Sheldon Whitehouse

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of legislation I have introduced with Senators Reed, Merkley, Sanders and Tester to enhance foreclosure protections for our servicemembers and their families, and to help ensure that their rights under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act are not violated. We have all heard horror stories about how servicers treat homeowners in distress. When these abusive mortgage practices harm the men and women who are sent into harm's way to protect our country, it is a particular tragedy and it deserves our urgent attention. Not only are these practices illegal and morally repugnant, they can also be a dangerous distraction from our military mission. Holly Petraeus, General Petraeus' wife, leads the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Office for Service Member Affairs, and she testified on this issue during a recent hearing before the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. As she put it, ``[i]t is a terrible situation for the family at home and for the servicemember abroad who feels helpless.'' Service members over at the point of the spear in Afghanistan have enough to worry about without worrying about the bank foreclosing on their family. According to recent media reports, it has come to light that financial institutions have repeatedly failed to comply with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act or ``SCRA''. These violations led to thousands of mortgage overcharges and a number of unlawful foreclosures. Under the SCRA, it is illegal to foreclose on a protected servicemember unless an authorization by a judge is obtained. Then, the judge can only act after a hearing is held in which the military homeowner is represented. One of the most troubling cases is the story of SGT James B. Hurley, who lost his home while he was serving in Iraq. Like many Reservists, Sergeant Hurley made less money serving on active duty than he did in his civilian job. So, when he was mobilized, it became a real struggle for his family to afford his mortgage and they fell behind in making his payments. The SCRA was designed to protect our servicemembers from financial challenges associated with deployments, and it should have prevented the bank from foreclosing on Sergeant Hurley. However, the bank violated the SCRA, foreclosing on Sergeant Hurley illegally, and forcing his wife and children out of their home. Sergeant Hurley returned from combat, as a disabled veteran, only to find that the bank had sold the home that he worked so hard to build. The current economic climate has hit our returning veterans particularly hard, adding to the financial challenges our deployed servicemembers already face. According to a recent Department of Labor report, the unemployment rate for veterans rose to 9.9 percent overall, and 15.2 percent for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These heartbreaking statistics underscore how difficult it can be to readjust economically to life at home. For our returning servicemembers that need time to get back on financial solid footing, to rebuild what they had to walk away from to defend the rest of us, we should do everything we can to accommodate their needs, especially during these difficult economic times. The Protecting Servicemembers from Mortgage Abuses Act of 2011, which I am introducing would encourage compliance with the SCRA by doubling the maximum criminal penalties for violations of its foreclosure and eviction protections. It would also double civil penalties in cases where the Attorney General has commenced a civil action against the lender. In addition, the bill will give servicemembers the time they need after returning from deployment to regain solid financial footing, by extending the period of foreclosure protection coverage from 9 to 24 months after military service has ended. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will come together and join me in supporting legislation to discourage loan servicers from further violations and help to protect the financial and emotional well-being of our troops.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the America Invents Act of 2011. As we all know, innovation, hard work, and ingenuity long have been the fuel of the American dream. This bill will make much needed improvements to our patent system to unleash the full power of American innovation once again. I am proud to be a cosponsor. Before I speak in more detail about the importance of this bill, I would like to recognize the hard work of Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He long has sought to change our patent system from a drag on innovation into a driver of innovation. Chairman Leahy has led bipartisan negotiations on this bill, seeking input from all segments of the American intellectual property community. I applaud his work with Senator Grassley, Senator Hatch, and others of our colleagues in bringing this much needed legislation to the floor. I take particular interest in this bill because of Rhode Island's long and proud history of innovation, from the birth of the American industrial revolution to the high-tech entrepreneurs leading our State forward today. An area has developed in Providence, for example, that is rightfully known by the nickname ``the Knowledge District'' for its remarkable innovation. We need to take every opportunity to support such work across our Nation. Make no mistake, this legislation will drive innovation and create high-quality jobs. It will secure the foundations of new small businesses, encourage the discoveries made every day in our universities, and allow American companies to continue to lead the world in technology, medicine, and mechanical science. Patent reform may be complicated, but these are not abstract issues. In my conversations with innovators in Rhode Island, it has become clear to me that the problems in our patent system are real and need to be fixed. Fail to do so and we will pay the price in jobs and international competitiveness. Perhaps the most consistent concern I have heard back home has related to delays in the issuance of patents. Massive backlogs of patent applications persist at the Patent and Trademark Office, causing years of uncertainty over whether an innovator in fact has secured intellectual property rights in his or her invention. We have to fix this problem. Innovators in Rhode Island and elsewhere in this country must be able to gain patent protection for their inventions within a reasonable timeframe. Uncertainty and delay in patent protection will dampen and frustrate innovation. The America Invents Act takes on this problem by allowing the Patent and Trademark Office discretion to set its own fees. Coupled with exceptions that will ensure low fees for small businesses, this provision will enable the Patent and Trademark Office to better manage its resources and reduce examination times. I also support Senator Coburn's amendment to restrict fee-diversion and enable the Patent and Trademark Office, which does not depend at all on taxpayer funding, to be properly resourced with examiners who can work through the patent application backlog. This provision raises issues beyond the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and as a result was not considered previously, but I trust it will win the support of our colleagues on the floor. I am glad that this provision has been included in the managers' amendment, of which I am a cosponsor. My conversations with Rhode Island inventors also made clear that the fear of protracted litigation also dampens innovation. Unfortunately, numerous poor-quality patents have issued in recent years, resulting in seemingly endless litigation that casts a cloud over patent ownership. Administrative processes that should serve as an alternative to litigation also have broken down, resulting in further delay, cost, and confusion. The America Invents Act will take on these problems by ensuring that higher quality patents issue in the future. This will produce less litigation and create greater incentives for innovators to commit the effort and resources to create the next big idea. Similarly, the bill will improve administrative processes so that disputes over patents can be resolved quickly and cheaply without patents being tied up for years in expensive litigation. This body must not pass up this chance to enhance innovation and energize our economy. We must see this bill through the Senate, and we must work with the House to see it passed promptly into law. It is true that the bill is a compromise and may not reflect all of everyone's priorities. Improvements to the bill may still be possible. To that end, I expect a productive debate on the floor and a constructive dialog with the House. I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman, my colleagues, and all interested parties to craft a bill that generates the broadest consensus possible. But we must not lose sight of the need for action. Our patent system has gone 60 years without improvements. It needs repair. Now is the time to energize our innovation economy, to create jobs, and to secure continuing American leadership in the fields of medicine, science, and technology. Hard work and ingenuity long have been the backbone of this country. Let's not get in their way. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President. I am in strong support of Senator Levin's effort to repeal the enhanced tax form 1099 reporting requirements enacted in the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. Since passage of the bill, I have heard from hundreds of Rhode Island small business owners about the paperwork and record- keeping costs of complying with the new 1099 standards. The provision, which was intended to cut down on fraud and generate revenue, has simply proven too burdensome on small businesses. I support the repeal of the new 1099 provision and am pleased to have voted in favor of the Levin amendment which would do so. While I support the Levin approach to repealing the 1099 provision, I cannot lend my support to Senator Stabenow's amendment which would pay for the repeal by rescinding $44 billion in appropriated funds. The rescission could endanger priorities for Rhode Island like funds appropriated for water infrastructure, housing assistance, and to help Rhode Island recover from the historic floods of March 2010. Senator Reed and I fought hard to bring Federal help to Rhode Islanders struggling to rebuild after the worst flood in 200 years, and I simply am not willing jeopardize that relief. Once again, I fully support the repeal of the enhanced 1099 reporting requirements, and I hope we can pass a measure to do that without endangering funding for critical programs like flood recovery.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I wish to speak to this amendment which makes it a Federal criminal offense to target an aircraft with a laser. The prevalence of this activity has increased enormously. According to the FAA, there were 2,836 instances of lasers aimed at airplanes in 2010, which is a ninefold increase over the past 5 years. The consequences of one of these attacks in the cockpit of an aircraft are significant. I am reading from a news report: Glendale, CA, police Sgt. Steve Robertson remembers the first time he encountered a laser strike. He says his helicopter was hit by a powerful beam of green light one night while he was on patrol. ``It immediately [lit] up the whole cockpit and it hit both of my eyes and burned both of my corneas,'' said the veteran pilot. ``Instantly, I was blinded. It felt like I was hit in the face with a baseball bat--just an intense, burning pain.'' Robertson was momentarily incapacitated and would have crashed if his co-pilot hadn't been able to land the chopper. Thankfully, he recovered from his injuries. I express my appreciation to both Senators Boxer and Feinstein who are cosponsors of this amendment. Clearly, it is a major issue in California. I thank Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois who is the lead Republican cosponsor. O'Hare Airport is one of the busiest airports in the country. It had 98 of these events take place in 2010. Senator Durbin also of Illinois is a cosponsor as well. I express my appreciation to him. The House has passed a similar measure. There is every reason to believe that if we take this step we will be able to help defend our airspace from these attacks. Obviously, they are most dangerous near airports when planes are taking off or landing or in low level flight, as police sergeant Steve Robertson was. It has the support of the National Association of Police Agencies and the Pilots Association. I hope very much that my colleagues will vote in favor of it and take this simple step to protect our aircraft travel from a new and emerging risk. Does the chairman wish to speak? I yield back our time but for the 2 minutes to the chairman.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive further reading of the amendment.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank Senators Kirk, Boxer, Durbin, Casey, Menendez, and Schumer for their leadership on this issue. I also thank our partners in the House for their work, and let me thank Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison for considering this amendment. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will join me in voting for this amendment that will protect our public safety against this new hazard. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of this amendment I have offered with Senators Kirk, Boxer, Durbin, Casey, Menendez, and Schumer to secure aircraft cockpits against lasers. This commonsense and bipartisan amendment would protect passengers and pilots by making it a Federal criminal offense to knowingly aim the beam of a laser at an aircraft. As explained in a recent article in the New York Times, ``a beam that is \1/25\ of an inch wide at its origin can be 2 to 3 feet wide by the time it reaches an airliner approaching or departing an airport.'' As a result, when targeted at aircraft, laser stripes can instantly flash across the cockpit, temporarily blinding the pilot and the crew. One pilot described the feeling of being hit by a laser like this: It immediately lit up the whole cockpit and it hit both of my eyes and burned both of my corneas. Instantly, I was blinded. It felt like I was hit in the face with a baseball bat--just an intense burning pain. FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt similarly recently warned that lasers can ``damage a pilot's eyes or cause temporary blindness.'' Indeed, pilots have described the need to hand control of their aircraft to a copilot as a result of one of these incidents. It goes without saying that such a threat to a pilot's sight, particularly during the critical phases of takeoff and landing, poses an unacceptable risk to the traveling public, to our pilots, and to citizens on the ground. For this reason, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood recently described laser incidents as ``a serious safety issue.'' The problem is growing. According to a recent report by the Federal Aviation Administration, 2,836 pilots reported that they were targeted with lasers in 2010, nearly double the number in 2009. In other words, every day, eight pilots and the passengers they fly are put at risk in the manner I described. The problem affects airports of all sizes across the country. At T.F. Green Airport, for instance, in my home State of Rhode Island, there were 12 such reported incidents just in the last year. The problem also is worsening as new and more powerful lasers become commercially available. These new lasers emit an increasingly bright beam that can reach aircraft miles away from the airport. Current Federal law does not provide prosecutors with ready tools to prosecute and thus deter this dangerous conduct. Ill-fitting existing statutes occasionally can be used, but only in limited cases, leaving even identified perpetrators to go unpunished. My amendment would solve this problem by creating a criminal offense that clearly and distinctly covers this harmful conduct. It would explicitly criminalize knowingly aiming the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft. Violations would lead to punishment of imprisonment for up to 5 years or fines of up to $250,000. The legislation would exempt valid uses of lasers in the aviation context, such as designated research and development activities, flight test operations, training, and emergency signaling. Prosecutors would gain a new, valuable tool to protect air safety without any burden being imposed on the legitimate use of lasers. Comparable bipartisan legislation has previously passed the House of Representatives and was reported favorably out of the House Judiciary Committee this year. It is widely supported. For example, this amendment is supported by the Airline Pilots Association and the National Association of Police Organizations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from those organizations.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending amendment and call up amendment No. 8.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the distinguished chairman for his very kind words. Let me thank him for his efforts to support this amendment. His cosponsorship is extremely important. I look forward to working with whatever I can bring to get this amendment successfully adopted into the bill and to get the bill successfully passed. I very much appreciate the chairman's distinguished leadership.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, while Senator Merkley and Senator Udall are still on the floor, I wish to extend a word of appreciation to both of them for the work they put into trying to solve the problem of the filibuster--more particularly, the problem of the abuse of the filibuster rule in this body. We have come to a resolution that is not the rules change many of us hoped for. Experience will be the test of whether the understanding that has been reached between the leaders has any meaning or impact in the way this Chamber conducts its business. I hope that experience shows this was a productive agreement. If not, we will have to come back and revisit the rule. I very much doubt the agreement that was reached between the two leaders and expressed on the floor today would have happened had it not been for the efforts of a great number of Senators who argued very hard for this change but most particularly Senator Tom Udall and Senator Jeff Merkley. I am very pleased to stand and give them a word of recognition for the enormous amount of effort and energy and persistence and argument and conviction that all went into this effort. I will close with one point that I think bears remembering as we evaluate whether the test of experience is met in the future, and that is what the filibuster changed into, what was really going on on the floor as we all sat in the Chamber. We remember the glory days of the filibuster when you had Senators on the floor reading from the phonebook, standing here as long as they could. The famous example of it from Hollywood, of course, was Jefferson Smith in the famous movie by Frank Capra, ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' There is that wonderful scene in the movie where the reporter is upstairs in the gallery, and he is covering what Jimmy Stewart is doing down here. He describes the filibuster. He is talking into his microphone. He says: The filibuster is going on down there. It is democracy's finest show--the right to talk your head off. The American privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form. One lone and single American holding the greatest floor in the land, bleary- eyed, voice gone. You can hear the drama of it. That was the filibuster of old, and that is the filibuster Americans understand. It made it very hard for Americans to understand when we said: Oh, there is a filibuster going on in the Senate, and they turned on C-SPAN and there was nobody here. The Senate floor was silent, except for the quiet voice of the clerk slowly droning through the names of Senators in a tedious, ineffectual quorum call. The quorum call became the emblem of the modern filibuster. Why is that? That is because the filibuster rule requires a 30-hour debate period when cloture is invoked to stop a filibuster. If you are the minority party and you can force the majority leader to invoke cloture, what have you just done? You have accomplished a very valuable prize: You have taken 30 hours of the time of this Senate and you have dedicated it to debate on a proposition and you do not actually have to debate the proposition. You just let the quorum calls roll, and you burn 30 hours of the Senate's time. The New York Times reported that Democrats have been forced to break 275 filibusters in the past two Congresses. If we had to burn the 30 hours for cloture in every one of those filibusters, the math on that is 8,250 hours lost to the Senate, lost to silence and ineffectual, droning quorum calls. If you count 8-hour days, that is more than 1,000 days of time wasted, of work undone, of the authority of the Senate and of this branch of the U.S. Government stripped away and consigned to the dustbin of wasted time. The test as we go forward is going to be how often that strategy of just burning the time of the Senate is used. One important measure is, will we see these filibusters and forced cloture motions on things that end up being not very contentious? The people would ask me: Why are they filibustering this? They don't really object to this. This is not like civil rights in the old days when people were violently opposed to it. They would come to the floor, and they would filibuster their heads off. This is a different strategy. Under the modern strategy, you do not just filibuster the bills you hate; you filibuster everything because that is more of those 30-hour blocks of time burned, chucked in the dustbin, unavailable for the work of this body and this country. I hope very much that the spirit of this shows itself in experience on the floor. I applaud Senator Alexander and Senator Schumer for having reached that agreement. I applaud the two leaders for having formalized it in their colloquy on the Senate floor earlier today. But, as Ronald Reagan used to say, trust but verify. And we will have the chance to verify in the coming weeks and months whether, in fact, the abuse of this rule is done with and we get back to being the Senate of which we can be proud or whether the abuse continues and we continue to be a Senate frustrated by endless quorum calls and delay and obstruction and a continued inability to do the basic business of this country. I hope we turn out much for the better. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I compliment my distinguished colleague from New York on his remarks. I would like to add a few observations of my own, but first I want to echo very much what he said. What the President did last night was to point a finger toward the future, and some people were just capable of seeing the finger. But for most people, they saw where he was pointing, and he has pointed us toward an important future for our country. These are the issues we are going to have to address in the decades ahead, and we have to be prepared now. I want to touch on about three areas he pointed to. The first, of course, is infrastructure. I am not the only person in America who has noticed our crumbling infrastructure. Everybody who drives on our roads, everybody who goes across our bridges, everybody who has been to our water and sewage plants knows we have underinvested in those areas for decades. As the President pointed out last night, America's own engineers give America a D for the status of our infrastructure. The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that we have $662 billion in total capital needs for clean water and drinking water investments over the next 10 years--$662 billion that we need to put into our water and water treatment system in the next 10 years. By contrast, in the so- called stimulus bill, we put in $6 billion; 1 percent of what we need. We have a lot of work we still have to do to make sure America has the clean water treatment and drinking water it needs. The infrastructure question is not just about infrastructure the Romans could have built. It is not just about roads and bridges and waterworks. The President referred to a Sputnik moment many years ago and President Kennedy's drive to get us up into space and to accelerate our space program. When President Kennedy pushed to put a man on the Moon within 10 years and bring him safely home, what that delivered was not just a man on the Moon. What it delivered was the technology that allowed a company called COMSAT, a public-private corporation, to put up into space the satellite technology that became the infrastructure of our modern communications system. That was done because of that call to action. It is not just our communications system that is core infrastructure, as well as our roads and our bridges and our waterworks, it is also our information technology system, particularly in health care. When we build a robust health information infrastructure--so that as an American you are no longer carrying your cardboard file-covered records from appointment to appointment, no longer having to explain who you are and what you have and what medications you are on and why you are there for the umpteenth time because the doctor has not seen your file because it is not available to him electronically--when we fix all that so your pharmacy, your specialist, the laboratories you go to, the hospital, if you have had to visit one, are all connected to your primary care provider who is directing the care for your condition, that is a piece of infrastructure that, like our health care infrastructure, will enable enormous growth in the private sector. That is what infrastructure does. Roads are not valuable because people go out with picks and shovels and bulldozers and asphalt pavers and make them. They are valuable because once they are made, commerce runs across them and the private sector expands. That is just as true of communications and information technology and broadband and our energy grid. We need to invest in infrastructure, and we need to think about our modern infrastructure, not just the infrastructure the Romans could build. The other point the President made that was critically important is that American manufacturing is not now competing on a level playing field with our foreign opponents. Many people have said this was a very ``America first'' speech; that the President seemed more nationalistic than he has been before. I suspect that is because in his years as President, it has been driven home to him how many disadvantages our foreign competition puts our manufacturers at. It is not fair. It creates immense disabilities for them and real handicaps, and we have to put American manufacturing back on a level playing field with their competitors around the globe. I can go to the Cranston Print Works Company in Rhode Island, which is one of the last remaining vestiges of the vaunted Rhode Island textile industry. It was Rhode Island's textile industry that started the industrial revolution. Rhode Island's textile industry propelled Rhode Island to have more millionaires per capita than any other State in the country. Now it has winnowed away, winnowed away, and companies such as Cranston Print Works that has been able to hang on and survive and be successful keenly know how bad the disadvantages are. You could have their CEO, George Shuster, give you a speech about how in almost every dimension of their operations they are at a disadvantage, and very often a disadvantage that America has created, against their foreign competition. I just want to mention one. I have introduced the Offshoring Prevention Act because if George Shuster were to take his facility in Rhode Island and move it overseas, he could choose the year he declared his profits and defer them to the most advantageous tax year. When he stays in Rhode Island, he has to declare his profits in that year no matter what. There is no reason on Earth we should reward an American company that moves its processes overseas with a tax deferral advantage that they do not get when they are here at home. My Offshoring Prevention Act would prevent that. The last thing I want to say--because I see my distinguished colleague from Arizona on the Senate floor and I want to make sure I leave him time--is just a word about our long-term debt. I was immensely gratified the President took a firm position to defend Social Security. We who are familiar with the actual facts know that Social Security has never contributed a dime to our deficit, never contributed a dime to our debt, and that it is solvent for more than a quarter century ahead of us. It is not an immediate problem, and with very small adjustments it can be never a problem. In States such as Rhode Island and New York, and I suspect Arizona as well, we have people who count on Social Security. Social Security gives us freedom. Social Security gives our seniors freedom from want and freedom from fear. It gives them freedom from privation and freedom from poverty. It gives the younger generation freedom to pursue their own dreams, knowing their parents will have a dignified old age because of Social Security, and they can take risks and seek opportunities they would never otherwise be able to take if they knew they were the only support for their parents in their old age, if the only thing that stood between their parents and penury was them. Thankfully, Social Security gives that liberty to young people across this country, as well as the freedom it gives to old people. So I am delighted he took this stand and that Social Security will not be improperly thrown under the bus of the important debt and deficit reduction work we need to do. With that, I will yield. I see, again, Senator McCain on the Senate floor. He is a distinguished Senator and a great friend, and I do not want to take time from him. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, today I commemorate the recent passing of an iconic figure from a bygone era--a man who, with the help of his loyal Hmong people, kept what some estimate to be as many as 70,000 North Vietnamese soldiers from deploying through Laos to kill Americans during the Vietnam war. General Vang Pao, the military leader of the mountain-dwelling Laotian Hmong during this era, was already at war with Pathet-Lao communist forces in Laos when the United States began working with him. The goal of the U.S. in Laos at the time was to prevent North Vietnamese from using Laos as a supply line for their attacks on South Vietnam along what was known as the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Unfortunately for the Hmong, who lived in the mountainous jungles between Laos and North Vietnam, their homes were located along this trail. Vang Pao told the New York Times in 2008 that ``There were three missions that were very important that were given to us and to me . . . One was stopping the flow of the North Vietnamese troops through the Ho Chi Minh Trail to go to the south through Laos. Second was to rescue any American pilots during the Vietnam War. Third, to protect the Americans that navigated the B-52s and the jets to bomb North Vietnam.'' Bill Lair, Vang Pao's contact with the CIA, recounted Vang Pao saying, ``You give us the weapons, and we'll fight the communists.'' And so began a covert war in Laos in which thousands of Vang Pao's Hmong soldiers gave their lives, always persevering despite very heavy casualties. To his mountain people and even to some of his CIA contacts, Vang Pao had a larger-than-life status. He shared meager food rations with his troops, commanded from the field instead of his headquarters, and led troops on the frontlines of battles, where he suffered bullet wounds to his arm and chest. Vang Pao was known to have stated, ``If we die, we die together. Nobody will be left behind.'' These words proved tragic as the Vietnam war came to an end. U.S. forces evacuated Vang Pao and his leadership but were unable to mount an evacuation of the majority of his people. Vang Pao and his top associates were forced to leave Laos as over 20,000 of their compatriots stood on an airstrip in the mountains, waiting to be evacuated by their U.S. supporters as the enemy quickly approached. The evacuation never occurred. Thousands were left behind and killed as communist forces completed their invasion. Today, many Hmong reside in poverty-stricken resettlement villages in Laos. A few thousand still remain in the mountains, where there are allegations that they have been persecuted in recent years. And many have resettled in the United States. Minnesota, California, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island are proud to have Hmong call our States their home. In 1997, the Clinton administration authorized a plaque to be placed at Arlington National Cemetery stating that the valor of General Vang Pao's troops would never be forgotten. As my colleague from Minnesota told Minnesota's Star Tribune, there would be a few thousand more names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial were it not for the efforts of the Hmong. Today, we in the Senate and thousands of Hmong throughout the world remember the bravery and dedication Vang Pao and his troops exercised while fighting to uphold democracy and protect the lives of so many young Americans at War in Southeast Asia.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, from the Recovery Act to the Small Business Jobs Act, in the previous Congress we passed a number of substantial pieces of legislation to preserve, protect, and create American jobs. The Recovery Act alone has supported between 2.7 and 3.7 million jobs, including 12,000 jobs in my home State of Rhode Island. This was vital in stemming the 700,000-per-month job loss rate we faced when the previous administration left office. Without the Recovery Act and the other fiscal stimulus we passed over the past 2 years, the economy would have been much worse. While the Recovery Act protected our country from what would have been a far worse economic meltdown, the employment market is still weak and families are still hurting. Our national unemployment rate was 9.4 percent in December--an unacceptably high level. And it was higher still in harder hit States such as Rhode Island, where we have had an 11.5-percent unemployment rate in December. As we begin this new Congress, our No. 1 priority must remain job retention and creation. The manufacturing industry has historically been the engine of growth for the American economy. The manufacturing economy has been especially important in the industrial Northeast, particularly in my State of Rhode Island. From Slater Mill in Pawtucket--one of the first water- powered textile mills in the Nation and the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution--to high-tech modern submarine production at Quonset Point, the manufacturing sector has always been central to Rhode Island's economy. Unfortunately, as American companies have faced rising production costs and increased--and very often unfair--competition from foreign firms, U.S. manufacturing employment has plummeted. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of manufacturing jobs declined by almost a third over the past decade, from 17.2 million people at work in 2000 to 11.7 million people at work in 2010. That is 6 million jobs lost. This decline has been felt most sharply in our old manufacturing centers, such as Rhode Island. In Rhode Island, the loss of manufacturing jobs in the past decade has topped 44 percent. The decline of the manufacturing sector is a primary reason why Rhode Island has had greater difficulty than most other States in recovering from the recent recession. Over and over I have traveled around Rhode Island to meet with local manufacturers, listening to their frustrations and discussing ideas to help their businesses grow. During these visits, I have heard one theme over and over: Unfair foreign competition is killing domestic industries. One Pawtucket manufacturer I visited last week told me they recently lost 8 percent of their business to a Chinese competitor. It is clear to me that if we want to keep manufacturing jobs in this country and in Rhode Island, we need to level the playing field for our manufacturing companies with their foreign competitors. Today I will introduce legislation that will remove one homegrown incentive to move jobs offshore and help to make competition fairer for companies straggling to keep their factory doors open at plants here in the United States. The Offshoring Prevention Act, cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Sanders, Boxer, Durbin, Brown of Ohio, and Harkin, would end a perverse tax incentive that actually rewards companies for shipping jobs overseas. Under current law, an American company that manufactures goods in Rhode Island or Montana or Maine must pay Federal income tax on profits in the year the profits are earned. That is standard tax law. But if that same company moves its factory to another country, it is permitted to defer the payment of income taxes from that factory and declare them in a year that is more advantageous--for example, one in which the company has offsetting tax losses. If an American company moves a plant offshore, it acquires this tax deferral advantage. It makes no sense that our Tax Code allows companies to delay paying income taxes on profits when made through overseas subsidiaries but charges those profits in the year they are made at home. My bill will put a stop to this practice on profits earned on manufactured goods exported to the United States. To put it simply: Our tax system should not reward companies for eliminating American jobs. The Offshoring Prevention Act is based on legislation Senator Byron Dorgan offered over the past two decades, again and again. We can all remember Senator Dorgan coming to this floor here with pictures of iconic American goods, such as York Peppermint Patties, Radio Flyer red wagons, Fig Newton cookies, and Huffy bicycles, to highlight the fact that the production of these American classic products had moved to Mexico, to China, and elsewhere. On dozens, if not hundreds, of occasions, Senator Dorgan spoke passionately on this floor about the decline of American manufacturing. I am grateful to his leadership on this critical issue and for bringing our attention to an unfair tax advantage that rewards companies for moving manufacturing jobs overseas. Last year, a version of Senator Dorgan's bill was included in the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act. While a majority of this body--53 Senators--voted to begin debate on the bill, we were not able to overcome a filibuster to have a chance to consider and pass this legislation. I am sorry we were not able to pass the bill last year, and I will do my best to bring it up for a vote in this new Congress. Mr. President, keeping jobs in America and providing a level playing field for American manufacturing should not be a Democratic or a Republican issue. We all serve here in the Senate to represent the interests of our constituents, and our constituents want us to keep these good-paying manufacturing jobs in America. I hope that all of our colleagues will join me in passing the Offshoring Prevention Act to do just that.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

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

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, as we embark on a new year and a new Congress, I stand here today to congratulate my colleague, Barbara Mikulski, on becoming the longest serving female Senator in our Nation's history. Her work in these Halls has made our country stronger. And in a place where partisan rancor too often rules the day, she has established a legacy of service that stands as an example to us all. Her political career began in the late 1960s when she launched a campaign to stop the construction of a highway over historic neighborhoods in Baltimore. Once she won that battle, she decided to run for the Baltimore City Council in 1971. Forty years later, and following a successful stint in the U.S. House of Representatives, Barbara Mikulski continues to blaze an impressive trail. During her 26 years in the Senate, she became the first woman to sit on the Senate Appropriations Committee, the first Democratic woman elected to Senate leadership, and now has crossed yet another milestone, passing Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine as the longest serving female Senator. It is not just the length of her service that we celebrate, it is its quality. No one is better at drilling down to the gist of an issue, and expressing it in punchy unforgettable terms. No one cheers us more than when she tells us to ``stand tall, square our shoulders, put on our lipstick and rise to the occasion.'' No one better combines the idealism of politics with the proactive abilities of government. As she told me once with a twinkle in her eye, ``I'm a reformer, and a bit of a ward heeler too.'' More than anything, she never forgot her roots as a champion for those who need one. In her years in the Senate, Barbara Mikulski's dedication to her constituents and women's rights has been clear: from becoming a champion of women's health issues and abortion rights, to organizing training seminars for woman of both parties elected to the Senate, to sponsoring and pushing through the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. During my 4 years as a U.S. Senator, I have had the great privilege to work with her to pass landmark health care reform legislation out of the HELP Committee. I also serve with her on the Intelligence Committee, and worked closely with her on the Senate Intelligence Committee's Cyber Task Force to evaluate cyber threats and issue recommendations to the full committee. And, while Rhode Island and Maryland are hundreds of miles apart, Barbara and her staff are truly my neighbors here in the Senate. Her office is next door to mine in the Hart Building. From a friendly hello to each other as we pass in the hall, to accompanying each other as we walk to the Senate floor, to the delicious treats her wonderful receptionist Mrs. O'Malley occasionally makes for our office, it has truly been a pleasure to share our little corner of the Hart Building. I know that all of us here in this Chamber are proud to call ``Senator Barb'' our colleague and friend as she makes history. Her hard work and independent spirit have enriched the Senate and I wish her all the best in the years to come. On behalf of all Rhode Islanders, I congratulate you for this milestone in our Nation's history.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, from the Recovery Act to the Small Business Jobs Act, in the previous Congress we passed a number of substantial pieces of legislation to preserve, protect, and create American jobs. The Recovery Act alone has supported between 2.7 and 3.7 million jobs, including 12,000 jobs in my home State of Rhode Island. This was vital in stemming the 700,000-per-month job loss rate we faced when the previous administration left office. Without the Recovery Act and the other fiscal stimulus we passed over the past 2 years, the economy would have been much worse. While the Recovery Act protected our country from what would have been a far worse economic meltdown, the employment market is still weak and families are still hurting. Our national unemployment rate was 9.4 percent in December--an unacceptably high level. And it was higher still in harder hit States such as Rhode Island, where we have had an 11.5-percent unemployment rate in December. As we begin this new Congress, our No. 1 priority must remain job retention and creation. The manufacturing industry has historically been the engine of growth for the American economy. The manufacturing economy has been especially important in the industrial Northeast, particularly in my State of Rhode Island. From Slater Mill in Pawtucket--one of the first water- powered textile mills in the Nation and the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution--to high-tech modern submarine production at Quonset Point, the manufacturing sector has always been central to Rhode Island's economy. Unfortunately, as American companies have faced rising production costs and increased--and very often unfair--competition from foreign firms, U.S. manufacturing employment has plummeted. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of manufacturing jobs declined by almost a third over the past decade, from 17.2 million people at work in 2000 to 11.7 million people at work in 2010. That is 6 million jobs lost. This decline has been felt most sharply in our old manufacturing centers, such as Rhode Island. In Rhode Island, the loss of manufacturing jobs in the past decade has topped 44 percent. The decline of the manufacturing sector is a primary reason why Rhode Island has had greater difficulty than most other States in recovering from the recent recession. Over and over I have traveled around Rhode Island to meet with local manufacturers, listening to their frustrations and discussing ideas to help their businesses grow. During these visits, I have heard one theme over and over: Unfair foreign competition is killing domestic industries. One Pawtucket manufacturer I visited last week told me they recently lost 8 percent of their business to a Chinese competitor. It is clear to me that if we want to keep manufacturing jobs in this country and in Rhode Island, we need to level the playing field for our manufacturing companies with their foreign competitors. Today I will introduce legislation that will remove one homegrown incentive to move jobs offshore and help to make competition fairer for companies straggling to keep their factory doors open at plants here in the United States. The Offshoring Prevention Act, cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Sanders, Boxer, Durbin, Brown of Ohio, and Harkin, would end a perverse tax incentive that actually rewards companies for shipping jobs overseas. Under current law, an American company that manufactures goods in Rhode Island or Montana or Maine must pay Federal income tax on profits in the year the profits are earned. That is standard tax law. But if that same company moves its factory to another country, it is permitted to defer the payment of income taxes from that factory and declare them in a year that is more advantageous--for example, one in which the company has offsetting tax losses. If an American company moves a plant offshore, it acquires this tax deferral advantage. It makes no sense that our Tax Code allows companies to delay paying income taxes on profits when made through overseas subsidiaries but charges those profits in the year they are made at home. My bill will put a stop to this practice on profits earned on manufactured goods exported to the United States. To put it simply: Our tax system should not reward companies for eliminating American jobs. The Offshoring Prevention Act is based on legislation Senator Byron Dorgan offered over the past two decades, again and again. We can all remember Senator Dorgan coming to this floor here with pictures of iconic American goods, such as York Peppermint Patties, Radio Flyer red wagons, Fig Newton cookies, and Huffy bicycles, to highlight the fact that the production of these American classic products had moved to Mexico, to China, and elsewhere. On dozens, if not hundreds, of occasions, Senator Dorgan spoke passionately on this floor about the decline of American manufacturing. I am grateful to his leadership on this critical issue and for bringing our attention to an unfair tax advantage that rewards companies for moving manufacturing jobs overseas. Last year, a version of Senator Dorgan's bill was included in the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act. While a majority of this body--53 Senators--voted to begin debate on the bill, we were not able to overcome a filibuster to have a chance to consider and pass this legislation. I am sorry we were not able to pass the bill last year, and I will do my best to bring it up for a vote in this new Congress. Mr. President, keeping jobs in America and providing a level playing field for American manufacturing should not be a Democratic or a Republican issue. We all serve here in the Senate to represent the interests of our constituents, and our constituents want us to keep these good-paying manufacturing jobs in America. I hope that all of our colleagues will join me in passing the Offshoring Prevention Act to do just that.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley, showed a photograph a little while ago of Jimmy Stewart in ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' That has become the sort of emblematic, signature demonstration of the American Senate filibuster. There is a scene in that movie that I am sure the Senator is familiar with where a reporter is up in the galleries and is describing the action down here on the Senate floor, is describing Jimmy Stewart--the Senator he represents engaging in the filibuster. The reporter describes the filibuster as ``democracy's finest show . . . the right to talk your head off . . . the American privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form . . . one lone and single American holding the greatest floor in the land . . . bleary-eyed, voice gone.'' That is what we think of when we think of the traditional Senate filibuster. In those days, you stood up and you filibustered against a bill because you were opposed to it, because you hated it, because on principle you wanted to stand and fight against it. That was the old filibuster. Now when this Chamber is engaged in a filibuster, how does the American public know? When they are watching this floor on C-SPAN and they are looking for a filibuster, they don't see democracy's finest show, they don't see anybody talking their head off, they don't see the American privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form. What they see is a droning, tedious quorum call as the parliamentary staff read off, one by one, the names of Senators who are not present, and this Chamber stands useless during that period. Why is that? Partly it is because when Jimmy Stewart was undertaking his filibuster, he was exercising the right of an individual Senator to take this floor and to hold it and to speak. What is different is that when it is filibuster by party rather than filibuster by one individual Senator, then there is a whole array of procedural mechanisms the minority party has to provoke the majority leader to file for cloture. Cloture is the filing that allows the majority leader to bring debate to a conclusion and to limit amendments. When cloture is filed, then there is 30 hours mandatory for debate. What has happened here is that the 30 hours mandatory for debate has become the prize, has become the goal of the modern filibuster. That explains why we are no longer filibustering bills we are opposed to when we are in the minority. The minority actually filibusters bills their Members support. They filibuster nominees who get voted through unanimously when the vote is finally held. What is the filibuster about? It is about forcing cloture and forcing those 30-hour increments of time to be burned up. If you are filibustering the bill itself and you are filibustering the motion to proceed, you have a dual filibuster, and if you are filibustering amendments, you can load on an awful lot of 30-hour periods to the Senate floor and you can prevent anything from being done in those 30- hour periods just by sitting back and doing nothing and objecting when the majority party tries to move to the vote. All it takes is one person waiting in the cloakroom for the minority to force that 30-hour period to run. If you stacked up dozens and dozens of 30-hour periods, what you do is you take up the entire time available to the Senate and you impede this institution in its ability to get its work done. That is what we are doing right now. That is why I think it is so important that the changes we are recommending restore the Senate to the traditional filibuster. We do it in two ways. First of all, if these rule changes pass, you will not get to filibuster the motion to proceed to the bill and then get to filibuster all over again on the bill and double the filibuster. If you really care about the bill, if you are really opposed to the bill, if you really hate the bill, you can come and talk your head off, but you don't get to do it twice--once on a pure parliamentary measure. That will cut down some of the wasted time, some of these droning hours that you watch on C-SPAN with nothing happening in the Senate and the time being wasted, locked in the filibuster. There is another rules change that I believe is important. The 30- hour period is called the period for debate. What this rule change would do is, when the debate stops, the 30-hour period stops. Whoever is presiding would simply note that there is no longer debate and would call the vote. You can still debate the whole 30 hours if you want to come here and debate, but when the talking stops, you vote. You are not in a position where you can commandeer 30 hours of Senate time, force the Senate into quorum calls, and defend against going to the vote with one lone Senator back in the cloakroom, able to come out and object whenever the majority tries to move the Senate to a vote and get the Senate back in its business again. These are two simple repairs to the cloture rule that will make it less of a prize for the minority, that will prevent us from spending all these 30-hour increments droning away in 30-hour filibuster quorum calls, and put the Senate back to where it should be--the great chamber of debate where people actually have to come to the floor, say their piece, and when they are done, we go on to the next piece of work. I commend everybody who has worked on this. I think it is a very valuable step we are taking. I don't think it is a change away from the traditions of the Senate; I see it as returning to the real traditions of the Senate, of real debate, not just wasting time for wasting time's sake but allowing the Senate to be productive while also allowing Members who have opposition to a bill to state it as forthrightly as they wish, to engage in, as the reporter said in ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' democracy's finest show, the right to talk your head off, the American privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form. I thank all Senators present for entertaining my thoughts. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, first, let me thank the Senator from New York for his very distinguished leadership of the Rules Committee and for the very open and thorough way in which he engaged that committee on these issues of addressing the filibuster and problems that have been caused by its current abuse on the Senate floor. Let me also thank Senators Udall and Merkley, who worked so hard to organize this and who have put together what I think is a very good proposal. At the outset of my remarks, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the rules resolution that is here, at this point.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I have not.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, we come to the end of this Congress having once again failed to harness the economic potential achievable through reform of our Nation's energy portfolio or to heed the dire warnings put forth by our planet about the effects of our relentless carbon pollution. The results of our failure are many and are significant. With our economy now at the forefront of our minds, you would think we would have paid more attention to the economic imperative of energy reform. As the global economic race to clean energy rushes by around us, you would think we would have exhibited more concern at the prospect of being left behind. Instead, we remain engaged as a nation in a de facto policy of unilateral economic disarmament in the battle for command of tomorrow's energy economy. We are surrendering to China, to the European Union, to competitors around the world. The United States invented the first solar cell, but we now rank fifth among countries that manufacture solar components. Other countries see the demand for clean energy, and they are moving their companies ahead of ours in the race to meet that demand. The United States is now home to only 1 of the top 10 companies manufacturing solar energy components and to only 1 of the top 10 companies manufacturing wind turbines. Half of America's existing wind turbines were manufactured overseas. In Portsmouth, RI, we have installed two wind turbines. One was manufactured by a Danish company. The other was manufactured by an Austrian company, its components delivered to Rhode Island by a Canadian distributor. Even in coal sequestration, in a country where half our power still comes from coal, we are not leading. Only one plant is under construction now with the capability to capture any significant portion of its carbon emissions. The new energy economy that beckons us has been described in congressional testimony as bigger by far than the tech revolution that brought us our laptops and our iPads and our BlackBerries and the Internet services that are now so important a part of our daily lives. The tech economy is $1 trillion; the energy economy is $6 trillion. In the race for commanding position in this new energy economy, America designed much of the underlying energy technology that the world is using, but other countries have put the propulsive effect of their government behind their industries, and they are pulling ahead of us in bringing those new technologies--our new technologies--to market. Our competitors are moving to seize an irretrievable advantage in the development and distribution of new energy technologies, and we are letting them. Our children, I fear, will judge us sternly for failing to protect America's economic self-interest at this pivotal time. But they will judge us for that less sternly than they will judge us for our failure to protect their lands and waters, the air and climate they will inherit. For this, their verdict will be harsh. Nature's warnings abound. Nature is giving us every signal of distress a prudent person could want or need to begin to take prudent precautions. Nature's voice is clear. According to NASA, 2010 was the hottest climate year on record, surpassing 2005 as the previous record year. The acidification of our oceans has reached levels not seen in 8,000 centuries--that is quite a bandwidth to fall out of. September 2010 saw the lowest recorded Arctic ice volume, at 78 percent below the 1979 level. Researchers warn that the Arctic Sea could be ice free by 2030 and Glacier National Park without glaciers. Western forests, as Senator Udall just described, are falling by the mile to the ravages of spruce and mountain beetles, as warmer winters fail to kill off these pests. A warming climate adds energy to our weather systems, loading the meteorological dice for worse and more frequent storms, and we are seeing worse and more frequent storms. I am particularly alert to our Earth's alarm signals since I represent Rhode Island, the Ocean State. Rhode Island and other coastal States face a triple whammy. First, we get the same terrestrial effects from climate change as all States: warming climates, changing habitats, and harsher and more frequent storms. Second, we will also suffer from changes affecting our ocean economies: species shifts as bays and oceans warm, lost fisheries, and the pervasive danger of ocean acidification. Rhode Island's productive winter flounder fishery, for instance, is already virtually gone. Third, we coastal States face the local consequences of rising sea levels: protecting coastal infrastructure, rezoning to compensate for new storm surge velocity zones, perhaps even diking and damming to protect low-lying areas from inundation. We can foresee these consequences, and we can foresee the devastation they will bring. Beyond our economic self-interest and beyond our responsibility as caretakers of the planet is the fact that climate change presents a threat to our national security. Leaders of our defense and intelligence communities from both Republican and Democratic administrations and from the career military, outside of politics, have come forward to express their concern. Respected leaders such as GEN Wesley Clark and former CIA Director James Woolsey have called for us to aggressively reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. In 2007, the nonprofit CNA Military Advisory Board gathered a dozen of the Nation's most respected retired admirals and generals, including former Chief of Staff of the Army GEN Gordon Sullivan and former commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command GEN Anthony Zinni, to produce a report called ``National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.'' Its principal conclusion is that climate change poses a serious threat to national security by acting as a ``threat multiplier'' for instability in some of the world's most volatile regions and presents significant national security challenges for the United States. As former ADM T. Joseph Lopez states in the report: More poverty, more forced migrations, higher unemployment. Those conditions are ripe for extremists and terrorists. The official position of the U.S. Government is the same--not just at EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, not just in the political elements of the administration. In 2008, the intelligence organizations within our national security structure prepared a national intelligence assessment on the national security implications of climate change. Testifying before Congress on the report, chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Dr. Thomas Finger, said the impacts of climate change: . . . will worsen existing problems--such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions. Climate change could threaten domestic stability in some states, potentially contributing to intra- or, less likely, interstate conflict, particularly over access to increasingly scarce water resources. The Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review for 2010 concurred, declaring that climate change will play a ``significant role in shaping the future security environment.'' The review stated: While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. So here we have it, an enormous missed opportunity economically in a time of economic hardship, an unthinkable failure to safeguard the world our children will inherit, an accelerant of instability and conflict at a time when our security is threatened by both and still no action. How could we have ended up here again? We have ended up here again because of a very unfortunate situation in our country right now. I will confess, I am an American exceptionalist. Over and over, I have spoken on the floor about this country as a city on a hill, as a beacon in the darkness, as mankind's last, best hope, as leading the world by our example. These are trite comments perhaps, but I say them unashamedly. Our balanced system of government, our founding principles of ordered liberty, our embrace of our diversity, our willingness to fight and die for freedom in foreign lands and then come home, without conquest, with other nations' freedom our only prize, these are exceptional American virtues, and they have changed the course of humanity. But our exceptional place in the human story does not give us an excuse. It does not give us a pass. It gives us, as Americans, a responsibility. Our American exceptionalism confers on Americans a responsibility. To ignore, as we have, the calm and constant counsels of science is not consistent with that responsibility. To ignore facts that are so plain as to be defacing our planet--her great glaciers and seas, her lands and species--is not consistent with that responsibility. To turn away from leadership at a time when other nations are turning to us for leadership is not consistent with that responsibility. It is not American exceptionalism to be exceptionally wrong or exceptionally blind or exceptionally timid. James Fallows wrote in a recent Atlantic article about clean coal technology that: . . . the Chinese government can decide to transform the country's energy system in 10 years, and no one doubts that it will. An incoming U.S. Administration can promise to create a clean-energy revolution, but only naifs believe that it will. Is this what the United States has come to, a country so mired in its internal quarrels and bickering, so slave to special interests that we cannot dream big, cannot do what others say is impossible? An eminent historian once counseled his students about the harsh judgments which it is history's power to inflict on the wrong. We are, by our inaction, by our folly, by our unwillingness to face facts, by our refusal to pick up the mantle of leadership, earning such a harsh judgment. We have chosen to ignore the plain and indisputable signals of our planet, signals that should warn us about the dangers of the path on which we are embarked. We have chosen to ignore both the clear and present dangers apparent around us now and those looming dangers our God-given intelligence gives us the ability to foresee. We have instead chosen to listen to a siren song: the siren song of propaganda, marketed by special interests, indeed, by the very polluters whose carbon pollution is wreaking this damage. That is our choice, and it is a choice for which history's judgment will be justifiably harsh. The judgment will be harsh because the answer to that choice is wrong--because the perils are real, because the Earth acts by the laws of physics and chemistry and biology. Atmospheric carbon levels cannot be talked down by propaganda; our warming bays and seas cannot be cooled down by corporate spin; our petty politics simply are not part of the equation when these great forces of nature are set in motion. Similar to King Canute, we cannot change this tide by proclamation, let alone by propaganda. I see the majority leader on the floor. I wish to inquire if he would like me to yield for a moment to him as a courtesy.