[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 15, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1647-S1673]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


            SBIR/STTR REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I understand Senator Vitter will seek 
recognition to offer some amendments. I ask unanimous consent that 
after Senator Vitter has offered his amendments, I be recognized for up 
to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator amends his request that at the conclusion 
of his remarks we return to amendment No. 183.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so amend his request?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think the Senator was distracted over 
there. If the Senator would amend his unanimous consent request so that 
we would return to amendment No. 183 at the conclusion of his remarks.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from 
Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Human Rights

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to share my thoughts on the 
hearings held last week in the House of Representatives called ``The 
Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that 
Community's Response.'' Congressional hearings are supposed to serve as 
an important role of oversight, investigation, or education, among 
other purposes. However, this particular hearing--billed as the first 
of a series--served only to fan flames of fear and division.
  My first concern is the title of the hearing--targeting one 
community. That is wrong. Each of us has a responsibility to speak out 
when communities are unfairly targeted.
  In 1975, the United States joined all the countries of Europe and 
established the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, now 
known as the OSCE. The Congress created the U.S. Helsinki Commission to 
monitor U.S. participation and compliance with these commitments. The 
OSCE contains commitments in three areas or baskets: security, 
economics, and human rights. Best known for its human rights 
advancements, the OSCE has been aggressive in advancing these 
commitments in each of the OSCE states. The OSCE stands for religious 
freedom and protection of minority rights.
  I am the Senate chair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission. In that 
capacity, I have raised human rights issues in other countries, such as 
in France when, in the name of national security, the Parliament banned 
burqas and wearing of all religious articles or when the Swiss 
restricted the building of mosques or minarets.
  These policies were restrictive not only to the religious practice of 
Muslims but also Christians, Jews, and others who would seek to wear 
religious symbols and practice their religion as they saw fit.
  I have also raised human rights issues in the United States when we 
were out of compliance with our Helsinki commitments. In that spirit, I 
find it necessary to speak out against the congressional hearing 
chaired by Congressman Peter King.
  Rather than constructively using the power of Congress to explore how 
we as a nation can use all of the tools at our disposal to prevent 
future terrorist attacks and defeat those individuals and groups who 
want to do us harm, this spectacle crossed the line and chipped away at 
the religious freedoms and civil liberties we hold so dearly.
  Radicalization may be the appropriate subject of a congressional 
hearing but not when it is limited to one religion. When that is done, 
it sends the wrong message to the public and casts a religion with 
unfounded suspicions.
  Congressman King's hearing is part of a disturbing trend to demonize 
Muslims taking place in our country and abroad. Instead, we need to 
engage the Muslim community in the United States.
  A cookie-cutter approach to profile what a terrorist looks like will 
not work. As FBI Director Mueller recently testified to the Senate:

        . . . during the past year, the threat from radicalization 
     has evolved. A number of disruptions occurred involving 
     extremists from a diverse set of backgrounds, geographic 
     locations, life experiences, and motivating factors that 
     propelled them along their separate radicalization pathways.

  Let us remember that a number of terrorist attacks have been 
prevented or disrupted due to informants from the Muslim community who 
contacted law enforcement officials.
  I commend Attorney General Holder and FBI Director Mueller for 
increasing their outreach to the Arab-American community. As Attorney 
General Holder said:

       Let us not forget it was a Muslim-American who first 
     alerted the New York police to a smoking car in Times Square. 
     And his vigilance likely helped to save lives. He did his 
     part to avert tragedy, just as millions of other Arab-
     Americans are doing their parts and proudly fulfilling the 
     responsibility of citizenship.

  We need to encourage this type of cooperation between our government 
and law enforcement agencies in the Muslim community.
  As the threat from al-Qaida changes and evolves over time, the piece 
of the puzzle is even more important to get right. FBI Director Mueller 
testified before the House recently that:

       At every opportunity I have, I reaffirm the fact that 99.9 
     percent of Muslim-Americans, Sikh-Americans, and Arab-
     Americans are every bit as patriotic as anyone else in this 
     room, and that many of the anti-terrorism cases are a result 
     of the cooperation from the Muslim community and the United 
     States.

  As leaders in Congress, we must live up to our Nation's highest 
ideals and protect civil liberties, even in wartime when they are most 
challenged. The 9/11 Commission summed up this well when they wrote:

       The terrorists have used our open society against us. In 
     wartime, government calls for greater powers, and then the 
     need for those powers recedes after the war ends. This 
     struggle will go on. Therefore, while protecting our 
     homeland, Americans must be mindful of threats to vital 
     personal and civil liberties. This balancing is no easy task, 
     but we must constantly strive to keep it right.

  I agree with Attorney General Holder's recent speech to the Arab-
American Anti-Discrimination Committee, where he stated:

       In this Nation, our many faiths, origins, and appearances 
     must bind us together, not break us apart. In this Nation, 
     the document that sets forth the supreme law of the land--the 
     Constitution--is meant to empower, not exclude. And in this 
     Nation, security and liberty are--at their best--partners, 
     not enemies, in ensuring safety and opportunity for all.

  Actions, such as the hearing held last week, that pit us against one 
another based on our religious beliefs, weaken our country and its 
freedoms and ultimately do nothing to make our country any safer. 
Hearings such as the one held last week only serve as a distraction 
from our real goals and provide fuel for those who are looking for 
excuses to find fault or blame in our way of life.
  Let's not go the way of other countries but instead hold dear the 
protections in our Constitution that safeguard the individual's right 
to freely practice their religion and forbid a religious test to hold 
public office in the United States. Our country's strength lies in its 
diversity and our ability to have strongly held beliefs and differences 
of opinion, while being able to speak freely and not fear the 
government will imprison us for criticizing the government or holding a 
religious belief that is not shared by the majority of Americans.
  On September 11, 2001, our country was attacked by terrorists in a 
way we thought impossible. Thousands of innocent men, women, and 
children of all races, religions, and backgrounds were murdered. As the 
10-year anniversary

[[Page S1648]]

of these attacks draws closer, we continue to hold these innocent 
victims in our thoughts and prayers, and we will continue to fight 
terrorism and bring terrorists to justice.
  After that attack, I went back to my congressional district in 
Maryland at that time and made three visits as a Congressman. First I 
visited a synagogue and prayed with the community. Then I visited a 
mosque and prayed with the community. Then I went to a church and 
prayed with the community. My message was clear on that day: We all 
needed to join together as a nation to condemn the terrorist attacks 
and to take all necessary measures to eliminate safe havens for 
terrorists and bring them to justice. We all stood together on that day 
regardless of our background or personal beliefs.
  But my other message was equally important: We cannot allow the 
events of September 11 to demonize a particular community, religion, or 
creed. Such actions of McCarthyism harken back to darker days in our 
history. National security concerns were used inappropriately and led 
to 120,000 Japanese-Americans being stripped of their property and 
rights and placed in internment camps in 1942, though not a single act 
of espionage was ever established.
  The United States should not carry out a crusade against any 
particular religion as a response to 9/11 or other terrorist attacks. 
The United States will not tolerate hate crimes against any group, 
regardless of their religion or ethnicity, and we should not allow our 
institutions, including Congress, to be used to foment intolerance and 
injustice. Let's come together as a nation and move forward in a more 
constructive and hopeful manner.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand Senator Inhofe and Senator 
Vitter are both on the floor to offer amendments to the SBIR and STIR 
Program. Are we under a consent agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, I yield to Senator Inhofe.
  Mr. INHOFE. The pending amendment is No. 183. I ask unanimous consent 
that it be temporarily set aside for the purpose of introducing 
amendment No. 161.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Is that Senator Vitter's amendment? Senator Vitter was 
here, so I wanted him to have the opportunity to offer his. It doesn't 
matter to me in what order.
  Mr. INHOFE. Why not recognize Senator Vitter for his amendment, set 
aside our amendment temporarily, and then we will get to the Johanns 
amendment after that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 178

  Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President, and thanks to my colleagues for 
their courtesies and cooperation.
  At this point, I move to temporarily set aside the pending amendment 
and to call up Vitter amendment No. 178.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 178.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the Federal Government to sell off unused Federal 
                             real property)

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. ___. SALE OF EXCESS FEDERAL PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of subtitle I of title 40, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

         ``SUBCHAPTER VII--EXPEDITED DISPOSAL OF REAL PROPERTY

     ``Sec. 621. Definitions

       ``In this subchapter:
       ``(1) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.
       ``(2) Landholding agency.--The term `landholding agency' 
     means a landholding agency (as defined in section 501(i) of 
     the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     11411(i))).
       ``(3) Real property.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `real property' means--
       ``(i) a parcel of real property under the administrative 
     jurisdiction of the Federal Government that is--

       ``(I) excess;
       ``(II) surplus;
       ``(III) underperforming; or
       ``(IV) otherwise not meeting the needs of the Federal 
     Government, as determined by the Director; and

       ``(ii) a building or other structure located on real 
     property described in clause (i).
       ``(B) Exclusion.--The term `real property' excludes any 
     parcel of real property, and any building or other structure 
     located on real property, that is to be closed or realigned 
     under the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure 
     and Realignment Act (10 U.S.C. 2687 note; Public Law 100-
     526).

     ``Sec. 622. Disposal program

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (e), 
     the Director shall, by sale or auction, dispose of a quantity 
     of real property with an aggregate value of not less than 
     $15,000,000,000 that, as determined by the Director, is not 
     being used, and will not be used, to meet the needs of the 
     Federal Government for the period of fiscal years 2010 
     through 2015.
       ``(b) Recommendations.--The head of each landholding agency 
     shall recommend to the Director real property for disposal 
     under subsection (a).
       ``(c) Selection of Properties.--After receiving 
     recommendations of candidate real property under subsection 
     (b), the Director--
       ``(1) with the concurrence of the head of each landholding 
     agency, may select the real property for disposal under 
     subsection (a); and
       ``(2) shall notify the recommending landholding agency head 
     of the selection of the real property.
       ``(d) Website.--The Director shall ensure that all real 
     properties selected for disposal under this section are 
     listed on a website that shall--
       ``(1) be updated routinely; and
       ``(2) include the functionality to allow any member of the 
     public, at the option of the member, to receive updates of 
     the list through electronic mail.
       ``(e) Transfer of Property.--The Director may transfer real 
     property selected for disposal under this section to the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development if the Secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development determines that the real 
     property is suitable for use in assisting the homeless.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 5 of subtitle I of title 40, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 611 the following:

          ``subchapter vii--expedited disposal of real property

``Sec. 621. Definitions.
``Sec. 622. Disposal program.''.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, right before lunch, I laid the groundwork 
for this amendment, so let me quickly summarize.
  This is one of a series of amendments that conservatives are bringing 
to the floor that go to our central challenge of reining in 
uncontrolled spending and debt. Clearly, we face a monumental challenge 
in this country from the fact that we are on an unsustainable path 
right now of Federal spending and debt. Clearly, this endangers our 
future. We are used to talking about it as a threat to our kids and 
grandkids--something that will come home to roost years from now.
  Sadly, in the last several years, it has grown to much more than 
that. It is such an unsustainable path that it yields the possibility 
of a crisis within weeks or months or a couple of years. So we cannot 
kick the can down the road. We cannot fail to act now. We must change 
the fiscal path we are on to protect not just future generations but 
our country as we know it right now. In that spirit, a number of fiscal 
conservatives are coming to the floor to offer spending and debt 
amendments, and I am honored to be associated with that group. We will 
see other Senators come down, including Senator Cornyn and Senator 
Rubio, Senator DeMint, Senator Paul, and others, with other spending 
and debt amendments.
  Amendment No. 178 is a very simple, straightforward idea. It would 
mandate that the Federal Government, in an orderly way, begin to get 
rid of billions of dollars worth of unused or underused Federal 
property. There have been many studies on this topic. They all come to 
the same bottom line, which is that the Federal Government owns many 
tens of billions of dollars worth of unused or underused Federal 
property that not only represents assets that could be liquidated to 
yield money to the Federal Treasury, but as long as we hold on to it as 
a Federal Government, it represents enormous ongoing

[[Page S1649]]

costs to simply maintain and deal with this unused Federal property.
  The Office of Management and Budget says there are over 46,000 
underutilized properties but almost 19,000 completely unused 
properties, with an estimated value between the two categories of $83 
billion. Those properties could be liquidated and that money brought to 
the Treasury. Also, in the meantime, if we don't do this, that is 
actually costing us money in terms of upkeep--mowing the grass, if you 
will, and a lot more other and expensive upkeep.
  This amendment is very simple and straightforward to require the 
Federal Government to sell off or demolish this property and help 
contribute, in a limited way but an important way, to get us on a 
different, more sustainable fiscal path.
  Again, I commend this amendment to all of my colleagues, Democrats 
and Republicans. As I said, it is part of a broader effort on this 
bill--as well as on other bills, I am sure, in the future--to get us on 
a different fiscal path.
  Today and over the next few days, we will be seeing Senators Cornyn, 
DeMint, Rubio, and others coming to the floor with this set of fiscal 
amendments to nudge, push, pull--anything we can do--this body and the 
Congress in this important direction before it is too late.
  Thank you, Mr. President. With that, I yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me just add a word. I see the 
Senator from Oklahoma. Again, as the managers of this bill, Senator 
Snowe and I have worked across party lines to bring the SBIR bill to 
the floor. We want to have as open an amendment process as possible. We 
think that is fair. We would like to really ask people to focus on 
amendments specific to this legislation. I know time on the Senate 
floor is precious, and we don't get as much time as we would like to 
offer our bills and amendments, but we do ask that of everyone so we 
can try to get this bill to the House and, hopefully, to the 
President's desk.
  Senator Inhofe is here to offer an amendment. We agreed earlier to 
allow that to happen, so I will turn the floor over to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 161

  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Louisiana.
  First of all, we are currently on, it is my understanding, amendment 
No. 183. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the current amendment for 
consideration of amendment No. 161 by Senator Johanns and ask for its 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for Mr. Johanns, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 161.

  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 
  expansion of information reporting requirements to payments made to 
   corporations, payments for property and other gross proceeds, and 
       rental property expense payments, and for other purposes)

       At the end, add the following:

            TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE 1099 TAXPAYER PROTECTION

     SEC. 601. REPEAL OF EXPANSION OF INFORMATION REPORTING 
                   REQUIREMENTS TO PAYMENTS MADE TO CORPORATIONS 
                   AND TO PAYMENTS FOR PROPERTY AND OTHER GROSS 
                   PROCEEDS.

       (a) Application to Corporations.--Section 6041 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     subsections (i) and (j).
       (b) Payments for Property and Other Gross Proceeds.--
     Subsection (a) of section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``amounts in consideration for property,'', 
     and
       (2) by striking ``gross proceeds,'' both places it appears.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2011.

     SEC. 602. REPEAL OF EXPANSION OF INFORMATION REPORTING 
                   REQUIREMENTS FOR RENTAL PROPERTY EXPENSE 
                   PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by striking subsection (h).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2010.

     SEC. 603. INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF OVERPAYMENT OF HEALTH CARE 
                   CREDIT WHICH IS SUBJECT TO RECAPTURE.

       (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 36B(f)(2)(B) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of a taxpayer whose 
     household income is less than 400 percent of the poverty line 
     for the size of the family involved for the taxable year, the 
     amount of the increase under subparagraph (A) shall in no 
     event exceed the applicable dollar amount determined in 
     accordance with the following table (one-half of such amount 
     in the case of a taxpayer whose tax is determined under 
     section 1(c) for the taxable year):


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          The applicable
  ``If the household income (expressed as  a percent of    dollar amount
                    poverty line) is:                           is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 200%..........................................            $600
At least 200% but less than 300%........................          $1,500
At least 300% but less than 400%........................      $2,500.''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2013.


                           Amendment No. 183

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to return to the 
pending amendment, amendment No. 183.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Thank you. Again, I thank the Senator from Louisiana.
  This is an amendment to the underlying bill. It is a very significant 
one.
  To give a little background, for the last 9 years, I have had an 
effort to stop legislation called cap-and-trade legislation. It is one 
that I think everyone now--no one used to hear about it, but everyone 
is familiar with it now after all these 9 years. It goes all the way 
back to the Kyoto treaty, when people realized, under the Clinton 
administration, that we were not going to ratify that treaty. In fact, 
President Clinton never even brought it up for ratification. But people 
realized this would be something very, very expensive to America.
  So after that, in 2003, 2005, 2008, and on up, there were about seven 
different times that Members of the Senate brought up different cap-
and-trade legislation. It was in 2003 that MIT and the Wharton School 
came out with analyses of what it would cost to do a cap-and-trade 
bill. The amount always ranged between $300 billion and $400 billion a 
year. I quite often say, when we are talking about billions and 
billions of dollars, you have to bring this home so people understand 
what we are talking about. In this case, in my State of Oklahoma, this 
would equate to something a little bit over $3,000 for every family 
that files a tax return.
  The reason I am bringing this up at this time is that they tried to 
pass this all throughout the years. I think the last one was the 
Waxman-Markey bill over in the House. It came over to the Senate, and, 
of course, they didn't have near the votes to pass it over here. I 
think the most votes they could have gotten at any time in the Senate 
to pass a cap-and-trade bill was about 30 votes. Obviously, that is not 
enough.
  So this administration decided: Since they won't do it legislatively, 
we will do what they wouldn't do legislatively through regulations. 
That is where the Environmental Protection Agency came along and--of 
course, back when the Republicans were in the majority, I was the 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Now it is 
Senator Boxer from California, and I am the ranking member. So we have 
jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Agency.
  I think it is very important that we draw this in and make an attempt 
to connect the dots and make people realize what we are talking about 
now. There is great concern in this country about the price of gas at 
the pumps. It is approaching $4 a gallon, and this is something of 
great concern to my wallet and to everybody else I know in the State of 
Oklahoma.
  The problem we have is a bureaucratic problem. It is a problem of 
this administration not allowing us to exploit the reserves we have in 
this country.
  We hear over and over--or we did; we have not heard it recently--that 
we have only 28 billion barrels of proven

[[Page S1650]]

reserves and that is not enough to provide for our own consumption in 
this country. I ask us now to go to the CRS report. Less than 1 year 
ago, Senator Murkowski and I requested a CRS, Congressional Research 
Service, report. They said, right now, the United States of America has 
more oil, gas, and coal reserves than any other country in the world.
  Let's take first the oil reserves. These are the proven reserves. The 
problem with using the word ``proven'' instead of ``recoverable'' is 
that proven has to be the result of drilling. We have to drill and know 
it is there. Obviously, if we have obstacles so that a majority of 
people, along with the administration, do not want us to drill 
offshore, do not want us to drill on public lands, and we cannot get in 
there and prove it, then we have to go back and take the recoverable 
oil.
  This is what the geologists say we have in this country. No one has 
refuted this, I might add. Instead of being 28 billion barrels, it is 
135 billion barrels of oil. If we carry that further, we realize this 
report is one that shows clearly we could have these huge reserves.
  Let's go to natural gas and see what this same CRS report says about 
natural gas. This chart shows a combination of the fossil fuels; that 
is, gas, coal, and oil. First is the United States of America. Second 
is Russia. It shows the United States has greater recoverable reserves 
than Saudi Arabia, China, Iraq, and these countries combined. There is 
a huge reserve out there. In fact, the reserves of oil we are talking 
about, we have the equivalent to replace our imports from the Persian 
Gulf for more than 90 years. In other words, if we lift the 
restrictions we currently have in place on drilling for oil, it will be 
90 years.
  Gas turns out to be about the same. Based on the CRS report, it says 
the 2009 assessment of the Potential Gas Committee states that 
America's future supply of natural gas is 2,000 trillion. At today's 
rate of use, this would be enough natural gas to meet America's demand 
for 90 years.
  The report also reveals the number of coal reserves. The coal 
reserves are 28 percent of the world's coal. CRS cites America's 
recoverable coal reserves to be 262 billion short tons. For 
perspective, the United States consumes 1.2 billion short tons of coal 
per year. That is a major export opportunity for us, as well as for 
jobs.
  When we talk about our reserves in oil, gas, and coal, there are a 
lot more out there. This is just what we know is recoverable. For 
example, I did not include oil and gas shale. The Green River Formation 
located in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah contains the equivalent of 6 
trillion barrels of oil. The Department of Energy estimates that of 
this 6 trillion, approximately 1.38 trillion barrels are potentially 
recoverable. That is equivalent to more than five times the oil 
reserves of Saudi Arabia. I did not include these when I said we have 
enough to sustain us for 90 years.
  Another domestic energy source is methane hydrates. That is another 
one that has tremendous potential. While the estimates vary 
significantly, the U.S. Geological Survey recently testified that ``the 
mean in-place gas hydrate resource for the entire United States is 
estimated to be 320,000 trillion cubic feet of gas.'' For a 
perspective, if just 3 percent of this resource can be commercialized 
in the years ahead, at current rates of consumption, that level of 
supply would be enough to provide America natural gas for more than 400 
years. I did not include that. For 400 years, I am only including what 
is recoverable and what is out there. That is what I call energy 
security.
  We need to also realize it is not just energy we can do. There is 
nothing more basic than supply and demand. If we are stopping our 
supply of oil and gas in this country, the demand is going to go up, 
and we will have to go elsewhere. If we want to become independent--and 
we could become independent if we were to exploit our own resources.
  We have other reports that talk about the number of jobs at stake. 
Only two deepwater well permits have been issued in the last 11 months. 
I thought, at the time when we had the oilspill in the gulf, there were 
going to be people around saying: Aha, we are going to parlay this into 
stopping production, stopping exploration. Sure enough, they did.
  While the moratorium on the gulf has been lifted, only two deepwater 
well permits have been issued in the last 11 months. Delays and 
continuation of the current permitting pace could cost 125,000 jobs in 
2015, and getting down to the developing of Alaska's offshore, for 
example, would create 55,000 jobs a year. We are talking about a lot of 
jobs. We are talking about a lot of reasons we should go ahead and 
adopt this amendment.
  Let's keep in mind what this amendment is. It is an amendment that 
would take away jurisdiction from the Environmental Protection Agency 
to regulate greenhouse gases, anthropogenic gases, and leave that as 
something that should be done by Members of the Senate and the House.
  Senator Baucus from Montana said:

       I mentioned that I do not want the EPA writing those 
     regulations. I think it's too much power in the hands of one 
     single agency, but rather climate change should be a matter 
     that's essentially left to the Congress.

  That is what we are talking about. As we speak, the House is marking 
up the bill. It is the Upton-Inhofe bill over there, and over here it 
is the Inhofe-Upton bill. That is to stop EPA from this regulation.
  Senator Nelson from Nebraska said:

       Controlling the level of carbon emissions is the job of 
     Congress. We don't need the EPA looking over Congress' 
     shoulder telling us we're not moving fast enough.

  We have some eight Democratic Senators joining them saying that the 
EPA does not have the authority and should not be doing it. We are 
talking about Senators such as Senator Mark Begich, Senator Sherrod 
Brown, Senator Bob Casey, Senator Claire McCaskill, Senator Carl Levin, 
and Senator Max Baucus.
  That is the reason I feel optimistic that if we can call up this 
amendment for a vote, we are going to have a favorable vote on it. I 
know all the Republicans are going to vote for it, and I think an awful 
lot of the Democrats will when we are facing a situation where we have 
gas going so high it is going to be difficult to not give serious 
consideration to this amendment.
  I go further to say the administration has been of no help. I have a 
quote I have used several times on the floor. Steven Chu, the Secretary 
of Energy, told the Wall Street Journal that somehow we have to figure 
out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe. That is 
$8 a gallon. What they are saying is, they want to do away with fossil 
fuels, and before we can go to other forms of energy, we have to do 
that. In the meantime, how do we run this machine called America? We 
cannot do it without oil, gas, and coal.
  The bottom line is, we do have enough oil, gas, and coal to run this 
country. We could be independent from our reliance on the Middle East--
totally--after a short period of time. People say: If we were to open 
all these places, it would be another 5 or 6 years before we are able 
to actually produce this oil and gas we so desperately need in this 
country. In response to that I say: First of all, it will not be that 
long. Secondly, I heard that same argument 5, 6 years ago, and if we 
had done it then, we would be there today.
  We have a serious problem that is looming out there. I know others 
want to speak. I know Senator Barrasso--by the way, Senator Barrasso 
has a different amendment than this amendment, even though he is a 
cosponsor of this amendment No. 183. This would go into such things as 
NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and the other things the EPA is 
trying to use to regulate greenhouse gases to change our lifestyle in 
America. That is where we are today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his courtesy. I 
am not speaking about this issue. I saw he looked over in this 
direction. I will be brief.
  I rise to speak about the current debate over the Federal debt. Last 
week, H.R. 1, the House Republican scorched-earth spending proposal 
that counts among its casualties such priorities as border security, 
cancer research, disaster preparedness, and much needed investments in 
domestic energy production, was summarily defeated in the

[[Page S1651]]

Senate. That same day, a Democratic alternative that would have cut 
spending by $10 billion, compared to current levels, and $51 billion, 
compared to the President's budget request, was also defeated. We were 
hopeful these failed votes would be an opportunity to start afresh. We 
thought it would allow us to hit the reset button on the negotiations.
  The purpose of those votes was to make it clear that both sides' 
opening bids in this debate were nonstarters and thus pave the way for 
a serious, good-faith compromise.
  Unfortunately, an intense ideological tail continues to wag the dog 
in the House of Representatives. One week after those test votes failed 
in the Senate, House conservatives are still showing no yield. We have 
moved $10 billion in their direction. They have not budged an inch off 
H.R. 1, even though H.R. 1 did not get a single Democratic vote in the 
Senate. In fact, the Republican conservatives in the House are digging 
in. In the last 48 hours, there has been a wave of hard-liners who are 
now rejecting even the 3-week stopgap measure negotiated last week. 
This measure is needed to avert a government shutdown this Friday. But 
in a vote occurring very shortly in the House, there is expected to be 
a number of rightwing defections on this short-term continuing 
resolution.
  Look, Democrats agree this short-term solution is not ideal. Running 
the government 2 weeks at a time is not good for anyone. We prefer not 
to have to do another stopgap measure, but we recognize the need, the 
necessity of averting a government shutdown.
  Throughout this debate, Democrats have shown a willingness to 
negotiate, a willingness to meet Republicans in the middle. Yet the 
rank and file of the House GOP has been utterly unrelenting. They have 
wrapped their arms around the discredited reckless approach advanced by 
H.R. 1, and they will not let go.
  But why are House conservatives bucking their leadership by resisting 
even the stopgap measure? It certainly cannot be because it does not 
cut spending because it does by another $6 billion over just 3 weeks. 
The real reason many of the House conservative Republicans, 
particularly the freshmen, oppose the stopgap CR is clear. It is 
because it does not contain the extraneous riders they demand.
  H.R. 1 was chock-full of ideological policy measures. These items 
deal with controversial issues such as abortion, global warming, and 
net neutrality. They do not belong on a budget bill, but they were 
shoehorned onto it anyway. These measures are akin to a heavy anchor 
bogging down the budget negotiations.
  In recent days, a number of rightwing interest groups--the Heritage 
Foundation and the Family Research Council--began encouraging 
Republicans to vote against any budget measure that does not contain 
these controversial policy measures. This is what is driving the 
defections on the Republican side.

  For example, Mike Pence explained he is voting no because the 3-week 
measure doesn't weigh in on abortion. He is the author of the 
controversial hard-right amendment to defund Planned Parenthood. 
Yesterday, he said he wouldn't mind a government shutdown if it meant 
he could succeed in passing his rider. Michele Bachmann said she is 
voting no because the short-term CR doesn't repeal the health care law. 
Tim Huelskamp, a freshman from Kansas on the Budget Committee, said he 
would oppose the stopgap measure because it lacked riders against EPA 
and against family planning.
  We finally know why a compromise has been so hard to come by on the 
budget. It is because Republicans want more than spending cuts; they 
want to impose their entire social agenda on the back of a must-pass 
budget. They are entitled to their policy positions, but there is a 
time and place to debate these issues--and this ain't it.
  We have seen this type of overreach before. In the recent battle in 
Wisconsin, where Governor Scott Walker went to war with the State's 
public workers. Governor Walker started out seeking concessions from 
the unions on their benefits in order to reduce Wisconsin 's budget 
shortfall. In the spirit of cooperation, unions agreed to reduce their 
benefits. But the Governor didn't take yes for an answer. He went 
further and insisted on ending collective bargaining entirely.
  The budget fight going on right now in this Chamber is also about 
more than just budget cuts. The conservative Republicans in the House 
are showing themselves to be Scott Walker Republicans. They are using 
the budget to try to shoot the Moon on a wish list of far-right policy 
measures.
  If this debate were only about spending cuts, we would probably come 
to an agreement before too long. But we will have a hard time coming to 
an agreement with these Scott Walker Republicans who are trying to use 
the budget to enact a far-right social agenda.
  I urge Speaker Boehner to consider a path to a solution to this 
year's budget that may not go through the tea party. He should consider 
moving on without them and forge a consensus among more moderate 
Republicans and a group of Democrats because if these extraneous policy 
items are going to be a must-have on the budget, a compromise will be 
very, very, very hard to come by.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak in support 
of the incredibly important legislation that is on the Senate floor, 
the Small Business Innovation Research Program reauthorization, a bill, 
S. 493, which also reauthorizes the Small Business Technology Transfer 
Program.
  I want to commend Senator Landrieu, the chair of the Small Business 
and Entrepreneurship Committee, and her ranking minority member, 
Senator Snowe of Maine, for their leadership in moving this to the 
Senate floor. Getting this considered is vital to making progress on 
this bipartisan bill.
  This is the third in a series of bipartisan bills we have taken up. 
The first two--the FAA reauthorization, and the second, the patent 
reform bill--have passed, and it is my hope that all of us in this 
Chamber will seriously consider supporting S. 493.
  The 30 million small businesses in America are incubators of 
creativity and job creation. They drive our innovation sector and make 
us more competitive globally. In addition to employing over half our 
private sector workforce, small businesses are the backbone of our 
American communities and can be a source of economic advancement for 
millions of Americans in every State.
  The Small Business Innovation Research Program, or SBIR, sets aside a 
small part of the research and development budget from a number of 
Federal agencies to be used as grants for small businesses, and the 
Small Business Technology Transfer Program, or STTR, helps scientists 
and innovators at research institutions take their discoveries and 
commercialize them through small business startups.
  Since their creation in 1982 and 1992, respectively, SBIR and STTR 
have invested more than $28 billion in helping American small 
businesses turn into big businesses through innovation and 
commercialization of cutting-edge products. The classic example, which 
a number of our colleagues, including Senator Landrieu, have 
highlighted in the conversation so far is Qualcomm of San Diego, which 
began as a small business of just 35 employees and has now, in fact, 
grown to a company of 17,000. It pays more in taxes every year than the 
whole budget of the SBA.
  We can't lose sight that every large company in America at one point 
began as a small business. The SBIR and STTR Programs were created 
through bipartisanship and should maintain wide support. In fact, SBIR 
was signed into law by former President Ronald Reagan. They more than 
pay for themselves and the jobs and economic growth they create and the 
taxes paid by these companies as they grow.
  For too long, the Senate has kicked the can down the road by passing 
temporary extensions month after month, year after year, for these two 
vital programs. This week, at long last, we have a chance to pass real 
long-term reauthorization.
  It is a shame that we had to vote for cloture even to just begin 
debating this bill which has wide bipartisan support. Ideology should 
not trump practical solutions that can put more Americans back to work 
and get our economy

[[Page S1652]]

moving again. These two programs are proven vehicles for growth in all 
our States, including my home State of Delaware.
  In Delaware, where we have a strong and growing high-tech sector, 
small businesses have been benefiting from these two programs. With 
your forbearance, Mr. President, I will, for a moment, just mention 
three.
  One Delaware company that received a critical SBIR grant was 
Elcriton. Elcriton started with two employees who patented a process to 
take bacteria which turned algae into butanol for fuel. Imagine that. 
Think of the possibility of literally using pond scum to produce fuel 
for cars and trucks. Butanol is superior to ethanol in many respects 
because it is more compatible with the whole current petroleum 
infrastructure. This SBIR grant enabled this company to expand 
significantly, to grow their production, and to scale up not just the 
research and development but their early-stage manufacturing.
  Another company--Compact Membrane Systems of Newport, DE--is putting 
a $1 million SBIR grant to work developing a hollow fiber filter that 
is used to filter hydraulic fluid from water. This extends the life of 
machinery, such as wind turbines, that use hydraulic fluid or filter 
oil. They started with three employees and now have 24. Five of those 
hires were directly made possible through the SBIR grant.
  Last, in Newark, DE, ANP Technologies is using an SBIR grant to build 
biological detection systems for our American Department of Defense. 
The kit they are developing is rapid, lightweight, and lifesaving for 
our troops and our first responders. This is another example of a great 
application of cutting-edge technology by a small business that will 
have positive impacts for our first responders, our Armed Forces, and 
my home community of Newark, DE.
  Since 1983, over 403 Delaware small businesses have received more 
than $100 million in SBIR grants. I know every one of my colleagues in 
the Senate has a similar positive story from his or her State. Each one 
of these businesses I just spoke about in Delaware could be the next 
Qualcomm. Any one of the small businesses in our States that receive 
grants through SBIR and support through STTR could generate a 
revolution in high tech that spurs the creation of thousands of jobs.
  In my view, we cannot afford to let this critical job-creating 
program expire. According to one report, businesses backed by SBIR 
grants have been responsible for almost one-quarter of our Nation's 
most important innovations over the past decade, and they account for 
almost 40 percent of our Nation's patents. The applications range from 
the military to medicine, from education to emergency services.
  Congress must have a smart approach to budget reform that balances 
budget cuts with strategic long-term investments that create growth and 
job creation for our communities--a great example of exactly what it is 
that the SBIR and STTR Programs do. I hope all our colleagues will join 
in supporting Senator Landrieu of Louisiana in supporting this vital 
bill and the great work she and the committee have done to advance it 
to this stage.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I sincerely appreciate the remarks of 
the Senator from Delaware and thank him for his support not only of 
this program but for his expertise and leadership in the whole area of 
small business innovation and technological advancements. He was quite 
a leader in his previous positions in Delaware, and he brings a great 
deal of expertise to the Senate.
  I know the Senator from Alaska is on the floor to speak about an 
amendment that is pending for debate and consideration. We may have 
amendments that are called up for votes today--that has not been 
finally decided--but we can come to the floor, of course, and offer 
amendments and debate several that are pending.
  One thing I want to say before I turn it over to Senator Murkowski is 
that I think Senator Coons hit the nail on the head when he said a 
smart budget plan is going to work to meet the challenges of this 
extraordinary debt we have that has been caused for multiple reasons. 
It is important we address that correctly and not just one-sided.
  This bill addresses a significant aspect of smart budgeting and debt 
reduction by creating jobs that generate revenues for governments at 
the local level that are looking for those revenues, at the State level 
where they are desperate for those revenues, and at the Federal level 
that could most certainly use some additional tax revenues so we can 
maintain our leadership in strategic investments.
  Now, there were some on the floor this morning and in the Senate who 
said the only way to get to a balanced budget is by slashing some of 
the important programs that help create the atmosphere in America for 
businesses to thrive. Some of that would be strategic investments in 
infrastructure; some of that would be strategic investments in 
education. But even the Business Roundtable would say the last programs 
we should be cutting from the budget are effective job training and 
education programs. Yet, according to the philosophy of some, those are 
the first programs that get slashed.
  That is not smart budgeting. That is not closing the budget gap. That 
is not putting your head to the problem. What the Senator from Delaware 
said is, it is a combination of some strategic cutting and some 
discretionary budgets. We are going to have to pare down the defense 
budget appropriately and find some cuts in some savings.
  Even Secretary Gates acknowledges there is waste, fraud, and abuse in 
the Defense bill. But, most importantly, I think Democrats and 
Republicans are coming together to say we can grow our way out by 
producing jobs, and this reauthorization bill is one of the bills that 
can actually do that. So I just wanted to put a little exclamation 
point on that part.
  I see the Senator from Alaska, who is going to be expressing her 
views on one of the amendments that is pending. Then Senator Boxer is 
also on the Senate floor, as is Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey. I 
think Senator Snowe may want to say just one word.
  Senator Snowe is here to offer an amendment. So why don't we turn to 
Senator Murkowski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Just a parliamentary inquiry: Since we are going back and 
forth, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized after Senator 
Murkowski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Small 
Business Committee, as well as the ranking member, for their work on 
this legislation. Senator Landrieu has spoken about the necessity, 
particularly in this environment today, as we are coming out of a 
recession, to ensure we have a conducive environment for our small 
businesses to thrive. It is not just about incentives and 
opportunities, it is that business environment.
  One of the things I think is important for us as policymakers to look 
at is those things that are put in place that perhaps smother our 
businesses, whether it is through regulation or the cost of permitting, 
but also those things that create uncertainty. That is what I would 
like to speak to for just a few minutes this afternoon.
  The minority leader put forth an amendment several hours ago that 
would put a stop to the EPA's command-and-control climate regulations. 
This is an amendment for which I am rising today to offer my support. 
This is not the first time I have had an opportunity to be here on the 
Senate floor to speak about my concern about the agency advancing 
policies ahead of the Congress; of the EPA advancing regulations that 
set climate policy--again, before the Congress had acted. We spent a 
considerable amount of time here last year discussing the pitfalls of 
EPA's massive and unprecedented expansion of regulatory powers as they 
sought to advance those regulations that would impose that uncertainty 
on our businesses.
  I remain as convinced now as I was when we had the arguments 
previously, when we were talking about this resolution of disapproval 
against the EPA, I remain as convinced as ever that EPA's efforts to 
impose these backdoor climate regulations is the wrong way, and perhaps 
it is the worst way to address our Nation's energy and climate 
challenges.

[[Page S1653]]

  Our country is struggling to recover from the worst economic downturn 
in our modern history. We talk daily about the need for us, as 
lawmakers, to advance those policies that will help our Nation restore 
job growth. All this is going on in the midst of global events that are 
clearly out of our control. We have chaotic global events that have 
driven our energy prices to near 2-year highs. The last thing in the 
world for us to do would be to allow unelected bureaucrats to impose 
new economic burdens on our families and on our businesses.
  In combination with these recent events overseas, the EPA's 
regulation of greenhouse gases is contributing to increased energy 
prices. The proliferation, the numbers are astounding in terms of what 
the EPA is advancing in terms of these regulations that hit our 
businesses every day. The proliferation of EPA rulemaking on climate 
change is creating pervasive uncertainty throughout our economy. It has 
stymied and delayed new investments in energy production and this will 
only become worse once the temporary relief provided by the EPA's 
``tailoring rule'' is tossed out by the courts or perhaps ratcheted 
down by EPA's own timeline.
  What is most troubling is that the EPA has consistently failed to 
consider what the economic impact of their rulemaking is. We have asked 
repeatedly. Yet there is no response back from the EPA. It is kind of a 
shell game that we have seen moving forward. First, the EPA claimed its 
endangerment finding is simply a scientific finding, it is nothing 
more; there is not going to be any regulatory burden that will be 
created as a result of this.
  Then we saw a deal struck between the automakers and the State of 
California and the environmentalists and the EPA to tie emissions 
standards to already enacted mileage increases for light-duty vehicles. 
That move then triggered regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean 
Air Act for all emitters, including stationary sources. But here again 
there was no economic analysis provided by the EPA. A lack of this 
analysis or this assessment and the lack of information led many 
Members of Congress, myself included, to repeatedly ask for a study of 
the potential impacts. But EPA has disregarded these requests. Finally, 
they published their tailoring rule, which was not only finished 
without a real economic analysis, but it was somewhat brazenly pitched 
as regulatory relief. They first said this was not a burden that had 
been imposed, and then they come back and say now we are providing 
regulatory relief. That is kind of an odd claim to have made.
  But what became clear throughout all of this is that the EPA wants us 
to believe that none of their actions have imposed new regulatory 
requirements and therefore there is no cost. If we have not added any 
regulatory burden there is not going to be any subsequent cost.
  But this assertion simply denies logic. Their regulations require 
that expensive new permits be obtained. To do that you have expensive 
new technologies that have to be purchased, installed, and operated.
  In the next few years these requirements will become more severe and 
more businesses will be folded in to face them. To accept these 
economy-wide climate regulations with no substantive analysis of their 
economic impacts is to take a huge gamble with an already fragile 
American economy. This is a gamble that I believe we should not take. 
The amendment from the minority leader that was presented earlier today 
would ensure that we do not.
  As I mentioned just starting off on my comments, I think it is 
fitting that this debate does take place on legislation that is 
designed to help our small businesses. It is true that because the EPA 
has decided they are not going to regulate greenhouse gases under the 
Clean Air Act--but not according to it--they are not going to regulate 
the small businesses at this point in time. Soon, however, they are 
going to be caught up in the same net as their larger counterparts. In 
the meantime, as the customers of the refiners and powerplants 
throughout the country that are now regulated, our small businesses 
will inevitably face increased costs. Innovation should not mean having 
to find creative ways to comply with government regulations in order to 
keep your doors open.
  Fortunately, it is not too late to prevent this situation from 
becoming worse. The first round of regulations kicked in at the start 
of this year, and then the so-called New Source Performance Standards 
for refineries and powerplants, one of the next steps in the EPA's 
regulatory process, are not expected until later this year. We can and 
we should step in now to prevent this additional growth of the now 
sweeping regulatory burden from the EPA. If we do not act now, if we 
fail to act now, America's competitive position in the world will 
continue to deteriorate.
  This should be cause for concern for all of us serving here in the 
Congress. Unfortunately, we have not only failed to put a stop to this 
agenda but some have actually embraced it. Explanations are out there, 
I am sure. Perhaps the most common is a misplaced hope that by forcing 
consumers to pay more for energy, somehow or other this is going to 
usher in the green jobs to manufacture the wind turbines and other 
equipment that can just as easily be made overseas. It is this kind of 
thinking that brought us to where we were last year, or the year 
before, with the tremendously unpopular cap-and-trade bill.
  For too many in this town, here in Washington, DC, higher energy 
prices have been an explicit goal. The President, when the cap-and-
trade proposal was being debated, very clearly stated--his words--
``electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.''
  The Secretary of Energy has said a couple of years ago, ``Somehow we 
have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in 
Europe.'' Notably, I think those comments were made when gasoline was 
even more expensive than it is today.
  But every Member of this Chamber should recognize where EPA is going 
with these regulations. They are the administration's plan B, initially 
meant to force us here in Congress to pass cap-and-trade and now of 
course substitute for it. I think the question that is worth asking is, 
if cap-and-trade could not pass for lack of support, why should we let 
these regulations replace them? If we would not agree to a legislative 
program because it was too damaging, why would we let command-and-
control regulations, pressed into place through rulemakings, be the 
answer instead?
  If we knew these regulations are a bad idea whose time should not 
have come, why--why--would we let American families and businesses 
suffer greater and greater consequences?
  In the midst of our economic recovery and high energy prices, we need 
to protect our small businesses, not expose them to new regulatory 
burdens. I think the amendment of the minority leader would do just 
that. I am hopeful the Senate will have an opportunity to vote on it 
and pass it within the near future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have the floor now to respond to some of 
the statements of my friend from Alaska, and also to be able to enter 
into some colloquies about this very dangerous and radical amendment. 
But before I do that, without losing my right to the floor, I yield for 
a moment to Senator Snowe to lay down an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for 
yielding to me so I could call up an amendment. I ask unanimous consent 
to set aside the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 193

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to call up amendment No. 193.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe], for herself, Ms. 
     Landrieu, and Mr. Coburn, proposes an amendment numbered 193.

  Ms. SNOWE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S1654]]

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike the Federal authorization of the National Veterans 
                   Business Development Corporation)

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 504. NATIONAL VETERANS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

       (a) In General.--The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et 
     seq.) is amended by striking section 33 (15 U.S.C. 657c).
       (b) Corporation.--On and after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the National Veterans Business Development 
     Corporation and any successor thereto may not represent that 
     the corporation is federally chartered or in any other manner 
     authorized by the Federal Government.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Small business act.--The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     631 et seq.), as amended by this Act, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating sections 34 through 45 as sections 33 
     through 44, respectively;
       (B) in section 9(k)(1)(D) (15 U.S.C. 638(k)(1)(D)), as 
     amended by section 201(b)(3) of this Act, by striking 
     ``section 34(d)'' and inserting ``section 33(d)'';
       (C) in section 9(s), as added by section 201(a) of this 
     Act--
       (i) by striking ``section 34'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``section 33'';
       (ii) in paragraph (1)(E), by striking ``section 34(e)'' and 
     inserting ``section 33(e)''; and
       (iii) in paragraph (7)(B), by striking ``section 34(d)'' 
     and inserting ``section 33(d)'';
       (D) in section 35(d) (15 U.S.C. 657i(d)), as so 
     redesignated and as amended by section 201(b)(5), by striking 
     ``section 42'' and inserting ``section 41'';
       (E) in section 38(d) (15 U.S.C. 657l(d)), as so 
     redesignated and as amended by section 201(b)(6) of this Act, 
     by striking ``section 42'' and inserting ``section 41''; and
       (F) in section 39(b) (15 U.S.C. 657m(b)), as so 
     redesignated and as amended by section 201(b)(7) of this Act, 
     by striking ``section 42'' and inserting ``section 41''.
       (2) This act.--
       (A) In general.--The amendments made by section 205(b) of 
     this Act shall have no force or effect.
       (B) Prospective repeal of the small business innovation 
     research program.--Effective 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 
     et seq.) is amended--
       (i) by striking section 42, as added by section 205(a) of 
     this Act and redesignated by paragraph (1)(A) of this 
     subsection; and
       (ii) by redesignating sections 43 and 44, as redesignated 
     by paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, as sections 42 and 
     43, respectively.
       (3) Veterans entrepreneurship and small business 
     development act of 1999.--Section 203(c)(5) of the Veterans 
     Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999 
     (15 U.S.C. 657b note) is amended by striking ``In cooperation 
     with the National Veterans Business Development Corporation, 
     develop'' and inserting ``Develop''.
       (4) Title 10.--Section 1142(b)(13) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``and the National 
     Veterans Business Development Corporation''.
       (5) Title 38.--Section 3452(h) of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``any of the'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``any small business development center 
     described in section 21 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     648), insofar as such center offers, sponsors, or cosponsors 
     an entrepreneurship course, as that term is defined in 
     section 3675(c)(2).''.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I will address this amendment later. I wish 
to add that the Chair and Senator Coburn are both cosponsors of this 
amendment as well.
  I thank the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am happy my friend has her amendment 
lined up so we can get to that.
  I commend, first of all, the Senator from Louisiana for her measure 
that is before us. It is a bill I support very strongly. Therefore, to 
say I was disappointed to see an unrelated amendment offered is an 
understatement. But that is the way it is. We are going to have to vote 
on this. Frankly, we have had votes similar to this before. I feel 
comfortable and hopeful that we will defeat this amendment.
  In about 5 minutes I am going to yield for a question to my friend 
from New Jersey, but before I do that I want to make about 5 minutes 
worth of remarks.
  The amendment that is pending on this bill has been named by Senators 
McConnell and Inhofe The Energy Tax Prevention Act. Good title. The 
bill doesn't do one thing to lower the price of oil--not one thing. We 
know what we can do right now to lower the price of oil. We know we 
should go after the speculators who are speculating on futures. We know 
we have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that the President is looking 
at. Every time we have taken some oil out of that it has had a salutary 
impact on the price of gas immediately. We know we should increase our 
investment in alternative clean fuels. We know what we have to do. We 
have to work for more stability in the Middle East. Most of all, we 
have to get off foreign oil. We cannot be hostage to what is going on 
in the world. This bill does nothing about it. It has a good title but 
it has nothing to do with the price of oil. We know what we have to do 
to do something about that. I hope we will.
  Let me tell you what I would name this amendment. I would not name it 
what it has been called, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, because it 
doesn't do a thing about that. I would call it the Reliance On Foreign 
Oil Forever Act, because part of it says we can no longer look at fuel 
economy through the Clean Air Act and make gains on fuel economy.
  We all now have the opportunity to buy gas-efficient cars. How do you 
think that happened? It did not happen without some leadership here. As 
a matter of fact, the Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe, was very 
involved in that. My colleague Senator Feinstein was as well. We all 
worked on this--Senator Lautenberg. We said we are going to have more 
fuel-efficient cars. According to this, it is over and no State can 
step out and pass tougher fuel economy standards. It is stopping our 
States from acting. That is No. 1. So I call it the Reliance On Foreign 
Oil Forever Act because as long as we drive cars that do not do well on 
fuel economy, we will be stopping at the gas pump. Mark my words.
  How wonderful is it for me. I drive a hybrid car. I go about 50 miles 
per gallon. I can wave at that gas station and say I am glad I don't 
have to stop here for a long time.
  If you don't want to name the amendment the Reliance On Foreign Oil 
Forever Act, you can name it something else:
  The More Air Pollution for Americans Act. The More Air Pollution for 
Americans Act. More air pollution. Now, we all ran for office and we 
all run for office. I never met one person who said: Please go back 
there and get me more air pollution. Not one person ever said that. 
What they tell me is that they know someone with asthma. They have 
asthma. Their kid has asthma.
  So here is what happens here. This bill says, forever, the EPA can 
never, ever go after carbon pollution. Let me repeat that. This 
amendment, despite the fact that the Clean Air Act specifically says 
that carbon pollution is covered, says, no more. EPA cannot go after 
it. It is going to keep on keeping on, and there is going to be more 
air pollution for every American. That is what this amendment promises 
that they want to pass.
  I have to tell you, my colleagues are playing scientist and they are 
playing doctor. They are deciding for us whether we should be exposed 
to pollution. When we hear from my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, we 
are going to hear what it is like to have a grandchild with terrible 
asthma and to worry about it 24/7.
  So who are the real doctors and what are they saying? We got a letter 
in opposition to this terrible amendment from the American Lung 
Association. I guarantee you, Mr. President, even though you are an 
extremely persuasive person, if you went outside and just stopped 
people on the street and said: Well, who is really more trustworthy 
about your health, the American Lung Association or a Senator, I don't 
care what you say, they would take the American Lung Association. They 
oppose this.
  The American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic 
Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the Physicians 
for Social Responsibility and Trust for America's Health--they write to 
us.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                   March 15, 2011.
       Dear Senator: We the undersigned write to express our 
     strong opposition to the McConnell Amendment, known as the 
     ``Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.'' We believe that this 
     legislation would block the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     EPA, from setting sensible safeguards to protect public 
     health from the effects of air pollution.
       Our organizations are keenly aware of the health impacts of 
     air pollution. The Clean Air Act guarantees all Americans, 
     especially the most vulnerable, air that is safe and

[[Page S1655]]

     healthy to breathe. Despite tremendous air pollution 
     reductions, more progress is needed to fulfill this promise.
       If passed by Congress, this legislation would interfere 
     with EPA's ability to implement the Clean Air Act; a law that 
     protects the public health and reduces health care costs for 
     all by preventing thousands of adverse health outcomes, 
     including: cancer, asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, 
     emergency department visits, hospitalization and premature 
     deaths. A rigorous, peer-reviewed analysis, The Benefits and 
     Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020, conducted by 
     EPA, found that the air quality improvements under the Clean 
     Air Act will save $2 trillion by 2020 and prevent at least 
     230,000 deaths annually.
       Additionally, the public strongly opposes Congress blocking 
     EPA's efforts to implement the Clean Air Act. A recent 
     bipartisan survey, which was conducted for the American Lung 
     Association by the Republican firm Ayres, McHenry & 
     Associates and the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan 
     Rosner Research indicates the overwhelming view of voters: 69 
     percent think the EPA should update Clean Air Act standards 
     with stricter limits on air pollution; 64 percent feel that 
     Congress should not stop the EPA from updating carbon dioxide 
     emission standards; 69 percent believe that EPA scientists, 
     rather than Congress, should set pollution standards.
       The McConnell Amendment would strip away sensible Clean Air 
     Act protections that safeguard Americans and their families 
     from air pollution. We strongly urge the Senate to support 
     the continued implementation of this vital law.
           Sincerely,
     Charles Connor,
       President and Chief Executive Officer, American Lung 
     Association.
     Georges C. Benjamin, MD, FACP, FACEP (E),
       Executive Director, American Public Health Association.
     Dean E. Schraufnagel, MD,
       President, American Thoracic Society.
     Bill McLin,
       President and CEO, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of 
     America.
     Peter Wilk, MD,
       Executive Director, Physicians For Social Responsibility.
     Jeffrey Levi, PhD.,
       Executive Director, Trust for America's Health.

  Mrs. BOXER. ``We the undersigned write to express our strong 
opposition to the McConnell amendment known as the Energy Tax 
Prevention Act of 2011. We believe this legislation would block the 
Environmental Protection Agency from setting sensible safeguards to 
protect public health and the effects of air pollution.''
  So here is where we are. This is a terrible amendment. It is going to 
keep us reliant on foreign oil. It is going to overturn the 
endangerment finding, a health finding made by scientists and doctors 
that says carbon pollution is dangerous. It is even going to stop us 
from having a greenhouse registry where we know how much carbon 
pollution we are producing. This is a radical amendment. I trust we 
will defeat it.
  I yield to Senator Lautenberg, without losing my right to the floor, 
for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from 
California how she sees the amendment we are discussing in terms of the 
lives of our countrymen as we see them. And I wish to first mention 
what I see and see if the Senator agrees with me.
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The amendment that has been proposed by the Senator 
from Kentucky, Republican Mitch McConnell, is as dangerous an effort as 
we can imagine. It would undermine our children's health while helping 
polluters and their lobbyists. And what a strange thing this is. I hope 
the American public sees it for what it really is. It is an attack on 
the well-being of our children, our grandchildren, at the expense of 
promoting those companies, taking the rules off so those companies can 
run rampant, do any darned thing they want, put up any pollution they 
feel like doing, not having to care that effluent from their 
manufacturing process has to be properly packaged away but just dump 
it, get rid of it. Often, those dump sites wind up as Superfund sites. 
But it does not matter; just go ahead and do what you want.
  I was watching television, as everybody here must be, looking at the 
calamity that struck Japan, and I saw one bright moment. They found a 
child who was under debris for something like 3 days, and they 
unearthed her. She was so beautiful, and it brought tears to my eyes--I 
am a tough guy, it is believed--to see this beautiful thing alive and 
wanting to be protected and continue her life.
  I never met a grandparent who was not ready to show you pictures of 
their latest grandchild. So there is no deeper love that can be found.
  Here, we hear the message that has been going around: Let's get rid 
of the EPA's ability to regulate. Who are they to tell us what 
businesses can do?
  Thank goodness that in this democratic society in which we live, 
there are rules and regulations to keep us as a civilized nation. The 
Supreme Court and scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency 
agreed that the Clean Air Act is a tool we must use to stop dangerous 
pollution.
  This amendment, it is very clear, favors one group--the business 
community. I come from the business community. I know what companies 
will do to help stretch their profits. Most companies do it reliably, 
honestly, and so forth, but there are others who encourage this kind of 
thinking and say: Get rid of this regulation, this bureaucratic stuff.
  You know, the Republican tea party politicians--and we see them, we 
see their thoughts reflected here--say: Just ignore the Supreme Court. 
Ignore the scientists. We know better. They want to reward the 
polluters by crippling EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act.
  Gutting this vital law is a clear and present danger. The Clean Air 
Act protects our children from toxic chemicals in the air and illnesses 
such as asthma and lung cancer. Last year alone, the law prevented 1.7 
million cases of childhood asthma--1.7 million children--and more than 
160,000 premature deaths, according to the EPA.
  Those numbers are gigantic, but they loom much larger when it is your 
child, when it is your doctor who says: I hate to tell you this, Mr. or 
Mrs., but your child is sick. Your child has asthma. Your child may 
have lung cancer. And the largest cause of these conditions is 
pollution in the air.
  Numbers are big in what we say here because it doesn't seem to be 
entering the thought process. What goes around comes around, and it may 
be your child in danger, and heaven forbid, because there isn't a 
parent or a grandparent around who wouldn't give their own life to 
protect the lives of their children or grandchildren.
  Do you really want to know the real value of the Clean Air Act to 
American families? Talk to the millions of parents who live in fear of 
their child's next asthma attack, and it is one my own family knows 
very well. A grandson of mine suffers from the disease. He is an active 
athlete, and every time he goes to a soccer game or another game, my 
daughter first checks to see where the nearest emergency room is 
because if he starts wheezing, she knows very well that she has to get 
him to a clinic.
  The experience in our family with asthma is a tragic one. My sister, 
who was in her early fifties, 52 years of age, was at a school board 
meeting when she felt an attack of asthma coming on. She started out to 
run to her car, where she carried a little plug-in respirator. She 
never made it. She collapsed in the parking lot, and she died within 3 
days.
  So when you see the effects of these things, you say: What could we 
possibly do to prevent this from happening again to another family, to 
another relative? The tea party Republicans say to these families: 
Clean air is nice, but, listen, these companies have to make money, 
they have to pay dividends, they have to pay big salaries to these 
executives. So for them, on that side, they say the most important 
thing is those profits, those companies. Too bad, kids; sorry, we can't 
help you.
  The tea party Republicans say you can't restrict polluters with 
regulations. It is too cumbersome. By their logic, we ought to get rid 
of traffic signals. Those red lights really slow down traffic. It is a 
darn nuisance. How does that sound for logic? That is what they are 
essentially saying. While we are at it, maybe we ought to get rid of 
the air traffic control system, too, because

[[Page S1656]]

why should pilots of these big aircraft have to wait for some 
government bureaucrat to tell them where and when they can land or take 
off? Just another bureaucratic agency. As ridiculous as it sounds, that 
is how ridiculous this sounds and should sound to the American people, 
the people across this country.
  Stop it, Republicans. Stop threatening our children. Stop taking away 
a level of protection they now have. And if the tea party Republicans 
have their way, we will get rid of these environmental regulations 
because they interfere with some of these companies' rights to pollute. 
Do we want to protect our children from playing outside in foul air by 
keeping them indoors on a permanent basis or would it be better if the 
air were clean and they could go outside and play and you don't have to 
worry about it?
  If you want to see where the Republicans will lead us, look at China. 
China has no clean air act. The air there is so polluted that many 
people wear masks when they walk outside. During the Olympics in 
Beijing, some U.S. athletes delayed their arrival to avoid the exposure 
to the polluted air.
  I was on a trip to China some years ago, and I went to visit the 
Minister of Environment. He started complaining about how much of the 
energy supply the United States uses and fouls the air. So I was 
stunned because I had looked outside the window, and I invited him to 
join me from the 23rd floor and look down at the street. The only thing 
is, you couldn't see the street. It was so blocked with soot and mist, 
poisonous mist out there, you couldn't see the sidewalk. That is how 
heavy the pollution in the air was. We don't need that.
  We want to make sure we take care of our obligation to our families, 
to the children, and the strongest obligation anybody has in America is 
to the kids. The bottom line is that a day on the playground should not 
end in an emergency room. But for millions of children with asthma in 
America, that is exactly where the tea party Republicans want to take 
our country.
  As a corollary, I just met with a group concerned about diabetes, 
parents, each one of them, of a child with diabetes. I have a 
grandchild who suffers from diabetes. The forecast is that of children 
born in 2000, the year 2000, one-third of them will ultimately have 
diabetes. And it sends a chill through your body when you look at these 
kids and you think, well, one of the three of them is going to be a 
diabetic before their life ends.
  I use that example to remind everybody, those who can see and hear 
what we are talking about and those on the other side who want to sweep 
away all of the protections we passed with the Clean Air Act and let 
those who would pollute go on unencumbered. So I hope my colleagues 
will stand up and vote down this amendment.
  I ask the Senator from California, do you generally agree with what I 
have had to say here?
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, I say to my friend, not only do I generally agree, 
I agree wholeheartedly.
  Let me show you a picture of a couple of kids. We have a couple of 
pictures. I would love my friend to look at this, these beautiful 
children.
  They say a picture is worth 1,000 words. This is worth 1 million 
words. This baby has to go to a mask to breathe air because the air is 
so foul. We have another picture of another child. I am sure my 
colleague has seen it. I am a grandma. I would say we are talking maybe 
3 years old, maybe even younger, a child knowing how to gasp for air. 
Here is another beautiful child. The answer I give to my friend is--
thanking him for his passion, because this is what he has dealt with 
with one of his grandkids, the fear, the blood-curdling fear, as my 
friend has said over and over, that when he is out and playing a sport, 
he might have to rush to an emergency room and my friend's daughter 
having to know in advance where the nearest emergency room is--this 
amendment is an attack on our children.
  Let me prove it. We have the leading health experts who have just 
sent us a letter telling us it is an attack on our children. I put up 
any Senator against these groups for a debate. When I hear from the 
American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the 
American Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation, from 
physicians across the country, the Trust for America's Health--they 
say: Beat this McConnell amendment; it is dangerous--I listen. So 
should every American. I don't care if one is a Republican or a 
Democrat.
  The Senator from Alaska was railing against the Environmental 
Protection Agency. Let's see what the American people think of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. There was a bipartisan poll done by a 
Republican pollster and a Democratic pollster. Sixty-nine percent of 
Americans think EPA should update the Clean Air Act standards with 
stricter air pollution limits. The McConnell amendment says to EPA: You 
may not do this. You may not update air pollution standards as it 
relates to carbon pollution.
  We are a country that is polarized by a lot of issues. I appreciate 
that. I often say, I just came out of an election that was tough. But 
68 percent of the people believe Congress should not stop EPA from 
enforcing Clean Air Act standards. Let me repeat: 68 percent of the 
American people--this poll was done February 16, very recently--believe 
Congress should not stop EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards. 
Guess what the McConnell amendment does. It stops the EPA from 
enforcing Clean Air Act standards.
  Sixty-nine percent believe EPA scientists, not Congress, should set 
pollution standards. What does the McConnell amendment do? It says that 
Mitch McConnell and Jim Inhofe--my buddy, my pal, and we are friends. 
But on this one, we are on opposite sides. I stand with the American 
people on this one. Sixty-nine percent say EPA scientists, not 
Congress, should set pollution standards.
  Why would that be? These are people from Alabama, Florida, 
California, New Hampshire. It doesn't matter. This is a huge number. 
Why do they think that? Common sense. We trust doctors and scientists 
to tell us what is good for us, not politicians. Period. We have 
Members of Congress who are doctors. But I have to say, some of them 
come out against the science and the doctors because they have given 
that up. They are politicians now. Here is the deal. We have the 
McConnell amendment. It is taken straight from the Upton bill in the 
House and the Inhofe bill in the Senate that stops EPA in its tracks 
from updating Clean Air Act standards, so that we have a standard for 
carbon pollution which is dangerous. Who tells us it is dangerous? The 
doctors. Who tells us it is dangerous? The scientists. Who made an 
endangerment finding? The Environmental Protection Agency.
  Do my colleagues know who actually came up with the idea of an 
Environmental Protection Agency in the 1970s? Richard Nixon. Everyone 
knows Richard Nixon was a Republican. By the way, I have the same 
Senate seat he once held. In this, we are in agreement. The EPA was a 
brilliant idea. Why? Because if we can't breathe, we can't work. My 
colleagues may think they are doing something for the economy by 
telling the EPA to go into their rooms and forget about their jobs. But 
when people start getting more asthma, when there are increased 
premature deaths, they will think about it again.
  Let me show my colleagues what happened in Los Angeles since the 
Clean Air Act was passed. This is an amazing graph. I hope people can 
see this clearly. In the 1970s, when Richard Nixon and Congress voted 
the Clean Air Act in--and it was voted in with a huge majority, it was 
overwhelming--in Los Angeles, 166 days were lost where people were told 
they had to stay in, sensitive people. I remember those years. You used 
to go to the radio to make sure it was safe to go out, if you had a kid 
with asthma or you had a mom who had a breathing problem. More than 
half the year, in those years, you couldn't go out of the house. Think 
about what that says about the economy, when people are trapped inside 
their houses. Think about what it means to their freedom of movement 
and think about what it means to the economy when so many people have 
to stay home and not go to work, not go to school.
  Over the years, as the EPA starts to do its job, we start to see 
fewer and fewer lost days where people could actually go out. I am 
proud to tell my

[[Page S1657]]

colleagues, in 2010, in Los Angeles, which was once the smog capital of 
the Nation, not one day was there an advisory, not one day. What more 
of a success rate can we have?
  Do my colleagues want to see more success? I will show you some of 
the benefits in another way. The Congress said to the EPA: We want to 
make sure there are benefits that go along with your enforcement of the 
Clean Air Act, so that when you go to a company that is belching smoke 
and you say they have to install some cleanup devices, it is working. 
What did we find out? In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 
cases of premature death. We understand why the heart doctors and the 
lung doctors and the physicians and the public health doctors are 
telling us: Don't vote for McConnell. It will turn the clock back. We 
saved 160,000 lives in 2010 alone. Projected out, it is going to go way 
higher in the number of premature deaths averted, if we move forward 
with the Clean Air Act and we don't substitute politicians for doctors 
and scientists. Clearly, we are on the right track. In the future, we 
prevent even more deaths--230,000, to be exact, by 2020.
  I don't care if one is a Republican or a Democrat, liberal, 
conservative, Independent, whatever, this has nothing to do with 
politics. This has to do with families. This has to do with health. 
That is why we see 69 percent of the people saying: Congress, butt out 
of this. Let the EPA do its work. That is why a defeat of the McConnell 
amendment means we are standing with the doctors, with the scientists 
and, more than anything else, we are standing with the kids. We are 
standing with these beautiful kids, these kids who at age 3 are having 
to learn how to breathe oxygen because they can't go outside because 
the air is dirty.
  Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of this baby and his family 
or are we on the side of the biggest polluters in the country who are 
making billions of dollars? They are doing fine, and all they have to 
do is do a little bit more to clean up the air. We had lots of 
arguments over the years. Every time we had Clean Air Act amendments, 
people argued: Don't do it. The air is clean enough. Stop. Enough. 
Business can't do it.
  Guess what we found out. Not only did business step up to the plate 
and do it, but what was created was an incredible export business, 
exports of clean air products, technologies, machinery, the best 
available technology made in America. We are talking about taking the 
lead on clean air and keeping it, not retreating.
  We remember when the Berlin Wall came down. Everyone said: Hooray. 
But then they could see the air settling on the other side. Germany did 
the right thing, and they said: We are going to clean up the air in 
Eastern Europe. Because without clean air, you can't have growth.
  I am happy to see my friend from Washington State. I will yield to 
her for a question. I want her to know how much I rely on her 
leadership. Maria Cantwell has been a leader from the beginning on 
clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, cleaning up Superfund 
sites. She never flinches.
  Before I yield for a question, I started off my debate by telling the 
Senate what my friends on the other side call their amendment. They 
call it the Energy Tax Prevention Act. I have already told my 
colleagues why it should be called the more air pollution for every 
American act or, if they don't like that, we could call it the relying 
on foreign oil forever act. That is what it truly is. It stops us from 
cleaning up our air, which the people definitely do not support, 69 
percent of the people in a bipartisan poll.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this Truth-O-
Meter Politifact. That is an independent Web site that judges the truth 
of these claims.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Fred Upton Says Pending Bill To Block EPA Curbs of Greenhouse Gases 
                    Will ``Stop Rising Gas Prices''

       To hear Reps. Fred Upton and Ed Whitfield talk about their 
     new energy bill, you'd think it will prevent gas prices from 
     increasing before your next fill-up.
       Upton, the Michigan Republican who chairs the influential 
     Energy and Commerce Committee, and Ed Whitfield, the Kentucky 
     Republican who heads the Energy and Power subcommittee, 
     recently argued in a letter to fellow lawmakers that one way 
     to stop rising gas prices would be to pass the Energy Tax 
     Prevention Act of 2011 (H.R. 910).
       The bill grows out of longstanding frustration by industry 
     groups and lawmakers who believe that Environmental 
     Protection Agency regulations unnecessarily burden many 
     companies.
       The measure--which Whitfield's subcommittee approved on 
     March 10, 2011, and which now heads to the full committee--
     would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases for 
     the purpose of addressing climate change.
       Here's a portion of what Upton and Whitfield wrote to their 
     colleagues in the March 8, 2011, letter, which is headlined, 
     ``Concerned About High Gas Prices? Cosponsor H.R. 910 and 
     Make a Difference Today!!''
       ``Whether through greenhouse gas regulation, permit delays, 
     or permanent moratoriums, the White House takes every 
     opportunity to decrease access to safe and secure sources of 
     oil and natural gas,'' the lawmakers wrote. ``Gasoline prices 
     have climbed dramatically over the past three months. 
     American consumers deal with this hardship every day, and as 
     this poll indicates, the majority of respondents do not see 
     the pain subsiding anytime soon. Americans also understand 
     the realities of supply and demand as it relates to oil 
     prices. Unfortunately the White House does not. . . .
       ``H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, is the 
     first in this legislative series to stop rising gas prices by 
     halting EPA's Clean Air Act greenhouse gas regulations. As 
     one small refiner testifying before the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce put it: `EPA's proposed [greenhouse gas] 
     regulations for both refinery expansions and existing 
     facilities will likely have a devastating effect on . . . all 
     of our nation's fuels producers. . . . If small refiners are 
     forced out of business, competition will suffer and American 
     motorists, truckers and farmers will be increasingly reliant 
     on foreign refiners to supply our nation's gasoline and 
     diesel fuel.'
       ``We . . . have taken the first steps in attempting to 
     restrain this regulatory overreach that will restrict oil 
     supplies and cause gasoline prices to rise.''
       But can the bill really stop gas prices from going up, as 
     the letter says?
       We'll look at two key questions. Could the proposed EPA 
     regulations on oil refineries actually increase prices at the 
     pump? And when would the impact of the regulations be felt?
       As to the first question, experts had different opinions.
       The oil industry argues that regulations imposing new costs 
     on refiners could force U.S. refineries to charge more. (The 
     proposed regulations are supposed to shield smaller 
     operations from regulatory impacts, but experts said that a 
     significant proportion of U.S. refineries would indeed be 
     affected.)
       ``It's Economics 101,'' said John Felmy, chief economist at 
     the American Petroleum Institute. ``The refinery business is 
     a very low-margin business. They have no margin for error and 
     face tough competition internationally.''
       Others argue the refining industry could adapt to new 
     regulations.
       ``Looking at past public claims when the Clean Air Act was 
     passed would show that U.S. refining capacity still managed 
     to increase over time, despite the high expense refiners had 
     to put out to comply with the Clean Air act,'' said Amy Myers 
     Jaffe, a fellow in energy studies at Rice University.
       ``So one might imagine, depending on the details on how 
     carbon regulation would be implemented, U.S. industry could 
     likely similarly adjust,'' Jaffe said. ``It depends on the 
     specifics of how a policy is implemented. There are no doubt 
     some small refineries in the United States that might be 
     really inefficient, so maybe some of them would close if they 
     had to increase their costs substantially, but tiny, 
     uncompetitive, regional refineries are not the main thing 
     that makes the US refining and marketing industry 
     `competitive.' ''
       Indeed, while a shift to overseas refiners could have 
     negative consequences for the nation--it could weaken the 
     United States' industrial base, threaten U.S. jobs and pose 
     problems for national security--it's not a foregone 
     conclusion that prices at the pump would rise. If U.S. 
     refiners become less competitive and more oil is instead 
     imported from overseas refiners, it will be because the cost 
     of refining overseas becomes more competitive. That's the 
     essence of a free market.
       And even if the cost of refining did go up, the cost of 
     gasoline is volatile and affected by many factors such as 
     global demand and supply disruptions. So there's no certainty 
     that a bump in refining costs would necessarily translate 
     into higher prices at the pump.
       As for the second question--when any impact might be felt--
     the rules wouldn't take affect for months or years.
       The EPA won't even propose the first-ever greenhouse-gas 
     standards for refineries until December 2011 and doesn't plan 
     to issue final standards until November 2012. Those standards 
     would govern emissions for new and significantly overhauled 
     refineries. Rules for existing refineries are expected to be 
     unveiled in July 2011.
       Based on the past history of EPA regulations, the new rules 
     aren't likely to take effect until a few years after that, 
     experts said.
       So, if the bill were to pass, it would prevent EPA 
     regulations that would otherwise take effect in 2013, 2014 or 
     2015. That's a long way away.

[[Page S1658]]

       Another factor: the regulations targeted by the House bill 
     are new ones. So if the House bill passes, it would 
     essentially protect the status quo--not take any explicit 
     action to stop price hikes.
       So where does this leave us?
       While Upton and Whitfield's letter is carefully worded, it 
     frames the argument for the bill in the context of today's 
     trend of rising gasoline prices. Yet the impact of the bill--
     if there is an one--would be years away. And there's no proof 
     that the law would actually stop gas prices from rising. The 
     added regulations now being planned may hamper U.S. refiners, 
     but the international free market could just as easily end up 
     keeping refining costs low. And it's hardly assured that any 
     changes in refining costs--up or down--will influence 
     gasoline prices, which are subject to a wide array of 
     influenes. We find their claim False.

  Mrs. BOXER. They looked at this amendment. They said the claim is 
false, that gasoline prices would go down. So beware of things that are 
called good names. But when we get behind them, we see they are not 
good. They are dangerous. This is a red flag coming from me to 
everybody watching the debate. This bill would tell the EPA they can no 
longer do their job--EPA, one of the most popular agencies in the 
Nation. Sixty-nine percent of the people say: Do your job.
  It would, in essence, stop us from making more fuel-efficient cars 
because it would say States cannot do more, and that would mean 
reliance on foreign oil.
  I am happy to yield to my friend from Washington for a question.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam President.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, can I just inquire?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. How long does the Senator think the Senator from 
Washington will proceed and how long will the Senator herself proceed?
  Mrs. BOXER. I have the floor, and I plan to proceed as long as 
colleagues want to come and ask questions. I could go until about 5.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. OK. Because Senator Snowe has an amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. She was already allowed to offer it.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. She would like to speak on it.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will continue yielding without losing my right to the 
floor because there will be a question.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Do you think Senator Snowe can go after Senator 
Cantwell?
  Mrs. BOXER. I do not at this point. We are taking our time. I wish to 
say through the Chair to my friend, this amendment is so radical, it is 
so far beyond any other amendment we have ever had on this subject, so 
I am not going to yield the floor until I have given people a chance on 
my side to ask questions about it. I intend to hold the floor at this 
point. I cannot give you a time when I will stop. I am also very 
willing to have a vote on this at a time we can mutually agree to. But 
at this point, I will not be able to yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Let me see what we can do.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield to my friend for a question or a series of 
questions--as many as she might have.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank my colleague from California, who is the chair 
of the committee, for working so hard on this important amendment to 
try to articulate and help colleagues understand what is the basis of 
it.
  I too was surprised to learn that the McConnell-Inhofe amendment 
would overturn what has been the hard-won future gains in fuel economy 
we passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis just a few years ago. I 
don't get it, EPA's clean car standards through 2016 will save so much 
gasoline that car buyers will actually save as much as $3,000 over the 
life of the car. That is because of the hard work we have done in the 
Senate on a bipartisan basis.
  I know our colleagues from both sides of the aisle worked to get that 
last agreement that we did in 2008, and while we are doing this, we 
will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil. So I was surprised to hear that 
this legislation--the McConnell-Inhofe amendment--would overturn all 
that progress we have made in the last couple decades on having cleaner 
air and more opportunities for fuel efficiency.
  When I look at this, I look at our domestic automakers in Detroit who 
are making much more progress based on this new generation of 
technology. Our domestic automakers are getting back to profitability 
based on a new generation of vehicles offering much better fuel 
economy. So they are actually--because we have said you have to have 
more fuel-efficient cars--they are actually now winning in the 
marketplace with consumers because of those offerings. I know the 
Department of Energy, for the first time, has said we have reduced our 
dependence on foreign oil because of these fuel economy improvements.
  So I say to my colleague from California, it was not because of 
``drill, baby, drill'' that we got fuel efficiency and got off foreign 
oil. It was because we had fuel efficiency in automobiles that we were 
able to reduce our dependence.
  So I ask my friend from California why we would want to go backward 
on that if we have made progress and better cars out of Detroit, if 
they have become cheaper for consumers over the life of the car. If we 
have made advancements in reducing our dependence on fossil fuel, why 
would we want Americans to pay more at the pump and have cars that do 
not go as far per gallon of gas as they do today? So I do not 
understand what kind of scheme this is, to keep the oil companies in 
business? Why would we want to go back on that level of fuel efficiency 
and override that by this amendment?
  Am I correct in understanding that?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will answer and then yield for further questioning. The 
Senator is making the case so clearly. The one area we know we can make 
progress on in terms of getting off foreign oil is cars that get better 
fuel economy. My friend worked so diligently on the Commerce Committee, 
along with Senator Snowe, Senator Feinstein, and others. We all worked. 
But my friend took a tremendous lead on it.
  In this particular amendment, which is named something that has 
nothing to do with reducing or preventing gas taxes or something--it 
has nothing to do with that. If this passes--and I hope it will not 
pass--but if it were to be signed into law, it essentially takes the 
EPA completely out of the picture, in terms of fuel economy, which 
means that all the progress we have made in getting more fuel economy, 
cleaning up the air, will be gone.
  This little child, shown in this picture, gasping for air, as it is, 
is going to be gasping for more air. Children are particularly 
vulnerable.
  So the Senator is right on so many fronts. If we were to pass this, 
we would turn around from all our progress we just made. We would stop 
the States from being able to do more on their own. We would lose the 
competition in the world for the most fuel-efficient vehicles, which is 
so critical--everybody looks to us--and consumers, as my friend points 
out, would miss out on, frankly, thousands of dollars a year in 
savings.
  I hope I have answered my friend's question.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I am amazed because my predecessor, a Republican from 
Washington, was fighting for fuel efficiency standards in the 1990s. So 
I do not know why we would be here in 2011 with a radical proposal to 
basically erase the ability for fuel efficiency standards.
  But I have a question about public health too because I think my 
colleague from California has articulated something that is greater 
than any economic issue; that is, health and clean air and healthier 
children because of that. I do not understand why we would want to go 
back on the Clean Air Act as it relates to adverse health outcomes.
  Why would you want to have more problems with asthma attacks, heart 
attacks, strokes, visits to the emergency room, hospitalization, 
premature deaths, all these things? EPA just came out with a 
comprehensive cost-benefit study on the Clean Air Act, and their 
findings were stark. They said the Clean Air Act will save our society 
$2 trillion through 2020. That is amazing.
  So when I look at that, and we are going to say to polluters do not 
have to pay or adhere to the law, we are going to cause ourselves more 
costs in the future with health care. Yes, some polluters need to pay 
more, but as members of Congress we need to think of what's good for 
America, not just special interests. And the Clean Air Act

[[Page S1659]]

creates $30 for every $1 investing in reducing pollution.
  I ask my colleague from California, what is it that Senators 
McConnell and Inhofe think they know about this that is different than 
what the American Lung Association, the American Public Health 
Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy 
Foundation of America, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Trust 
for America's Health--what is it they know that those organizations do 
not know? Because those organizations are saying we have a serious 
health problem, and let's make sure it is addressed through the Clean 
Air Act. Are they just ignoring this issue?
  Mrs. BOXER. Obviously, I cannot speak for my colleagues. I cannot. 
But I have to look at what would happen if this were to become law. 
EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, signed into law by Richard 
Nixon, a Republican, overwhelmingly--and, by the way, the Clean Air Act 
amendments were signed into law by George Herbert Walker Bush--they 
would say to the EPA: You are out. You no longer have the ability to do 
your job, which is laid out in the Clean Air Act. This particular 
amendment changes the Clean Air Act and says--I say to my friend--to 
the EPA: You no longer can look at carbon pollution. You cannot look at 
any pollution at all that relates to the climate change issue. In doing 
so, they are in a frontal assault against the American Lung 
Association, the American Public Health Association, the American 
Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, 
Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Trust for America's Health.
  But I say to my friend, even more than that, they are going against 
the American people. I wished to share this poll with the Senator.
  In February, 1 month ago--truly 1 month ago--there was a bipartisan 
poll. A Republican pollster and a Democratic pollster teamed up, and 
they asked the people what they thought about these very issues. Sixty-
nine percent of the American people--this is not people in Washington 
State or California; this is all over the country--think EPA should 
update the Clean Air Act standards with stricter air pollution limits.
  The McConnell amendment stops them, stops them from updating the 
Clean Air Act standards. As a matter of fact, it repeals the ability of 
the EPA to ever address carbon pollution, which, by the way, is a clear 
endangerment to the people. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record EPA's Endangerment Finding.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       EPA's Endangerment Finding

                             Health Effects

       The key effects that support EPA's determination that 
     current and future concentrations of greenhouse gases 
     endanger public health include:


                              Temperature

       There is evidence that the number of extremely hot days is 
     already increasing. Severe heat waves are projected to 
     intensify, which can increase heat-related mortality and 
     sickness. Fewer deaths from exposure to extreme cold is a 
     possible benefit of moderate temperature increases. Recent 
     evidence suggests, however, that the net impact on mortality 
     is more likely to be a danger because heat is already the 
     leading cause of weather-related deaths in the United States.


                              Air Quality

       Climate change is expected to worsen regional ground-level 
     ozone pollution. Exposure to ground-level ozone has been 
     linked to respiratory health problems ranging from decreased 
     lung function and aggravated asthma to increased emergency 
     department visits, hospital admissions, and even premature 
     death. The impact on particulate matter remains less certain.


              Climate-Sensitive Diseases and Aeroallergens

       Potential ranges of certain diseases affected by 
     temperature and precipitation changes, including tick-borne 
     diseases and food and water-borne pathogens, are expected to 
     increase.
       Climate change could impact the production, distribution, 
     dispersion and allergenicity of aeroallergens and the growth 
     and distribution of weeds, grasses, and trees that produce 
     them. These changes in aeroallergens and subsequent human 
     exposures could affect the prevalence and severity of allergy 
     symptoms.


            Vulnerable Populations and Environmental Justice

       Certain parts of the population may be especially 
     vulnerable to climate impacts, including the poor, the 
     elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those 
     living alone, and/or indigenous populations dependent on one 
     or a few resources.
       Environmental justice issues are clearly raised through 
     examples such as warmer temperatures in urban areas having a 
     more direct impact on those without air-conditioning.


                             Extreme Events

       Storm impacts are likely to be more severe, especially 
     along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. Heavy rainfall events are 
     expected to increase, increasing the risk of flooding, 
     greater runoff and erosion, and thus the potential for 
     adverse water quality effects. These projected trends can 
     increase the number of people at risk from suffering disease 
     and injury due to floods, storms, droughts and fires.

  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my good friend and colleague from Washington 
State, in EPA's summary of the endangerment our people would face, they 
talk about the worsening of ground-level ozone pollution if the EPA is 
not allowed to enforce the law, which is what McConnell offers us 
today.
  They say:

       Exposure to ground-level ozone has been linked to 
     respiratory health problems ranging from decreased lung 
     function--

  We know kids, even today, with all the progress we have made--kids 
who are born in areas that are close to freeways, I say to my friend, 
close to railroads, close to ports--have a reduced lung function. At 
birth, they have a lesser lung function. What are we doing? How dare 
people come and hurt the American people. That is what this is. This is 
about hurting the American people, hurting America's families, stopping 
the Environmental Protection Agency from cleaning up the air, cleaning 
up pollution.
  Here is this poll: 69 percent say EPA scientists--not Congress--
should set pollution standards. Yet this amendment says: EPA, get out 
of the picture. We do not want you. We want to do this, the 
politicians. Well, the people do not want this. That is why I hope we 
will reject this terrible amendment that endangers the people.
  I continue to yield for a further question.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank my colleague because my next question deals 
with technology. One thing I appreciate about working with the Senator 
from California is that we certainly share an interest in innovation 
and the innovation economy and making sure we do not do things to 
damage it, since so much job creation has happened from the technology 
sectors and from our improvements.
  So I was surprised to think about this amendment from the perspective 
of that it would kill a wide range of jobs in America, including many 
that can't be outsourced. If we basically say we are going to allow 
people to continue to pollute and not adhere to the Clean Air Act, all 
those technologies that are about to get us off those pollutants and 
diversifying our energy sources would no longer be incented. The 
Senator and I probably would say we need to do a lot more to incent 
those and stop incenting those that cause so much harmful pollution.
  But the United States is the largest producer and consumer of 
environmental technology, goods, and services. The environmental 
technology industry has approximately 119,000 firms and generates $300 
billion in revenues and $43.8 billion in exports.
  Mrs. BOXER. Could the Senator repeat that, please?
  Ms. CANTWELL. That is just the environmental technology industry. So 
that is 119,000 firms, $300 billion in revenue, and $43 billion in 
exports. So it is a very vibrant part of our economy that is based on 
that we want to do something about toxic pollutants. If all of a sudden 
you pass a bill in the Senate saying we do not want to do anything 
about these toxic pollutants, even though the Clean Air Act says we 
should, and the Supreme Court said, yes, EPA you should, then all of a 
sudden we are basically saying: OK. How far are we willing to go in 
saying we do not need to deal with toxins and pollutants?
  To me, the foreign markets in developing countries that are already 
getting an edge on some of the clean energy technologies would worry me 
that they would continue to make advancements even more with these 
technologies.

[[Page S1660]]

  I do not understand why people would think this radical measure would 
somehow help us, when the foreign technology market would continue to 
grow, and we would lose market share.
  But foreign markets, particularly those of developing countries offer 
the most opportunity for U.S. companies.
  The U.S. share of foreign environmental technology markets has 
continued to grow from 5.7 percent in 1997 to 9.8 percent in 2007, 
giving the U.S. environmental technology industry a positive trade 
surplus for the past decade.
  I ask my friend from California, doesn't it make more sense to think 
about the future jobs we are trying to attract--because they are so 
much bigger--than thinking about this in the sense of 20th century 
jobs? That is almost what we are advocating: Let's go back to saying, 
if you are a pollutant, it is OK because somehow you are creating jobs.
  I ask my colleague, isn't the market opportunity more in these 
technology jobs and environmental technology jobs?
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, my friend is so right. If this is an economic 
argument, bring it on to us. We know the numbers. The Senator has laid 
them out. We know tens of thousands of firms are moving forward because 
we have these laws on the books. The clean air technologies and the 
clean water technologies and the safe drinking water technologies are 
wanted by the whole world.
  I have to say to my friends who are pushing this--I wish to tell them 
something they do not seem to either understand or maybe they do not 
want to hear, but I am going to say it--the whole world is going green, 
no matter where you look. Walmart is going green. I have had my 
differences with them on their policies on workers.
  Walmart is going green. And why? Because, as my friend said, it saves 
money. The whole world is going green. What does it mean? It means 
everyone wants to save money. Everyone is looking for better energy 
opportunities that are clean. And everybody wants clean energy. If we 
back away from that, we are saying to China: Go for it. You will get 
the whole market, and we will still be pumping for oil.
  By the way, I have a message on that front: Oil companies have 57 
million acres of land and offshore tracts they already have a permit to 
drill in. My friends on the other side, in another debate, keep saying: 
Let's drill, drill. Why don't they drill where they already have the 
leases and it is already approved? So that is not at debate here.
  What is at debate here is why would we, as my friend asked me, turn 
away from policies that result in clean technologies that the entire 
world wants--clean technologies that support more than 100,000 
businesses and tens of thousands of more jobs? Why would we do that? My 
answer is, to me, it would be a self-inflicted wound on our country, 
when this is an opportunity.
  I think my friend from Washington knows John Doerr who is a venture 
capitalist. He has told us for years now that if we invest in clean 
energy, if we incentivize clean energy, the venture capitalists will 
come off the sidelines with more billions than they ever gave to high 
tech and biotech combined. So why would anyone support this amendment 
which would turn the clock back on fuel economy, as my friend said, on 
clean energy technology, and turn the clock back on our little kids who 
are struggling as it is with asthma?
  I yield for another question.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank my colleague from California.
  I am also interested in the Senator's opinion about this as it 
relates to gas prices because people are--I think House Republicans, 
anyway, and maybe even the minority leader, feel that if we pass this 
amendment, somehow gas prices are going to come down. Well clearly they 
don't believe this radical measure will actually pass because then they 
would have to worry about misleading their constituents.
  We all know this: It seems about every summer we have these debates 
about the impact of gas prices. But this measure is so radical. When I 
think about even if EPA continued to act on their fulfillment of the 
Supreme Court decision that they must act in regulating pollutants--and 
rules on oil refineries won't even go into effect until December of 
2011 and the final rules aren't even due until July 2011. So we are 
talking about rules that don't go into effect until 2013, 2014, 2015.
  I ask my colleague from California, how would that have an impact? We 
don't even know what they are going to be. We have to wait until July, 
hopefully, to hear from EPA about that. So, somehow, that is going to 
affect gas prices today?
  I think what we know to be true is that getting off of oil and having 
more fuel-efficient cars has reduced our dependence, saved consumers 
money, and allowed them to have a choice in the marketplace. We ought 
to continue in that direction, not this direction. But does the Senator 
think those rules going into effect are somehow having an effect today? 
Aren't we talking about people who have already written about this as 
false rhetoric in the debate, that it is not accurate and that this 
will impact the price at the pump tomorrow?
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, of course my friend from Washington is right on 
target when she points out that--first of all, the EPA is being very 
cautious in the way it moves on this. They are only going after the 
biggest, dirtiest polluters. I think most of the people I talk to out 
there say--my mother always said, Clean up your room. If you are 
belching all of this smoke into the air, you have to take some 
responsibility for it, especially when you are making billions and 
billions and billions of dollars of profit.
  No one has come to me and said big oil is suffering because they were 
under the Clean Air Act all of these years. But it is true. There is no 
pressing matter before us. They are using the problems in Libya and the 
tragedy in Japan.
  The Upton bill, as in this McConnell amendment, says--Upton: A bill 
that would halt the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases would help 
stop rising gas prices. That is what he says, that this amendment 
before us will help stop rising gas prices. The nonpartisan PolitiFact, 
which is an independent Web site, looked at this. When they came to the 
end of looking at Mr. Upton's claim that this would reduce gas prices--
and this is the same bill as the Upton bill--they say, We find this 
claim false.
  I feel comfortable in this debate because I am on the side of the 
truth. I am on the side of the American people who are telling us: 
Stop, Congress. Don't tell EPA to stop enforcing the law. That is 
wrong. So I feel good about that. We are on the side of these children 
whom we are protecting. We are on the side of consumers. We are on the 
side of progress. We are on the side of business. We are on the side of 
exports. We want America to be the leader.
  My friend from Washington is an innovator. My friend knows what it is 
to go to the capital markets and say, I have a great idea, and she 
knows what government can do to encourage this type of investment. 
Government can't do everything, but we can set the stage. One of the 
ways we set the stage for a great multibillion-dollar economy to take 
off is by having a Clean Air Act that saves our children from these 
terrible air-gasping days, but also creates technology that cleans up 
our air.
  My friend is so right. The false claim that this amendment is going 
to lower gas prices has been debunked right now. That claim has been 
debunked by people who have no axe to grind.
  I appreciate my friend coming here and engaging this. Does she have 
any further questions?
  Ms. CANTWELL. I do, if the Senator from California would indulge me 
on this. Because I see our colleagues on the floor, and as a member of 
the Small Business Committee I am as frustrated as they are that this 
important legislation that would help small businesses in America grow 
is being now held hostage by this amendment.
  I look at this issue, the broader issue of discussion, as some of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said, as a major policy 
issue. Well, if it is a major policy issue and it is a major policy 
change, why should we try to hang it in an amendment onto the small 
business bill? Is that making some industry happy? Is that why they are 
doing it? Because if this is, as they are saying, a major policy issue, 
then let's have a major policy discussion. I know my colleague and I 
support legislation that would instigate a major policy discussion 
here. Some of that legislation has gotten bipartisan support. I think 
some of our colleagues on

[[Page S1661]]

the other side of the aisle have been saying we should address climate. 
Well, if that is the case, let's have that broad debate. Is that the 
understanding of my colleague, that some Republicans wish to address it 
and are saying now that we need to address it and not leave it all to 
EPA? If that is the case, then let's have that debate, but let's not 
have a rifle shot amendment that basically guts the law as it is being 
implemented. Let's have a discussion about what would be a more 
flexible approach to implementation of the requirements to regulate 
pollutants.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator from Washington poses an important question, 
and that is: Why are we seeing this kind of amendment on a small 
business bill? It is ridiculous. It makes the American people lose 
faith in us, frankly. This is a bill about small business innovation. 
This isn't a bill that is about telling EPA they can no longer do their 
job in protecting the American people. This is ridiculous.
  We already know from reports how many lives have been saved. We have 
it here, and I want my friend to see this. In 2010, the Clean Air Act 
prevented 160,000 cases of premature deaths. That is a fact. By 2020, 
that number is projected to grow to 230,000. So excuse me. If this 
amendment were to pass and stop EPA from cleaning up the air, people 
will die.
  If this is what you want to do, don't hang it on a small business 
bill. Why don't you have a press conference and say, You know what, we 
don't think this is worth it: 160,000 deaths; win a few, lose a few, 
you know. They don't care at all. But we care, and that is why we are 
talking about this.
  I yield again to my friend.
  This is what they would turn away from: preventing 160,000 premature 
deaths--that is documented--in 2010 alone.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I have one last question for my colleague. I think 
these attempts that try to carve out pollutants and give them 
exemptions are never good policy, because there is so much at stake for 
the American people who believe our job is to protect them with clean 
air and clean water and to make sure that polluters are regulated. But 
it reminds me of that 2003 energy bill that was kind of done behind 
closed doors when the whole MTBE debate--you know, the additive to 
fuel--came up. I remember one newspaper ended up dubbing the bill the 
``hooters and polluters and corporate looters'' bill or something like 
that, because it ended up trying to carve out for the manufacturers of 
that product that they would be exempted. It was a bipartisan effort on 
the Senate floor. My colleagues from the Northeast, from New Hampshire, 
I believe, and there may have been the Senators from Maine, all said, 
Wait a minute. We are not going to exempt MTBE from this legislation as 
a way to get an energy policy for the future.
  I ask my colleague from California if she remembers that and other 
attempts to try to do this without the public fully understanding what 
is at stake for clean air and clean water, and if she remembers that 
failure because of doing this. It left the public vulnerable. Are there 
other instances of that debate she could recall for us? Because I think 
it is very similar.
  Mrs. BOXER. There have clearly been a lot of moves on the part of 
special interests in this country--the biggest polluters--to try to get 
their way, and they try every which way to try to get their way. If 
they were to present the case to the Senator from Washington or to me 
that what they want is good for the American people, that is great. 
Make the case. Who could ever make the case that stopping the EPA from 
enforcing the Clean Air Act is good for the people? They can't. So what 
do they do? My friend is right to recall these other attempts. They 
couch it as: Oh, it is going to lower the price of gas, or it is good 
for business, or it is good for jobs. The truth is, it is devastating 
for all of those things.
  My friend from Washington has been a leader on consumer protection. 
Oh, my goodness, we remember the fights when we had the Enrons of the 
world destroying people by raising the price of electricity behind 
closed doors, and the conspiracy to do that. Remember those battles we 
were in? These battles keep coming back at us. Does my colleague know--
my friend is asking me questions, but I would ask her one rhetorically. 
This amendment is so radical, it goes after fuel economy standards, and 
it says, No more. EPA, you are out of that. You can't deal with it ever 
again, even though we know fuel economy, when we get it done right, 
takes those toxins out of the air, plus we get better fuel mileage, and 
that will get us off of foreign oil. It takes that away. Chalk one up 
in the Middle East for oil barons. That is good for them. It is not 
good for America, but yes, chalk that up for them.
  We already know what happens to kids. Let's show this picture because 
it shows the look on this child's face. This is what happens to our 
kids when the air is dirty.
  The fact is, if we take EPA out of the business of cleaning up carbon 
pollution and all the co-contaminants that go into the air with it, 
such as mercury and others I could list, people are going to be sick. 
But here is beyond the pale what they do: In addition to those things, 
they even stop in this amendment the Carbon Registry, so that, America, 
you might as well cover your eyes, cover your ears, and cover your 
mouth, because you will not speak evil, you will not hear evil, you 
will not see evil. You will not see, you will not hear, and you cannot 
speak about the carbon pollution in the air.
  That is what is going on here. So my friend is right to connect this 
to a whole line of faulty reasoning that the American people have been 
asked to swallow.
  But I have news for you. They are smart. Madam President, 69 percent 
think EPA should update the Clean Air Act standards with stricter air 
pollution limits; 68 percent believe Congress should not stop EPA from 
enforcing the Clean Air Act; and 69 percent believe EPA scientists, not 
Congress, should set pollution standards.
  So this vote we will have tonight--I hope we will have it tonight--is 
about whether Congress should play doctor and scientist and decide what 
is best for the people or allow that to be done by the physicians, by 
the scientists, and by an agency that is extremely popular in this 
country.
  It is not popular right here, right now, I will tell you that, 
because the polluters don't want anything to do with it. But we don't 
represent polluters, we represent everyone--everyone. And a vast 
majority want us to say no to this McConnell amendment.
  So I yield to my friend, if she has a final comment or question.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the chair of the EPW Committee, a great 
legislator, for protecting the interests of consumers on this issue. I 
serve with the Senator on the Commerce Committee, and I see her fight 
for consumers every day. Her passengers' bill of rights for the 
airlines on the FAA bill is another perfect example of how she is 
thinking about how all legislation impacts individuals and their 
rights, and this is about the right to clean air and clean water and to 
make sure we are not going to cut EPA out of the regulation of 
pollutants business. I don't know why we would do that. That is their 
day job. They are supposed to regulate pollutants. The Supreme Court 
says they are supposed to regulate pollutants.
  So I thank my colleague for waging this battle against this amendment 
that, as she has outlined, has these radical notions in it. But I guess 
I go back and say: We can try to keep hanging on to the past and saying 
the past is going to take us somewhere, but that usually doesn't work.
  My colleague from California understands probably more than any other 
because of the efficiency gains her State, California, has made in 
creating jobs and in getting more out of our current energy supply. The 
initiative that was just run in California, I think that was about 
going back to the past, too, wasn't it? That was the initiative where 
people said: Do we want to go backward or forward? The people spoke in 
California, and they said let's move forward.
  So I would conclude by thanking my colleague and asking her just one 
last time, from an economic perspective, if America can afford this 
amendment. How can we afford this amendment if it is going to cost us 
that much in health care costs; if it is going to cause the loss of the 
advancements we have seen in the automobile industry? I would think 
Detroit alone, if we pass this amendment, would stop and say: Wait a 
minute. Do we even have to comply with the mile-per-gallon already on 
the

[[Page S1662]]

books because it seems as if Congress is saying they are out of the 
business.
  So I would just say to my colleague from California, how can we 
afford this amendment? They would like to try to claim that as the only 
high ground of their debate, that somehow they are protecting jobs. But 
they are not protecting jobs. They are basically trying to take 18th-, 
19th-, and 20th-century jobs and somehow saying they do not have to 
comply with the Clean Air Act. So I, again, ask my colleague whether we 
can afford that kind of amendment and just thank her for her leadership 
and tremendous support.
  We all come here for different reasons, and we are all motivated by 
different reasons, but I know the Senator from California is motivated 
by doing what is right for the consumer and consumer interests. So I 
thank her for standing up for that voice that may not be heard today on 
this important issue.
  Mrs. BOXER. Before my friend leaves, I thank her so much, and I am 
going to leave the floor so my Republican friends have time to speak on 
this issue. America will hear a lot of different stories from a lot of 
different people. But, remember, this is pretty simple. This amendment 
stops the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job.
  I thank my friend and tell her that we can't afford this amendment. 
This amendment will hurt America. It will hurt it in every way. It will 
hurt the health of Americans, it will hurt jobs in this country, it 
will hurt consumers, and I am proud to stand with her.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine.


                           Amendment No. 193

  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I would like to speak to the amendment 
that I called up earlier, amendment No. 193. This is a bipartisan 
amendment that is being cosponsored by the chair of the committee, 
Senator Landrieu, as well as Senator Coburn, who, as we all know, has 
been recognized as a true leader in this body for streamlining the 
Federal Government.
  We had a discussion recently about what programs or agencies or 
entities could be eliminated, and we readily identified the National 
Veterans Business Development Corporation--simply known as the TVC--as 
an example of an organization that the Federal government should sever 
its ties with, for the reasons that I will enumerate, Madam President.
  The Veterans Corporation has been ineffective and controversial since 
its inception as part of the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small 
Business Development Act back in 1999. In fact, in December of 2008, 
the former Small Business Committee chairman, Senator Kerry, and I 
investigated the Veterans Corporation and issued a report detailing the 
organization's blatant mismanagement and the wasting of taxpayer 
dollars.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record pages one through four of the report and refer interested 
persons to the following Web site, for the full text of the report: 
http://sbc.senate.gov/Committee%20Report%20on% 20TVC.pdf
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

                   REPORT ON THE VETERANS CORPORATION

                       I. Committee Investigation

       On March 3, 2008, the Senate Committee on Small Business 
     and Entrepreneurship (Committee) launched a bipartisan 
     investigation of the National Veterans Business Development 
     Corporation--better known as The Veterans Corporation (TVC)--
     at the request of Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the 
     Committee, and Senator Olympia Snowe, the Committee's Ranking 
     Member. TVC, a federally-chartered, nonprofit corporation, 
     has received $17 million in taxpayer funds since 2001, but 
     has struggled to fulfill its statutory mission of providing 
     veterans with access to entrepreneurial technical assistance 
     and partnering with public and private resources to help 
     veteran entrepreneurs start or grow small businesses.
       Since TVC was authorized in 1999, the Committee has raised 
     questions about the management and spending decisions made by 
     the organization and its leaders. Two reports issued in 2003 
     and 2004 by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
     criticized TVC for a lack of internal controls, an inability 
     to measure the effectiveness of its programs, and TVC's 
     failure to become self-sufficient.\1\ Over the years, staff 
     members from several Congressional committees have rivet 
     repeatedly with TVC to impress upon TVC's leaders the 
     importance of becoming self-sufficient and reminding them of 
     TVC's duty to ``. . . establish and maintain a network of 
     information and assistance centers for use by veterans. . .'' 
     as mandated by the organization's enabling legislation, 
     Public Law 106-50--the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small 
     Business Development Act of 1999 (PL 106-50).
       In response to concerns raised by the Committee and several 
     veteran service organizations, TVC has repeatedly assured 
     members of Congress that TVC was taking the necessary steps 
     to correct its past failures. However, after various meetings 
     with TVC officials and after reviewing its FY 2007 annual 
     report, the Committee questioned TVC's direction and whether 
     any significant changes had been made over the past few 
     years. Consequently, the Committee launched the investigation 
     to determine whether TVC has adequately addressed the 
     concerns raised by the GAO in its previous reports, and by 
     Congress and veterans groups in recent years.
       During the course of the investigation, the Committee's 
     staff reviewed various categories of documents furnished by 
     TVC, as well as others that the Committee subpoenaed from 
     TVC's financial institutions. Additionally, Committee staff 
     conducted numerous interviews with TVC insiders, including 
     each current member of TVC's board of directors (Board); 
     TVC's acting president, John Madigan; its former director of 
     finance; and its highest-paid independent contractor. TVC's 
     former president, Walter Blackwell, declined Committee 
     staff's repeated requests for an interview.

                         II. Executive Summary

       There are 23,400,000 veterans in America today.\2\ TVC was 
     founded to provide these veterans with the resources and 
     guidance needed to start and grow successful small 
     businesses. The Committee staff's investigation revealed an 
     entity that has been not only ineffective in meeting its 
     responsibilities to our nation's veterans, but also 
     troublingly irresponsible in its use of taxpayer dollars.


                     A. Summary of Report Findings

       Based upon its investigation, the Committee staff makes the 
     following findings:
       1. Failure to Achieve Statutory Mission. TVC has not 
     accomplished its statutory mission as a result of the 
     organization's:
       a. Failure to Support Veteran Business Resource Centers. 
     Since its founding, TVC has spent only 15 percent of the 
     federal funding it has received on the veterans business 
     resource centers (Centers), which TVC was required to 
     establish and maintain under PL 106-50. In FY 2008, the 
     percentage dropped to about 9 percent. As a result, the 
     Centers have been faced with the possibility of closure.
       b. Wasteful Programs. TVC spent its limited resources on 
     several programs that bore little or no relation to the 
     organization's statutory mission, including at least $13,000 
     on a teen essay contest and a movie promotional tour. Most 
     Board members either had no recollection of the promotional 
     tour or did not fully understand the extent to which TVC was 
     involved with it.
       c. Lack of Outcomes-Based Measurements. TVC has largely 
     reported the results of its programs by measuring their 
     activity, rather than their outcomes. This has prevented TVC 
     from accurately determining whether its programs are 
     accomplishing their intended purposes.
       2. Mismanagement of Federal Funds by TVC's Leadership. 
     TVC's leaders misspent hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
     taxpayer funds on:
       a. Unacceptably High Executive Compensation. TVC's 
     executives received unacceptably high levels of compensation 
     given the organization's limited resources and reach. While 
     an average of 15 percent of TVC's federally appropriated 
     funds went to the Centers, 22 percent of TVC's FY 2007 
     federal appropriation dollars were spent on its top two 
     executives' compensation packages alone. TVC's Board 
     continued to reward these executives with raises and bonuses, 
     despite reductions in TVC's federal appropriation and a lack 
     of citable program results under their leadership. See 
     Appendix A.
       b. Dubious Expenditures. TVC spent tens of thousands of 
     dollars on expensive dinners for employees and Board members 
     at high-priced D.C. restaurants, luxury hotel rooms, first 
     class travel arrangements, and memberships to various airline 
     club lounge programs. TVC's top two executives failed to 
     report over $91,000 in charges on their company-issued credit 
     cards. In addition, TVC's executives failed to follow proper 
     expense reimbursement procedures and, in some cases, either 
     approved their own expense reports or had them approved by a 
     subordinate employee who was under their direct supervision. 
     And even when their expenses were reported, the executives 
     appeared to have demonstrated a general disregard for the 
     value of taxpayer dollars, incurring, for example, over 
     $40,000 in meal expenses in less than three years. See 
     Appendix B.
       c. Failed Fundraising Efforts. During fiscal years 2005 
     through 2007, TVC leaders spent $2.50 for every $1.00 they 
     raised through the organization's fundraising efforts--almost 
     entirely at the taxpayers' expense. During FY 2007, TVC spent 
     over $240,000 in fundraising expenses while raising only 
     $64,000. In the absence of a successful private fundraising 
     program, TVC spent much of its limited resources lobbying 
     members of Congress for annual appropriations.

[[Page S1663]]

                      B. Causes of TVC's Failures

       Based upon its investigation, the Committee staff 
     identified the following causes for TVC's failures:
       1. Ineffective Board Governance. Through broad decision-
     making powers granted to TVC's executive committee under the 
     organization's bylaws, the committee has approved a number 
     of measures without proper approval or ratification from 
     the full Board. For instance, last year $40,000 in 
     employee bonuses were not properly approved by the full 
     Board. In addition, several of TVC's Board members have 
     lacked the level of engagement necessary to effectively 
     discharge their duties to the organization. For example, 
     the chairman of TVC's audit committee could not correctly 
     identify the committee's other two members.
       2. Fragmented Oversight. TVC's status as a private entity--
     outside the reach of typical federal agency oversight--led to 
     fragmented and inadequate oversight mechanisms. The lack of 
     sufficient oversight prevented lawmakers from properly 
     monitoring TVC's operations and diminished opportunities for 
     necessary changes to TVC's culture. Even where federal law 
     required an oversight mechanism through the Single Audit Act, 
     TVC either ignored, or was incorrectly advised of, its duty 
     to comply with the statute. In doing so, TVC removed a 
     crucial external check on the organization's internal 
     controls, as well as an additional means to measure its 
     efficiency and effectiveness in expending taxpayer dollars.


                  C. Summary of Report Recommendations

       Based upon its findings, the Committee makes the following, 
     recommendations:
       1. No Further Federal Funding. Through its misguided 
     programs, excessive executive compensation, and questionable 
     spending decisions, TVC has squandered hundreds of 
     thousands--if not millions--of the $17 million in taxpayer 
     dollars it has received since 2001. Given TVC's poor track 
     record, its lack of effective programs, and its Board 
     members' own admission that taxpayers have not received an 
     adequate return on their investment, TVC should receive no 
     federal funds for the remainder of FY 2009 and for the 
     foreseeable future.
       2. Transfer of Responsibility. if, in the absence of 
     federal funding, TVC cannot adequately support the Centers, 
     responsibility for funding and overseeing the Centers should 
     be transferred to the Small Business Administration's Office 
     of Veterans Business Development, which should receive 
     additional federal funds to carry out this new 
     responsibility.

  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, the report was initiated by the Small 
Business Committee, and it found, among other things, that the Veterans 
Corporation failed to support Veterans Business Resource Centers; it 
had wasteful programs; it lacked outcome-based measurements; it 
provided its employees with unacceptably high executive compensation; 
it engaged in dubious expenditures; and it failed to properly raise the 
necessary funds to become self-sufficient, as they were required to do 
under the law.
  For example, our report concluded that the Veterans Corporation had 
spent only 15 percent of the Federal funding that it had received on 
Veterans Business Resource Centers, which the TVC was required to 
establish and maintain under law. In fact, in fiscal year 2008, the 
percentage dropped to about 9 percent.
  We also found that the executives at TVC received unacceptably high 
levels of compensation given the organization's limited resources and 
reach. While an average of 15 percent of the Veterans Corporation's 
federally appropriated funds went to the centers, 22 percent of the 
funds that were appropriated in 2007 were spent on its top two 
executives' compensation packages alone. Moreover, the organization 
miserably failed to raise the sufficient funds, as required by law, in 
order to develop self-sufficiency and independence from Federal 
appropriations.
  During fiscal years 2005 through 2007, the Veterans Corporation 
leaders spent $2.50 for every $1 they raised through the organization's 
fundraising efforts--almost entirely at the taxpayers' expense. 
Additionally, through broad-based decision making powers granted to the 
Veteran Corporation's executive committee under the organization's 
bylaws, the committee approved a number of measures without proper 
approval or ratification from the full board, including $40,000 in 
employee bonuses in 1 year alone.
  Since the issuing of the Small Business Committee's report, Congress 
has appropriated no additional funding for TVC, and the Small Business 
Administration has incorporated the Veterans Business Resource Centers 
previously funded into the existing network of the Veterans Business 
Outreach Centers. These moves were publicly supported by a variety of 
veterans service organizations, including the American Legion and the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars.
  For example, in August of 2008, the American Legion passed a 
resolution at its national convention stating that the legion ``no 
longer supports the continuing initiatives or existence of the national 
Veterans Business Development Corporation.''
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of that 
resolution printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Resolution No. 223

       Whereas, small business ownership and entrepreneurship are 
     the backbone of the American economy and foundation for 
     democracy; and
       Whereas, veterans, through their service, have cultivated 
     experiences, skills, and self-discipline that make them well 
     suited for self-employment; and
       Whereas, Congress enacted the Veterans Entrepreneurship and 
     Small Business Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-50) to 
     assist veteran and service-disabled veteran owned businesses 
     by creating the National Veterans Business Development 
     Corporation; and
       Whereas, the National Veterans Business Development 
     Corporation is no longer fully engaged in providing 
     entrepreneurial education, services and advocacy to promote 
     and foster successful veteran entrepreneurship within the 
     veteran business community: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, by The American Legion in National Convention 
     assembled in Phoenix, Arizona, August 26, 27, 28, 2008, That 
     The American Legion no longer support the continuing 
     initiatives or existence of the National Veterans Business 
     Development Corporation.

  Ms. SNOWE. At present, TVC still exists, and it is still federally 
chartered. But as I indicated earlier, it receives no Federal funds, 
and has no department or agency oversight.
  So in light of everything I have discussed, and based on the report, 
it is my belief that the Federal Government must take the next step and 
fully sever all ties with the organization. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bipartisan initiative.
  It is important to underscore the fact that the report the committee 
undertook back in 2008 illustrated serious mismanagement problems with 
this organization.
  As indicated in the summary of the report findings, it failed to 
achieve its statutory commission, which was to support the Veterans 
Business Resource Centers; it spent its limited resources on several 
programs that bore little or no relation to the organization's 
statutory mission; and it largely reported the results of its programs 
by measuring its activity rather than its outcomes. So it was very 
difficult to actually determine what TVC's results were and whether 
they were consistent with the intended purposes under Federal statute. 
TVC mismanaged Federal funds by providing for high executive 
compensation, and had dubious expenditures.
  The report indicates that TVC spent tens of thousands of dollars on 
expensive dinners for employees and board members at high-priced 
restaurants in Washington, luxury hotels, first-class travel 
arrangements, memberships to various airline club lounges, and TVC's 
top two executives failed to report over $91,000 in charges on their 
company-issued credit cards.
  It is certainly an abysmal track record, regrettably, and that is why 
I think it is important that even though we do not provide any 
additional appropriations--no appropriations--we should sever any 
linkage of Federal ties with this entity.
  So, Madam President, I would hope we could get bipartisan support, 
and I will ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  At this time there is not a sufficient second.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up my amendment, No. 186.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I will object. I know the Senator is very interested in 
offering this amendment, and we are very interested in hearing about 
it, but we have now six amendments pending. So if the Senator would 
like to go ahead and speak about the amendment, explain the amendment, 
and when we can get an agreement about how we should proceed with these 
amendments, we will move forward.

[[Page S1664]]

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am sorry the Senator from Louisiana 
objects to my calling up the amendment and getting it pending. I was 
told--and, indeed, I think everyone is operating under the impression 
this is going to be an open amendment process--we would have debate on 
important issues. This happens to be relating to the establishment of a 
sunset commission, such as that which was recommended by the fiscal 
commission appointed by the President of the United States and which 
enjoyed broad bipartisan support.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a clarification?
  This most certainly is an open process. What I was trying to explain 
to the Senator is there have been about a half dozen other Senators who 
have come to the floor during the day--such as Senator Hutchison, who 
came down earlier--and we are trying to be accommodating in the order 
the Senators come. So if the Senator doesn't mind explaining his 
amendment, I commit to him that Senator Snowe and I will try to get a 
pending list as soon as we can.
  Mr. CORNYN. Well, Madam President, I have been waiting all day, as 
all my colleagues, and I am on the Senate floor to offer an amendment. 
I am sorry the Senator thinks it is necessary to object. I am not sure 
what harm it causes to get another amendment pending, and I am happy to 
vote on any of these amendments as the majority leader determines to 
set the votes, or the bill managers. But I will speak just briefly on 
amendment No. 186, which I will call up at the appropriate time.
  All of us can agree the Nation faces the greatest fiscal challenge in 
its history, with growing deficits and record debt. Currently, the 
deficit is roughly 9.8 percent of our gross domestic product, and the 
debt is north of $14 trillion--so high that, in fact, we will be asked 
sometime in the spring to consider voting on lifting the debt limit, in 
effect raising the debt limit on the Nation's credit card because it is 
maxed out.
  According to the two Cochairs of the President's own fiscal 
commission, the Nation could be facing a debt crisis, a loss of 
confidence that we would actually be able to pay back our debts, and 
that crisis could come as soon as in the next 2 years.
  That is why the amendment I am offering today, which I hope will 
enjoy broad bipartisan support, establishes, indeed, a bipartisan U.S. 
Authorization and Sunset Commission that will help improve oversight 
and eliminate wasteful government spending. The amendment is modeled 
after the sunset process that was instituted in Texas in 1977, which 
has over the years eliminated 50 different State agencies and saved 
taxpayers more than $700 million. That may not seem like big money in 
Washington terms, but that is a substantial savings in Texas.
  This is what the President's own fiscal commission had to say about 
such a concept:

       Such a committee has been recommended many times and has 
     found bipartisan support. The original and arguably the most 
     effective committee exists at the State level in Texas. The 
     legislature created a sunset commission in 1977 to eliminate 
     waste and inefficiency in government agencies. Estimates from 
     reviews conducted between 1982 and 2009 showed a 27-year 
     savings of over $780 million, compared with expenditures of 
     $28.6. Based on savings achieved, for every dollar spent on 
     the sunset commission the State has received $27 in return.

  This commission under my amendment would be made up of eight Members 
of Congress who would focus on unauthorized programs that continue to 
receive taxpayers' money. As the chair knows, one of the biggest 
problems we have when it comes to unsupervised spending is the fact 
that the authorizing committees do not necessarily authorize a program, 
but yet the appropriators for one reason or another have appropriated 
money, and those are never given the kind of oversight that is really 
necessary. This means Congress has dropped the ball--spending without 
authorization--when it comes to doing the hard work of figuring out if 
these programs are working, but the spending nevertheless continues.
  As Ronald Reagan famously said, the closest thing to eternal life 
here on Earth is a temporary government program--there is no such thing 
here in Washington, DC.
  The Congressional Budget Office regularly finds that billions of 
dollars are being spent in unauthorized programs.
  In addition, the commission would focus on duplicative and redundant 
government programs annually identified by the Government 
Accountability Office. The GAO, as we all recall, recently found that 
billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent on duplicative and 
redundant government programs. For example, the Federal Government has 
more than 100 different programs dealing with surface transportation 
issues--100; 82 monitoring teacher quality; 80 for economic 
development; 47 for job training; and 17 different grant programs for 
disaster preparedness. I think common sense would tell us that kind of 
duplication and overlap is not efficient and it is not an effective use 
of taxpayer dollars.
  Under my amendment, the sunset commission would review each program 
and submit the recommendations, which must be considered by Congress 
under expedited procedures like we use under the Budget Act. In other 
words, it could not be filibustered; it would have to be voted on. 
Congress would not be able to ignore the commission's reports.
  The amendment provides expedited procedures that would force Congress 
to consider and debate the commission's work. Congress would have 2 
years to consider and pass the commission's recommendations or to 
reauthorize the program before it would be abolished by operation of 
the law. In other words, the program is abolished if Congress fails to 
reauthorize it 2 years after the commission completes its review and 
analysis of the program.
  This commission would help force Congress to do the necessary 
oversight to make sure every taxpayer dollar is wisely spent. While we 
all do our best to ensure that proper oversight is given to each 
program, we simply do not have the tools currently available to monitor 
and review every program. This sunset commission would provide Congress 
with those tools. It would improve government accountability and 
provide for greater openness in government decisionmaking.
  We know programs that have simply outlived their usefulness or failed 
to spend taxpayer dollars efficiently are a burden on the American 
taxpayer and should be eliminated. We simply do not have the means to 
get there from here. Congress has a spending process in place, and we 
should put together a sunset process for streamlining and eliminating 
government waste. That is what this amendment would do.
  The commission would supplement the work of the congressional 
committees that are already in place that I know mean well and intend 
to do the oversight but simply never seem to get around to it. It will 
not replace the work of those committees; however, it will supplement--
and I would say improve and strengthen--their oversight work. It will 
serve as another set of eyeballs, keeping a close eye on the wallets 
belonging to taxpayers.
  This commission will help Congress answer a simple but powerful 
question: Is this program still needed? Is this program still needed? A 
sunset commission would help us make many programs more effective by 
giving them the attention they deserve and exposing their faults to the 
light of day. It will improve government accountability and provide for 
greater openness and government decisionmaking. Programs that outlive 
their usefulness or fail to spend tax dollars efficiently are a burden 
on the American taxpayer and must be eliminated or reformed.
  As we continue to face the mounting deficit and a struggling economy, 
shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to spend smarter and 
spend less? Imagine the tax dollars that could be saved by reviewing 
and revamping outdated and inefficient programs.
  It is my hope that our colleagues will join me in supporting a 
governmentwide sunset commission, and I urge all my colleagues to 
support this amendment so we can start setting our spending priorities 
straight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know Members are following this debate 
carefully, and their amendments. Let me bring everybody up to date. It 
is about 5 after 5. We hope to have a vote around 6 o'clock, 
potentially two

[[Page S1665]]

votes. We have about five amendments pending. Senator Cornyn would like 
his amendment pending, Senator Hutchison is here to speak about I think 
two amendments she may want to have pending, and Senator Barrasso is on 
the floor to speak on the underlying McConnell amendment.
  I will ask unanimous consent in a few minutes to try to get one or 
two votes set up for 6 o'clock, potentially get these other amendments 
pending, and set a time for votes tomorrow so we can move through it. 
We want to have as open a debate as possible, but we also really want 
to focus on the bill at hand, which is the Small Business 
Reauthorization Act and related measures. Many of these are somewhat 
related to jobs and the economy, so we are trying to be liberal in our 
views here. But we do want to try to be as orderly and as appropriate, 
as Members have come down to the floor, in the order they have come.
  Why don't we turn now to Senator Hutchison, and Senator Cornyn--we 
will get back to the Senator as soon as we can about getting his 
amendment pending, if we can do that before the night ends.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am going to object to any unanimous 
consent requests until we have some understanding about when I will be 
allowed and others will be allowed to offer their amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 183

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of the 
McConnell amendment, which is the pending amendment, which the Senator 
from Louisiana is trying to get tagged for a vote. But I also wish to 
have the opportunity to support two of the amendments that I have 
offered--at least filed--and would like to have them pending as soon as 
the process allows.
  Let me just say that I do support the McConnell amendment. Let me be 
pretty clear and pretty simple. In the last session of Congress, 
Senator Lieberman and Senator Kerry offered a climate change regulation 
that would have caused our fuel prices to go up exponentially. Senator 
Bond and I did a study on the Kerry-Lieberman multitrillion-dollar tax 
bill that would have happened if Congress had passed their legislation. 
We estimated that it would have been about $3.6 trillion in total fuel-
added expense to the small businesses and the families in this country. 
We have documented that in this report.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the executive 
summary of this report.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Executive Summary

       The American Power Act proposed by Senators Kerry of 
     Massachusetts and Lieberman of Connecticut is the latest 
     attempt to cap American carbon emissions through new federal 
     legislation. However, Kerry-Lieberman is unique from previous 
     efforts by also proposing a new gas tax on the transportation 
     sector. American families and workers will pay this new 
     climate-related tax on the gasoline, diesel and jet fuel they 
     use to drive and ride in their cars, trucks, tractors and 
     planes. This report documents the cost of this proposed 
     Kerry-Lieberman gas tax.
       Past attempts at federal climate legislation have struggled 
     with how to cut carbon emissions from the transportation 
     sector. A cap-and-trade approach used on industrial 
     facilities is not ideal for transportation emissions, 
     essentially becoming a complicated indirect tax on fuels. 
     Kerry-Lieberman takes the direct approach of assessing a fee 
     on transportation fuels linked to their carbon content.
       Kerry-Lieberman's climate-related gas tax will drive up the 
     prices of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. The Kerry-Lieberman 
     gas tax hits families at every income level, farmers in every 
     field, truckers on every road and workers in every position. 
     Determining the size and cost of the Kerry-Lieberman gas tax 
     is essential to knowing how heavily this proposal will hurt 
     Americans.
       The information and methodology needed to calculate the 
     Kerry-Lieberman gas tax is all publicly available. The U.S. 
     Energy Information Administration annually predicts future 
     U.S. fuel consumption. The U.S. Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) has already adopted methods for calculating the 
     amount of CO2 emitted from each gallon of transportation 
     fuel. Finally, Kerry-Lieberman includes both a floor and 
     ceiling for carbon prices that will form the cost range for 
     the program. Additionally, EPA has just released its 
     estimates of future carbon prices that would form the basis 
     of the gas tax under Kerry-Lieberman. Utilizing this 
     information reveals a truly massive gas tax that Kerry-
     Lieberman would impose on the American people.
       Kerry-Lieberman will impose a new gas tax of at least $2.3 
     trillion and up to $7.6 trillion. Under EPA estimates, the 
     Kerry-Lieberman gas tax would total $3.4 trillion:
       $1.29 trillion to $4.18 trillion gasoline tax on American 
     drivers, workers and businesses ($1.87 trillion under EPA 
     estimates)
       $744 billion to $2.46 trillion diesel fuel tax on American 
     truckers, farmers, workers and businesses ($1.08 trillion 
     under EPA estimates)
       $294 billion to $963 billion jet fuel tax on American air 
     passengers ($425 billion under EPA estimates)
       These figures include provisions in the legislation 
     intended to reduce the impact of this massive new gas tax. 
     While present, the allowances provided to refiners mitigates 
     only 2% of the gas tax, leaving consumers with a new $2.3 
     trillion to $7.6 trillion gas tax bill.
       Another component of Kerry-Lieberman is its refund program. 
     Building on legislation from Senators Cantwell and Collins, 
     Kerry-Lieberman refunds a portion of its tax and fee revenues 
     back to consumers. Kerry-Lieberman, like the House-passed 
     Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, also attempts to shield 
     energy consumers from its massive cost increases with price 
     relief subsidies. Over the life of the bill, these refund and 
     relief programs amount to approximately 69 percent of the 
     revenues it collects. However, Kerry-Lieberman proposes the 
     government keep the remaining 31 percent of its new tax and 
     fee revenues and spend it on new government programs and 
     deficit reduction. Applying this 69/31 refund/spending ratio 
     to the new gas tax means that U.S. consumers would still face 
     a net tax burden of between $734 billion and $2.4 trillion 
     under Kerry-Lieberman (31 percent of $2.3 trillion and $7.6 
     trillion).

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the reason we did not pass this 
legislation is everyone realized it would have raised the cost of 
gasoline. Now the EPA is trying to do the same thing by fiat. By 
executive fiat, they are trying to regulate greenhouse gases. What they 
are going to do is raise the cost of fuel at a time when people are 
suffering at the pump. I mentioned earlier that I filled up my pickup 
truck last weekend. It was almost $50. I know every American is having 
the same experience. If they have an SUV, it is even more.
  We cannot allow the EPA, through greenhouse gas regulations, to 
increase the cost of fuel when they put that regulation on a refinery. 
We have very few refineries. We have not built a new refinery in this 
country since 1973 because it is so regulated, so that we really have a 
shortage of refineries. It is one of the problems with the supply issue 
in providing gasoline at reasonable prices.
  We need to be stepping back, not stepping forward with more 
regulations. The EPA is doing something Congress would not do. Oddly, 
the EPA is not authorized to make regulations that Congress does not 
pass. They are to implement the law, not make it. But that is what they 
are doing, and we are trying to stop it with the McConnell amendment 
that would repeal the EPA greenhouse gas regulations. I hope my 
colleagues will support it.
  In addition, as a former small businessperson myself, I know it is 
very hard for small businesses to make ends meet. I have heard from so 
many of the people in Texas who are now trying to make ends meet and 
keep people employed in small businesses. This health care reform bill 
is causing them to not hire people because they do not know what the 
costs are going to be.
  Basically, you are going to be taxed if you are an individual or a 
small business that does not adopt the government-prescribed health 
care insurance for your employees or your family. That is the bottom 
line. If you do not do exactly what the government says and meet their 
government-required standards, even if the employees are happy with 
their health care coverage or certainly do not want to be left to the 
government health care, you will still get the fine.
  Most small businesses I talked to were saying: I am going to pay the 
fine. It is easier. I don't have liability. I don't have to hire people 
to work with my employees to get the best prices. That takes a lot of 
my time and it is not helpful to the bottom line of my company, and 
therefore I am just going to pay the fine and let the government do it.
  Health care is not going to improve for the small businesses and for 
the families in this country.
  My amendment, No. 197, that has been filed, which I hope to have 
pending, is called the SOS Act--Save Our States--meaning that while the 
Florida case that has said the health care

[[Page S1666]]

reform law is unconstitutional is still unsettled, States and small 
businesses should not be spending the money to implement a law that may 
be thrown out anyway by the courts. Let's not cause the financially 
strapped States and small businesses in this country to have to spend 
the money to implement the health care reform bill until we know it 
really is the law of the land. Right now, that is a question because 
two courts have thrown it out as unconstitutional, one in Virginia and 
one in Florida.
  So my amendment, No. 197, will say that we will delay implementation. 
We will not require any costs to be incurred by a business, an 
individual, or a State until it is clear it has gone to the Supreme 
Court and the health care reform act really is the law of the land.
  How much could that save? Millions for our States and millions for 
the businesses across our country. I hope we can get this amendment 
pending.
  The second amendment is No. 198. It is called the Lease Act. It is 
simple. Today, we have a virtual moratorium. My colleague from 
Louisiana has designated what we have as a permitorium, because there 
is almost no activity--new activity--in the Gulf of Mexico in deepwater 
drilling activity.
  We know that gasoline at the pump is going up because there is a 
shortage of supply. If we would get these leases out there, all of the 
exploration that is being done, and allow the people who have paid the 
bonuses for the leases to fully use their leases, then we would give 
them 1 more year to be able to determine if it is worth it to drill a 
well in the Gulf of Mexico and start pumping oil and increase our 
supplies through our own natural resources that God has given to our 
country.
  Our amendment No. 198, which is the Hutchison-Landrieu bill, would 
extend for 1 year, which is the time these people have paid for a lease 
but not been able to use it, because there is a moratorium on the 
deepwater drilling, and the Department of Interior has now only given a 
maximum of up to three, possibly only two permits for the people who 
had been able to explore before the BP spill.
  I hope to get both of those amendments up. I can think of nothing 
that would help small business more than to know they will not have to 
implement the health care reform act, they can go ahead and hire 
people, free them to build up their employment base, which is what we 
all want to do, build our economy and, secondly, to hopefully get a 
better price on fuel for them so they will not have to suffer with 
these high gasoline prices.
  Most small businesses, in a poll, said their top three expenditures 
include the cost of fuel, electricity, and natural gas. So we need to 
give our small businesses help. I hope we can get our amendment Nos. 
197 and 198 pending at the appropriate time.
  At this point, I hope my colleagues will support Senator McConnell's 
amendment to stop the EPA from adding costs to the refineries and the 
gasoline producers of our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Texas. I appreciate the 
patience of my colleagues who are on the floor. Because we have had two 
or three colleagues from this side of the aisle speak, I thought it 
would be appropriate to go to the Senator from Oregon, then recognizing 
Senator Barrasso to speak on his amendment and Senator Paul to then 
speak on his amendment.
  If no one objects--I do not see anyone on the floor--if we can go in 
that order, I think everyone can be accommodated before the vote at 6 
o'clock.
  Is that okay with everyone?
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 183

  Mr. MERKLEY. I rise to address the McConnell-Inhofe amendment to 
repeal EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases. My colleague from 
Texas was addressing this amendment and noting her support for it. But 
I wish to bring to my colleagues' attention several reasons this 
amendment is bad policy for America.
  First and foremost, this amendment increases our addiction to foreign 
oil. It increases oil consumption by 455 million barrels. Right now we 
import about 9.7 million barrels of oil per day. This amendment is 
equivalent to 6 weeks worth of oil imports. Recognize that gas prices 
are about $3.50 per gallon, so the McConnell-Inhofe amendment amounts 
to a $68 billion pricetag for working families to buy gas from oil 
imported from overseas.
  This is not a tax that in any way supports our economy. In fact, this 
is a tax that goes out of our economy to purchase energy from 
overseas--from the Middle East, from Nigeria, from Venezuela. That is 
very profitable to the companies that supply that oil. It is very 
profitable to the governments far outside of the United States of 
America. But it certainly hurts the citizens of our Nation. It takes 
our energy dollars and puts them elsewhere, rather than keeping them 
inside our economy. It decreases our national security rather than 
increasing our national security.
  Furthermore, gasoline prices are set by the law of supply and demand. 
This amendment increases our demand for foreign oil. So if anything, 
this amendment increases gas prices.
  My colleague from Texas said we cannot afford to ``raise the cost of 
fuel.'' I absolutely agree, and that is why we should defeat this 
amendment. Indeed, I think almost everyone understands that when you 
increase demand for a product, you drive the price up, not down. But 
there are some third parties that have weighed in on this conversation.
  PolitiFact.com did an analysis of the claim that this amendment would 
keep prices from increasing, and it did not find this claim to be true. 
It found it to be false. So at this moment, when world events are 
unfolding in Cairo in Egypt, in Libya, and we recognize that our 
dependence on foreign oil is a huge strategic vulnerability for the 
United States of America, that the flow of our energy dollars overseas 
is a huge mistake for our economy, why--why--would we vote for an 
amendment designed to increase our dependence, our dependence on oil, 
our dependence on foreign governments, decrease our security, and 
damage our economy? It is simply a wrong amendment in all that 
framework about our dependence on foreign oil.
  Second, this amendment is an attack on public health. It is an 
unprecedented attack, asking Congress to step in and veto the 
scientific judgment of the EPA scientists. It tells the agency charged 
with protecting our public health and the health of our children to 
ignore dangerous global warming, gas pollution, carbon pollution, and a 
long list of other global warming gases.
  The Clean Air Act in 1990 alone prevented 205,000 premature deaths, 
674,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 22,000 cases of heart disease, 
850,000 asthma attacks, and 18 million cases of child respiratory 
illness.
  In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks, 
130,000 heart attacks, 86,000 emergency room visits. It has been 
studied time and time again. What we know is the application of the 
effort to clean up our air results in all of us having a better quality 
of life.
  This amendment, this attack on public health, is the wrong policy for 
our Nation. Again, it is something that third parties have weighed in 
on, those who seek to protect our health and our health care system. 
The American Lung Association calls this amendment ``a reckless and 
irresponsible attempt to put special interests ahead of public 
health.'' The American Public Health Association has weighed in 
similarly.
  Finally, this amendment is an attack on science. The Clean Air Act, 
passed by a large bipartisan majority and signed by President George H. 
W. Bush, tasked the EPA with updating our clean air standards and 
setting commonsense limits on pollution based on recent science.
  This amendment would have Congress step in and overrule the EPA on 
science, not just by gutting basic protections for clean air and clean 
water but by repealing EPA's program for having polluters simply report 
their pollution.
  In other words, this amendment says to the American public, we are 
not even going to let you know about the dangerous pollutants being put 
in the air. Certainly that philosophy, not only of attacking our public 
health, but of attacking our right to know, is absolutely wrong.
  Colleagues, let me wrap up. This amendment increases our dependence

[[Page S1667]]

on foreign oil, it increases air pollution that endangers our health, 
it overrules the Nation's top scientific experts who are warning us to 
reduce pollution, not increase it, it asks American families to pay $68 
billion to the oil industry and foreign governments, instead of keeping 
that money here at home. It is a mistake. Let's vote it down.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment 
and call up my amendment No. 199.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I object to making it pending but not for discussion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. PAUL. This amendment, No. 199, would save taxpayers $200 billion. 
Recently you have seen some discussion, but I think the American 
taxpayers are actually baffled that there is not more discussion up 
here.
  We have proposals of a deficit from the other side of $1.65 trillion 
and yet we are not down here discussing this. We have not passed a 
budget. We have not passed any appropriations bills this year. The 
American people wonder what we are doing. You wonder why the American 
people say Congress has about a 13-percent approval rate? Why are we 
not today talking about a budget? Why are we not talking about 
appropriations bills? Why do they not come out of committee?
  Then when we get to the proposals, look at the proposals. In the red 
we have the deficit, $1.5 trillion, maybe $1.6 trillion. Here we have 
the proposals. The other side, you cannot even see without a magnifying 
glass, $6 billion. We borrow $4 billion in 1 day. We spend $10 billion 
in 1 day. And the best they can do is $6 billion for a whole year.
  Our proposal is a little bit better but still does not touch the 
problem, $61 billion in cuts. It sounds like a lot of money. You know 
what, we increased spending by $700 billion, and now we are going to 
nibble away at $61 billion. But put it in perspective. Saving $61 
billion on $1.5 trillion means that either proposal, Republican or 
Democrat, is going to add trillions of dollars to the deficit.
  I am proposing something a little more bold. I am proposing $200 
billion in cuts. I think it is the very least we can do. Two hundred 
billion dollars in cuts can be gotten rather easily. The Government 
Accountability Office said there is $100 billion in waste, duplicate 
programs. Why do we not cut that? What are we doing?
  If you look at the chart of what is going on here, and you say, what 
has happened to spending, the yellow line, around 2008 when we got the 
current administration, is going up exponentially. That is the spending 
that is going up. The spending is driving the deficit.
  You look at the two lines over here. You cannot even see the 
difference. This is the Republican proposal to cut $61 billion in 
proposed increases. Spending is still going up. The deficit is going 
up. We need to do more. The danger is if we do nothing that we may well 
face a debt crisis in our country. We need to do more. My amendment 
will cut $200 billion in spending.
  When I go home and I talk to the grassroots voters, they say, that is 
not even enough, we need more. But at the very least, let's have a 
significant cut in spending and do something to get the deficit under 
control before it is too late.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Please let me correct myself. Earlier today I said that 
Senator Coons is from Connecticut. Clearly he is from Delaware. And 
Senator Johanns is not on the floor, but Senator Barrasso is. It has 
been a long day and I apologize to my colleagues. But the Senator from 
Wyoming is going to speak for a few minutes, and then the Senator from 
Vermont, Mr. Sanders.
  I am still hoping we can have a vote on one or two amendments at 6 
o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the McConnell 
amendment, in favor of the McConnell amendment. Gas prices have 
increased 43 cents in the last month, and 77 cents a gallon over the 
last year. These skyrocketing prices are hurting American families, and 
are threatening to derail the economic recovery.
  You say, how much is this impact on the American family? Well, the 
Department of Energy says the average American family will spend about 
$700 more on gas this year than they did last year. That is going to 
impact every family, every family trying to deal with bills and kids 
and a mortgage. It is not as if this problem happened overnight. For 
over 2 years, Americans have heard the President deliver speeches and 
make promises on energy.
  But the President says one thing and then he does another. That ``say 
one thing, do another'' policy does nothing to ease the pain at the 
pump. The administration's policies are making the problems today 
worse. The President's reckless policies have virtually shut down 
offshore exploration for oil. Last week, former President Bill Clinton 
called the delays in offshore oil and gas drilling permits ridiculous. 
Offshore oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to drop 15 
percent this calendar year. What that means is higher gas prices and 
fewer American jobs. The administration actually told Congress we can 
replace the loss of American oil from the Gulf of Mexico with more oil 
from OPEC. That is exactly what this administration told Congress in 
October. In justifying more restrictive offshore drilling rules, the 
administration admitted this would lead to lower production of American 
oil.
  The administration wrote:

       The impact on domestic deepwater hydrocarbon production as 
     a result of these regulations is expected to be negative.

  Then the administration went on to say:

       Currently there is sufficient spare capacity in OPEC to 
     offset a decrease in Gulf of Mexico deepwater production that 
     could occur as a result of this rule.

  That is this administration's mindset: Don't worry about domestic 
production. OPEC has us covered.
  The administration's shutdown of American exploration is not the only 
problem. The administration is also aggressively implementing 
Environmental Protection Agency regulations that will drive up the cost 
of energy. The EPA's climate change regulations under the Clean Air Act 
will cause gas prices for every American to go up even more. That is 
why I am here today. The McConnell amendment will fix this problem. 
Senator Inhofe originally introduced the legislation in the Senate. It 
was introduced in conjunction with a bill in the House by 
Representative Fred Upton. This legislation will stop the Environmental 
Protection Agency's regulatory overreach that is going to increase gas 
prices.
  When Congress refused to pass the President's cap-and-trade scheme 
last year, the administration turned to plan B--the use of the Clean 
Air Act to regulate climate change. The theory behind it is that 
additional restrictions on carbon-based energy and higher costs for 
gasoline are needed to make green energy more competitive. The key word 
is ``competitive,'' not actually making green energy more affordable, 
just more competitive, not by driving down the cost of green energy but 
by driving up the cost of red, white, and blue American energy.
  Energy Secretary Steven Chu has even said publicly: ``We have to 
figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in 
Europe.''
  The price in Europe is $8 a gallon. Under this cover of creating 
green jobs, EPA regulations are increasing the cost of red, white, and 
blue energy. This administration is trying to achieve its goals, the 
same goals as cap and tax, by placing a massive energy tax on gasoline 
and gasoline production.
  One of the ways the EPA will use the Clean Air Act is to regulate 
greenhouse gas emissions from America's oil refineries. We have not had 
a new oil refinery built in this country since 1976. The EPA's climate 
regulations will make it even more difficult and more costly to build 
and operate refineries. The result, of course, is higher gas prices at 
the pump and a greater reliance on imported gasoline. The Environmental 
Protection Agency's climate regulations must be stopped. They are 
arbitrary; they are costly; they are destructive; and they are 
politically driven.
  The EPA's climate rules are just one tool to make gasoline prices go 
up. But

[[Page S1668]]

this administration is proposing dozens more. I have introduced 
legislation similar to the McConnell amendment and the Inhofe bill. But 
my bill is more comprehensive. My bill, S. 228, is called the Defending 
America's Affordable Energy and Jobs Act. It will block the same 
manipulation of laws to increase the future cost of gasoline for all 
Americans. My legislation, which has the support of 20 Senators, would 
block the manipulation and misuse of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water 
Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, 
and the use of citizen lawsuits.
  I am trying to stop this administration from placing a massive energy 
tax on gasoline and other forms of affordable energy. The Environmental 
Species Act is currently being used to remove 187,000 square miles of 
land from energy exploration. A decision of this magnitude will 
drastically limit oil and gas development and exploration. They do this 
all in the name of climate change.
  When the administration blocks production of American oil used to 
make gasoline, American families pay higher prices at the pump. They 
pay higher prices today, and the prices will remain high in the future. 
I plan to continue to fight the many ways this administration is trying 
to enact cap-and-tax policies and raise gas prices. The President says 
he wants renewable energy to be the cheapest form of energy. He needs 
to level with the American people. He needs to admit his scheme is to 
raise the cost of all other forms of energy and make the American 
people pay the bill.
  We should be exploring for more American energy offshore, on Federal 
lands, and in Alaska. I urge my colleagues to support the McConnell 
amendment so we can block the administration's costly regulations and 
protect the pocketbooks of American families. The President's policies 
are making the pain at the pump even worse. It is time to stop these 
policies today with the McConnell amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I think we all know elections have 
consequences. I doubt seriously, however, that when most voters went to 
the polls last November, they were voting for more of their kids to get 
aggravated asthma or more people to go to the hospital with respiratory 
problems or more people to get sick in general. I do not think the 
people went to the polls this past November to vote to put big oil and 
big polluters in charge. I didn't see those TV ads.
  But make no mistake. People may not have voted for a polluter poison 
agenda, but that is exactly what they are getting from Republicans in 
the House and their colleagues in the Senate. Their agenda is to 
deregulate polluters, even if it harms our national security. They want 
to gut the bipartisan Clean Air Act, even if doing so harms public 
health. Republicans claim the Inhofe amendment would lower gas prices. 
That claim was found to be false by politifact.com. Meanwhile, the 
Clean Air Act is actually raising fuel economy standards and is 
projected to save drivers $2,800 on gas for new vehicles.
  The reason for that is pretty obvious. We are making an effort to see 
that cars manufactured and sold in this country get decent mileage per 
gallon. We wonder why all over the world people are driving cars that 
get 40, 50, 60 miles per gallon, and we are stuck with cars that get 15 
or 20. We can, we must, and we are doing better in that area. We have 
to continue to go forward.
  The Clean Air Act standards are projected to save 2.3 billion barrels 
of oil. When we get cars that are energy efficient--hybrids, electric 
cars--we are not consuming oil from Saudi Arabia. We all talk in the 
Senate about the need to move this country toward energy independence. 
But the Clean Air Act is actually helping to deliver it. That is good 
news for our national security but not for polluters. The Inhofe 
amendment would keep us dependent on foreign oil, something we 
certainly do not want to be the case.
  My Republican friends claim the Clean Air Act regulations are 
destroying the economy. That claim is also false. This chart shows that 
even as we have reduced pollution in the air by 63 percent since 1970, 
our economy grew by 210 percent and added nearly 60 million jobs. In 
fact, the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws have helped create 
hundreds of thousands of jobs in environmental technologies and 
pollution control industries. If we invest properly in energy 
efficiency and in such sustainable energies as wind, solar, geothermal, 
biomass, over a period of years we will, in fact, not only clean up our 
environment, not only move toward energy independence but create 
millions of good-paying jobs.
  For every $1 invested in clean air, we see up to $40 in return in 
economic and health benefits to America. We should all understand, 
however, that while big polluters may not like the Clean Air Act, it 
benefits every American. Why is it that after we have made significant 
progress in beginning to clean up our air, there are people who want to 
bring us back to the days when polluters could fill the air with all 
kinds of soot and other harmful products which cause disease all over 
America?
  Thanks to the Clean Air Act, we are actually saving 160,000 lives 
each year. People are not dying from premature deaths, as they would 
have if the air they were breathing was dirty. We are literally 
avoiding sending tens of thousands of people to the hospital and 
emergency rooms every year, avoiding thousands of cases of heart 
attacks, skin cancer, aggravated asthma, and lung damage thanks to the 
Clean Air Act.
  Senator Merkley made the point a few moments ago about the view of 
the American Lung Association on this issue. They have strong concerns 
as to what will happen to respiratory illnesses if we weaken the Clean 
Air Act. We are currently reducing toxic pollution such as mercury that 
the CDC has said causes major developmental problems for children. Our 
Nation's leading public health experts, including the American Academy 
of Pediatrics, the American College of Preventative Medicine, the 
American Public Health Association, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation 
of America, the American Heart Association, and the American Lung 
Association, recently said the Clean Air Act's continued implementation 
is ``quite literally a matter of life and death for tens of thousands 
of people and will mean the difference between chronic debilitating 
illness or a healthy life for hundreds of thousands more.''
  That is what is at stake. I will vote against the Inhofe amendment 
and urge my colleagues to vigorously oppose this attack on our public 
health. While this amendment may benefit wealthy oil companies, it is 
an attack on the health of all Americans who want to breathe healthy 
air and drink clean water.
  I yield the floor.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I see two Members on the floor. I ask 
unanimous consent for Senator Johanns to go next and Senator 
Rockefeller, who wanted to speak, and then we will try to get some sort 
of consent for one or two votes tonight. We are still hoping to do that 
around 6. We will try to keep Members posted.


                           Amendment No. 161

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending Johanns-
Manchin amendment 161, which I believe would send a positive, strong 
message to job creators that Congress is listening, that we have heard 
them. The bill we are debating today to help small businesses utilize 
Federal funding for research and development is certainly important. 
But I have to tell my colleagues, I believe what our small businesses 
are focused on, what they are worried about is the avalanche of new 
regulations headed their way. They are worried about the mountain of 
paperwork that is about to overwhelm them due to the 1099 reporting 
requirements contained in section 9006 of the health care law. Instead 
of focusing on hiring new workers and growing their businesses, they 
are meeting with accountants. They are wondering why those in 
Washington choose to weigh them down further after the last 2 years.
  So the amendment I offer today seeks to solve that problem by 
repealing the 1099 reporting mandate that is weighing down upon them. 
As we all know, I am referring to the tax paperwork nightmare that, as 
I said, is buried in section 9006 of the health care

[[Page S1669]]

law. It is straightforward. It says if a business purchases more than 
$600 of goods or services from another business, then they are required 
to generate and provide to that business and to the Internal Revenue 
Service a 1099 form.
  This new mandate will affect 40 million businesses in this Nation. 
That is not even mentioning the nonprofits, the churches, our local and 
State governments that are also impacted. Furthermore, it will stand in 
the way of job creators by forcing businesses to waste capital and 
human resources on useless paperwork.
  Considering the high unemployment rates plaguing many States, it does 
not make sense that we would keep this job-suppressing paperwork 
mandate. Yet repealing the nonsensical mandate has been a long and 
somewhat tortured path. I first circulated a ``Dear Colleague'' letter 
asking for cosponsors on the 1099 repeal back in June of last year. 
When we introduced it in July, we had 25 cosponsors, and small business 
watched us with great anticipation. It gave them hope that common sense 
was going to prevail in the Senate and that partisanship could be set 
aside to simply do the right thing.
  Unfortunately, that hope did evaporate. They have been frustrated, 
time and time again, when it failed to advance in September and in 
November and appeared stalled as we came into the new year. But, 
finally, they saw a ray of hope on March 3 when the House passed 1099 
repeal. It was a very large bipartisan effort, 314 to 112.
  Small businesses cheered last week when Majority Leader Reid endorsed 
the House-passed version and indicated H.R. 4 would likely be passed 
and go on directly to the President by the end of the week. Yet, when 
Thursday rolled around, a vote on 1099 repeal was shelved and replaced 
with a vote on a judicial nominee. Once again, our job creators were 
left scratching their heads, disappointed by the continued political 
gamesmanship on this very important issue.
  Moving the goalposts yet again, we now hear that some are objecting 
to the House bill's offset to completely pay for the repeal of the 1099 
mandate. This now supposedly controversial provision simply reduces 
improper overpayments of insurance subsidies.
  As the Secretary of Health and Human Services said, the repayment of 
improper subsidies makes it ``fairer for recipients and all 
taxpayers.'' Yet some have now decided this House offset is somehow a 
middle-class tax increase. That argument, to me, is stunning.
  Since when is requiring someone to repay what was given to them 
erroneously ever regarded as a tax increase? Where I come from that is 
simply smart government for the taxpayer. Furthermore, I find it a bit 
too convenient that not one Senator complained about using this very 
offset to pay for the Medicare doc fix last December. Remember, the 
Senate passed the doc fix, and they did it unanimously. Only two people 
opposed it in the House. The President signed it eagerly.
  Yet, today, some have decided it is somehow a tax increase. It does 
not pass the smell test. Our small businesses--well, they are not 
buying it either. They will see it as one more hollow excuse why we 
cannot provide businesses and their workers relief from the nonsensical 
paperwork mandate.
  These job creators have watched dueling amendments and proposals and 
counterproposals for too long, and they have grown impatient. Our small 
businesses do deserve better, but, unfortunately, at the moment, we are 
getting more of the same.
  More legislative squabbling only delays the certainty that our 
business community wants us to provide to them. They are looking for us 
to help them through this paperwork mess.
  Well, what is happening out there--because this is now starting to 
stare them in the face--is they are already starting to think about 
software because they have to track this, and there is a cost to that. 
They are talking to their accountants, and that costs money. They are 
diverting very precious capital in anticipation of the new mandate, not 
to mention the fact that rental property owners are currently subject 
to the new mandate. Unfortunately, our rental property owners are 
having to comply with it and track each payment for repairs and for 
upkeep.
  We need to give these folks a break so they can focus on growing and 
creating jobs, not worrying about how to pay for additional 
accountants. Passing H.R. 4 would show them we are listening to their 
concerns and we are committed to removing unnecessary barriers to their 
success. Instead, we are requiring our job creators to wait out on the 
sidelines while this continues to go on and on and on. They deserve 
better.
  So I join our Nation's job creators, once again, asking the Senate to 
act on this very important issue and repeal the 1099 requirement. Rest 
assured, they will not go away, and we do not want them to. We want 
them to do everything they can to create jobs.
  I will offer this legislation as an amendment to every legislative 
vehicle moving in the Senate until it becomes law. I am hopeful not 
many more of these amendments will be needed because there is a simple 
solution: Repeal it. I believe there is strong bipartisan support for 
it. We can then send it to the President. He can sign it, as he said he 
would, and we can celebrate this in a very bipartisan way.
  A vote on this amendment is significant, not only because it truly is 
the right thing to do but because it will show that H.R. 4 has more 
than 60 votes needed to pass the Senate. All we need to do is try on 
this and get it done.
  Once again, I point out, this is a bipartisan effort. This is an 
effort where Republicans and Democrats and Independents can claim 
victory and say we got this done. It was the right thing to do. It 
never should have been in the health care bill in the first place.
  My hope is my colleagues will stick with me. We can get it done. We 
can get it passed and get it signed by the President. You will hear a 
cheer all over this country by our job creators when it is finally 
repealed.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have comments I wish to make on 
1099 which are at odds with the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, 
but I will hold that for another moment.


                           Amendment No. 183

  I think it is well known that in West Virginia we have had our 
problems with EPA, and I have an amendment which would say for a period 
of 2 years they would not have the power to enforce their laws on 
stationary sources, i.e., powerplants. But it lasts for 2 years and 
then it stops.
  What is my reason for doing that? I will offer this amendment. My 
reason for doing that is, I wish to give us the time to come up with a 
good carbon sequestration bill and also give us the time to come up 
with an energy policy, since, if my amendment were to pass--since it is 
2 years from the date of passage--that does give us the time, if it is 
the will of the Congress, to have an energy policy. If it is not, then 
that, of course, is quite a different matter.
  But I simply cannot support and will not support the McConnell 
amendment, which calls for a complete emasculation of EPA forever. I do 
not understand this type of thinking. I understand we are in a very 
sort of difficult position in a postelection period, where people have 
very strong ideas: Let's get rid of government, and let's size 
everything down and get rid of all these people who have been giving us 
trouble.
  I think we have to be mature in the way we approach these problems. I 
do not think by saying EPA, created by President Nixon in 1972, shall 
virtually cease to exist with respect to any effect on greenhouse gases 
at all, forever--the concept of doing something forever is, to me, a 
very risky thing on its face. It does not usually make any sense, 
whether it is health care or energy policy or any other kind of policy, 
to make a law which has to do with regulation and then say: You cannot 
regulate forever.
  What if you did that to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Commission? We have discovered that for children the little models they 
use for crash tests are not, in fact, big enough. They were created a 
number of years ago, and kids are much bigger now. So we have to 
change, and the Commerce Committee is working on this. We have to 
change the size of the little dummies they put in these seats to crash 
test them to see what happens to them because kids are larger. So if 
you made

[[Page S1670]]

a rule that this was to last forever, under original circumstance, 
obviously, that would hurt our children and create discomfort and 
sadness.
  The Environmental Protection Agency is not a frivolous agency. It is 
created, yes, to regulate pollution. I have been saying to the West 
Virginia Coal Association, which for the most part does not believe in 
climate science--they do not believe there is a climate problem, and I 
have been saying to them for a number of years that is wrong. In my 
judgment, the science is true, the science is unequivocally true, and 
there is a price to carbon in their future. I said this a couple months 
ago. There is a price to carbon in their future. You cannot simply 
carry on business the way you are doing it now and avoiding any sense 
of responsibility and be called a mature corporation or a mature person 
in this country or a mature public servant.
  I understand the fervor of the Senator from Oklahoma, the Senator 
from Kentucky, and others who put up this amendment for a permanent ban 
on any regulation of carbon dioxide or any other of these areas. But in 
the process, of course, what they say they are for is that the EPA can 
no longer regulate CAFE standards; that is, how many miles per gallon 
your car gets. If you look at the private sector, there is a drive and 
a competition now to increase and raise the level of corporate average 
fuel economy standards, lowering emissions. That is as it should be. 
That is a natural product of free enterprise competition.
  But to say that the EPA--what if there were to be a backslide? What 
if the Big Three and a number of others decided: Well, this isn't worth 
our while. There is nobody regulating us, so we don't have to do 
anything about it, and they slipped backward and then created a much 
more emission-charged climate?
  I cannot abide by that. I cannot believe that is sensible government. 
I cannot believe that in the theological drive to make government 
small, to make government disappear, to make health care disappear, to 
make all kinds of things disappear--so we can all be happy again, as we 
were in the 1910s and 1950s, I guess--life does not work like that and 
legislation should not work like that.
  We should approach it thoughtfully, with a long view as well as a 
short view. The short view says: Oh, I have to be mad at EPA--and I am 
because they have done things in West Virginia which I think are wrong 
and should be changed--but I would never, for a moment, consider saying 
they should forever be banned from having anything to do with climate 
change policies or CAFE standards. It does not make any sense.
  It is embarrassing. It is embarrassing. That is not a favor to the 
people of West Virginia. What that means is the companies--coal 
companies, power companies--that are looking at all of this, they will 
just start walking away from coal very quickly. This would also be true 
in Pennsylvania, the home of the Presiding Officer. Natural gas is 
beginning to take over large parts of our electric power industry. That 
has happened in North Carolina and in Ohio and probably a little bit in 
Pennsylvania and, yes, a little bit in West Virginia. The Marcellus 
Shale is an unbounded, endless pool of natural gas, and it lies up and 
down the Appalachian spine. Companies are beginning to switch away from 
coal to natural gas.
  Now, if one doesn't care about coal miners and one doesn't care about 
coal companies--but, particularly, coal miners. They are not 
responsible for any of this. They just dig the coal God put in the 
Earth 1 billion years ago. They dig it, and then it is shipped by truck 
or by rail or in some fashion, perhaps by barge, off to a power 
company. The power companies are the ones that have to make the 
decision how are they going to burn it. Are they going to burn it 
cleaner?
  Two companies in West Virginia, one being American Electric Power, 
has conducted an experiment in New Haven, which is the large powerplant 
in the state. They have picked out 18 percent of all their emissions, 
and they have applied carbon-capturing sequestration to that 18 
percent. That 18 percent of the flue gas emissions have gone from 
whatever carbon content down to about 10 percent carbon content. That 
is called clean coal.
  When we talk about coal on this floor, everybody assumes coal is 
always dirty. Well, coal is dirty when it is taken out of the ground 
and nothing happens to it. But with all of the science and technology 
we have available, carbon-capturing sequestration is not only working 
to make that clean coal, therefore, highly competitive--much more 
competitive than natural gas, which is 50 percent carbon dioxide--it 
makes it only 10 percent when we use these technologies. That is what 
my amendment--the 2-year amendment, and then only 2 years, that is what 
is meant to give us the time. Sensibly, that is what we ought to be 
doing if people cared about having an energy policy.
  Then there is another facility, operated by Dow Chemical. Dow 
Chemical is not usually associated with these things. But they are 
running exactly the same kind of a burning of coal focus and 
demonstration using a slightly different technology, but also getting 
about 90 percent of the carbon out of the coal, and they use the power 
from that. They use that. So don't tell me it can't be done. Just tell 
me we don't have the technology to do it broadly enough. But if we are 
talking about a nation with a couple hundred years' of coal left, 
don't--I don't want to hear about dirty coal because that is not going 
to get anywhere. But clean coal, that can do a lot better than natural 
gas and do a lot better than a lot of other alternative energies.
  What is going on in Japan right now, I shy away from the idea of 
saying: Oh, well, then we have to stop from ever building any nuclear 
powerplant forever. I am not a big fan of nuclear power, but I don't 
think we make decisions because of that. We don't make them out of 
emotion. We don't make them because of a catastrophe in another 
country. Maybe there is and maybe there isn't; I haven't checked the 
news in 4 or 5 hours. But that is 20 percent of all of the power in 
this country. So before we make the decision, let's be thoughtful about 
it.
  I think we ought to be thoughtful about this amendment, the McConnell 
amendment, which says that forever and ever the EPA will be completely 
stripped away of its authority for carbon monoxide, climate problems, 
plus anything else that creates carbon--it could be factories; all 
kinds of things. They will be completely free of any kind of 
regulation. I think that is wrong.
  I think the regulation has to be put in place which is reasonable, 
which would be the purpose of my amendment for 2 years. Then that would 
be it. Then we would see where we are. But to do a permanent, complete 
emasculation of the EPA isn't what a mature body of legislators does, 
in my judgment. I, therefore, will vote against this amendment and will 
wait to see the result and then offer my amendment which I think is 
much more sensible.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank Senator Rockefeller and all of 
the Members who have come to the floor today debating this important 
bill and to share their thoughts about other amendments that are--some 
directly but some indirectly--related to our discussion. It doesn't 
look as if we are going to vote tonight, but we are going to continue 
to work throughout the evening as Members want to come to the floor and 
speak on their amendments, so we can try to work something out for 
tomorrow.
  I thank Senator Snowe and her staff for their good work today. I see 
Senator Whitehouse on the floor. He may wish to speak about an 
amendment. But I remind everyone that we are on the SBIR and STTR 
Reauthorization Act. It is a very important piece of legislation that 
has been sputtering for a reauthorization now for over 6 years, and 
there are literally thousands of entities--small businesses, dozens of 
Federal agencies, many, many organizations from the Chamber of Commerce 
to the American Small Business Association--that are depending on us to 
do our work and actually get this program reauthorized. It is important 
to give consistency and permanency. So we are going to continue to work 
to do that.
  I look forward to speaking in more detail about the bill later 
tonight and tomorrow. But it looks as though we are not going to have 
votes tonight;

[[Page S1671]]

but, hopefully, we can get some order and some agreement to proceed.
  At this time I see Senator Whitehouse on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, we are not at this moment without 
votes on this important legislation for lack of effort by the 
distinguished Senator from Louisiana. She has been extraordinarily 
determined, as she was with her earlier small business legislation 
which she fought through to a success, and I am sure this will be 
fought through to a success as well.
  One of the ways in which our friends on the other side are seeking to 
harass and impede this important piece of legislation is by putting on 
unrelated amendments--particularly poisonous unrelated amendments, 
including the one Senator Rockefeller just spoke about--to completely 
gut and strip the authority the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized EPA 
has to protect us from the hazard of carbon pollution.
  Underlying this procedural maneuver which would interfere with this 
significant jobs-related bill is a fundamental disagreement about 
whether our atmosphere is being affected by the carbon pollution we 
have been pumping into it. I would submit the facts are entirely on one 
side of that debate, and the polluters are entirely on the other. It is 
only in a building such as this in which so many special interests have 
such sway that the debate has the currency it appears to have achieved.
  Much of what is happening is nondebatable. Scientists know--not from 
theory but from observation, from calculation--what the range of parts 
per million of carbon dioxide has been in the atmosphere for 8,000 
centuries. We can go back and find the carbon record in ice and in 
other ways, and we can establish what the range was of carbon dioxide 
in our atmosphere.
  For the last 800,000 years, it has been between 170 and about 300 
parts per million. That is the bandwidth--170 to 300 parts per 
million--over 800,000 years. For the first time in 800,000 years, we 
are out of that range. The present concentration--again, a measurement, 
not a theory--exceeds 391 parts per million. Scientists can draw a 
trajectory which is something that people do all over this world. It is 
not complicated. It is not theory. If you draw a trajectory based on 
where we are going, the trajectory puts us at 688 parts per million in 
the year 2095 and 1,097 parts per million in the year 2195. These are 
levels that not only haven't been seen in 800,000 years, they haven't 
been seen in millions of years.
  This is an experiment in the very nature, the very physics of our 
planet. It has been known since just after the Civil War when the Irish 
scientist Tyndall discovered that CO2 in the atmosphere had 
a warming effect, had a blanketing effect and warmed the atmosphere. 
That has been bomb-proof science for more than a century. It is in 
basic textbooks.
  When we take that scientific theory--basic, established, more than 
130, 140 years old--and then combine it with the facts as we see it, 
that it has been in this range, it is now out of an 8,000-century range 
and climbing, and we look at some of the effects that are beginning to 
happen that are also consistent with that, a fairly undeniable story 
begins to emerge.
  The day will come, I am confident, when our grandchildren will look 
back at this moment at our unwillingness to deal with the plain 
scientific evidence in front of us and to instead be persuaded by 
merchants of doubt with big checkbooks who have a vested interest in 
the outcome, who have a conflict of interest. We are listening to them, 
and we are not listening to the plain facts and to the plain science 
and the theories that have been known for more than a century. People 
will look back at us with real shame--there is no other word for it--
shame and disgust, that this was the way we addressed this problem on 
our planet.
  We can look back at other events such as this. Galileo had a view 
based on his observations on science as to how the planets worked, and 
he was intimidated out of it by the power of the day which couldn't 
abide that, and he was taken before the inquisition and was forced to 
recant. The legend is that when he recanted, he quietly said to 
himself: I recant, but the planets stay their courses.
  Well, the planets stay their courses, the laws of physics and 
chemistry don't change, and we are on a slope toward a very severe 
problem. We can't just simply, like the ostrich, put our heads in the 
sand over and over. It is just wrong.
  So this amendment is wrong that would strip EPA of their authority. 
It will hurt people who depend on this. It has always been good for 
America when we have made our air and water cleaner. We simply cannot 
go on this way. It is bad for this bill because it puts a poisonous 
amendment on it when this should be a bill we should all be getting 
behind. It is certainly wrong from a point of view of history and 
science and the obligation we have to our younger people and to their 
children who have to live in a world that faces the consequences of our 
negligence this day.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, this has actually been a very 
invigorating debate on the bill that is pending before the Senate. We 
have heard a few amendments that have been filed that are directly 
related to the reauthorization of this important program, and there are 
others who have an arguably indirect impact on small business jobs and 
the creation of opportunity for research and technology investments for 
small business in America. But we are unable to vote tonight and to 
come to any consensus about the order of votes. Hopefully, we can do 
that sometime this evening.
  Let me take this moment to again thank the 84 Members of the Senate 
who voted yesterday to give us an opportunity to get to this important 
bill. As people have watched this debate throughout the day and 
continue to watch this evening, one of the reasons the leadership likes 
to sometimes put appropriate limits on the debate is to keep people 
focused on the underlying issue. But Senator Snowe and I decided to 
urge our leaders to have a really open debate because we understand 
there are Members who feel very strongly about the EPA issues and the 
climate change rules and regulations and about the 1099 provision. 
Senator Nelson feels strongly about reducing legislative spending. 
Senator Hutchison and I in particular have strong feelings about the 
LEASE Act. So we are going to be as inclusive and incorporate as many 
of these ideas as we can.

  But I really want to ask, since we have looked at the amendment list 
just within the hour and we have 48 amendments pending on this bill--
and some people have half a dozen--if Members and their staffs will 
please look and see what is absolutely essential for them to offer as 
an amendment on this bill so that we don't miss this opportunity. That 
is really what I want to express right now, that this will be a missed 
opportunity to reauthorize one of the best programs at the Federal 
level.
  We have heard a lot of talk about programs that don't work, about 
programs that are wasteful, programs that are full of fraud and abuse. 
This is not one of them. This is the Federal Government's largest 
investment program in research and development. This gives small 
businesses in America--businesses we all represent on main streets 
everywhere, whether North Carolina, Louisiana, California, or 
Massachusetts, small businesses with cutting-edge technology and new 
and exciting science, with very bright people who have graduated from 
some of the finest universities in the world--this gives them an 
opportunity to put their technology and their know-how in front of 
Federal agencies for the sole purpose of saving taxpayer money, 
creating jobs, and increasing the revenues paid to governments at the 
local, State, and Federal level to solve our deficit problem.
  We are not going to solve our debt and deficit problem by cutting, 
slashing recklessly, domestic discretionary spending alone. No one in 
America believes that. I don't know why people come to the floor to 
continue to promote that idea. It is not going to happen. We are going 
to get to a balanced budget when we bring our revenues and our 
spending, in appropriate order, in line and when we pass bills such as 
this that literally help create thousands of jobs in America. That is 
what is going

[[Page S1672]]

to end the recession. That is what is going to close this budget gap. 
And that is why I will stay on the floor all week with Senator Snowe, 
who has been wonderfully helpful today, and we will continue until we 
can get this bill passed.
  I don't want us to miss this opportunity because it has been three 
Congresses--not one, not two, but three Congresses--that have tried and 
failed. We are not going to fail this week. We are going to pass this 
bill this week in the Senate. We are going to get a bill out of here 
and over to the House. It is very likely that the House will take up 
our bill as it is generally written.
  Why do I say that? Because we have already incorporated so many of 
the House views and thoughts over the last several years. This is not 
new language to them. We have a new chairman--Chairman Graves--and he 
understands perfectly that we are working hard in the Senate to get 
this bill over to him and to his good committee.
  We have literally thousands of businesses kind of on hold because 
they do not know whether this program is going to be here from week to 
week. We have agencies that don't know if they should put out 
solicitations for new technologies. Why wouldn't we want to take this 
opportunity when we clearly know this is one of the most effective 
programs? Let me give a specific example. We have used it before, but 
it is worth using again, although we have hundreds.
  Qualcomm is a company that is very well known. It developed the 
software primarily that allows wireless communication. Twenty years 
ago, nobody ever heard of Qualcomm, and very few people had cell phones 
that weighed less than 3 pounds each, as I remember. But 25 to 30 
people came together with Dr. Jacobs. They sat in his den, as he 
testified before our committee just last week. He said that through the 
SBIR Program, their initial idea got a couple hundred dollars. In phase 
II, they got $1.5 million.
  That is what this program does--incentivizes or gives grants or 
contracts to emerging technologies well before a bank would take a 
look, well before a venture capital fund would even look in their 
direction. You have to develop the technology to a point and then have 
it launched. This is where there is what he described as the valley of 
death--great ideas, but there is just not a lot of venture capital out 
there and particularly in this recessionary period. So he says we 
helped, that without this program, it would have been very difficult to 
grow their company.
  Today, that company employs 17,500 people in about 22 countries in 
the world, including right here in the United States, and it pays in 
taxes, in 1 year, $1 billion. That is 50 percent of the cost of this 
entire program. So one company--Qualcomm--in its 25-year life, has 
grown so much that it pays enough taxes that it supports 50 percent of 
the cost of this program annually.
  I can give dozens of examples of other companies that have been 
launched through this program.
  Let me say that our Federal departments are getting better at this. 
It was a little touch-and-go at first. The Federal agencies weren't 
quite used to it. Senator Rudman helped to create this program. He was 
very passionate about it, as were others, so we sort of pushed the 
Federal agencies to do this. They were more comfortable doing research 
and development with the big companies. They felt more comfortable. 
They felt they weren't taking as much risk. No one likes to fail. So 
they thought: Well, I have this project, and I am going to give it to 
IBM. If it doesn't work, nobody can blame me. The problem was that IBM 
didn't have all the answers. We have come to find out that sometimes 
they had very few during parts of their career as a company.
  Not to be disrespectful to that company, but right down the road 
there were 10 small businesses, but nobody ever heard of them; 
scientists nobody ever heard of. Senator Rudman knew this, so he said: 
We are going to mandate a certain percentage of your research and 
development money, you have to push it out to small business. And some 
of them, yes, failed. But as the folks testified, if they are not 
failing, this program isn't working. I want to repeat. If they are not 
failing, this program isn't working because this program is front-end, 
high-risk, but with great returns for the American taxpayer and great 
returns for small businesses.
  I might say, as I said earlier today, it is the envy of many other 
countries in the world. The gentleman who has done the most research 
and looking over at this program testified before our committee that he 
travels around the world, and he is called by other nations that ask: 
How is it that the Federal Government sets up programs that allow the 
small businesses to enter into research and development?
  So Senator Snowe and I have taken this on as our first priority for 
this year and for this Congress. We know there are many important bills 
pending before our committee, but we believe this is the right bill to 
present to the Congress in the right order. The Chair is on the 
committee, so she knows this very well. But we are trying to think of 
what we could get out of our committee to the floor, to the President's 
desk, that has the most immediate impact, creates the most jobs, and 
this is the program.
  This program extends the authorization for 8 years. It updates the 
award sizes for the program from $100,000 to $150,000. It takes the 
phase II awards from $750,000 to $1 million. It increases investment in 
small businesses by increasing the percentage from 2.5 to 3.5 percent 
of the research and development monies at all agencies over 10 years, 
including NIH and the Department of Defense.
  These are very significant numbers for the Department of Defense. It 
is $1 billion. It is $1 billion this bill will sort of set aside and 
say: Defense Department, if you are looking for that new radiator for 
that tank, if you are looking at ways to cool or looking at ways to 
sort your ammo more efficiently or looking at ways to come up with new 
software to help that warfighter, here is $1 billion of research money, 
and we want you to ask not just the big companies in America and around 
the world but the small companies, the innovators out there. Give them 
a chance to show you what they have. That is what this program does, 
and we have reams and reams of data supporting its effectiveness.
  It also includes this compromise between the biotech, the venture 
capital industry, and the small business community. We had a big fight 
over the last several years, but we have come to a compromise. Neither 
side is ecstatic, which means it is a good compromise. They are all 
sort of just understanding that without this compromise, this bill 
could fall apart, and they know how important it is. So they have come 
to terms on the basic portion that can be invested by venture capital 
funds, leaving the integrity of this program as a small business 
program, which is the way it was created, but allowing an appropriate 
level of involvement with the venture capital industry.
  It also creates Federal, State, and technical partnerships. It 
improves the SBA's ability to oversee and coordinate this program. It 
adds some metrics and measurements so we can really get some good data 
about how it is working and where it is not working. And as we 
authorize it for 8 years, we will be able to really say that we got 
down to business and we got serious about reauthorizing this important 
program, while leaving this debate open and flexible and allowing the 
Members to have an opportunity to speak about things they feel strongly 
about.
  I am hoping that sometime tomorrow we can vote on some of the 
amendments we discussed today--the McConnell amendment, the Johanns 
amendment, potentially, the Vitter amendment, and the Nelson amendment. 
Senator Cornyn, Senator Hutchison, and others were down here to speak. 
We hope to get their amendments in the queue. But again, if the Members 
would just be cooperative and let Senator Snowe and me know whether you 
could choose one or two and not offer six or seven amendments, that 
would be extremely helpful to us. Just let us know and our staffs know, 
and we will work as hard as we can to have the votes that are necessary 
to move this bill off the floor and get it to the President's desk.
  For those who say, why aren't we talking about the budget and debt, 
my answer is, we are talking about the budget and debt. This is part of 
closing the budget gap. This is about creating jobs that generate 
revenue that closes

[[Page S1673]]

that gap. It is not just about discretionary domestic spending cuts. We 
will never get where we need to be going down that road. We are going 
to get to it by a combination of things, and that is why Senator Snowe 
and I feel very strongly about bringing this bill to the floor to talk 
about growing and encouraging job creation, particularly by small 
businesses, innovators, entrepreneurs, inventors, and risk takers who 
need and rely on this program to launch new and exciting businesses 
that benefit us all.
  Whether it is in the State of Oregon, the State of Louisiana, or, as 
I said, Massachusetts, New York, or California, we have literally 
thousands of companies that have used this program successfully to 
grow. Our people are employed, and America is continuing to lead in 
many areas. Unfortunately, we don't lead in every area, but in many 
areas in new emerging technology, depending on the field, of course, we 
are very proud of this Federal program, and it is an example of a 
program that works.
  If we could work as well as this program does in doing our work this 
week and getting this bill actually off the floor intact--with some 
amendments, of course, that will be voted on--and get it over to the 
House, let them do their work, and get this bill to the President's 
desk, we will have done some good work this week.
  Mr. President, I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum. I don't 
see anyone else on the floor. There may be Members who will want to 
come to talk about amendments. There will be nothing that will be 
pending for the next few hours, and hopefully we can get an agreement 
later on tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, unfortunately, all too often it seems 
Federal agencies do not take into account the impacts to small 
businesses and job growth before imposing new rules and regulations. 
And so, I am introducing three amendments to the Small Business 
Reauthorization bill to force Federal agencies to cut the redtape that 
impedes job growth.
  The first of my three amendments requires Federal agencies to analyze 
the indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, 
the cost of energy, and consumer prices.
  Presently, Federal agencies are not required by statute to analyze 
the indirect cost regulations can have on the public, such as higher 
energy costs, higher prices, and the impact on job creation. However, 
Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton in 1993, obligates 
agencies to provide the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
with an assessment of the indirect costs of proposed regulations. My 
amendment would essentially codify this provision of President 
Clinton's Executive Order.
  My second amendment obligates Federal agencies to comply with public 
notice and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing 
these requirements by issuing unofficial rules as guidance documents.''
  After President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, Federal 
agencies found it easier to issue so-called guidance documents, rather 
than formal rules. Although these guidance documents are merely an 
agency's interpretation of how the public can comply with a particular 
rule, and are not enforceable in court, as a practical matter they 
operate as if they are legally binding. Thus, they have been used by 
agencies to circumvent OIRA regulatory review and public notice and 
comment requirements.
  In 2007, President Bush issued Executive Order 13422, which contained 
a provision closing this loophole by imposing ``Good Guidance 
Practices'' on Federal agencies, which requires them to provide public 
notice and comment for significant guidance documents. My amendment 
would essentially codify this provision of President Bush's Executive 
Order.
  My third amendment helps out the ``little guy'' trying to navigate 
our incredibly complex and burdensome regulatory environment. So many 
small businesses don't have a lot of capital on hand. When a small 
business inadvertently runs afoul of a Federal regulation for the first 
time, that first penalty could sink the business and all the jobs it 
supports. My amendment would provide access to SBA assistance to small 
businesses in a situation where they face a first-time, nonharmful 
paperwork violation. It simply doesn't make sense to me to punish small 
businesses the first time they accidently fail to comply with paperwork 
requirements, so long as no harm comes from that failure.
  Each of the provisions of these amendments have been endorsed by the 
National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, and the Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship Council. I urge my colleagues to support 
these important amendments to our regulatory system.

                          ____________________