Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open today until 1 p.m. for the introduction of legislation, submission of statements, and cosponsorships.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a collection of statements made in tribute to the late First Lady of the United States, Lady Bird Johnson, together with appropriate illustrations and other materials relating to her death, be printed.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m., Monday, July 16; that on Monday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each and with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that at 3 p.m., the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1585.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, as previously announced, there are no rollcall votes Monday. However, Members should be prepared for votes throughout the week. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to reassert my support for a change of course in Iraq and to briefly address some of the amendments we are going to consider in the next few weeks concerning Iraq policy. Two weeks ago, I had the honor of experiencing firsthand one of the more memorable events to occur in this Senate in the 6 months since I have been here. It was late on a Monday evening, and just as you are right now, Mr. President, I was sitting in the Presiding Officer's chair. It was around 10 o'clock at night, and I was thinking that maybe the day's events had been about concluded. Well, OK, I was thinking maybe I was the only Senator left at the Capitol and that it was time to go home. Then onto the floor came Senator Lugar. In my short time in the Senate, I have come to know the senior Senator from Indiana as a man with the deepest respect both from and for his colleagues, a leader who always puts principle above politics, and a Senator who earned the right to speak and be heard long before I came to Washington. For the next 15 minutes, I listened to Senator Lugar--standing right over there--as he delivered a poignant, pragmatic assessment of our Nation's position in Iraq. Rising far above the partisan crossfire that too often fills this Chamber, the Senator from Indiana urged his fellow Members of Congress and members of the administration to suspend their party differences and to come together. As he said that night: In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved. Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term. I hope all of my colleagues will recognize that our current strategy in Iraq is not working, that a new strategy based on the drawing down of U.S. forces is necessary, and that this strategy must be implemented now. After 4 years, over 3,600 American soldiers have been killed; over 25,000 have been wounded; and almost $450 billion has been spent. We cannot wait until next year or even next month to change strategy. After 4 years, we cannot wait for the Iraqi Government to demonstrate progress before we begin bringing our soldiers home, when it has shown no indication of a commitment to compromise and reconciliation. And after 4 years, we cannot ask our men and women in the field to continue to risk life and limb indefinitely in pursuit of a policy that is not working. As Senator Lugar said that night: A course change should happen now, while there is still some possibility of constructing a sustainable bipartisan strategy in Iraq. Well, certainly, what we saw today on the floor of the Senate did not demonstrate that kind of bipartisan strategy. I personally thought it was obstructionism that we were not allowed to at least continue the debate and to vote on Senator Webb's amendment. I believe we have to have a change of course. Our troops have done what we have asked them to do. They deposed an evil dictator. They guaranteed free elections in the country of Iraq. They gave the Iraqi people the opportunity to vote and to establish a new government. We all know there can be no purely military solution in Iraq. This has been agreed on by so many military commanders, experts, and Members of this body on both sides of the aisle that it does not need to be argued anymore. And we all recognize true stability in Iraq will only come through political and economic compromises between Iraq's main ethnic groups, and only the Iraqis themselves can reach these compromises. Given this, shouldn't our strategy be focused on transitioning to Iraqi authority now, not at some undefined time in the future? We must push the Iraqi Government to assume the duties it was elected to perform and to lead the process of meaningful negotiation and dealmaking. Our open-ended commitment is impeding this process and inhibiting the will and the ability of the Iraqi people to stand up and take responsibility for their own country. Nine months ago, the Iraq Study Group proposed a pragmatic change of course that focused on political and economic initiatives, intense regional and international diplomacy to tie all nations with an interest in Iraq together, and the beginning of a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. Since the issuance of the Iraq Study Group report, some conditions on the ground have remained the same, and a number have gotten worse. In the last 3 months, more U.S. troops were killed than in any other 3- month period during the entire war. I urge my colleagues to set aside differences, to forget about past disagreements or voting records, and to focus on what is best for our troops in the field going forward. We owe it to these brave men and women in the field to get this policy right. I believe the best thing we can do--for our troops, for our national interest, and for the Iraqis themselves--is to begin bringing our troops home and to remove the bulk of the U.S. combat forces by the spring of next year. We would still maintain a presence capable of protecting U.S. personnel, training Iraqi forces, and conducting counterterrorism and other specific operations. Keeping the 150,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq is undermining our ability to achieve our objectives there and in the region. We need to start bringing them home. As Senator Lugar said that night: A diplomatic offensive is likely to be easier in the context of a tactical drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq. A drawdown would increase the chances of stimulating greater economic and diplomatic assistance for Iraq from multi- lateral organizations and European allies, who have sought to limit their association with an unpopular war. In March, I visited Baghdad and Fallujah and saw, firsthand, the bravery and commitment of our troops. Of the 22,000 troops involved in the surge, 3,000 of them are from my State of Minnesota. I met a number of these troops. Some of them just came up to me in cafeterias or on the street, and they were from Minnesota. I can tell you that they did not complain. They did not complain about their tour extensions. Some of them--in fact, nearly all of them--had been set to come home in January. They did not complain about that. They did not complain about their equipment. They did not complain about the heat. All they asked me was--first of all--what was the score of the State high school hockey tournament, and then they asked me if I would call their mom and dad, and if I would call their husband or wife when I got home to tell them they were OK. My most lasting memory of that trip was standing on the tarmac at the Baghdad Airport, when nine Duluth firefighters called me over to stand with them. And they were there in front of their firetruck for one purpose, and that was to salute as six caskets, each draped with the American flag, were loaded on a plane. They did not know who the brave soldiers were who died, but they knew when they were sent home, and when their families were there to meet them, their families' lives would never be the same. And they were there to show their respect. Whenever I speak with the moms or dads or husbands or wives of soldiers who were killed, I always ask them how they are doing. When I asked this question of a mom recently from western Minnesota, she said: You know, people keep asking me that. They keep asking me how I am doing. And, you know, I really don't know what to say. She said: Do you have any ideas about what I should say? And I told her: Well, I can tell you what the other mothers have been saying. They have been saying that they wake up every morning, and they try so hard to hang together for their family, and then something happens--they see a picture or they remember something--and they are never the same for the rest of the day. And they have their good moments, but their lives will never be the same. We owe it to these families to honor the sacrifices their sons and daughters have made and to begin bringing our troops in Iraq home so that other families do not experience similar anguish. This is a different kind of war we are fighting. It has made demands on the National Guard that are unprecedented. At times, up to 40 percent of the troops fighting in Iraq have been members of the National Guard and Reserves. In many respects, this war has involved a different kind of soldier. In Vietnam, the average age of an American soldier was 19 years old. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the average age of Active-Duty soldiers is 27, and the average age of National Guard members over there is 33 years old. Three-fourths of all soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have families of their own, and fully one-half of those who have been killed have left families behind. Almost 22 percent of all Reserve and Guard members have had multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. I have met some of these families. When I was up in Duluth, I met a brother and a sister--teenagers. Both of their parents had been in Iraq, and they were both going back again. For 4 years, these citizen soldiers have gone above and beyond the call of duty and made extraordinary sacrifices. It is time to begin bringing them home. We are finally starting to see some of our National Guard and Reserve members in Minnesota coming back, just as others across the country are taking their place. These men and women from Minnesota are completing one of the longest deployments of any U.S. military unit since the war began. They were originally scheduled to return home at the beginning of this year, only to find out weeks before they expected to ship back home that their tours had been extended as part of the President's surge strategy. Already a few hundred of these Guard members have been reunited with their loved ones, and by August the entire unit should be back in Minnesota, reconnecting with friends and family, beginning the process of transitioning to normal life. Having served and sacrificed for 16 months, these men and women have earned their rest and the right to live their lives in peace. That is why I cosponsored and voted for the amendment offered by my friend from Virginia, Senator Webb, also cosponsored by Senator Hagel. This amendment, as my colleagues know, would require regular units deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan to remain at home at least as long as they were deployed and give Guard and Reserve members 3 years at home for every 1 year they are deployed. The President's policies have placed unprecedented demands on our military in the 4 years of this war. Our forces are exhausted and overstressed. It is critical, both for morale and for operational safety, that units be given proper time to rest, recuperate, and retrain before redeploying. America's Armed Forces have a proud history and tradition that is unparalleled in the world, but when their ability to function properly is in danger, Congress must step in and address this situation. I am disappointed that most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose to block this responsible proposal rather than allowing a simple majority vote. This amendment would begin the process of repairing and rebuilding our military, while maintaining our Nation's ability to meet any threat to our Nation's security. We owe this to the members of the National Guard and Reserve and to their fellow soldiers across the country. Since I have been in the Senate, I have joined many of my colleagues on countless occasions in asking when this war's supporters would publicly acknowledge the realities on the ground and finally allow a change of course that begins bringing our forces home. Each time we ask this question, we are told to be patient, that progress is just around the corner, and that it would be counterproductive to establish a timetable for withdrawal. After my trip to Iraq, I met with the President with three other Senators, and I talked to him about this. He said he supported the Iraq Study Group, but he didn't believe in the timetables. He didn't want the deadlines. Again, we were told it will be counterproductive to establish a timetable for withdrawal. Now we have reached a point where the patience of many of even the most loyal supporters of this war--and I am someone who opposed this war from the beginning--but the patience of even the most loyal supporters of this war has been exhausted. We have reached a point where Senators who have dedicated their lives to serving our national interests cannot stand silent as America's strength and standing in the world is continually undermined. We have reached a point where the necessary changes in our strategies in Iraq may finally be possible. I urge my colleagues to vote for these changes. We simply cannot wait any longer. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 1704, which was introduced earlier today.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 2366 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings at this time.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1650 and that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on June 21, 2007, by the President of the United States: Tax Convention with Belgium, Treaty Document No. 110-3. I further ask unanimous consent that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time, that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed, and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 2359 has been received from the House and is at the desk.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. If there is no further business to come before the Senate today, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Friday, June 22; that on Friday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here once again to address my amendment for a national greenhouse gas registry. As you know, this is an amendment that I am cosponsoring with Senator Snowe and two other Republicans, as well as Senator Bingaman. This is an idea whose time has come. This is an amendment that doesn't actually say what the policy will be with regard to greenhouse gases. It simply requires that on a national basis we collect accurate information so we can make smart policy decisions. I am sorry to say the other side has not yet agreed to vote on this amendment. It is looking a little bleak as time ticks on, but I am still here. It puzzles me because the senior Senator from Oklahoma, in a trade magazine--Environment and Energy Daily--was recently quoted in a short interview, after repeatedly calling global warming a hoax, as saying that he predicted this measure, this bill, would probably be adopted, if offered. And I think that may be accurate. We know a number of Republicans are interested in this bill. We have worked very hard and we think it is important. That is why it is very distressing to me that we are not even going to be allowed to have a vote on this. It is distressing because one of the reasons Senator Snowe and I came up with this amendment is because we did hear what we considered something of an outcry from businesses across this country. As you know, 31 States have come up with plans involving greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and they are actually starting their own registry out of complete and utter frustration with the Federal Government. It is absurd to think a majority of States is having to put together a greenhouse gas registry because our national Government is so complacent. Back in January we had a number of these companies that gathered together and came to us and said we want action on climate change. We want to get this registry going. We want to have it done by the end of the year. I have been here long enough to know we are not going to get it done by the end of the year unless we vote on it now. I want to mention some of the companies that expressed interest in this: Alcan Inc., Alcoa, American International Group, Inc.--that is AIG, Boston Scientific Corporation, BP America Inc., Caterpillar Inc., ConocoPhillips, Deere & Company, the Dow Chemical Company, Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense, FPL Group, Inc., General Electric, General Motors Corp., Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, Inc. PepsiCo, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources, Shell, Siemens Corporation. They all said they wanted us to get something done on climate change. You can imagine my surprise when we found out that in fact the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed this bill. They never talked to me about it; they just sent out a letter. In fact, they threatened this could be one of the key votes for the chamber this year, depending on how people voted on this little bill that simply asks that accurate data be collected and be able to be posted on a Web site as they do in Canada and other places. But they said it might be a key vote, right up there with the estate tax last year and some of the other votes that were national issues. There have been a lot of things said about this bill. The senior Senator from Oklahoma actually sent out a letter about it. He talked about how it would apply to virtually every business in America in this letter. The simple truth is we wrote this amendment with business in mind because we had the impression, from what we had heard, that business wants to work with us on this important issue of climate change. The amendment contains explicit provisions excluding companies for which reporting was excessively burdensome or expensive. The new registry only covers major emitting facilities and major sources of fossil fuels. Utilities already reporting under the Clean Air Act would not have to report their data twice. For facilities facing costs and purchasing advanced monitoring equipment, the EPA would accept basic information on the amount and type of fossil fuels they consume, which is collected by businesses for general accounting purposes. Section 165(b)(10)(c) of my amendment specifies that confidential business information will not be published under the National Greenhouse Gas Registry. The legislation also has an exception for small businesses, the exception as defined by the Small Business Administration--businesses that generate fewer than 10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. And 10,000 metric tons is not an arbitrary number. The American Chemical Society released a report in 2003 which talked about this as a threshold, 10,000 metric tons, a threshold which . . . effectively relieves the agriculture and commercial building sectors from reporting, substantially reduces the number of manufacturing facilities that would report while continuing to capture 80 percent of emissions. Clearly this is not true. We also know the current status. We have some businesses, major emitters, reporting to the Department of Energy. Some report to the EPA. Some report every 3 years. Some report every week. Some report every year. This is not the kind of information we expect to have in order to make policy decisions on climate change. In his letter, the senior Senator from Oklahoma also said organizations such as the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council would be put in charge of third-party verification and have access to confidential business information. This is so inaccurate I do not even know where to begin. Under my amendment, the EPA Administrator may ensure that reports are certified by a third-party entity, but as with the California Climate Registry, third-party verifiers will have to be verified themselves as experienced firms in providing greenhouse gas emission certifications. These are engineering firms; they are not political interest groups. Finally, they claim this amendment did not go through the committee process. That interests me because a little over 5 years ago, Senator Brownback, the Republican Senator, along with then-Senator Corzine of New Jersey, passed an amendment in this Chamber creating a greenhouse gas registry. This registry would have been voluntary, but after 5 years, if the registry contained less than 60 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.--that is clearly where it is now-- mandatory reporting would have been triggered. Sadly, the bill didn't get ultimately through this Congress. But the point is, this Chamber has already voted on this. Here is a simple truth. This amendment seeks to create common standards for measuring, tracking, verifying, and reporting greenhouse gas emissions by major industries. It requires the Environmental Protection Agency--not exactly an engine of radical reform at this moment--to consider cost and coordinate with existing Federal and State programs to implement this registry. This is an opportunity that the Senate should be willing to put its head up and vote for. It is an opportunity to at least get the accurate data so we can start talking about climate change reform. I never knew I would end up here in the Senate. I grew up in a middle-class family. My grandpa was a miner and a logger. My dad was a journalist. My mom was an elementary schoolteacher. I worked jobs all my life--as a pie cutter. I worked as a car hop. I worked as a secretary. I went to public high school. I got a law degree. I went to a law firm, and I ended up being privileged to be the district attorney for the largest county in Minnesota. When Senator Dayton decided he wasn't going to run again for the Senate, I ran for the Senate. It has been my belief throughout my life that you can get things done if you have right on your side, and if you are able to work with other people, you can get things done and you can change things. It started in the fourth grade when I was the first girl to wear bell-bottom pants, the first girl to wear pants in my public elementary school. I was kicked out by Mrs. Quady, the principal, but I came back the next day and within a year the girls were allowed to wear pants. In high school they said we couldn't raise enough money to have our high school prom, and we sold Life Saver lollipops and we got it done. In DA, we had troubled crime in a lot of our neighborhoods and we reached out to these neighbors and organized, and they did a lot of good work and we had some amazing examples of individual citizens getting things done on the front end. Now we are here. We have a major challenge confronting us. That is a challenge of climate change. There are people out there waiting for us to do something about it. There is a scientist out there right now seeing how the sea level is going up. There is another scientist who measures the temperatures and sees how, since the ice age, we have only had a 5-degree increase in temperature and just the last century we have seen a 1-degree increase, with the EPA estimating a 3-degree increase in the next hundred years. There are little kids out there wearing ``Save the Penguins'' buttons right now. There is a hunter in Hinckley, MN, who sees changes in the wetlands. He is waiting for us to act. There is a ski resort on up in Grand Marais, MN, that had 30 percent less profits in this last year because of the decrease in snow. He is waiting for us to act. That is why I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to allow this important amendment to be heard. It doesn't dictate what the policy will be. It simply asks that we collect accurate information. I am an optimist. The seat I hold was once held by Hubert Humphrey. At the end of his life, he said the words that are on his grave: People consider me sentimental but to the end I remain an optimist. I remain an optimist with joy and without apology about this great American experiment in Democracy. I remain an optimist too. I remain an optimist because I have seen the great work the Senator from New Mexico and others have done in this energy bill, and I believe more can be done. I remain an optimist that this bill will ultimately pass. If not today, this amendment will ultimately pass on another bill. I yield the floor.