jobs and us losing manufacturing jobs. Well, this is where the new manufacturing jobs are going to be.

A growing chorus of economists and business leaders agree with what this GE Energy CEO has said.

America cannot afford to let another country become the world's clean energy leader. But right now we are falling behind. Countries that have done much more to shape their energy markets have already created thriving green energy industries. With a population roughly one-quarter as large as America's, Germany has more than twice as many workers developing wind energy technologies. Spain has almost five times as many workers in the solar thermal industry as America. China has more than 300 times as many.

America is not falling behind because our scientists are not smart enough. Some of the big ideas now powering the economies of Europe originated right here. From 1970 to 1996, Los Alamos National Lab developed a technique for cleanly and efficiently using the Earth's heat to generate electricity. Estimates indicated the technique could eventually power the Earth for hundreds of years. But without market incentives to encourage continued development, progress stagnated. Germany took that technology and brought it to market in just 3 years. They now have 150 geothermal plants nearing completion. Think of the jobs that will create. Those could be our jobs. Those should be our jobs.

A renewable electricity standard would let America catch up and take the lead. We still have the world's most productive workers. We still have the most creative entrepreneurs. Our culture encourages individual initiative to solve tough problems. But if we want to win, we have to act now.

The American people are ready for this. I have driven to every county in New Mexico, and everywhere I saw innovation. I saw wind turbines going up in Little Texas. I saw the spot in Deming, NM, where the world's largest solar plant will sit. At Mesalands Community College in Tucumcari, NM, I saw a classroom in a wind turbine hundreds of feet over the desert. Even Luna County is starting to develop its resources. They just need help.

The Federal Government is late to the party. We should be leading the clean energy revolution. Instead, our constituents are leaving us in the dust. The private sector is working hard, but they need us to create a market that supports their efforts. They need a market that values our economic security, our national security, our environmental security.

Mr. President, it is time for us to lead.

Now, you might have noticed that we New Mexicans are passionate about renewable energy. As I said earlier, Jeff Bingaman has led on this issue for years. As I said earlier, he has passed a renewable standard in the Senate three times. I introduced this legislation today because I want to help Senator Bingaman win this fight. I look forward to working with him and with all of you to get a renewable electricity standard signed into law.

I am also pleased to be introducing this legislation with another Senator, a Senator with a very distinguished last name: my cousin, the senior Senator from Colorado. We spent a decade in the other body together. And much of that time was spent working to pass a renewable electricity standard. We were both attracted to his proposal because it reflects the kind of Western pragmatism that people in Colorado and New Mexico like. I know this issue is important to both of us. I want to thank the Senator for continuing this effort with me, and for his support through the years.

Instead, our constituents are leaving us in the dust. The private sector is working hard, but they need us to create a market that supports their efforts. They need a market that values our economic security, our national security, our environmental security.

Is time for us to lead.

Now, you might have noticed that we New Mexicans are passionate about renewable energy. As I said earlier, Jeff Bingaman has led on this issue for years. I introduce this legislation today because I want to help Senator Bingaman win this fight. I look forward to working with him and with all of you to get a renewable electricity standard signed into law.

I am also pleased to be introducing this legislation with another Senator, a Senator with a very distinguished last name: my cousin, the senior senator from Colorado. We spent a decade in the other body together, and much of that time was spent working to pass a renewable electricity standard. We were both attracted to this proposal because it reflects the kind of Western pragmatism that people in Colorado and New Mexico like. I know this issue is important to both of us. I want to thank the Senator for continuing this effort with me, and for his support through the years.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for managing this effort, and I am honored to be with you today.

The first thing I want to say is, I think the important thing that has happened is we have seen several Republicans step forward to work with us on this economic package, and I would congratulate them and thank them for their bipartisanship--the two Senators from Maine and the Senator from Pennsylvania--who have seen that we have a very serious economic crisis facing us, and we need to focus on that with an urgency to do something. So they understand that and they are willing to work with us to make sure we get this done in a timely fashion.

Now, I have been listening to the debate for almost 2 hours, and there have been several assertions that have been made by our friends across the aisle. No. 1 is, the President has misrepresented tax cuts and the Republican position; and, No. 2, the assertion which has to do with a failed ideology. They do not understand that.

Well, it is pretty clear to me what the difference is, and there is a big difference. During the 8 years under George Bush and the Congress that supported him--the Republican Congress--we had tax cuts for the wealthy, and that was the solution to things. What we have in this package--and this is the big difference--is what we call--and President Obama has worked with the Senate and the House on this--a make work pay tax credit. This is a tax cut for working families. This is money that is going to be spent by working families that will flow through the community and get our economy growing again.

Now, on the issue of failed ideology--and I am not trying to read President Obama's mind or anything--I think what President Obama was talking about when he talked about failed ideology and failed policies is, if you look at the Bush Presidency, and you look at the 8 years he was in office, we have seen a couple of things happen: massive debt. During his 8 years, the debt has grown from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. When he took over, the country was in a surplus. We projected over 10 years that we had a $5.6 trillion surplus. Today, we have a $10 trillion or more deficit. And, by the way, that is the biggest swing we have seen in our history, from a surplus to a deficit. That has put us as a nation in a horrible hole. So we know we have a big problem, and President Bush created that.

The Bush economic policies over the last 6 years have hurt the middle class. We have seen middle-class incomes decline by $2,000 a year. The economic policies he has put in place have hurt middle-class and working families. And there is something we have inherited, and we need to be frank about it. It is a massive financial collapse on his watch-- Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, and the list goes on and on. Everybody who is analyzing that now says it is due to deregulation, laisser-faire Government policies, and an approach by that administration to just let people regulate themselves.

I remember when Chris Cox stepped forward and said, it was a mistake to let them regulate themselves. Well, that is what he did with his leadership over there at the SEC. So what President Obama is trying to do, and what the Senate and the House are trying to do now, is to fix the problems we have inherited from this administration--these serious economic problems, financial problems. We very much appreciate the support of Republicans in doing that, especially the three who have stepped forward to work with us.

So I don't think there is any doubt there have been failed policies, but in

talking about the economic recovery, we are talking about several things we are going to do. First of all, in the package that is before us, that I believe we are going to get out sometime soon, we are talking about a financial and banking recovery. We are also talking about stabilizing housing and making sure foreclosures are stopped so we don't go to 8 million foreclosures and those sorts of things. But what we should be focusing on, which this package does, and which is very important, is helping the States so they do not contribute to the downward spiral.

My State of New Mexico, our Governor, has proposed to the legislature, which is sitting right now--the New Mexico Legislature is sitting--$454 million in cuts. That is 10 percent of the State budget, roughly in that range. So what will that do in our State of New Mexico? That will lay people off, projects will slow down, and we will be contributing to the downturn. What this package does that I think is tremendously important is, it allows the States to not make those kinds of cuts.

A number of my colleagues have talked about how important this legislation is. Economists agree that a recovery package simply must be passed. If we do not act, we face double-digit employment--with millions more workers who cannot make ends meet because their hours have been cut and their pay is too low.

We have the power to help. We must use it.

Some of my friends who oppose this bill seem to think that we should pass a recovery package, but we should not to do anything to address our long-term prosperity. They say that this compromise bill is being used as an excuse to do the things we want to do anyway. If that means that this bill is not about creating jobs, then it is just plain wrong. This bill will create jobs. Economists from ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM will tell you that.

But my friends have a point. This bill will do things that should have been done years ago. It addresses concerns that would be very real even if we did not face an economic crisis.

Let me give you an example. A business in my State just had to lay off almost its entire workforce because it couldn't raise capital. This business has devoted itself to designing technologies that will make America a global leader in clean energy. The bill we're considering today could help companies like this get their technologies to market. For this one firm, that could have meant 55 jobs. Someone could say that the recovery package is pursuing goals that are not just about economic recovery.

But let me ask: if you are going to create 55 jobs, why not end America's dependence on foreign oil? Why not create the jobs of the future--jobs that cannot be sent overseas?

Let me give you another example. In Indian country, more than a quarter of all Native Americans live in poverty. The unemployment rates reach as much as 80 percent on some reservations. And the economic hardships facing all Americans today, are only compounded in Native American communities. As Chairman Dorgan said, ``Nowhere in this nation are jobs and construction improvements more needed than on American Indian reservations . . . Where tribal communities have faced longstanding infrastructure needs.''

In this legislation today, we direct investments to Native communities. To improve Indian Reservation Road Infrastructure. To make sure Native people have access to clean drinking water. And to make sure Native children have an opportunity to thrive by investing in their nutrition, and in their educations. So, again, I have to ask: if our goal here is to create jobs, and uplift our economy, why not provide a Native American family with an income . . . with hope for the future? This legislation helps to do just that.

That is not to say that this recovery package is perfect. We would all make adjustments if we could. But we must compromise. And we must get it done. We all realize the long-term consequences if we fail.

Short-term thinking helped get us into this mess. And if we solve today's economic problems without thinking about our future, we will be back here again. Nobody wants that.

More importantly, when this bill is signed into law, our responsibility as Senators and as citizens will not be over. The bill we are considering is an act of trust in the American people. Much of the money in this bill will not be spent by Washington. It will be spent by Governors and mayors, State agencies and school boards--the men and women who make up the strong base of our representative democracy. This is a time for active citizenship. When this bill is signed into law, men and women across this country need to watch how it is spent. We need to make sure that our local governments get the money to families that need help and businesses that will create jobs. This recovery package contains unprecedented provisions to provide oversight and demand accountability. But it will not work unless we make it work.

I look forward to working with State and local officials in New Mexico to make sure the taxpayers' money is spent wisely. I will be working to make sure this money creates jobs today. I will be working to make sure it lays the groundwork for a brighter future. And I encourage my constituents to do the same.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.