Sheldon Whitehouse

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer again for his courtesy and yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, let me briefly compliment the Senate staff for their patience and diligence yesterday when put to the task of reading the bill. I know it was Reading Is Fun Week in Rhode Island from May 12 to May 18. I guess the minority found an interesting way of making it ``Reading Is Fun Day'' in the Senate yesterday. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. First, let me join in the condolences for our colleague, Senator Thomas. Let me also recognize what for many of us is a sad anniversary of a day when one of America's brightest lights was extinguished and a distinguished Member of this body was lost. You have heard him described as a good and decent man who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, 5 years ago President Bush and this administration misled this country into a war that should never have been waged, a war that has cost our Nation the lives of more than 4,000 courageous men and women, squandered many hundreds of billions of our tax dollars, and diminished the world's faith in our country. This morning, the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by our distinguished chairman, Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, released a report confirming what many have long feared: that the Bush administration ignored or swept aside substantial reliable intelligence that portrayed something other than what the President and his political allies wanted America to see. The decision to take the Nation to war, as Chairman Rockefeller indicated, is among the gravest and most momentous that a leader can make. In our democracy, we expect and deserve to be sure that when our troops are sent in harm's way, when their families are made to watch and wait through sleepless nights, when our security and national welfare is put on the line, that that decision has been taken for the right reasons. This is a sacred compact, an article of faith between our people and our Government. This administration broke that compact, betrayed that trust. For years, the evidence has been mounting that this administration's reasons for the war were a sham. This week, the President's own former spokesman indicated that the White House ran a ``political propaganda campaign'' building the case for war. This morning's report is a chilling reminder of the Bush administration's willingness to overlook or set aside intelligence that does not confirm to its preordained view of the world. Over and over, again the committee documented instances in which public statements by the President, the Vice President, and members of the administration's national security team were at odds with available intelligence information. By leading the American people to believe the situation in Iraq was significantly more drastic than it actually was, the Bush administration took this country into an unnecessary war, a war it still refuses to end. In a speech in Cincinnati a little over a year after al-Qaida attacked America on September 11, President Bush said: We know that Iraq and al-Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. We have learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses. In his 2003 State of the Union Address, a few short weeks before giving the order that began this war, the President said: Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. It was not true. The President of the United States told these things to our people and to the world, and they were false. According to the report released this morning by our committee: Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qaida had a partnership or that Iraq had provided al-Qaida with weapons training were not substantiated by the intelligence. The committee found that multiple CIA reports and a National Intelligence Estimate, released in November 2002, even as the administration was in the drumbeat to war, ``dismissed the claim that Iraq and al-Qaida were cooperating partners.'' It was not true, and yet this President used this claim to convince the American public that there was a link between the Iraqi Government and the terrorists that perpetrated the crimes of September 11, 2001. Again, in an October 2002 speech in Cincinnati, the President said: We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. . . .Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf war in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world. The report concludes: Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capabilities and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing. The intelligence community knew Saddam Hussein wanted to be able to produce chemical weapons. It could not, however, confirm President Bush's claim of certainty that Hussein's regime was actually producing chemical weapons. Yet the President made that argument, stirring up unfounded fears among the American people. This administration not only asserted that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical weapons and intended to use them, the President also said in his speech on October 2002: We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. He said: We cannot wait for the final proof--the smoking gun--that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. Mr. President, again, it was not true. The committee's report states: Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information. At the time of the President's speech, the intelligence community believed Saddam Hussein did not possess nuclear weapons. The President preyed on Americans' fears of a nuclear attack, perhaps the most terrible fear we could have, to bolster his case for an unwarranted war. Finally, the President led the American people to believe if it came to war in Iraq, America's military would easily help liberate a grateful nation. In Cincinnati, in 2002, he said: If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people to rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty and a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors. This was the ``hope against all evidence.'' Analysis by the Defense Intelligence Agency assessed that: The Iraqi populace will adopt an ambivalent attitude toward liberation. That is an understatement. The CIA wrote, in August 2002, that ``traditional Iraqi political culture has been inhospitable to democracy.'' According to the committee's report: Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation, in Iraq in terms of the political, security, and economic [situation], did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products. The view of the President and Vice President that American troops would be ``greeted as liberators'' did not take into account the complex social, political, and sectarian dynamics at work about which the intelligence community was well aware. Yet this administration still led the American people to believe our troops would be welcomed, that the war would be short, that the burden in lives and dollars would be light, and that victory would be absolute. This delusion has cost our service men and women and our Nation every day since. Once again, it was not true. It just was not true. If this administration had made the least effort to give an honest review of classified intelligence, it would have been known to be untrue. All too often in these 7 long years we have seen this administration cast aside facts and principles that did not conform with its political aims. We have seen it attempt to take great institutions of our country-- our intelligence community, our Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Justice--and twist them to its own ends, without due regard for the welfare of the American people. I believe the irresponsibility and mismanagement of this administration will go down in our history as among the darkest moments our Government has witnessed. It rocks the very fiber of democracy when our Government is put to these uses. We do not yet know all the damage that has been done. Yet we hope, through the efforts of this committee and this body, to continue the long and difficult repair work we have begun. We can look ahead to next January when we in our Nation can begin again with a new administration, an administration that will not break the essential compact of honesty with the American people.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut for his kind words and, more importantly, for his leadership. Madam President, for the first time the Senate is embarked on a full debate on one of the most pressing issues facing America and the world today; that is, reducing the carbon pollution that causes global warming. This legislation, admirably and painstakingly pieced together by Senators Warner and Lieberman and by our chairman, Senator Boxer, takes a historic step to confront the crisis before us. As we speak, unchecked greenhouse gas emissions are causing the most significant and rapid climate and ecosystem shifts living memory has ever witnessed, affecting our oceans, our rivers, our lakes, our plants, our crops, and our wildlife. They affect our economy. They affect our very national security. The evidence of global warming can be found in every State in the country. My home State of Rhode Island, the Ocean State, is perhaps the smallest, but it is no exception. Over the past 20 years, the annual mean winter temperature in our beautiful Narragansett Bay has increased by about 4 degrees Fahrenheit. Now, the difference between, say, 63 and 67 degrees may not feel like much to someone plunging into the clear waters of Narragansett Bay, but for the populations of fish and shellfish that make Narragansett Bay their home, that feed Rhode Island families, and fuel Rhode Island's proud fishing tradition, it is an ecosystem shift. It displaces cold water species, and it threatens the fragile and rich diversity of marine life in our precious Narragansett Bay. So far, the consequences of global warming have been relatively mild. But there are worse things to come--in the world and in the waters around us. We are forewarned by overwhelming and undeniable scientific evidence. Let me speak briefly about the science underpinning the evidence of global warming. We are fortunate to have an enormous body of scientific data measuring the warming of the Earth, the rising of the seas, the shift in weather patterns, and the effects on all the Earth's creatures. This data comes from all corners of the world and from the full spectrum of scientific thinking, most recently, indeed, from a report by the Bush administration's own Department of Agriculture. The scientists essentially all draw the same ultimate conclusion: Global warming is happening, it is manmade, and it is getting worse. Let me talk for a minute about some of the very foundations of the science we will be discussing. As shown on this chart, this is a very simple scientific device: the bell curve, the standard normal distribution. It basically is the standard analytical device for almost all the observations in which science works. In this dimension, one measures the danger of what could happen. In this dimension, one measures the likelihood that will happen. What you find in the bell curve is that there is a strong agreement, a strong, solid foundation of observed agreement around a level of danger that has a very high likelihood of taking place. It is this area, as shown on this chart--this key area--where the likelihood is the greatest that we face the dangers that have been described on this floor so eloquently by Chairman Boxer and Senator Kerry and others of the global warming that the Earth is undergoing. Now, you will, during the course of this debate, hear about other points of view. I am confident of that. Most of them lurk down here, as shown on this chart, in the area where the likelihood is the least, but the danger is the least. That is the key. But this is really fringe science. The body of science on global warming, like the body of science on almost any other topic, follows a curve in which the vast majority of the observations, the vast majority of the scientific conclusions follow an allocation, a curve like this. What the people who are fond of pointing out these low-danger but low-likelihood opinions usually forget to tell you is that there is this side of the curve. This side of the curve may also be unlikely, but it is very significant to us as a species because here the danger is even greater than what the vast bulk of the science we are relying on here in this discussion today would indicate. These are very significantly dangerous scenarios for our species. What we have found as time has gone on and as the scientific observations have kept coming in is that we think it is here, as shown on this chart, but when the observations come in, they tend to be here, as shown over here on this chart. We are always running ahead of the science when the observations come in. Science is not telling us: Take it easy, don't worry. Science is telling us that the more information we get, the more dangerous it appears to be. It is a simple, traditional, normal distribution curve. The discussion that supports the changes we are making here is taking place where the weight of the science is. If people try to take you off that and show you this end of it, beware because there is just as great a likelihood that this other end of the danger spectrum will occur. Another aspect of the science here is the so-called trend line. Now, this is just an example. It is not any statistics at all; it is just dots we put together to show a variety of data over time and how a trend line flows through it. It is calculated through a very established scientific process. There is a book that was written several years ago called ``How to Lie with Statistics.'' A trend line provides a lot of opportunity to mislead people with statistics. In this debate, unfortunately, that happens a fair amount. I will give an example of that in a second. But basically, each of these, as data points come in over time--and in this case the temperature of various places on the Earth is measured--scientists are able to draw a trendline that essentially any reputable scientist, almost any reputable mathematician, can draw through those points, and then you base your conclusions on the trendline. That is standard, grade A, basic 101 science. Now, let's look at how that works in terms of global warming. Here are temperature changes plotted over years 1978 through 2003. Here is a trendline that has been plotted through all of these orange data points. It clearly indicates the warming of the Earth. This is the type of information on which reasonable and prudent people across this country--in businesses, in homes--base their decisions all the time. It is the type of decisionmaking our military relies on, our intelligence communities rely on, our scientists rely on, our corporate leaders rely on. It is not anything special or magic. The trendline is very clear about what is happening. Now, in the green box I have highlighted a section of the data because what I have seen is a number of reports that have focused on only this little piece of information. If you pull this little piece of information out--this was an El Nino year, so temperatures were unusually high. If you pull this little bit of data out, you can draw a very different trendline through this. It would probably look something like that. There have been people who have said: Well, that shows that in 1998 global warming stopped--because they took this tiny little segment of the overall data and tried to focus only on that. So it is very important in this debate, when you see some of the information that has been brought out, to understand that books such as ``How To Lie With Statistics,'' their principles are still alive and well, and unfortunately, data such as this has even seeped into discussion in the Senate. For many years, global warming denial thrived on an industry of sham science bought and paid for by special interests. Those days are diminishing. Even the most vocal global warming deniers have increasingly fallen silent because the science is speaking to us now with an unequivocal voice. We can reduce the carbon pollution that is causing global warming, and time is of the essence. The bill before us takes a badly needed step toward the new green economy that beckons America with the promise of new technologies, new products and, most importantly, new jobs that will drive our American economy for decades to come. This country has never before shied away from the next great challenge or the next big idea. Classic American know-how has always led the world into new frontiers of scientific and technological discovery. The cold hand of the past always has reached out to impede progress, and we see it clawing on this floor today. But America is called by the future, not by the past. We have heard discussion today on whether there are costs if we act to address the carbon pollution that is causing global warming. What are the costs if we do not act? If we do not act, we will continue to send our hard-earned dollars overseas to buy oil from nations that do not care for us. The economic implications of our crippling dependence on foreign oil are evident to every American every time they pull up to the gas pump. The challenge to our national security grows increasingly clear with every day our troops spend mired in the war in Iraq. If President Bush had tackled this problem 7 years ago after he was elected, we would not have the gas prices we see today. We would not have the weakened oil economy we live in today. We are paying at the pump because President Bush was AWOL when the future called. If we do not act, we will not only keep paying at the pump for our continued addiction to foreign oil, but we will fall behind the rest of the world in developing and exploiting the green jobs and technologies of the future. If we do not act, we will witness increasing destruction of our natural landscape, disappearing coastlines back East, fire-swept prairies out West, a tornado-ravaged heartland, our hurricane-battered gulf coast. Hunters will see game species change their patterns and migrate away. Trout fish will find rivers too warm. If we do not act, we will allow the extinction of cherished creatures who share God's Earth with us, from the struggling polar bears of Greenland to Rhode Island's own little piping plover. If we do not act, we will become the first and only generation of Americans--the first and only generation of Americans--to leave the world to our children in worse condition than the one that was handed to us. We should not make ourselves that first and only generation. We should not break the faith with our children and grandchildren. I look forward as much as anybody in this room to a spirited debate that will give all Members of this body the opportunity to share their ideas and concerns. But when the debate is done, we must not shirk our duty. This has to be a legitimate debate. This can't be just about scoring political points. There is a true problem before us. We have it within our care, within our control, within our power to do something to get this right. I look forward very much to this debate. I hope my colleagues are all joining in it in good faith. I hope we will rely on real science and real arguments and not on talking points from industries that haven't gotten it yet. But when you see indications such as this, that people are willing to take one little segment of the data out of context as much as that, I think people who are watching this can see if that is what people are doing, there is cause for concern about how serious they are about solving this problem. Madam President, I thank you very much and I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes to respond to the questions that were asked of me. I think I have some time remaining of the 15 minutes I was allocated.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, since time is very short, to my good friend Senator Corker from Tennessee I say this: First, the basic principle of this legislation is that polluters should pay, and I would hope that every person in this room would agree with that. Polluting industries should not get away with causing global warming by releasing carbon pollution for free and having all the rest of us pay the costs of that. If you agree with the proposition that polluting industries should pay, then you have to, as you suggested, figure out the best way to get the funds back to the American people. We try to do it in this bill in ways that step us into the green economy we need for the future and in ways that step us up toward energy independence. The Senator may disagree. That is what the bill is about. If the minority would allow us to go to amendments, we could discuss that. That is not the way it is right now. We have to step forward. Senators Biden and Lugar are going to come forward with foreign policy recommendations to make sure the rest of the countries move with us. I agree with the Senator from Tennessee that we have to make sure the rest of the world moves with us. But we cannot wait for the rest of the world to move.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that I may respond to the questions that were asked of me by name.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my vote against the previous amendment which both appropriated $165 billion to continue the tragic and misguided war in Iraq, and also included a number of provisions relating to our policies regarding Iraq. I favor many of the policy provisions contained in the amendment, such as requirements that the Iraqi government share in some of the costs of the war and a prohibition against the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq. I commend my Democratic colleagues in the Appropriations Committee, including my good friend and distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, Jack Reed, for their work on these laudable provisions. I also strongly support the provision that requires our intelligence agencies to give access to detainees to the International Committee of the Red Cross. I have worked closely with my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee on this important provision, which is designed to end secret detentions. While I fully supported some of the policy provisions in the amendment, I could not vote to fund this war in the absence of a firm and enforceable timeline for withdrawal. Unfortunately, it appears that the Republican minority remains intent on filibustering any attempts to mandate a rapid and responsible redeployment of our troops from Iraq. I, along with thousands of Rhode Islanders who have contacted me on this critical issue, oppose spending $4,000 per second on a war that has diminished our national security and damaged our standing in the world. I am hopeful that, under a new President, we can work together to bring an end to this war. Amendment No. 4818

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, thank you. I appreciate that.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, let me indicate that we are not entirely unfamiliar on the Judiciary Committee with Judge White. She was actually an appointee of President Clinton. For many months, she languished before the committee when it was under Republican control. So she should be a judge with whom at least a considerable number of the members of the Judiciary Committee would have been familiar from her previous appointment. Any suggestion that she was a new arrival or a novelty of some kind to the committee would not be accurate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an April 30, 2008, letter to the Republican leader and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee signed by the majority leader, indicating, among other things, the following: In a floor statement on April 15 I pledged my best efforts to have the Senate consider three circuit court nominations prior to the Memorial Day recess. I stand by my pledge. I cautioned explicitly that ``I cannot guarantee'' this outcome because it depends upon factors beyond my control. Nonetheless, I remain optimistic we can meet that goal.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, one of the great privileges that I have as a Member of this body is to travel around my home State of Rhode Island and hear directly from the people I was elected to serve. We are a small State, and we all know one another pretty well. So it is a pleasure to get out and listen to people, to hear what is on their minds, their good news and their bad news, and the challenges and the opportunities they and their families face each and every day. One of the things we do is to regularly hold community dinners around the State. My wife Sandra and I get together with folks over pasta and meatballs or hamburgers and hot dogs and we talk about the issues that are interesting to them. Mr. President, having the opportunity to hear people of my State share their stories this way has made such a difference in my work here in Washington. I say to the Presiding Officer, I know that as you represent the people in Florida, you feel very much the same way and I've heard you both in committee and on this floor give speeches and remarks that have focused on individual constituents of yours who had troubles and problems that they needed to attend to and you needed to attend to. So I know that you feel very much the same way. You know, we stand in this Chamber and we debate back and forth on the war in Iraq or the price of a gallon of gas or the crisis in the housing industry. But when we go back home, we see people who are living in the middle of these issues every day. In Rhode Island right now, there are parents worrying about their sons and daughters serving overseas in Iraq. There are families watching the numbers on the gas pump roll, roll, roll, flying higher and higher, and they are wondering how they are going to make ends meet. And there are working people who see their mortgage payments climb out of reach, and they face the gnawing, terrible fear that they might lose the home their children grew up in. So, as glorious as is this grand Chamber we have the opportunity to serve in, the reason we are really here is that it is all about them. And last Sunday evening, we had one of those moments. We hosted a community dinner in Bristol, RI, which is a beautiful, historic town on Rhode Island's East Bay. Bristol is known for many wonderful things, but one is the oldest--and I think the best--Fourth of July parade in the United States of America. So it was great to be in Bristol, and it was a beautiful evening. The day had been rainy, and toward the end of the day, the clouds had begun to open up and the evening Sun was shining through on the clouds above. The earth and the trees were still wet around, but they were lit up by the lit sky, and we were in this handsome stone VFW hall that is just a little bit back from Bristol Harbor. It was beautiful not only outside but inside because we had a wonderful group of people. And as the questions and answers were winding down toward the end of the evening, a man stood up and he took the microphone, and he began to speak. The man was COL Edward Cyr. Colonel Cyr is a 29-year veteran of the Army Reserves, 399th Combat Support Hospital. He has served two tours in Iraq, first in 2003 and then again from June 2006 to October 2007, and was also deployed to Kosovo in 2001. When he is not serving our country in the Army Reserves, Colonel Cyr is a nurse anesthetist at Saint Anne's Hospital in Massachusetts. He is a loving husband to his wife Patricia, and he is the father to five daughters. Colonel Cyr wanted to tell me about a provision in the 2008 Defense authorization bill which grants early retirement eligibility to reservists and National Guard members who have served on Active Duty since September 11, to allow these individuals to gain 3 months of retirement eligibility for every 90 days of Active service. He was concerned that the effective date of the legislation was set for the date of its passage, and that it did not reach back to September 11 to pick up all the veterans who had served since that date. I agreed to help him with that legislation, to make the date of the early retirement provision retroactive to September 11, 2001, so that it would reach every veteran in this conflict who served our country and carried the burden of a disastrous war policy with such great honor and dignity. And often people come with a specific request like that, but that was not what was significant about this. What was significant about this was that Colonel Cyr took the chance to tell his story. He spoke of the strains of his multiple deployments which have weighed so heavily upon him and his family. He spoke of the blood of the wounded soldiers he worked on, on his hands, on his clothes, in his very pores. He spoke of their service and their loss and his pride in the men and women who served beside him. When he was done, the big room was quiet. I asked him--I was a little embarrassed to ask because I did not want to ask a personal question that might not be welcome, but I asked him anyway: I said, Colonel, if I may ask a personal question, what was your family situation through all of this? He paused a minute, and he said: Well, Senator, I am glad you asked that question because my wife is sitting right beside me. And he proudly pointed her out, and he said this: For all those months, over three tours, she had to go it alone, raising my five daughters, and I want to take this chance to thank her because if it weren't for her, I wouldn't have had a home to come home to. Mr. President, you could have heard a pin drop. There was not a dry eye in the House, including my own. And the room then burst into applause. Mr. President, this was just one of those moments--just one of those moments. I do not think I can explain it, and frankly, I do not even want to try because if I tried to explain it, I would just make it smaller. So all I want to say, as we all leave this glorious Chamber to go home to our States to celebrate this Memorial Day weekend, for all the Edward Cyrs and for all the Patricia Cyrs across this country, thank you and God bless you. Mr. President, I believe there is no quorum present. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, as we conclude the discussion on the budget, in which the Presiding Officer participated so eloquently just a few moments ago, I wanted to come to the floor because there is a significant feature in America's fiscal picture that affects this budget considerably but has not really gotten the attention it deserves; that is, the debt of the United States of America that has been run up by President George W. Bush. It is a frightening legacy, really, because of the weight, the fiscal burden of it that will weigh on our children and our grandchildren. If I may, we calculated the Bush Debt at $7.7 trillion, and we did it this way. We took the projections for the U.S. budget on the day George Bush took office, which, as the Presiding Officer may recall, projected that we actually would have no debt left at all in our country by as early as fiscal year 2009--and, indeed, there was economic debate among America's leading economists wondering if it is really good for our country for America to be completely debt free. What is the ideal level of debt? Should we maintain some level of debt? Are there potential problems if the United States were to be completely debt free? That was the discussion. That was what America was looking forward to. The nonpartisan, professional Congressional Budget Office had a projection on where that budget was going to go on the day George W. Bush took office, and that is the top line of our projection. We call it the Clinton budget landscape because it resulted from the economic policies of the Clinton administration which left this country in such good health for President George W. Bush. That was what could have been. The other line is what he did, what this country has done to itself fiscally under George W. Bush. When you compare the difference between the upper line, where the country was going, and where George Bush took us, the difference is the Bush Debt, and it amounts to $7.7 trillion. To me, that is an almost unimaginable number. So just to kind of give an idea of how many zeros that will be, this is what it looks like. That is $7.7 trillion. Even in the great State of Michigan, where the Presiding Officer hails from, that is a big number. To somebody like me, from Rhode Island, it is almost unimaginable. So I asked my staff to give me some means of comparing, some way of thinking about how big that number is. This is a penny. And I asked my staff: If a penny was $1 billion and you put a stack of pennies on my desk here, how high would that stack of $1 billion pennies go to make $7.7 trillion? Well, they found out that the stack of $1 billion pennies would have to go 39 feet high to amount to $7.7 trillion. I don't think the television camera can take this in, but from here to the very top of this room is about 39 feet of $1 billion pennies. That is the enormous burden on our country from the improvident, wasteful, feckless policies of the Bush administration. I have a credit card. The distinguished Senator from Michigan has a credit card. If we borrow money on our credit cards, we have to pay interest. American families across the country work to pay interest on mortgages, on credit cards, and on loans of various kinds. Well, guess what. We have to pay a lot of interest on a debt such as we have. And in the recent budget, as the Presiding Officer will recall, that we just passed in the Budget Committee and that we are discussing on the floor, there is $260 billion in interest, much of it paid to foreign countries, on our national debt--$7.7 trillion of it run up by one administration, the administration of George W. Bush. Now, that $260 billion is another pretty big number. So I asked: What could we do with $260 billion if we didn't have to give it to the Saudis and the Chinese and the Mexicans and everybody else we have borrowed money from to fund George Bush's $7.7 trillion debt? Well, here is what we could do: For starters, we could pay for health insurance for everyone. We would have universal health care in this country. And you know what, there would be money left over. With the money that was left over, you could also add a million children--a million children--to Head Start Programs. Universal health care for everyone, a million extra children getting Head Start, and still there would be money left over. You could double every Pell grant, which helps kids in America pay for college and reach out and seize their futures. Universal health care, a million extra kids in Head Start, and doubling every Pell Grant. And there would still be money left over. With that last bit of money left over, you could repair or replace 95 percent of the bridges that currently need repair and reconstruction in America--not 100 percent, only 95 percent. You would have to wait until next year to do that last 5 percent. That is what the cost to us is of an administration and a Republican Congress that ran up $7.7 trillion in debt. So I appreciate very much the ranking member who spoke eloquently last week about the problem of that last $9.6 billion in discretionary spending we authorized in the Senate-passed budget above the $1 trillion mark. We wouldn't need to worry about that $9.6 billion if his colleagues and President Bush hadn't run up $7.7 trillion in debt for Americans to have to pay in the future because this administration, frankly, was too cowardly to pay its own way and has borrowed from future generations to pay for the war in Iraq and to pay for tax cuts for the richest Americans. In a country where the difference between the wealthy and the poor, between the CEOs and the workers is growing dramatically, is straining the very fabric of our society, instead of bringing us together, what was the President's solution? Lots more tax cuts for the very richest people, who are doing the absolute best already, the ones who have nothing to worry about except whether they take the Lincoln or they take the Benz. They are the ones who need the tax cuts in this country? I don't think so. But the President did, and he didn't even have the guts to pay for it or find the cuts. He borrowed the money. That is why we are at $7.7 trillion. So I think it is fascinating that we are having this budget discussion. I want to salute our chairman, Senator Conrad, who is absolutely brilliant with the budget. He works so well with people in this body and has such enormous credibility that he is able to work through issues in a very special way--in large part because of his personal character and his credibility. We all benefit from his being able to do that. But he has had to work very hard to try to bring this budget into balance, 3 or 4 years out from now. It is not easy work, putting this budget together. When people come to the floor and criticize his efforts and try to knock $9.6 billion off and worry that this might not be fiscally prudent, it is astonishing when those remarks come from the people who aided and abetted George Bush in running up $7.7 trillion in money that we owe now to the rest of the world, that we will have to pay off indefinitely, that will be a weight and a burden on the shoulders of this country for decades if not generations. I actually think we need to do something about the $7.7 trillion Bush Debt. I recommended that we have a formal commission of some kind, an authority whose job it is to take the best and the brightest people who understand our economy and figure out how we pay down $7.7 trillion. It is really a disaster. Some of us have served in State government before we came here. Some of us have served in municipal government. If there is a crisis at the State government level--an economic crisis--if a municipality has a terrible fire in a facility and has to rebuild, you take that problem and you set it aside and you create a revenue stream and you deal with it. You don't try to force it through the regular operating budget of the State or of the municipality. We may be at the stage where the Bush Debt of $7.7 trillion is so serious for us fiscally that we should start thinking about getting together a group of the most learned economists, the people who care the most about America's future, who see the hazard to our welfare, to our national security that this kind of debt creates, and can think creatively about how we can set up special revenue streams to pay it down and begin to bring our country back in balance. I appreciate the courtesy of the Chair in listening to these remarks. I did think as we closed out the budget debate it was important to remind everybody that, for all the big talk the Bush administration may make about fiscal prudence and about being responsible, it is the most fiscally imprudent and the most irresponsible administration in our history. Indeed, President Bush alone has borrowed more money from foreign countries than all 42 Presidents who preceded him--not any one of them, all of them. If we add up everything they borrowed through the entire history of the Republic, in just one Presidency he has them beat. It takes a little brass to be able to come and argue for fiscal prudence and responsibility and not mention that President Bush and the Republican Congress ran up $7.7 trillion in debt. I thought we should think about it and reflect on that as this debate concludes. I appreciate working with the very distinguished Senator from Michigan. Her work on the Budget Committee is very valuable. She is a wonderful colleague to me, and I appreciate the indulgence this evening. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, first, let me say how pleased I am to follow the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, hearing him talk about his native son, to whom I think it is fair to say he bears some resemblance. But I have another topic today, which is the cost of gasoline in Rhode Island. In Rhode Island today, a gallon of regular unleaded costs $3.84 on average, according to AAA's daily report. That price is nearly 40 cents higher than it was 1 month ago. It is almost 77 cents higher than it was a year ago. I had a Rhode Island visitor to my office last week who runs a little oil company in Bristol. He reported his oil supply costs have gone up 60 cents in 2 weeks. By the way, it is springtime. When I was home over the weekend, I saw prices for regular gas at $3.89 and super at $4.12. High gas prices have been over all the news in the last several weeks in Rhode Island and across the country. But this problem did not emerge overnight. It has built up over the 7\1/2\ years of the Bush administration. Since President Bush took office in 2001, gas prices in Rhode Island have more than doubled--a price hike of more than $2 for every gallon. Seven years of two oil men in the White House has left Rhode Islanders facing the highest gas prices they have seen since the fuel crisis days of 1981. The steady and steep rise in the price of gasoline is forcing many working families in Rhode Island to make choices that would have seemed unimaginable only a few months ago, choices that are harsh and cold: A mother walks home from work through pouring rain because she can only afford to spend $10 a week on gasoline; a man cuts down on buying gas so he will have enough to pay for his prescriptions. Families in South County are hungry but have to think twice about the gas to drive to the food pantry to pick up food for their families. One man told the Providence Journal: The food is expensive, the clothes are expensive--I've got medication. I don't know what will happen--every week, everything is more expensive. For too many families in our Ocean State, when everything is more expensive, some things get left out: Only half a tank of gas this week, less money for groceries, no new clothes for the kids. Working Rhode Island families do not have an extra $2,000 in their annual family budget to spend on gas, and that is how much more they are paying now than they did in 2001 when Bush took office. Bush-McCain economics have left these families struggling to make ends meet, wondering how they will pay the bills if a child gets sick or the plumbing breaks. They do not have an extra $30 or $40 or $50 to pour into their gas tanks every week. But still gas prices go up, and families already stretched to the limit are stretched even further. These Rhode Islanders and millions like them all across this country need help, and they need it now. They are looking to us in Congress for answers. Last week, Congress passed legislation taking a key first step-- shutting off the gush of oil flowing into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This massive stockpile of crude oil owned by the Federal Government, maintained in the event of a disruption in fuel supplies or other such emergency, has a capacity of 727 million barrels of oil. Right now, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is about 97 percent full. Yet the Bush administration continues to pump between 70,000 and 80,000 barrels of oil every day into massive underground caverns. Unsurprisingly, the administration actually wants to double the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 1.5 billion barrels, even as millions of Americans struggle with record fuel prices. Amazing. At a time when American families are cutting back on food and other necessities in order to fill their gas tank, President Bush wants to reduce the supply of oil into the open market, jack up the cost of fuel, and further line the pockets of the big oil companies. With the price of gas hitting nearly $4 a gallon, those 70,000 to 80,000 barrels should flow into the market, not into the ground. And let's not forget that at today's price of over $129 a barrel--a new record price for crude oil as of this morning--pouring oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve costs our Government millions of our precious tax dollars every day. There are a number of things we can do right now to help provide some short-term relief at the pump. I have cosponsored our majority leader Senator Reid's Consumer First Energy Act, a plan that gets at some of the immediate root causes of these staggeringly high prices. First, we must take steps to protect American consumers from market speculation and price gouging. The administration's failure to regulate the oil futures market has left it fertile ground for speculators who game that market to reap high payoffs for themselves, while consumers pay the price. Commodities traders take advantage of lax margin requirements that allow them to buy oil futures for only 5 to 7 cents on the dollar rather than the 50-percent downpayment required for purchases of stock futures. Many experts have pointed to rampant speculation as one of the principal reasons for the inflated price of crude oil in the market. The Consumer First Energy Act would prevent traders of U.S. crude oil from routing transactions overseas to evade our limits on speculation, and it would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to substantially increase the margin requirement for oil futures trading. I particularly applaud my colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Cantwell, for her leadership in calling for an oil and gas market task force to investigate irregularities in the price of energy. Our bill would also prevent price gouging by giving the President the authority to declare an energy emergency in cases of supply disruption, shortage, or significant price anomalies in the market. Once such an emergency has been declared, it would be unlawful to set an ``unconscionably excessive price'' for gasoline. The Federal Trade Commission would have the authority to enforce this provision while State attorneys general would have new authority to bring civil actions against price gougers at home. Outside our borders, we need to make it clear to oil-producing countries that colluding to fix the price of oil will not be tolerated. The Bush administration has failed to stand up to the nations that control the price of crude oil--nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, and others that do not have America's best interests at heart. OPEC nations, which produce about a third of the world's oil supply, stubbornly refuse to produce more oil to curb the rising prices, and now OPEC has said the price of a barrel of oil could reach $200 this year. With the American family now spending 10 percent of their income on gasoline, we cannot afford to let OPEC continue to manipulate world oil markets. Our plan makes it clear that colluding to fix the price of oil is illegal under U.S. law. The Consumer First Energy Act gives the Attorney General of the United States the power to bring an enforcement action against any company or country engaging in such conduct. Finally, we need to turn the tables on the big oil companies, which now pocket not only recordbreaking profits but huge taxpayer-funded subsidies that they just do not need. As this chart shows, the dollars we pay at the gas pump flow right into big oil's pockets. Last year alone, the five biggest oil companies--ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips--made $116 billion in profits. That is almost twice the entire budget of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Imagine if we were spending twice as much on our roads and bridges and public transit systems. ExxonMobil alone earned $40.6 billion last year--more than the entire Federal Highway Administration budget for 2007 and almost as much as the profits of the entire American credit card industry. Isn't it telling that as American families have struggled with the highest fuel costs in a generation, the biggest oil companies have celebrated recordbreaking profits? As our Nation slides deeper into recession, the oil companies' profits keep going up. While the oil companies are gorged with profit, stuffed with profit, choking on profit, the Bush administration and their Republican friends in Congress insist on funneling to them huge tax breaks. With profits exceeding $116 billion last year alone, I cannot think of a single industry that needs extra money less than big oil, especially when that industry still resists making major investments in new technology or renewable fuels. The Consumer First Energy Act will eliminate $17 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas companies and reallocate those tax dollars to renewable energy and new energy efficiency technology and would also create a 25-percent windfall profits tax on oil companies that do not invest in increased capacity and renewable energy sources. If they will not use their obscene profits to invest in America's energy future, well, we will have to, and we will. We know this is short-term action. We know we need to liberate ourselves from our dependence on oil with new energy sources and technologies. We know we need something along the lines of a new Manhattan Project or a new Apollo project. It is a matter of national urgency. But the American people need action now. We cannot stand by as millions of families struggle under the weight of skyrocketing gas prices. For the woman walking home from work in the rain, for the man on the bus to his doctor, for the student hoping one day for a hybrid car, for the families going without food because they cannot buy gas, we must take action. I urge my colleagues to support legislation to ease Americans' pain at the pump. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam 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.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 570, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 569, a resolution introduced earlier today.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, under a previous order, the first vote of the day will occur at 2:30 p.m. on the confirmation of the nomination of G. Steven Agee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit. Following executive session, we are expected to turn to the consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 2642, the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Tuesday, May 20; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business until 12 noon, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the first hour equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the next 30 minutes; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, May 20, at 12 noon, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, with the debate time equally divided and controlled between the chair and ranking member or their designees until 12:30 p.m.: Executive Calendar No. 537, the nomination of Michael G. McGinn; Executive Calendar No. 538, the nomination of Ralph E. Martinez; finally, Executive Calendar No. 574, the nomination of G. Steven Agee; that the nominees be debated concurrently; that at 2:15 p.m., there be 15 additional minutes, equally divided and controlled between Senators Webb and Warner or their designees; that at 2:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination of G. Steven Agee; that upon confirmation of the Agee nomination, Calendar Nos. 537 and 538 be confirmed by consent and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, no further motions be in order, and the Senate then resume legislative session.