Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 853, S. Res. 594.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the dedication of all those involved in the safe and miraculous return of Keith Kennedy, an autistic man from Shoreview, MN, who spent this past week alone, without food or shelter, lost in the woods of northwestern Wisconsin. His safe return has been called a miracle, but this miracle would not have been possible without the commitment of the hundreds of volunteers, law enforcement officers, firefighters and medics who selflessly gave their time and continued to search for Keith, even when all hope seemed lost. Special recognition must go to Gary Ruiz and Jim Cotroneo, two St. Paul firefighters who found Keith against all odds. Their efforts, and the efforts of their colleagues who joined them in this search, ensured a joyful ending to what could so easily have been another tragedy. I cannot fail to mention Keith's parents, Bruce and Linda Kennedy, whose spirit of hope was by all accounts an inspiration to those who participated in bringing Keith home safely. Their bravery and the bravery of their son are an inspiration to us all. I believe this story shows once again the willingness of Minnesotans, and of our friends in Wisconsin, to go beyond what is asked of them to come together as a community and support those in need. My hope is that the actions of all those who gave of themselves so that Keith could return home, will inspire others to do the same.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I am proud to follow the Senator from Michigan, who has done so much to fight for jobs in her State, with its difficult economic conditions, and speak from the heart not only as a Senator but as a mother when she talks about this checklist for change. So many of us who have come to the floor today are not just Senators but also mothers. I think about my family generations back and the women who have kept the checklist. My grandmother in Ely, Minnesota--I think of her writing in her perfect handwriting the lists that she made throughout the day. My grandpa, her husband, worked 1,500 feet underground in the mines in Ely. Neither of them graduated from high school. She had a checklist for her family. That list was making sure-- at the top of that list--that my dad and his brother went to college. They saved money in a coffee can in the basement of that little house. They had that coffee can to save the money in to send my dad and his brother to college. And I think of my own mother, who got divorced when I was about 16. My dad was always there for me, but my mother had to decide she was going to try to stay in her house raising two kids in the suburbs of Minneapolis. She decided she had to go back to work when they got divorced. She would write on the calendar in blue ink, which I remember. In her head I know she was thinking would she be able to raise her kids and stay in that house when she retired. She ended up having to teach. At age 70, she had 30 second-graders. At age 80, she is still in that house. So she did it. As for me, my husband and I have our own checklist on the refrigerator, with the things on it that we have to buy from the grocery store. Last week, my daughter who is 12, added to the checklist to get her a swimming suit for the seventh grade pool party. So I think all the women in America understand what it is like to have these lists. What we are talking about today is a checklist for the entire country. For all of us, every American family, on the top of that checklist is balancing the family checkbook, protecting the family checkbook. As families sit down every day at the kitchen table to write their budgets and figure out if they have enough to make ends meet, they find out that things on their list cost a lot more. They have to manage to do a lot more with less. In fact, as you can see on this chart, in the last 7 years since this administration took office, the average family wages have gone down $1,175 for your average middle-class family making around $48,000 a year. That is hard enough, but at the same time, as we all know, the average family expenses have increased. I can tell you that these are last year's figures, before we saw the huge increase in gas prices. But the average family expenses have increased more than $4,500, and this is per year. We are talking about higher mortgage payments of $1,700; higher gas bills of $2,000; high food costs of $230; higher phone bills of $112; higher appliance costs of $42; and higher health insurance, which is up $363. When you look at the wages lost and expenses gained, that is $5,739 per year out of the average American families' checkbooks. So families are feeling the hurt. They are not doing anything wrong, but this is what we are seeing all over this country. Why is this going on? In part, it is because everybody is nickel-and- diming our families. The oil companies are taking a huge chunk out of the family checkbook every week. In Minnesota, I saw family cars wrapped around the block at Costco, waiting in line for the discount gas pumps--just to save a few bucks. Energy costs are skyrocketing, grocery bills are climbing, and while families are looking for ways to save every penny, big companies continue to nickel-and-dime them. The drug companies are nickel-and-diming consumers by refusing to negotiate drug prices under Medicare Part D. The predatory lenders and unscrupulous creditors are taking a chunk out of the family checkbook with credit card scams and bad loan deals that are bringing down the values of homes. Cell phone companies are nickel-and-diming families with early termination fees and excessive charges. Middle-class families are being squeezed from all sides, trying to keep up with the costs. You have heard about the ``sandwich generation''--middle-class families trying to take care of their kids, while at the same time taking care of their aging parents. Look at the cost of college and child care. Today, I am not sure my grandparents could have ever fit the money for college in a coffee can. The average student graduates with more than $25,000 of debt. We owe our students a better start in life. Meanwhile, while my mom scrimped and saved to keep her house into retirement, many families do not have that same luxury and, instead, are putting every penny into nursing home living facilities. On top of these financial worries, parents who may want to get a toy for their child's birthday are trying to save a few dollars, and they worry if they are going to get a toy that contains lead. They wonder about the tomatoes they bought at the store, or whether the pool drain in the local public pool will hurt their child. They worry: Is my family safe? This isn't the American dream, and it should not be in this day and age. American families deserve an advocate for them, and the Democratic women today in the Senate stand ready to be those advocates, ready to make the change these families desperately need. We not only need to change the agenda to help our middle-class families, we need to put a little change back in their wallets. This last year, we stood up for America's middle-class families and their checkbooks: making college more affordable, increasing the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years. We took on the special interests from the oil companies to the toxic toy manufacturers. So much more needs to be done to protect American families' checkbooks. We need to give tax breaks to the middle class by closing the loopholes that benefit only the wealthy. We must put America's families first and find the relief they need from rising prices and falling wages and help them protect the family checkbook. We must put the people of the country first, not the special interests, by enacting comprehensive, affordable health care reforms to make health care more affordable and enact a comprehensive energy policy so that instead of spending $600,000 a minute on foreign oil and sending that money to the sultans of Saudi Arabia, we are spending it on the farmers and workers in this country. We must be vigilant in protecting consumer rights, as we stand on the verge of passing the most sweeping consumer product reform in 16 years. We must continue to keep toxic toys and products off of our shores and out of our stores. This checklist for change is from a group of women who all know what it is like to balance the family checkbook, and we know it is time for a change. The American people know it is time for a change. As Senator Barbara Mikulski, the dean of our delegation of women Senators, said today as she called on women of the Senate to work on this together: I call on the women in this country to put on your lipstick, square your shoulders, and suit up and take up this fight for change. We are here today, shoulders squared, and with a checklist to accomplish the change that American families so desperately need. I see that my colleague from Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln, is here. She has always been a strong advocate for America's families. We both have children in the same junior high school. Mine is in seventh grade, quickly going into eighth. Hers are in the sixth grade. We have been dealing with the half schooldays in the Virginia schools. So it is good to be here together to talk about that issue. I turn it over to the great leader from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, yesterday I came to the floor, along with Senators Harkin, Grassley, and others, to talk about the devastating floods the Midwest has experienced, and no one would know more than the Presiding Officer about the tragedies these types of natural disasters can cause for everyone in those communities and for the infrastructure. But today I am here to talk about something a little different, about how another country, the country of Burma, has dealt with this. I come to the floor today to call attention to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Burma more than 6 weeks after the deadly storm that wreaked widespread death and destruction throughout that region. When Cyclone Nargis struck the Irrawaddy Delta on May 2, the international community's attention was captivated by the catastrophic loss of life and the ensuing dangerous and deplorable conditions faced by 2.4 million Burmese who survived the storm. In the days immediately following the storm, the United States, the U.N., and other nations and organizations applied strong pressure on Burma's ruling Government to allow all international aid workers to enter disaster areas and provide medical and humanitarian aid to survivors. The 16 women Senators who are united in the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues on Burma sent a letter to the U.N. Secretary urging him to convince the Burmese Government to allow disaster relief assessment teams into the country and lift restrictions on international humanitarian organizations. When the Burmese Government finally consented and pledged to allow international aid workers to enter the country, I believe many of us hoped the full-scale recovery process had begun and that we could turn our attention elsewhere. Sadly, this was not the case. The situation in Burma remains perilous, and the 2.4 million storm survivors need our attention now more than ever. I recently met with representatives from the local Burmese community in my State who have been personally impacted by this deadly natural disaster, the most deadly in their country's history. Minnesota is home to thousands of people from Burma, including the largest U.N. concentration of refugees who have been victims of religious and ethnic persecution under Burma's military regime. As with so many immigrant and refugee communities in our Nation, the members of Minnesota's Burmese community maintain extensive ties to their country, and the storm and its aftermath has been a particularly painful period. Too many members of this community are still waiting after 6 weeks to hear from grandparents and cousins and sisters and brothers. They do not know if they are alive. I met with the leaders of their community in order to listen to the information and reports they were receiving from friends and relatives caught in the middle of an ongoing disaster. The stories I heard were heartbreaking. Over 100,000 people are believed to have lost their lives during and after the storm. Tens of thousands are still missing, and millions are homeless and without adequate food or fresh water. This disaster was nearly of tsunami proportions; however, it affected one small country, which time and time again refused our help. The local Burmese with whom I met told me how difficult it is to get basic information and stay in contact with their family members in the disaster areas. One woman told me she still has not been able to locate her sisters in Burma. Others expressed their fears that the Burmese regime would never admit the need for outside help or allow the aid that entered the country to reach the areas it was needed the most. They feared that unless the international community remained vigilant and refused to accept the Burmese Government's conditions and control over humanitarian aid, the plight of the people would grow weaker while the regime's grip would grow stronger. Casualties from the Burma cyclone, as I mentioned, are nearly on the same scale as the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004. But in that instance, the impacted countries accepted and even asked for international aid. With the military regime in Burma, they have tried to shut the world out. While the outpouring of donations, relief supplies, and aid personnel from around the world has been substantial, only a fraction of available international aid is reaching the storm's 2.4 million survivors. U.N. officials have reported that aid groups are unable to provide 1.1 million survivors with sufficient food, clean water, and shelter, while trying to prevent a second wave of deaths from malnutrition and disease. Of the 1.3 million people who have received some form of help, the U.N. found they only have had access to inconsistent levels of assistance. Yet the Burmese regime continues to raise bureaucratic obstructions to the help waiting helplessly offshore. Those international recovery workers who have been allowed to enter the country, and even Burma's own aid donors and relief organizations, are facing roadblocks in accessing the disaster regions to provide aid, leaving hundreds of thousands of survivors to fend for themselves. We have seen news reports that survivors have been forced to drink from dirty canals and to go for days without food. Many are turning to Burmese monks for help due to the Government's inaction--the same monks who faced a brutal military crackdown last fall for their peaceful prodemocracy demonstrations. According to aid officials, in a normal recovery effort, 6 weeks after a disaster--and you think about 6 weeks after Katrina in your home State of Louisiana, Madam President--survivors should be on the road to recovery and thinking about what they need to do to restart their lives. In Burma, 6 weeks after the storm, many survivors still didn't know how they were going to find food, water, or shelter on a daily basis. We are now receiving reports that the Government is forcibly closing aid camps and forcing homeless survivors to return to devastated villages. They are being told to rebuild their homes, but they haven't been given the assistance to do so. The representatives of the Burmese community I met with in Minnesota understand that the cyclone, and its aftermath, is more than a natural disaster, it is a political disaster. It is a disaster made far worse, far more deadly, because of the repressive military regime that controls the country. The Burmese people have been repressed and impoverished by their own Government for years. The regime's lack of response to the cyclone disaster just highlights how bad the human rights situation is. Rather than focusing on ways to help the millions of Burmese struggling to survive, the regime instead used the chaos of the storm's aftermath to quietly extend another year the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of Burma's democracy movement, who has been detained at home on and off for 12 of the last 18 years. What would be an appalling and inexcusable action in any other nation facing similar circumstances comes as little surprise to anyone who has been following the events in Burma over the last few years. But it wasn't always that way. In fact, the current political conditions in Burma are ironic and tragic, especially when we consider that this country produced one of the great statesmen of the modern world--U Thant. As Secretary General of the United Nations from 1961 to 1971, he worked so hard to promote international human rights and to bring peace to troubled regions of the world. In an address to the General Assembly commemorating the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, U Thant said that in the age of jet plane and satellites circling the globe, ``the world is fast becoming a community, a community with common interests and common aspirations. Gone are the days when each nation was an island unto itself. Today, questions of human rights are a matter of international concern.'' Unfortunately, the Government in Burma wants to stay an island unto itself and doesn't think the world should concern itself with the human rights of its people. The military regime's neglect and abuse of its own people challenges our traditional notions of national sovereignty and noninterference. The indifference of Burma's military regime has generated an international debate about humanitarian aid and the need for stronger international law to deal with cases where national governments fail or refuse to provide adequate aid. In recent years, the international community has come to recognize that a government has a fundamental responsibility to protect its own people and that we have a responsibility to take action with humanitarian intervention when a government fails in that responsibility. Two weeks ago, U.S. Navy ships loaded with aid supplies and equipment withdrew from Burmese waters after repeated unsuccessful attempts to deliver their vital cargo that could save thousands of lives. U.S. officials have said they will return only when Burma's leaders change their minds and allow them to offload their supplies in Burma's ports. But we cannot simply turn away from the Burmese people and allow the Burmese regime to continue to sacrifice thousands of lives in order to protect its own security. We must use all available means to compel the regime to allow full aid supplies and personnel to enter the disaster areas and to stay there until survivors are ready and able to begin rebuilding their lives. At the end of the meeting with our local Burmese, I pledged to them that I would take their stories to Washington and do what I can to bring attention to the plight of the people in their country as we use our influence to bring about immediate and long-term constructive change. The rebuilding process in Burma will take years, and it is imperative that in the weeks and the months to come, we don't lose our focus or our commitment or our obligation to assist the Burmese people. So I will continue to work with my colleagues to draw attention to this situation and to continue to provide every available opportunity to call attention to it. This is our moral responsibility. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to offer my thoughts and prayers to the people and communities throughout the Midwest who were hurt by last week's massive floods. It appears that the floodwaters have begun to recede. But the long, hard process of cleaning up and rebuilding lies ahead. In particular, I offer sympathy and support to my colleagues Tom Harkin and Charles Grassley, the Senators from Iowa, whose governor has declared 83 of the State's 99 counties to be disaster areas. Worst hit was the city of Cedar Rapids, IA. Over 9 square miles--or 1,300 blocks--were flooded in the city and 25,000 people had to be evacuated from their homes. Preliminary estimates indicate over $700 million in damage. This is in Cedar Rapids alone. In Cedar Rapids, it is being called not the flood of the century--but the flood of the half-millennium--an event that should occur only once in 500 years. In fact, rescue workers from Minnesota have been deployed to Iowa to help the victims of the flooding there. While the residents and businesses of Cedar Rapids were hit the hardest, they were hardly alone. Heavy rainfall last week submerged much of the Midwest--Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, and my own State of Minnesota. Throughout the Midwest, corn and soybean fields turned into lakes. City streets turned into canals. It's like Waterworld. There is water nearly everywhere. And where there isn't water, there is mud. Lots of mud. In terms of physical devastation, some are calling these floods ``the Katrina of the Midwest.'' Among the areas suffering flood damage was the southeastern corner of my state of Minnesota. Three major rivers in the area--the Root, the Cedar and the Zumbro--all flooded. Four Minnesota counties were declared State disaster areas--Freeborn, Mower, Fillmore and Houston counties. This includes areas that have already suffered extensive flood damage in the past year--both with the devastating floods in August last year as well as floods earlier this spring. As you can see from this aerial photograph of Austin, MN, taken last week, flood, water poured across big sections of the city, flooding not just streets, but highways and freeway ramps. This weekend, I spoke with the mayors of Austin, Rochester and Lanesboro. Later in the week, I plan to visit the area and meet with local leaders and residents. After the floods last August, I traveled to the area several times to survey the damage and work with local and State leaders to obtain Federal aid and assistance. My family and I even spent a weekend in the area. I know these communities are strong--just as you will see with the State of Iowa, which State has been hit even harder, and they will make it through this latest disaster. Last week's flooding resulted in the death of one Minnesota man, Dale Wangen, of rural Albert Lea. He was driving home in the dark, rainy night and suddenly his car plunged into the rushing flood waters because the road was washed away. Emergency responders found him only because another car came along and also plunged into the water. That driver was able to get out. But he told rescuers that his car had crashed on top of another car. Austin, MN, is home to Hormel Foods, a Fortune 500 company. They had to close their corporate offices because of the flood. Here is a second photograph of Austin, also taken last week. You can see that it was not just a few wet basements. Some neighborhoods were flooded practically up to the treetops and had to be evacuated. Fortunately, Austin was spared even worse damage because--ever since a major flood 30 years ago--they have been implementing a comprehensive flood mitigation plan, including the purchase of more than 250 homes in flood-prone areas. Nonetheless, the three worst floods in Austin's history have all occurred since the year 2000--with the worst in 2004. As one resident of Austin put it: ``It seems like we're getting a `hundred-year flood' every 3 or 4 years.'' While the most attention is given to cities and towns damaged by the floods, the countryside has not been spared, either. Houston County, at the far southeastern tip of Minnesota, is a rural area with a total population of just 20,000. Preliminary estimates indicate that Houston County alone has suffered close to $7 million in infrastructure damage and $15 million in crop damage. Heavy spring rains had already delayed the planting of crops. Now, there are acres and acres of young corn and soybean plants that are under water. The work that Senator Harkin has done as Chair of the Agriculture Committee is making sure that we give permanent disaster relief is so important. These floods are one example. We will not know the full extent of the damage until the harvest this fall. But the end result could be billions of dollars in crop losses. At a time like this, local communities should not be expected to fend for themselves. The Federal Government has an essential role to support communities as they recover and rebuild. In these circumstances, the Federal Emergency Management Agency-- FEMA--must be a lifeline to help these communities both survive and come back. FEMA is the primary coordinator of all Federal responses to this national tragedy, from first making sure that people are safe and secure, to then making sure that those people are made whole again, to finally making sure that their infrastructure is rebuilt and made stronger, so that such disasters do not happen again. We saw this in flooding last year in Southeastern Minnesota, where whole communities were washed out. We went through these three steps so those communities are beginning to thrive again. The Small Business Administration plays a key role in recovery activities, providing vital assistance to local businesses that have suffered economic losses. While we did not need it, the floods provide justification for the first-ever permanent program of disaster assistance for farmers, which we just passed as part of our farm bill. In my state of Minnesota, it has been a tough 2 years when it comes to disasters. Last spring, we had the Ham Lake fire that burned 76,000 acres in northern Minnesota. On August 1 last year, we had the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in the heart of our Twin Cities metropolitan area, killing 13 people and injuring over one hundred. Later in August, we had the devastating floods in southeastern Minnesota that cost six lives and caused tens of millions of dollars in damage. Less than a month ago, on the Sunday evening before Memorial Day, the small community of Hugo was hit by a fierce tornado. It killed a 2- year-old boy, Nathaniel Prindle, and seriously injured his 4-year-old sister, Annika. Fifty homes were completely destroyed and another 250 were damaged. But there is one special thing we have seen with each one of these disasters. It is the sight of people joining together to help and care for others in need. Even with all the devastation, disasters like these still bring out the very best in the human spirit. Not just neighbors helping neighbors, but strangers helping strangers. Disasters can take away lives; they can destroy homes; and they can wipe away roads and bridges. But, in America, we won't let them take away our spirit of community. With the appropriate State and Federal support, I am confident that the flood-damaged communities of the Midwest will thrive once again. With leaders like Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley, I am confident Iowa will thrive once again. I think about the epic flood that occurred 11 years ago on the Red River bordering Minnesota and North Dakota. The waters inundated downtown Grand Forks in North Dakota and East Grand Forks in Minnesota--60,000 people had to evacuate; 900 lost their homes; and 11 downtown buildings were destroyed. But with the hard work of Senators Dorgan and Conrad and officials throughout North Dakota and Minnesota, it is amazing to visit those communities today and see how they have rebuilt and moved forward. I hear that officials from Grand Forks have already reached out and talked with their counterparts in Cedar Rapids, IA--giving them advice on everything from legal issues to how to rebuild. That, too, is the spirit of America. We know we will be able get through this disaster because we know we will work together and provide support to one another. I see Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley are coming to the Senate floor. Again, we pledge from the State of Minnesota to do everything we can to help them. Their damage was so much more extensive than ours. But we know with fine leaders like these, they will help their State get through this. I know we are sending emergency workers from Minnesota at this very minute. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when I finish my remarks Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley follow me.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 11, 2008, at 3 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 11, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing on Judicial nominations on Wednesday, June 11, 2008, at 2 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the blocks of time be extended for another hour, with the majority controlling the first half hour of the extension.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I just got back from my home State of Minnesota. Let me tell you, the price of gas is not just one of the issues people are talking about, it is the issue they are talking about. In this last week, as we all know, gas prices have risen above $4 a gallon as the national average, and many of the people in the country cannot afford it. If you drive past a Costco store--I am a Costco member--you will see in the Twin Cities cars lining the block trying to get in to save a few pennies, to save a few nickles, to save some money. Those gas lines remind me of the OPEC oil embargo we have not seen since the 1970s. If you talk to people in the rural parts of our State, you will be shocked at their out-of-pocket expenses. They have a longer way to drive to work. With gas at $4 a gallon, some people are spending $20 a day to get to work in the morning and to get home at night. Mr. President, as you know from your home State of Colorado, in some areas, there is not going to be a lot of mass transit. In some areas, they have to drive longer to get to work. Families cannot afford these prices. A few weeks ago, we saw stories in the paper saying that consumers were not changing their driving patterns, that they were comfortable with their commuting habits, and they were willing to pay a few dollars extra each week. Well, $4 gas has changed all that. One in twelve Americans now have found a new way to go to work because they can't afford week after week of these gas prices. And we need more mass transit. I support that. That is a good thing. But we know for many Americans who have less income and are dealing with the problem of increased health care costs and who are dealing with the issue of an increase in the cost of food, and now these gas prices up to 4 bucks a gallon, when they have less disposable income, less money in their pocket, it is hard to afford things. We simply cannot continue business as usual. When we have people going to a gas station and can only afford to fill half their tank with gas, we can't afford to keep going. That is why I am so shocked when I have seen what the other side has done. Time and time again, the same old argument. Well, I think these same old ideas are running on empty, just as the people in this country are running on empty. The other side has blocked consideration of some new ideas and a new way to go forward with energy, both for short-term and long-term relief for the people of this country. I say this to my colleagues who voted against that bill and voted against allowing us to debate and allowing us to move forward with a new energy future: They are running on empty, and the American people know it. Remember back when President Bush was asked about $4-a-gallon gas on February 28? The President said: You are predicting $4 a gallon gasoline? That is interesting. I hadn't heard that. Well, for the people in my State, $4-a-gallon gasoline isn't interesting, it is a budget buster. The fact is, this administration has failed to provide Americans with a meaningful energy policy that would provide relief from high gas and energy prices. They have been running on empty. This is why I am so frustrated that our colleagues blocked consideration of this important bill. We are not proposing anything radical. We are simply asking that the Government enforce the laws on the books and make the marketplace work like it is supposed to. As the Presiding Officer does, I come from a prosecutor's background, and I know we can have all the laws on the books we want, but if we don't enforce them, we are not going to get the relief we need. We are not going to help victims--or in this case consumers--if there are no cops on the beat and no one is enforcing the laws or drawing the line. As part of this important bill, the other side blocked us from even considering, from even debating having Federal regulators provided the tools to do their job, to crack down on speculation in the futures market and on speculators who trade in offshore exchanges just in order to avoid regulation. We want the Attorney General to have the authority to prosecute collusion by foreign governments. We heard a witness in recent months come before multiple committees in Congress, the CEO of an oil company, and say: You know what. A barrel of oil shouldn't cost over $100. A barrel of oil should cost somewhere between $55 and $60. That is the true cost. We heard a witness in recent months describe our energy markets as a giant gambling hall without rules, as a superhighway without a traffic cop. That is what we are dealing with. So we need a cop on the beat. The Consumer-First Energy Act gives us that cop on the beat. It addresses the problem of market speculation by stopping traders from routing transactions through offshore markets in order to get around the limits on speculation put in place by U.S. regulators. Why would they go to these offshore markets? We know why they are going there. They want to avoid any regulation in this country. In fact, you don't even have to go offshore to find unregulated energy trading. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is allowing the Dubai Mercantile Exchange in New York and the Ice Electronic Exchange in Atlanta to trade in U.S. oil futures without Federal oversight. I can't tell my constituents to rest easy because the Dubai Financial Services Authority is looking out for their interest. We need to take action not only by regulating these offshore markets but also by making sure what is going on in this country is right. Now, we closed the Enron loophole, or we tried to do that with the farm bill, Mr. President, but there is clearly a lot more that needs to be done. There is a lot of speculation that is offshore and out of reach of our negotiations and our regulators. This bill will make those foreign trades in American oil and gasoline futures subject to reporting requirements so we can have a paper trail and keep track of what is going on. The bill would also require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to increase the margin requirement for oil trades. The margin requirement is currently set by exchanges themselves, kind of like the fox guarding the henhouse, and they have set the requirement so low--5 to 7 percent--that speculators can buy enormous amounts of oil with only a small amount of cash, and this has caused a tremendous amount of volatility in the price of oil and gas. Remember what the CEO of the oil company said: Oh, no, no, no, this shouldn't be. Oil shouldn't be priced at over $100 a barrel. It should be $55. Well, where is all this money going? It is going to build five- star hotels in the middle of the desert somewhere. We have been investing in the sultans of Saudi Arabia instead of the farmers and workers in this country where we should be developing a long-term energy policy. A final area where we can take immediate action is in our dealings with the OPEC nations. OPEC is a cartel of oil-producing countries that meet and decide how much oil to produce and thereby control prices. They make no pretense of having a free market system. They do not obey the laws of supply and demand. They gather together and they set production, which determines prices. As a former prosecutor, I call that kind of behavior collusion, and it is illegal in this country. But the members of OPEC are foreign governments, and so far they have gotten away with it. As oil exporting nations, the members of OPEC could provide us with some relief. They have the spare capacity to increase their production of oil and ease the pain being felt by the people in this country. But OPEC recently met and decided not to increase production, at least until the fall, after the summer driving season when prices always rise. Not only that, Saudi Arabia has actually decreased production since 2005. Think about it. Our country spends $600,000 every minute on imported oil. That is money leaving the pockets of American consumers, American drivers, going into the coffers of foreign countries. By refusing to step up production, OPEC nations are saying: We don't think prices are high enough yet. Let's let them go higher. Well, I think they are. This bill that was blocked by the other side was going to put a stop to some of this OPEC price setting by allowing the Attorney General to bring enforcement action against foreign governments that are engaging in collusion and hold them to the same standards of fair dealing we already have in place in this country. So those are some short-term ideas, in addition to the ones we were able to pass, which was to temporarily halt putting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when the prices are high. We got that done. But there are other things even more important. To do something about what is called the gambling hall when it comes to oil speculation, to do something about price gouging, to do something about the OPEC nations--these are short-term things that are doable and that the people in my State, who are lining up in those Costco lines, want to see. But, once again, we were blocked by the other side. Our people are running on empty. They are tired of this, and the other side is running on empty when it comes to ideas. We need a bold new future, a long-term solution. American consumers also expect that their corporations should invest sensibly for the long-term interests of our country and our economy. That is what works. That is how business works. But here is what is going on. This Congress, in the past few years-- before I got here--gave a bunch of giveaways to the oil companies. I don't know, $17 billion, something like that. So we, the people, have a say in what these oil companies do when we are giving them a bunch of tax giveaways. The Consumer-First Energy Act imposes a windfall profits tax on oil companies. It doesn't just say, no; every oil company gets a windfall profits tax. We could say that given that the big oil companies raked in $36 billion in just the first 3 months of this year. But it says, if they invest in renewables and do what they are supposed to do given they have gotten these subsidies--that they invest in their refining capacity and do things like that--then they would not have this windfall profits tax. But if they don't and they are taking the taxpayers' money and they are raking in the bucks and the prices are getting jacked up, then they are going to get a windfall profits tax. Why should these big companies be getting $36 billion in the first 3 months, making no progress in terms of a long-term energy policy, and then the consumers are paying over $4 a gallon at the tank? It makes no sense. The oil companies' profits since this administration took office are over $600 billion and counting. Now, you can make the argument for high profits if this money was being used to develop alternative resources, but it is not. Time and time again we keep going backwards, not forward. So this provision says if they take their profits they get from American families and businesses and reinvest them in the country's energy future, that is fine. If they don't, we are going to take a portion of their money and invest it in the farmers and the workers of the Midwest instead of the oil cartels of the Mideast. We know what we need for a long-term energy policy. We need investment in hybrid electric cars. We are not that far away. In 2 years, the Chevy Volt is going to give us 30 to 40 miles by plugging it in and then it converts over to fuels. We have great advancements in biofuels, something the Presiding Officer and I have worked on very hard, going to cellulosic ethanol but going beyond even corn-based ethanol so that we look at getting energy from switchgrass and prairie grass and algae and all kinds of biomass and residue from logging. These are all in our future. But we have to actually put those incentives in place so the investment follows. We have tried. We have done some things, but we need a bold energy direction in this country, and that is what this bill was about that the other side blocked. They are running on empty with ideas, and the American consumers are running on empty with their tanks. When American families are facing the kind of economic squeeze they are facing today, they expect action from their Government. They expect that their Government will protect their interests to make sure the markets are fair and honest and transparent. They expect their government is going to watch out for them, not for the oil companies. We have proposed legislation that would do these things. It would give the Government the tools to protect consumers in the short term, and it would begin to set our country on a smart, sustainable course for the long term toward energy independence. You can put your head in the sand and pretend it is not happening, or you can look for a new future. Does that involve, as our friends on the other side have been saying, increased production in our country? Of course it does. We live in Minnesota, next to North Dakota, where we are seeing the discovery of more oil. That is a piece of this; that is a piece of it. But the other piece is looking to the future with renewables and biofuels and new kinds of technologies. And if we keep going the old way, giving that $17 billion to the oil companies and not investing in a new future, we are going to end up even worse than we are now, and that is running on empty. It shouldn't take $4-a-gallon gasoline to bring us to the brink of action on sensible market reforms and a smart long-term energy policy, but that is where we are. That is where we are. It is time to act. I implore my colleagues on the other side not to filibuster this bill. We must move ahead and we must do something for the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I yield back the remainder of the majority's time in this half hour as well.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, the issue we are addressing this week, global climate change, is a challenge with so many dimensions. Some are moral, some are economic, and some are scientific. I want to spend my first few minutes today talking about the science because we cannot get the policy right unless we get the science right. I come from a State that believes in science. Minnesota is home to the Mayo Clinic and other great medical institutions. It helped launch the green revolution in agriculture half a century ago. Today it is home to a great research university in the University of Minnesota and high-tech companies such as 3M and Medtronic. We have brought the world everything from the pacemaker to the Post- it notes. My State believes in science. Over the last few days, we have heard a great deal of debate about the science of climate change. I believe the debate should be over. The facts are in and the science is clear. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that the evidence of global warming is now unequivocal and apparent on every continent of our planet. It is plain in erratic weather patterns, in shrinking wildlife habitat, and the melting of the permafrost. Just last week, a new report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and written by some of our top environmental researchers reached the same conclusion. They wrote: There is robust scientific consensus that human-induced climate change is occurring. Observations show that climate change is impacting the nation's ecosystems in significant ways, and those alterations are very likely to accelerate in the future. The result? Ocean levels are rising, glaciers are melting, and violent weather events are increasing--we have seen some recent ones in my State--and soon entire species will be threatened. This is not just an environmental danger, it is also an economic danger. First, we can see what we would predict as we see increases in temperatures in this world. The estimates are that temperatures will go up somewhere from 3 to 8 degrees in the next 100 years. To put it in perspective, it went up 1 degree in the last 100 years. We have already started seeing changes. That doesn't sound like a lot. It has only gone up 5 degrees since the height of the ice age. And the prediction from our EPA is 3 to 8 degrees. Here we go when we look at the increasing of temperature: A 1-degree increase means increasing mortality from heat waves, floods, and droughts. This is predicted by 2020; a 2-degree increase, millions of people face flooding risk every year; a 3-degree increase, global food production decreases, and so on. I can tell you in my State people are already seeing these changes. They have seen the economic impacts of these changes. Lake Superior is near its lowest level in the last 80 years, and that is an average. It goes up and down a little. It went up a little, fortunately, this year. But overall, we have seen decreasing levels so that overall it is at its lowest level in 80 years. That has impacted our barges, it has impacted the economy because we need more barges because they are sinking lower. Why is that happening? The ice is melting quicker and so the water evaporates and we see lower levels in places such as Lake Superior. We also have seen changes for our ski resorts. Overall, when we look at the trends, we have seen decreasing snow which means less money for them. Those are just some small examples of the economic costs of climate change. We can see that the insured and uninsured costs of weather-related climate change events are going up and up, and we are all paying the price. A problem so serious demands a serious response. This is a chart showing the weather-related economic losses and how they have increased. Look at the decades from 1960 to 1969, 1970 to 1979, 1980 to 1989, and then look at the last 10 years. These are economic losses. These are the amounts that are insured, and then this is the total of economic losses due to weather-related issues. A problem so serious as this demands a serious response. I believe that as a Nation, we are up to it. Look at a little history. In the 1970s, after the first OPEC oil embargo caused world oil prices to quadruple, Congress passed the first CAFE standards, fuel economy standards for the Nation's cars and trucks. At first, the skeptics said Congress had overreached and the CAFE standards were unrealistic. Then business put its mind to the challenge. Auto companies developed more efficient engines and lighter automotive components, and they competed to meet customer demand for fuel-efficient cars. Recently, the National Academy of Sciences estimated that those CAFE standards have now saved our country 2.8 million barrels of oil a day and cut oil consumption by 14 percent annually. With the higher fuel economy standards we adopted last year after many years of inaction to build on that initial CAFE standard, estimates are for an average family, depending on the price of gas, they could save $1,000 a year. We will continue to save, but we must set those standards so we have an example where when those standards were set, business went to the challenge, and we actually saved money. That is not the only example. In 1987 and 1992, the Government adopted new energy-efficient standards for household appliances. Again, the American business community responded, competing to develop new technologies and energy-efficient products. I call it building a fridge to the next century. Soon you could walk into any appliance store and find efficient ENERGY STAR air-conditioners that give consumers even higher quality but at much lower energy consumption. Look at this chart on light bulbs. We can see, if every American home replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified bulb, we could save more than $600 million in annual energy costs and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars. Now we are starting to develop all kinds of technologies to save money for consumers and make big reductions in carbon emissions. The American Council for Energy Efficient Economy estimates these higher energy-efficient standards saved consumers $50 billion from 1990 to 2000 and will cut U.S. electricity consumption by 6.5 percent within this decade. What did all of these examples have in common? The public sector and the private sector worked together in a partnership in which each performed at its best. The Government took leadership, set high standards, and provided a nationwide mandatory framework so everyone played by the same rules. Then the private sector responded to that signal using a classic American combination of technological innovation and market competition. The challenge of climate change presents us with the same opportunity--an opportunity for technology with wind, with solar, with energy efficiency, with the potential of nuclear, and with the potential of clean coal technology. It is a long list with great potential. We must meet this challenge, and we can. If we set standards for the country, the investment, technology, and innovation will follow. On the Environment and Public Works Committee, my colleagues, Senator Boxer, Senator Warner, and Senator Lieberman have written landmark legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and I am proud to be a cosponsor. This measure establishes mandatory economy-wide, science- based limits on carbon dioxide and other global warming gases so we can cut emissions 20 percent by the year 2020 and nearly 70 percent by the year 2050. To achieve those goals without disrupting our economy, it would establish a market-driven cap-and-trade system that provides economic incentives for reducing emissions. Now, we did the same thing with acid rain years ago and it worked well. To make this system work, however, we need to have full and accurate information about the sources and amounts of greenhouse gas pollution. That is what I want to take a few minutes to talk about today, because of the fact that this was in the first title of the bill, and one that I authored, along with Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. The famous British scientist, Lord Kelvin, felt the same way about having to measure things before you do anything. He once observed: When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind. Believe it or not, we don't have full, accurate information on greenhouse gas emissions right now. In fact, I was contacted a few months ago by a National Public Radio reporter who was trying to figure out who was the biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the United States. You would think that would be something that would be easy to find out, but in fact it is not because we don't have the kind of accurate information we need. The EPA collects a lot of data on energy production and consumption, but the quantity and quality of those data varies greatly across different fuels and different sectors. For example, data on crude oil and petroleum product stocks is collected weekly for selected oil companies, while data on energy use in the industrial sector are collected only once every 3 years through surveys. In some cases, the EPA itself collects the data, while in other cases the data are collected through State and other Federal agencies. Some industries report to the EPA and others report to the Energy Department. Some are reporting every year and some are reporting every 3 years. In short, it is a mishmash. Last week, the Brookings Institution here in Washington issued its own report on carbon emissions in different cities around the country. They too tried to make a comprehensive study, but they admitted they could only estimate emissions from homes to vehicles, not factories or planes or railroads or government buildings. Then there are State efforts. Thirty-one States, representing 70 percent of the country's population, have formed a carbon registration system of their own. It is a bipartisan project with support from Governors such as Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Governor Schwarzenegger of California. Together, they recently issued a statement saying, The State climate registries are another example of how States are taking the lead in the absence of Federal action to address greenhouse gas emissions in this country. While these State projects are very well intentioned, they are a poor replacement for a national standard. Remember years ago how Justice Brandeis, in that famous decision, talked about how the States could be ``laboratories of democracy''? He talked about how one State could have the courage to move ahead, but I don't think, when he said that, he ever meant inaction by the Federal Government. But that is what we have had in the area of climate change, and that is certainly what we have had in the area of trying to measure what is going on here. We are never going to make progress against global climate change unless we can answer the question of how much people are emitting with greenhouse gases, where they are emitting them, and until we can give an answer with accurate, complete information. This problem plagued the European Union 2 or 3 years ago. They actually beat us in establishing a comprehensive cap-and-trade system to cut greenhouse gas pollution. But because they didn't start with a good comprehensive registry of the sources and quantities of greenhouse gas emissions, they miscalculated their initial caps and permits and wound up wasting a lot of money and time before they got their cap-and- trade system right. That is why Senator Snowe and I worked together last year to write this legislation, which is the first title of the bill, establishing a greenhouse gas registry. You can see what this means. It is accurate, comprehensive data on carbon emissions. It requires reporting of greenhouse gas emissions to the EPA, it requires third-party verification, it does have exemptions for small businesses--because we don't want to do anything that is too burdensome--and it also makes the data publicly available on the Internet. I think we know how much people are interested in this issue, and they have a right to know about it. In addition to setting the stage for cap-and-trade solutions to global climate change, one comprehensive national registry, instead of all the States doing their own, would help the States by streamlining administration costs. It would also help business. Before long, they are going to have to start cutting their own greenhouse gas emissions, and they can't make the right investments or adopt the right technologies without having good data on their own carbon emissions. In fact, some of the Nation's leading corporations have endorsed the national carbon registry. They include: Alcoa, Boston Scientific Corporation, General Electric, NRG Energy, Caterpillar, Johnson & Johnson, Pacific Gas and Electric, and many more. These executives have now teamed up with some of the country's leading environmental groups, including the Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Federation, and the National Defense Council, to form the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. They recently issued a statement calling on the Federal Government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. They took this historic step because they understood the threat of climate change and they recognized the need for Federal action. These leaders are right. The time has come for us to act. As I close, I think about the complexities of this historic challenge, and I like to recall a prayer from the Ojibway people of Minnesota. Their philosophy told them that the decisions of great leaders are not made for today, not made for this generation, but for those who are seven generations from now. That is part of our burden and part of our challenge as we approach this climate change issue. That is why today I urge my colleagues to support cloture on this bill, to not only start measuring what the problem is, but to actually give this country and this world a solution. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. REED addressed the Chair.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, in May, I joined Governor Pawlenty, Senator Coleman and our Minnesota Congressional Delegation, our State legislators and thousands of Minnesotans in celebrating Minnesota's 150 years as a State. We are proud to be a State where--in the words of our unofficial poet laureate Garrison Keillor--all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the sesquicentennials are above average. For 150 years, our State has been built by people who knew they had to work hard, had to be bold, and had to persevere--to overcome the adversities and hardships that confronted them. Each one of us here is a part of Minnesota's illustrious history. And each one of us has our own story about our Minnesota heritage. Mine has its roots in the rough and tumble Iron Range, where my grandpa worked 1,500 feet underground in the mines of Ely. He and my grandma graduated from high school, but they saved money in a coffee can to send my dad to college. The little house they lived in all their lives they got when the mine closed down in Babbitt. They loaded it on the back of a flatbed truck and dynamited out a hole for the basement in Ely. The only problem was my grandpa used too much dynamite and the neighbor's wash went down a block away from all the flying rocks. I told the story up north a while back and some old guy stood up and yelled out, ``As if we don't remember!'' They have long memories up on the Range. Today is a day to remember that Minnesota is recognized and admired both for our natural beauty and our hard-working people. We are home to the headwaters of the Mississippi River and to Lake Superior, the ``greatest'' of the Great Lakes. We are home to native peoples whose history stretches far before our statehood. We are the State that mined the iron ore for America's ships and skyscrapers. We are the home to Fortune 500 companies that lead the way in innovation--bringing the world everything from the pacemaker to the Post-It Note. We are home to hospitals and medical institutions that heal the sick from around the world. And we are now a national leader in the renewable energy that will power our future. For 150 years, we have served our country with great honor. Back in the Civil War, it was the First Minnesota that held the line during the Battle of Gettysburg, preventing a breach in the Union lines. The price this volunteer unit paid was the highest casualty rate of any military unit in American history, and today their flag flies here in the Capitol rotunda as a reminder of their bravery and sacrifice. Now, the Minnesota National Guard's 34th Infantry Regiment--the famed Red Bulls--traces its roots to the 1st Minnesota Volunteers and they continue to honor that tradition of service to country. On the sports field, we are home to the 1987 and 1991 World Series Champion Minnesota Twins. It was a Minnesotan, Herb Brooks, who coached the U.S. Hockey Team to the gold medal in the 1980 Winter Olympics--the ``Miracle on Ice.'' Of course, after years of anguish, my dad, still an avid sports fan, continues to ask if the Vikings will ever win the Super Bowl. We brought the world music legends from Bob Dylan to Prince to ``Whoopie John,'' the King of Polka from New Ulm. And speaking of culture, Darwin, MN, is home to the world's largest ball of twine built by one person (my husband made me add the ``by one person!''). He saw a documentary about some other ball of twine. Then we have our many colorful politicians, from Senator James Shields, who challenged Abraham Lincoln to a saber duel, to Senator Magnus Johnson, whose Swedish accent was so thick that his nickname going into the Senate was ``Yenerally Speaking Yohnson'', to Governor Rudy Perpich and his polka-mass; to Governor Ventura and his feather boa, to Paul Wellstone and his green bus, to two of America's most beloved Vice Presidents. In fact, I read in a national magazine way back that ours is the only State where parents bounce their babies on their knees and say, ``One day you could grow up to be Vice President.'' But, Minnesota's celebration is not just about our history. It is also about our future. That is why the involvement of young people is so important--especially our young essay winners. I always think of our State as a ``work in progress.'' We are a State whose people have always believed--despite the cold, the snow, the windswept prairies . . . Despite all that, we have always believed that anything was possible. We are a State that is defined by the optimism of our people. We look to the future and we believe that--with hard work, education and good values--we can make tomorrow better than today. I am reminded of an Ojibwe prayer passed down from the ages--the prayer that our leaders and our people make decisions not for their own generation but for those seven generations from now. That is what that ragtag brigade of Minnesota citizen soldiers did in 1863 when they held the line at the Battle of Gettysburg. That is what Sigurd Olson was thinking as he wrote about the beauty of our State and this Earth and its stewardship. And that is what an Iron Range miner was hoping for as he saved those dollars in that coffee can, never dreaming his granddaughter would end up in the United States Senate. After 150 years, we celebrate the courage and forethought of those who came before us and pray that we can live up to their expectations. Happy birthday, Minnesota!

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I thank Chairwoman Boxer for her great leadership of our committee. Today, we begin a discussion of a historic opportunity--an opportunity to restore American leadership on something that is so critical for the future of our country and of the world. I just came back, Madam President, from Minnesota, where I spent the last week. People are glad that spring is here, but I was surprised by the number of people who came and talked to me about the climate change issue. They knew this debate was coming. It is not just kids with penguin buttons anymore. It is hunters in Hibbing who have seen the changes to our wetlands, people who ice fish, and little city councils in places such as Lanesboro, MN, that changed out their light bulbs to save money. And it is business people in Duluth who have seen Lake Superior at historic lows over the last 80 years. People in our State are seeing the changes, and they are concerned about the changing weather patterns and the frequency of changing weather patterns--with tornadoes, with floods, and with fires. Local communities all over this country are taking action. My State of Minnesota has one of the most aggressive renewable standards in this country. We don't view this as a partisan issue. We view this as a bipartisan issue. Everyone from our Republican Governor to our Democratic legislature to independent city councils all over the State want to see action on climate change from Washington. Just a year or two ago this Senate was debating whether climate change existed, and now, finally, today, with a vote on this motion, we can start debating how to solve it. We had an event today where people from all over the country talked about the effect it had in their communities--global warming. Someone from Alaska joined us to describe the way climate change has affected whale populations and fishing traditions that support her community. It actually made me think of my own State of Minnesota where fishing is very important. I would love to ask the Presiding Officer if she knew how much money we spend on bait and worms alone in Minnesota every year, but, of course, the rules prohibit her from answering. In fact, the answer is, in the State of Minnesota we spend $50 million a year alone on worms and bait. It gives you a sense of how important, in the land of 10,000 lakes, fishing and outdoor recreation is to the State. A total of $1.8 billion every year is spent on angling alone. That is why everybody from snowmobilers to hunters, to people who fish, to everyday citizens, care about this issue in my State, and why it is so important to move forward on this legislation. The other piece of interest is that our State is third in the country with wind. We see the potential for jobs. If we set the standards in this country, the investment will follow. Think of what happened when we raised the gas mileage standard years ago: we saved money. Now we are doing it again this year. Think about when John F. Kennedy stood and challenged this country to put a man on the Moon. We won that space race, but we did more than that. By drawing that line in the sand, by saying this country was going to move forward, we produced endless amounts of technology just from that one moment we said we were going to put a man on the Moon. We produced weather satellites, solar technology, digital wristwatches, ultrasound machines, laser surgery, infrared medical thermometers, programmable pacemakers, satellite TV broadcasts, high- density batteries, high-speed, long distance telephone service, automated insulin pumps, CAT scans, radiation blocking sunglasses, and my personal favorite, those little chocolate space sticks that my family used to take on camping trips in the 1970s. That was all because someone in the Nation's Capital said we were going to move in a new direction; we were not going to let other countries be the first to put a man on the Moon; we were going to be first. That is what we have the opportunity to do with this legislation. We have the opportunity to start moving and doing something about climate change. Many people around the world are waiting for us to act, to go first, as we have so many other times. Other countries have done things, but our country, the United States of America, making a statement on this matter, will make a difference for the rest of the world. We need to set our expectations high. We need to set our standards high. And we have to remember, while climate change is a challenge--and I don't believe it is any longer seriously disputed in terms of the science on global warming--it is also an opportunity. I look forward to the debate that we will have in the coming days, and I thank Chairwoman Boxer again for her leadership. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, last fall I came before the Senate to ask my colleagues to join me in passing the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act on behalf of an amazing little girl, Abigail Taylor, of Edina MN. And in December of 2007, with Abigail as our inspiration, Congress answered the call. We not only passed the bill, but working with the Taylor family and child safety experts, we included provisions in the legislation to create tough new safety standards that require all existing public pools with single drains to install the latest drain safety technology. On December 19, 2007, the President signed the Pool and Spa Safety Act into law. One of the most touching moments in my time in the Senate was that day in December when I was able to call Scott Taylor from the Senate cloakroom to let him know that the pool safety bill had passed. Abbey may have been a small girl, but there is no doubt she had a super-sized impact on our world. From the beginning, Abbey said she wanted her story told so that it would make a difference. And it did. Although Abbey is no longer with us, she will always live on through this important new law that will protect other children so they do not have to suffer what she did. I am certain that this new law would not have passed except for the inspiring courage of Abbey Taylor and her family. It was their gift to all the children of America. The city of Edina, MN, will designate May 24, 2008, as Abigail Taylor Day the day Abigail would have celebrated her seventh birthday. On May 24, I ask that we join in honoring Abbey Taylor, ``Amazing Abigail'' as we called her, and keep the entire Taylor family--Scott, Katey, Grace, Christina, and Audrey--in our thoughts. We owe them all a debt of gratitude for their courage and their pursuit of a safer America for all our children.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, I came here and said that each week I was going to give a talk on the floor about another piece of the puzzle of why it is so important to pass climate change legislation this year; about how we cannot wait as we see tremendous changes to our environment and our way of life. We need to act and we need to act now. Last summer, I took a trip to Greenland with other members of the Environment and Public Works Committee to see firsthand the effects of global climate change. One of the scientists traveling with us described Greenland as a canary in the coal mine when it comes to global warming. Greenland has lost an amount of ice in 1 year equal to two times all the ice on the Alps. People in Greenland are planting potatoes in places where they used to run sled dogs on the ice. What we saw on that trip only confirmed for us what the scientific community has now asserted in an overwhelming consensus. Average global temperatures are up 1 degree in the last century. Now, that does not sound like much, but to put it in perspective, they are only up 5 degrees since the height of the Ice Age. The EPA forecasts an increase of 3 to 8 degrees for the next 100 years. It is up 1 degree in the last century, estimated 3 to 8 degrees in this 100 hundred years. Ice caps are melting, ocean levels are rising, and glaciers are shrinking. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded there is irrefutable evidence of climate change on every continent, with risks to several species and the danger of increasing violent weather events. When I arrived in the Senate a little over a year ago, people were still debating whether climate change was real; was it actually happening? The debate is over, the facts are in, and now we are finally debating solutions. I am proud to say it is science that has affected our actions and that this shift in our thinking is because there are people now in this Chamber who are willing to look at and talk about the science. Last year in the Energy bill, we raised fuel economy standards for cars and trucks and other vehicles for the first time in years and years, for the first time in decades. The new standard will boost fuel efficiency by 40 percent and cut millions of tons in carbon emissions. And, most importantly, as we look at how much gas costs, it is going to save the average family, depending on how many children they have, something like $1,000 a year. So this is not only about environmental issues, this is about economic pocketbook issues as well. In the farm bill agreement the conferees approved last week and this Senate passed, we have important incentives to move farmers toward the next generation of clean, renewable biofuels, using cellulosic crops that can be grown on marginal farmland with minimal chemical input. This is the next generation of biofuels; using other parts of the corn, looking at switchgrass, prairie grass, things that actually are consistent with conservation and can be good for our environment and can help to wean us off our dependency on foreign oil. Instead of investing in the sultans of Saudi Arabia, we can be investing in the farmers and the workers of this country. Now it is time for us to take the next crucial step in energy and conservation policy: enact strong, comprehensive climate change legislation, the Lieberman-Warner bill, that will come before the Senate in a few weeks. I referred a moment ago to our trip to Greenland last summer. But today I wish to discuss a second trip I took recently, that is, around my State, visiting many small towns in the State of Minnesota. I visited the campus of the University of Minnesota-Morris, where they are building a biomass gasification plant. It turns farm and forest byproducts into gas and produces electricity. Within a year or two, it will meet the heating, cooling, and electricity needs for the entire campus without burning any carbon-emitting fossil fuels. I visited southwestern Minnesota, where I have been many times, where there is a sprawling windmill farm on the rise of land called Buffalo Ridge. You can see towering turbines for miles, and they are now supplying a significant share of Minnesota's power needs--in fact, with the standard enacted on a bipartisan basis by our State legislature, 25 percent by 2025 for renewable energy of all kinds for the provision of electricity. In tiny Starbuck, MN, 10 people left their jobs to join a solar panel factory manufacturing solar panels to make electricity from the Sun. These projects are reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and cutting our emissions of greenhouse gases. The point I wish to discuss today as part of this week's discussion is that they are creating good jobs. I mention these examples because when we discuss climate change and solutions, too many people think it has only to do with doing without, cutting back, and doing less. It is true conservation must play a central role in a comprehensive energy policy to clean up our planet and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. This isn't the days of Jimmy Carter putting on a sweater and going on TV and looking glum. People actually see this as an economic benefit, if they conserve, because they are going to save money. It is also true that by adopting a strong, sensible policy toward reducing greenhouse gas pollution, we can open the door to a world of opportunities, which means new jobs. As we prepare to discuss action on climate change, here is what we must remember. There is a possibility, a strong possibility, an opportunity that we can get more out of this. This means manufacturing a new generation of refrigerators, air-conditioners, and other household appliances that meet the needs of consumers while consuming less electricity. It means designing buildings with ``smart glass'' and rooftop gardens that conserve energy and water. Some people think these rooftop gardens are some kind of landscaper's lark, but they aren't. They keep buildings warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer and capture airborne pollutants that otherwise would enter the air we breathe. JPMorgan, a huge investment bank, recently redesigned its Manhattan headquarters with a rooftop garden and estimates it will save 30 percent on its utility bills. Since cars and trucks are a major source of our greenhouse gas emissions, this next generation of looking at the world differently means exploiting the full potential of hybrid automotive technology. Hybrid cars and trucks, however, have already shown themselves to be a great success story, on the sales lot and in the engineering laboratory. The old version required you to plug in the car and carry around extra batteries. Because we invested in research and provided some limited Federal incentives, we are not only seeing a better product; we are also seeing an explosion in consumer demand that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. Now Chevrolet has developed another breakthrough, the Chevy Volt, a battery-powered car which could be on the market in less than 2 years. You will be able to plug the Volt into an ordinary household outlet and then drive up to 40 miles without using a drop of gasoline. Your car isn't going to stop when it finishes up 40 miles. It converts over to fuels and biofuels. The waiting list for hybrid vehicles shows consumers welcome efficient designs and are buying vehicles that will create good jobs for autoworkers and other people in manufacturing. Taken together, this sort of technology has the potential to create thousands, perhaps millions, of good jobs and spur millions of dollars in productive new investment. Consider the potential of biomass, burning dedicated crops to produce electricity. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that a concerted effort to develop dedicated energy crops for biomass powerplants could generate 120,000 new jobs over the next 15 years. Consider the potential of wind energy. Each large utility-scale wind turbine that goes on line generates over $1.5 million in economic activity. Each turbine provides up to $5,000 in lease payments per year for 20 years or more to farmers, ranchers or other landowners. When we start putting all the pieces of this puzzle together, a whole new vista for the economy opens. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimated last year that merely adopting a strong national renewable energy standard, one important step toward reducing greenhouse gas pollution, would create 185,000 jobs in industries such as wind and solar by the year 2020. Daniel Kammen, who runs the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory in California, points out that $1 invested in renewable energy creates three to five more jobs than $1 invested in fossil fuels, as we can see here. That is because renewables create jobs in engineering and manufacturing and because that money is invested here at home, instead of being shipped overseas for foreign oil producers. This institute estimates that if our country met 20 percent of its electricity needs from wind power, solar, biomass, and other renewables, those industries would employ more than 250,000 people every year, compared to fewer than 100,000 jobs if we continue to get all our electricity from fossil fuels. This week, the U.S. Department of Energy estimated that by the year 2030, it would be feasible for wind power to supply 20 percent of our country's electricity needs, matching the output of nuclear powerplants. Finally, the Apollo Alliance estimates that if we made a full-bore national commitment to climate change through energy-conserving technology, building design, more efficient vehicles, and renewable fuels, we could create 3 million new jobs and an additional $1 trillion of economic output in the next decade. This is our opportunity. But it is only that. It is only an opportunity unless we seize it because our country will not mobilize the automobile engineers, the landscape architects, the building designers, the appliance manufacturers, the power companies, unless we send the right signal to the economy as a whole, the signal that our country is committed to technologies that will help us battle climate change. Consider this: Despite the wind farms and solar energy companies cropping up here and there across the country, the United States is no longer a leader in these clean energy technologies. We rank third in wind power, third in photovoltaic power installed. Ironically, our country has been surpassed by countries that took the technology developed in the United States, and it has allowed foreign competition to leapfrog over American businesses. Here is my answer: We need leaders. We need American leaders, not followers. The private sector has read the evidence and is waiting for us to show leadership. Last winter, the Environment Committee heard from the chief executives of 10 major corporations, including General Electric, DuPont and Duke Energy. They have formed the United States Climate Action Partnership. They seek a mandatory, market-driven approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, an approach they believe will drive development of new greener technology and become an engine for new economic growth and job creation. They are waiting for leadership from Washington. In a few weeks, we will have the opportunity to demonstrate that leadership. My colleagues, Senators Lieberman and Warner, have written climate change legislation that is bold but practical, forward thinking but pragmatic. They recognize that the time for study is over, the time for hesitation has passed. The time for action is upon us. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon the House of Representatives passed the farm bill conference report by a vote of 318 to 106. The Senate will vote in a few minutes and we expect to have an overwhelming majority in favor of this farm bill. I thank Senator Harkin for his great leadership, and Senator Chambliss--it was a bipartisan effort--as well as Senator Conrad and Senator Baucus, all the members of the committee, and I want to take special note of my good friend Representative Collin Peterson from the State of Minnesota who showed such leadership in the House. America's farm safety net was created during the Great Depression as an essential reform to help support rural communities and protect struggling family farmers from the financial shocks of volatile weather and equally volatile commodity prices. Almost 75 years later the reasons for maintaining that strong safety net are still there. The weather is still volatile, as we have seen this year. Crops are still subject to blight and disease. Farming is still a very risk-intensive business. We have seen prices going up and down--recently down in Asia--as we have seen investment and speculation in the farm market. I think it is very important that we have a safety net as we look at our food security so we don't get in the same place as we are with our lack of energy security. I want to mention a few important things to my State in this bill-- the sugar program, the dairy program, and the conservation program. I know we have people here in attendance from Pheasants Forever. The conservation groups worked very hard on this--the nutrition assistance. But I especially wanted to mention the part of the bill that I worked on, the cellulosic piece, which looked to the next generation of biofuels--looking at prairie grass, switchgrass, other forms of biomass. As we look to, say, the country of Brazil, which is energy efficient--energy independent, based on sugarcane--we can do it in this country. I believe we have to go beyond our crop-based ethanol and look at these other forms of ethanol and this bill creates the incentives so we can use energy crops such as switchgrass and prairie grass and do it in a way that is consistent with conservation, which is why I am so proud we have the support of the conservation groups that are with us today. I was a strong proponent for reform in this bill. It didn't have everything I asked for, as Senator Murray was discussing; no bill is perfect. But we had significant problems in the last few years with a small number of people--real estate developers from Florida, art collector from San Francisco, 100 people from the Beverly Hills 90210 area code--collecting money. This bill eliminates the three-entity rule. Also, the conferees have included substantial income limits for those who participate in the commodity program--$500,000 in nonfarm income, and they are banned from getting subsidies; and then third, $750,000 for farm-related income. Frankly, you can go a long way in Minnesota without bumping into a farmer who made $750,000 after expenses. The reform in this bill may not be perfect but it is a lot better than where we were before. The 2002 farm bill spurred rural development by allowing farmers in Minnesota and across the country to take risks to expand production. Because of productivity gains and innovation, including advances in renewable energy, the farm support programs in the 2002 farm bill actually came in $17 billion under budget. As the Senate considers the conference report, it is important not to underestimate the value of a strong bill for states such as Minnesota where agriculture is so vital to our economy and way of life. That is why, as a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I support the new farm bill. It includes an increased focus on cellulosic-based ethanol, continued support for a strong commodity safety net and a permanent program of disaster assistance. And, of particular importance is that we have balanced our budget in this farm bill, with every dollar of new spending fully off-set. Traveling around the state during the campaign I was visiting all 87 counties this year, so I have had a good opportunity to talk to farmers around our State. They have told me that the 2002 farm bill has worked well for them, and they wanted to see that continued. I am very pleased that this bill continues the same basic structure of the three-part safety net--direct payments, countercyclical payments and marketing loans--and I am especially pleased that we have succeeded in rebalancing the commodity programs to be more equitable to northern crops like wheat, oats, barley, soybeans and--canola, beginning in 2010. Another top priority for Minnesota farmers was creating a permanent program of disaster assistance for farmers. I would like to thank Senators Conrad and Baucus for their efforts to see this program through. Farmers are tired of coming back to Congress year after year with a tin cup in their hands. Minnesota has been hit with drought, flooding and everything in between over the several years, and they have had to wait years on end for Congress to pass adhoc disaster relief bills. The permanent program of disaster relief in this farm bill will give farmers security moving forward, and quick relief when they need it. This bill holds some good news for Minnesota's dairy farmers--we were able to restore the MILC payment rate that had been cut to 34 percent, back to 45 percent. We also added a feed cost adjuster to the MILC program, which means that when the price of feed goes up, the payment rate will also go up. This is really going to help dairy farmers cope with the high cost of feed and energy. The new farm bill is also going to work well for Minnesota's sugarbeet growers. It raises the sugar loan rate by \3/4\ of a cent--it may sound small to you and me, but it's a big deal to the farmers in the Red River Valley. We have language in the bill that will give U.S. sugar producers the right to supply 85 percent of the domestic market each year before USDA can allow additional sugar imports. And it creates a new sucrose-to- ethanol program to give us a new source of energy, and provide an outlet for potential increases in imports as a result of this administration's trade policies. One of my major goals for this farm bill was to include a strong cellulosic ethanol program. Farms can and should play a bigger part in the future of this country's energy security. Instead of investing in oilfields of the Mideast, we should be investing in the farmers and workers of the Midwest. Our corn-based ethanol and soybean-based biodiesel have taken off in Minnesota, and we are ready to expand to the next generation of biofuels: energy from native, perennial crops like switchgrass and prairie grass that require less fertilizer, yield more energy, and protect soil, water and wildlife. I was proud to draft first-of-its-kind legislation to provide farmers with an incentive to grow cellulosic energy crops, and I would like to thank Chairman Harkin and Chairman Peterson for working with me to include many of my provisions in the farm bill. Energy crops like switchgrass and prairie grass hold great promise for farmers because they can be grown on marginal land that can't produce a high yield of corn or soybeans, and they restore the land while they're growing. Their deep root systems sequester carbon and put organic material back in the soil. Native grasses can also save fuel and fertilizer because they don't require lots of passes with farm equipment or heavy fertilizer applications. The fact that these crops put carbon back in the soil and take less fossil fuel to produce offers us the promise of producing a carbon- neutral motor fuel for this country, which would be a huge advance in the fight against global warming. In short, the Biomass Energy Reserve Program is going to allow us to expand upon corn ethanol and soy diesel to a new generation of farm- based energy, and greater freedom from imported oil. I am also pleased that the committee has prioritized beginning farmers and ranchers in the credit title. There are real opportunities today to start out in farming, especially in growing areas like organic farming and energy production. But beginning farmers also face big obstacles, including limited access to credit and technical assistance, and the high price of land. The beginning farmer and rancher programs in this farm bill provide mentoring and outreach for new farmers, and training in business planning and credit-building--the skills they need to succeed and stay on the land. So there are a lot of good things for Minnesota and the country in this farm bill. There is, however, one critical area where I fought for more reform, and that was in stopping urban millionaires from pocketing farm subsidies intended for hard-working farmers. This kind of reform is in the best interests of Minnesota farmers. Here are the facts. Sixty farmers collected more than $1 million each under the 2002 farm bill, but none of them have been Minnesotans, even though Minnesota is the fifth-largest agricultural State. The average income of Minnesota farms, after expenses, is $54,000. But under the current system, a part-time farmer can have an income as high as $2.5 million from outside sources and still qualify for Federal benefits. It made no sense to hand out payments to multimillionaires when this money should have been targeted to family farmers. And what we saw so clearly in the media coverage of this farm bill was that big payments to big-city investors were undermining public support for the entire bill, even though commodity payments account for just 16 percent of funding in this bill. But this bill is going to do better for our farmers by closing loopholes and tightening income eligibility standards. First, the new farm bill eliminates the ``three-entity rule.'' This will cut down on abuse by applying payment limits strictly to individuals--and married couples--and ending the practice of dividing farms into multiple corporations to multiply payments. Second, I am pleased to report that the conferees have included substantial income limits for those who participate in the commodity programs, which is an area where I fought hard for reform. What the bill says is, if you earn more than $500,000 in nonfarm income--so if you have a high-paying job off the farm, or income from investments, or any other source of income off the farm in excess of $500,000--you cannot participate in the commodity programs. This makes good sense to me. This will take care of multimillionaires, like David Letterman and Paul Allen of Microsoft, or Maurice Wilder, the real-estate developer in Florida, getting farm payments intended for family farmers. The bill also says that if you have more than $750,000 in farm- related income, you lose your direct payments. I think this also makes sense. I would venture to say that any farm bringing in that much money after expenses is of a size and scope that they no longer need the support of taxpayers. So the reform in this bill is not perfect, but it is a lot better then where we were before. And I thank the conferees for taking these important steps in the bill. In conclusion, there are a lot of important changes in this bill, and there is a lot that is good for rural America, and the safety net is vital for farmers. We have made important advances in conservation, and made much-needed improvements to our nutrition programs. Perhaps most importantly, this bill lays the groundwork for farmers to play an even greater role in our country's energy security and will advance us to the next generation of biofuels. For all of these reasons, I will be proud to vote for this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I receive 4 minutes of the time of the majority.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I come to the floor today to express my strong support for the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act that the Senate is currently considering, legislation that will ensure our public safety officers are treated with the respect and the dignity they unquestionably deserve. I have always believed the first responsibility of government is to protect its citizens. I believe that responsibility begins right here at the local level in our neighborhoods and in our communities with our law enforcement officers. To fulfill that essential responsibility, our local public safety officers need the support of the Government in Washington. Before I came to Washington, like you, I served as a prosecuting attorney. I served for 8 years as a chief prosecutor for Minnesota's largest county. During that time, I saw firsthand the critical and courageous contributions our police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and our public safety personnel make on a daily basis. I gained an unending appreciation for their service in keeping our communities safe and secure. When I came to Washington, I made a commitment that I would remember the officers I had worked alongside in Minnesota and that I would do everything I could to see that they received the full resources and support they deserve. This bill would demonstrate our support by allowing public safety officers to be treated as they should, by promoting basic fairness in their working standards. It does so in a way that allows States to retain the flexibility to craft their own standards to suit their local conditions. My State of Minnesota is fortunate to be one of 26 States that already grant collective bargaining rights to their public safety employees. Our police officers, firefighters, and paramedics enjoy strong relationships with the State, counties, and cities that employ them, which enhances their ability to protect the communities they serve. When public safety employers and employees work together, it reduces worker fatalities and improves the quality of service. We need these valuable partnerships to be at their strongest if we are going to be able to properly respond to disasters and emergencies that strike at our homeland security. Our State is well aware of this. We have had our share of tragedies this year, from the collapse of the I-35W bridge to the floods in southern Minnesota in which several people died, to the fires up in northern Minnesota in the Ham Lake area over through the Canadian border. This week thousands of police officers have come to Washington to commemorate National Police Week. I have had an opportunity to meet with these police officers. I had the opportunity to meet with paramedics when I was home a week ago. I have had the opportunity to see our firefighters at work. We must respect these hard-working public servants. This respect should be fundamental to the work we do. I told these officers and paramedics and firefighters that I would come to the floor to speak in support of this legislation and that I was hopeful our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would join us in passing this law. What they want is what they have in our State. They want the right to be treated with the respect of colleagues all across the country. In the last several years, specifically after 9/11, we have placed even greater responsibilities on police and other public safety officers. At a time when State and local budgets are tight, these Federal funds have become more important in assisting local law enforcement to fulfill their duties to protect communities. By passing this legislation and guaranteeing the basic rights it provides and working to deliver the full resources and assistance these officers need to continue their exemplary work, we can demonstrate our acknowledgment and appreciation for the work they do every day. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to change the order. My friend from South Carolina, Senator Graham, has allowed me to go. I ask unanimous consent to speak and then to be followed by the Senator from South Carolina.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, under the previous order, there will be 1 hour for debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees prior to votes in relation to the McConnell amendment related to energy; the Reid amendment related to energy; passage of S. 2284, flood insurance; and cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 980, first responders collective bargaining. Therefore, Senators should expect a series of rollcall votes to begin shortly after 11 a.m.