Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 49 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 49 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2154-S2181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SBIR/STTR REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 493, which the clerk will
report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 493) to reauthorize and improve the SBIR and
STTR programs, and for other purposes.

Pending:

McConnell amendment No. 183, to prohibit the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any
regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking
into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to
address climate change.
Vitter amendment No. 178, to require the Federal Government
to sell off unused Federal real property.
Inhofe (for Johanns) amendment No. 161, 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.
Cornyn amendment No. 186, to establish a bipartisan
commission for the purpose of improving oversight and
eliminating wasteful government spending.
Paul amendment No. 199, to cut $200,000,000,000 in spending
in fiscal year 2011.
Sanders amendment No. 207, to establish a point of order
against any efforts to reduce benefits paid to Social
Security recipients, raise the retirement age, or create
private retirement accounts under title II of the Social
Security Act.
Hutchison amendment No. 197, to delay the implementation of
the health reform law in the United States until there is
final resolution in pending lawsuits.
Coburn amendment No. 184, to provide a list of programs
administered by every Federal department and agency.
Pryor amendment No. 229, to establish the Patriot Express
Loan Program under which the Small Business Administration
may make loans to members of the military community wanting
to start or expand small business concerns.
Landrieu amendment No. 244 (to amendment No. 183), to
change the enactment date.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Coburn
amendment No. 281 replace amendment No. 223 in the agreement we reached
last evening. This is an updated version of Senator Coburn's amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, under the previous agreement that was
reached last evening--and I want to thank both leaders, Senators Reid
and McConnell, for working so hard with Senator Snowe and me to try to
bring our caucuses to conclusion points on this very important bill,
the small business innovation bill, that we have been negotiating now
for almost 2 weeks. It is a very important program that deserves to be
reauthorized.
This bill will reauthorize this important program for 8 years. We
have been operating the last 4 years with 3 months at a time and 6
months at a time. Madam President, representing New York, you know that
many of your small businesses have accessed this program, many of your
universities, to acquire or to reach cutting-edge technologies that not
only our

[[Page S2155]]

Federal agencies need but taxpayers benefit from directly.
This program is a job creator. It is an innovative program, and it is
a job creator. So I appreciate the work our two leaders have done with
Senator Snowe and myself to get us to this agreement.
We will be having seven votes this afternoon. Just to recap, they
will be Baucus No. 236, Stabenow No. 277, Rockefeller No. 215, Coburn
No. 217, Coburn No. 281, Coburn No. 273, which is a side-by-side, I
think, and Inouye No. 286. Those have already been agreed to, but,
Madam President, our challenge is that we have 124 additional
amendments that have been filed, most of which have nothing to do with
either the Small Business Administration or this program. We understand
Senators are frustrated and want floor time for their issues, but
taxpayers need this program that works.
We are eliminating some programs at the Federal level that don't
work, but this one does. So we need to try to find a way to get it
authorized and continue the good economic numbers we are hearing coming
out of Treasury and other independent think tanks that are saying jobs
are being created.
The recession looks as though it is potentially coming to an end. We
are creating net new jobs every month. This is a program that supports
that. It is a great foundation program based on cutting-edge research
and innovation that helps small businesses in the country who are the
job creators.
So I ask Members on both sides to work cooperatively throughout the
day today. We are going to have a vote on these seven amendments this
afternoon, as previously agreed to, and we will be considering and
trying to work with Members on some of their other issues. If we could
get a good, strong small business bill agreed to this week and sent
over to the House as we resolve these very tough negotiations on the
budget, we can be proud to, at some point very soon, send this bill
with a few attached amendments, hopefully--not many but a few--to the
President's desk for signature.
So, again, I thank the Members for their cooperation, and I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
I am sorry, Madam President. Let me take back that request.

Amendments Nos. 236, 277, 215, 217, 281, 273, and 286

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, under the previous agreement we were
able to get to last evening, I call up the amendments I previously
cited.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes
amendments en bloc numbered 236, 277, 215, 217, 281, 273, and
286.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 236

(Purpose: To prohibit the regulation of greenhouse gases from certain
sources)

At the end, add the following:

SEC. __. GREENHOUSE GAS-RELATED EXEMPTIONS FROM PERMITTING
REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(1) to ensure that the greenhouse gas emissions from
certain sources will not require a permit under the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.); and
(2) to exempt greenhouse gas emissions from certain
agricultural sources from permitting requirements under that
Act.
(b) Amendment.--Title III of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 329. GREENHOUSE GAS-RELATED EXEMPTIONS FROM PERMITTING
REQUIREMENTS.

``(a) Definition of Greenhouse Gas.--In this section, the
term `greenhouse gas' means any of the following:
``(1) Carbon dioxide.
``(2) Methane.
``(3) Nitrous oxide.
``(4) Sulfur hexafluoride.
``(5) Hydrofluorocarbons.
``(6) Perfluorocarbons.
``(7) Nitrogen trifluoride.
``(8) Any other anthropogenic gas, if the Administrator
determines that 1 ton of the gas has the same or greater
effect on global climate change as does 1 ton of carbon
dioxide.
``(b) New Source Review.--
``(1) Modification of definition of air pollutant.--For
purposes of determining whether a stationary source is a
major emitting facility under section 169(1) or has
undertaken construction pursuant to section 165(a), the term
`air pollutant' shall not include any greenhouse gas unless
the gas is subject to regulation under this Act for reasons
independent of the effects of the gas on global climate
change.
``(2) Thresholds for exclusions from permit provisions.--No
requirement of part C of title I shall apply with respect to
any greenhouse gas unless the gas is subject to regulation
under this Act for reasons independent of the effects of the
gas on global climate change or the gas is emitted by a
stationary source--
``(A) that is--
``(i) a new major emitting facility that will emit, or have
the potential to emit, greenhouse gases in a quantity of at
least 75,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year; or
``(ii) an existing major emitting facility that undertakes
construction which increases the quantity of greenhouse gas
emissions, or which results in emission of greenhouse gases
not previously emitted, of at least 75,000 tons carbon
dioxide equivalent per year; and
``(B) that has greenhouse gas emissions equal to or
exceeding 250 tons per year in mass emissions or, in the case
of any of the types of stationary sources identified in
section 169(1), 100 tons per year in mass emissions.
``(3) Agricultural sources.--In calculating the emissions
or potential emissions of a source or facility, emissions of
greenhouse gases that are subject to regulation under this
Act solely on the basis of the effect of the gases on global
climate change shall be excluded if the emissions are from--
``(A) changes in land use;
``(B) the raising of commodity crops, stock, dairy,
poultry, or fur-bearing animals, or the growing of fruits or
vegetables; or
``(C) farms, plantations, ranches, nurseries, ranges,
orchards, and greenhouses or other similar structures used
primarily for the raising of agricultural or horticultural
commodities.
``(c) Title V Operating Permits.--Notwithstanding any
provision of title III or title V, no stationary source shall
be required to apply for, or operate pursuant to, a permit
under title V, solely on the basis of the emissions of the
stationary source of greenhouse gases that are subject to
regulation under this Act solely on the basis of the effect
of the greenhouse gases on global climate change, unless
those emissions from that source are subject to regulation
under this Act.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 277

(Purpose: To suspend, for 2 years, any Environmental Protection Agency
enforcement of greenhouse gas regulations, to exempt American
agriculture from greenhouse gas regulations, and to increase the number
of companies eligible to participate in the successful Advanced Energy
Manufacturing Tax Credit Program)

On page 116, after line 24, add the following:

SEC. 504. SUSPENSION OF STATIONARY SOURCE GREENHOUSE GAS
REGULATIONS.

(a) Defined Term.--In this section, the term ``greenhouse
gas'' means--
(1) water vapor;
(2) carbon dioxide;
(3) methane;
(4) nitrous oxide;
(5) sulfur hexafluoride;
(6) hydrofluorocarbons;
(7) perfluorocarbons; and
(8) any other substance subject to, or proposed to be
subject to, any regulation, action, or consideration under
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) to address climate
change.
(b) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (d), and
notwithstanding any provision of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.), any requirement, restriction, or limitation
under such Act relating to a greenhouse gas that is designed
to address climate change, including any permitting
requirement or requirement under section 111 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 7411), for any source other than a new motor vehicle
or a new motor vehicle engine (as described in section 202(a)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7521(a)), shall not be legally
effective during the 2-year period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(c) Treatment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
any action by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency before the end of the 2-year period
described in subsection (b) that causes greenhouse gases to
be pollutants subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), except for purposes other than
addressing climate change, shall not be legally effective
with respect to any source other than a new motor vehicle or
a new motor vehicle engine (as described in section 202 of
such Act).
(d) Exceptions.--Subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply
to--
(1) the implementation and enforcement of the rule entitled
``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards'' (75 Fed. Reg.
25324 (May 7, 2010) and without further revision);
(2) the finalization, implementation, enforcement, and
revision of the proposed rule entitled ``Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles'' published at 75 Fed.
Reg. 74152 (November 30, 2010);
(3) any action relating to the preparation of a report or
the enforcement of a reporting requirement; or
(4) any action relating to the provision of technical
support at the request of a State.

[[Page S2156]]

SEC. 505. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM AGRICULTURAL SOURCES.

In calculating the emissions or potential emissions of a
source or facility, emissions of greenhouse gases that are
subject to regulation under title III of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.) solely on the basis of the effect of
the gases on global climate change shall be excluded if the
emissions are from--
(1) changes in land use;
(2) the growing of commodities, biomass, fruits,
vegetables, or other crops;
(3) the raising of stock, dairy, poultry, or fur-bearing
animals; or
(4) farms, forests, plantations, ranches, nurseries,
ranges, orchards, greenhouses, or other similar structures
used primarily for the raising of agricultural or
horticultural commodities.

SEC. 506. EXTENSION OF THE ADVANCED ENERGY PROJECT CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 48C of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(6) Additional 2011 allocations.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall establish a
program to consider and award certifications for qualified
investments eligible for credits under this section to
qualifying advanced energy project sponsors with respect to
applications received on or after the date of the enactment
of this paragraph.
``(B) Limitation.--The total amount of credits that may be
allocated under the program described in subparagraph (A)
shall not exceed the 2011 allocation amount reduced by so
much of the 2011 allocation amount as is taken into account
as an increase in the limitation described in paragraph
(1)(B).
``(C) Application of certain rules.--Rules similar to the
rules of paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) shall apply for
purposes of the program described in subparagraph (A), except
that--
``(i) Certification.--Applicants shall have 2 years from
the date that the Secretary establishes such program to
submit applications.
``(ii) Selection criteria.--For purposes of paragraph
(3)(B)(i), the term `domestic job creation (both direct and
indirect)' means the creation of direct jobs in the United
States producing the property manufactured at the
manufacturing facility described under subsection
(c)(1)(A)(i), and the creation of indirect jobs in the
manufacturing supply chain for such property in the United
States.
``(iii) Review and redistribution.--The Secretary shall
conduct a separate review and redistribution under paragraph
(5) with respect to such program not later than 4 years after
the date of the enactment of this paragraph.
``(D) 2011 allocation amount.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `2011 allocation amount' means
$5,000,000,000.
``(E) Direct payments.--In lieu of any qualifying advanced
energy project credit which would otherwise be determined
under this section with respect to an allocation to a
taxpayer under this paragraph, the Secretary shall, upon the
election of the taxpayer, make a grant to the taxpayer in the
amount of such credit as so determined. Rules similar to the
rules of section 50 shall apply with respect to any grant
made under this subparagraph.''.
(b) Portion of 2011 Allocation Allocated Toward Pending
Applications Under Original Program.--Subparagraph (B) of
section 48C(d)(1) of such Code is amended by inserting
``(increased by so much of the 2011 allocation amount (not in
excess of $1,500,000,000) as the Secretary determines
necessary to make allocations to qualified investments with
respect to which qualifying applications were submitted
before the date of the enactment of paragraph (6))'' after
``$2,300,000,000''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b)
of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting
``48C(d)(6)(E),'' after ``36C,''.

AMENDMENT NO. 215

(Purpose: To suspend, until the end of the 2-year period beginning on
the date of enactment of this Act, any Environmental Protection Agency
action under the Clean Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or
methane pursuant to certain proceedings, other than with respect to
motor vehicle emissions)

At the end, add the following:

TITLE VI--BUSINESS INCUBATOR PROMOTION

SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``EPA Stationary Source
Regulations Suspension Act''.

SEC. 602. SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN EPA ACTION.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
notwithstanding any provision of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.), until the end of the 2-year period beginning
on the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency may not take any action
under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) with respect
to any stationary source permitting requirement or any
requirement under section 111 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7411)
relating to carbon dioxide or methane.
(b) Exceptions.--Subsections (a) and (c) shall not apply
to--
(1) any action under part A of title II of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.) relating to the vehicle
emissions standards;
(2) any action relating to the preparation of a report or
the enforcement of a reporting requirement; or
(3) any action relating to the provision of technical
support at the request of a State.
(c) Treatment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no action taken by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency before the end of the 2-year period
described in subsection (a) (including any action taken
before the date of enactment of this Act) shall be considered
to make carbon dioxide or methane a pollutant subject to
regulation under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
for any source other than a new motor vehicle or new motor
vehicle engine, as described in section 202(a) of that Act
(42 U.S.C. 7521(a)).

amendment no. 217

(Purpose: To save at least $8.5 million annually by eliminating an
unnecessary program to provide federal funding for covered bridges)

At the end of title V add the following:

SEC.__. ELIMINATING THE NATIONAL HISTORIC COVERED BRIDGE
PRESERVATION PROGRAM.

(a) Repeal.--Section 1224 of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178; 112 Stat. 225; 112
Stat. 837) is repealed.
(b) Funding.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
(1) no Federal funds may be expended on or after the date
of enactment of this Act for the National Historic Covered
Bridge Preservation Program under the section repealed by
subsection (a); and
(2) any funds made available for that program that remain
unobligated as of the date of enactment of this Act shall be
rescinded and returned to the Treasury.

amendment no. 281

(Purpose: To save at least $20 million annually by ending federal
unemployment payments to jobless millionaires and billionaires)

At the end of title V, add the following:

SEC.__. ENDING UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS TO JOBLESS MILLIONAIRES
AND BILLIONAIRES.

(a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no Federal funds may be used to make payments of
unemployment compensation (including such compensation under
the Federal-State Extended Compensation Act of 1970 and the
emergency unemployment compensation program under title IV of
the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008) to an individual
whose adjusted gross income in the preceding year was equal
to or greater than $1,000,000.
(b) Compliance.--Unemployment Insurance applications shall
include a form or procedure for an individual applicant to
certify the individual's adjusted gross income was not equal
to or greater than $1,000,000 in the preceding year.
(c) Audits.--The certifications required by (b) shall be
auditable by the U.S. Department of Labor or the U.S.
Government Accountability Office.
(d) Status of Applicants.--It is the duty of the states to
verify the residency, employment, legal, and income status of
applicants for Unemployment Insurance and no federal funds
may be expended for purposes of determining an individual's
eligibility under this Act. Effective Date.--The prohibition
under subsection (a) shall apply to weeks of unemployment
beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

amendment no. 273

(Purpose: To save at least $5 billion by consolidating some duplicative
and overlapping government programs)

At the end of title V, add the following:

SEC.__. CONSOLIDATING UNNECESSARY DUPLICATIVE AND OVERLAPPING
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later than
150 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
coordinate with the heads of the relevant department and
agencies to--
(1) use available administrative authority to eliminate,
consolidate, or streamline Government programs and agencies
with duplicative and overlapping missions identified in the
March 2011 Government Accountability Office report to
Congress entitled ``Opportunities to Reduce Potential
Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and
Enhance Revenue'' (GAO-11-318SP) and apply the savings
towards deficit reduction;
(2) identify and report to Congress any legislative changes
required to further eliminate, consolidate, or streamline
Government programs and agencies with duplicative and
overlapping missions identified in the March 2011 Government
Accountability Office report to Congress entitled
``Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue'' (GAO-11-
318SP);
(3) determine the total cost savings that shall result to
each agency, office, and department from the actions
described in subsection (1); and
(4) rescind from the appropriate accounts the amount
greater of--
(A) $5,000,000,000; or
(B) the total amount of cost savings estimated by paragraph
(3).

[[Page S2157]]

amendment no. 286

(Purpose: To provide for the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget to submit recommended rescissions in accordance with the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 for Government
programs and agencies with duplicative and overlapping missions)

At the end of title V, add the following:

SEC. ___. CONSOLIDATING UNNECESSARY DUPLICATIVE AND
OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later than
150 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall--
(1) compile a list of Government programs and agencies
selected from the Government programs and agencies with
duplicative and overlapping missions identified in the March
2011 Government Accountability Office report to Congress
entitled ``Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in
Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue''
(GAO-11-318SP); and
(2) in accordance with the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974, submit to Congress
recommended amounts of rescissions of budget authority for
Government programs and agencies on that list.

Amendment No. 207, as Modified

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Sanders' amendment No. 207 now be modified with the changes at the
desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) Social Security is the most successful and reliable
social program in our Nation's history.
(2) For 75 years, through good times and bad, Social
Security has reliably kept millions of senior citizens,
individuals with disabilities, and children out of poverty.
(3) Before President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social
Security Act into law on August 14, 1935, approximately half
of the senior citizens in the United States lived in poverty;
less than 10 percent of seniors live in poverty today.
(4) Social Security has succeeded in protecting working
Americans and their families from devastating drops in
household income due to lost wages resulting from retirement,
disability, or the death of a spouse or parent.
(5) More than 53,000,000 Americans receive Social Security
benefits, including 36,500,000 retirees and their spouses,
9,200,000 veterans, 8,200,000 disabled individuals and their
spouses, 4,500,000 surviving spouses of deceased workers, and
4,300,000 dependent children.
(6) According to the Social Security Administration, the
Social Security Trust Funds currently maintain a
$2,600,000,000,000 surplus that is project to grow to
$4,200,000,000,000 by 2023.
(7) According to the Social Security Administration, even
if no changes are made to the Social Security program, full
benefits will be available to every recipient until 2037,
with enough funding remaining after that date to pay about 78
percent of promised benefits.
(8) According to the Social Security Administration,
``money flowing into the [Social Security] trust funds is
invested in U.S. Government securities . . . the investments
held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and
credit of the U.S. Government. The Government has always
repaid Social Security, with interest.''.
(9) Social Security provides the majority of income for
two-thirds of the elderly population in the United States,
with approximately one-third of elderly individuals receiving
nearly all of their income from Social Security.
(10) Overall, Social Security benefits for retirees
currently average a modest $14,000 a year, with the average
for women receiving benefits being less than $12,000 per
year.
(11) Nearly 1 out of every 4 adult Social Security
beneficiaries has served in the United States military.
(12) Proposals to privatize the Social Security program
would jeopardize the security of millions of Americans by
subjecting them to the ups-and-downs of the volatile stock
market as the source of their retirement benefits.
(13) Social Security is a promise that this Nation cannot
afford to break.
(b) Protection of Social Security Benefits.--It is the
sense of the Senate that, as part of any legislation to
reduce the Federal deficit--
(1) Social Security benefits for current and future
beneficiaries should not be cut; and
(2) the Social Security program should not be privatized.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that any time
spent in a quorum call prior to the votes at 4 p.m. be equally divided.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

THE BUDGET

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, we are at a unique and enormously
important moment in American history. The decisions that will be made
by the Congress and the President in the coming days, weeks, and
months, will in many ways determine how we go forward as a nation and
will impact the lives of virtually every one of our 300-plus million
citizens.
The reality today, as I think most Americans know, is that within our
economy we have a middle class which is collapsing. In the last 10
years, median family income has declined by $2,500. Millions of
American workers are working longer hours for lower wages. If you look
at real unemployment rather than the official unemployment, we are
talking about 16 percent of our people unemployed or underemployed.
Numbers may be even higher for certain blue collar workers and for
young workers. The middle class is in very dire straits.
Poverty in America is increasing. Since 2000, nearly 12 million
Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty. As a
nation we have 50 million Americans today who have no health insurance
and that number has increased. In recent years we have the highest rate
of child poverty of any major country on Earth. We are
deindustrializing at a rapid rate. In the last 10 years we have lost
50,000 of our largest manufacturing plants as many of our largest
corporations have decided it is more profitable to do business in China
and other low-wage countries rather than invest in America.
That is one reality. Then there is another reality that we don't talk
about too much. It is while the middle class disappears and poverty
increases, people on the top are doing phenomenally well. Today, about
1 percent of top income earners earn about 23 percent of all income.
That is more than the bottom 50 percent--the top 1 percent earn more
income than the bottom 50 percent and the gap between the very rich and
everybody else is growing wider.
Not widely discussed but true, in America today the wealthiest 400
families own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans--400
families, 150 million Americans. That is an unbelievable gap in terms
of wealth, between a handful of families and the vast majority of the
American people. That gap is growing wider.
In 2007, the wealthiest 1 percent took in 23.5 percent of all the
income earned in the United States; the top 0.1 percent took in 11
percent of total income. The percentage of income going to the top 1
percent has nearly tripled since the 1970s, and between 1980 and 2005,
80 percent of all new income generated in this country went to the top
1 percent.
We are living in a society where the very wealthiest people are
becoming wealthier; the middle class is disappearing; poverty is
increasing. That takes us to the budget situation our Republican
friends are pushing.
At a time when the richest people are becoming richer, what the
Republicans say is the answer is let us give millionaires and
billionaires even more in tax breaks. At a time when the middle class
is in decline, poverty is increasing, what our Republicans are saying
is let us attack virtually every significant program that improves
lives for low-income or moderate-income people. The rich get richer,
they get more. The middle class gets poorer, they get less. Maybe that
sense of morality makes sense to some people. It does not make sense to
this Senator and I do not believe it makes sense to the vast majority
of the American people.
Our Republican friends outlined their immediate budget proposals for
2011, for the CR, in their bill H.R. 1. Let me briefly review it
because I want everybody in America to understand what these folks want
to see happen and it is

[[Page S2158]]

important that we discuss it. Fifty million Americans have no health
insurance today. The Republican solution is slash $1.3 billion for
community health care centers that provide primary health care to 11
million patients.
What happens when you are sick, you have no insurance, you don't have
any money, you can't go to a doctor--what happens? Perhaps you die,
perhaps you suffer, perhaps you are lucky enough to get into a
hospital. We spend huge sums of money treating you when you could have
been treated a lot more cost effectively through a community health
center.
Today, in my office and I suspect in your office, people will tell
you that it takes too long for them to get their claims from the Social
Security Administration, the disability claims--the waiting line is too
long. The Republican solution is slash $1.7 billion from the Social
Security Administration, making seniors and the disabled wait even
longer. Everybody in America knows how hard it is for a middle-class
family to send their kids to college. The most significant Federal
programs, such as the Pell grant program, make it easier for low and
moderate-income families to afford college. The Republican solution is
slash $5.7 billion from Pell grants which means that over 9 million
American students will lose some or all of their Pell grants. Many of
them will not be able to go to college.
Everybody, every working family in America, knows how hard it is
today to find quality, affordable childcare. In most American middle-
class families the husband works, the wife works--they want to know
their kids are in a safe, good-quality childcare center. For decades
now, Head Start has done an excellent job in providing quality early
childhood education for low-income kids. In the midst of that childcare
crisis, the Republican solution is slash Head Start by 20 percent,
throw 218,000 children off of Head Start, lay off 55,000 Head Start
instructors.
On and on it goes. In my State it gets cold in the winter, 20 below
zero. Many seniors living on Social Security cannot afford the
escalating costs of home heating oil. The Republican solution: Slash
$400 million in funding for LIHEAP, making it harder for seniors and
other low-income people to stay warm in the wintertime.
What we should be very clear about as we discuss the budget is the
Republican proposals for the continuing resolution for the remainder of
fiscal year 2011 are only the first step in their long-term plan for
America. Yesterday what we saw is the real vision of the Republican
Party, for where they want to take this country into the future. While
I applaud them for being straightforward about that vision, I think the
more the American people take a hard look at where they want this
country to go, the more outraged will be millions and millions of
citizens as they understand the Republican proposal for the future.
Right now, if you are a senior citizen and you get sick and you need
to go to the hospital, you have a health insurance program called
Medicare, which has been lifesaving for millions of seniors. The
Republican budget as outlined by Congressman Ryan yesterday essentially
ends Medicare as we know it and converts it into a voucher-type program
that will leave seniors paying out of pocket for many lifesaving health
care costs.
In other words, if you end up, at the age of 75, with cancer or
another illness, what the Republican proposal does is give a voucher to
a private insurance company--$6,000, $8,000, we are not exactly sure--
and after that, good luck, you are on your own. You have an income of
$15,000, you have cancer, how are you going to pay for that? The
Republicans say there will be a voucher, ending Medicare as we know it
right now.
The Republican proposal would force seniors to pay $3,500 more for
prescription drugs. The proposal would reopen the prescription drug
doughnut hole, requiring that seniors pay full price for prescription
drugs. At a time when so many of our people have no health insurance,
the Republican budget contains $1.4 trillion in Medicaid cuts over 10
years by turning it into a block grant program. We are now reading in
various States that have budget problems that their solution to the
budget problems is simply to throw people off of Medicaid, including
children. What happens if you have no health insurance and you get
sick?
We are beginning to talk about death panels. That is what we are
talking about. If you are sick, you have no health insurance, what do
you do? My guess--we have options--you die, you get sicker, you suffer
in ways that you did not have to suffer.
The Republican proposal, as outlined by Congressman Ryan yesterday,
also includes over $1.6 trillion in cuts over the next decade for
education, Pell grants, infrastructure, affordable housing, food
stamps, food safety, and other vital programs for the middle class, the
elderly, the sick, and the children.
What is also interesting--it is literally beyond belief to me--is
while Republicans are slashing programs for low- and middle-income
people, what they are also doing--I think people will think I am not
serious, but I am--at the same time as the rich are getting richer and
they are slashing programs for low- and moderate-income people, the
Republican budget plan would significantly lower taxes for millionaires
and billionaires.
So we cut Head Start, we cut Pell grants, we cut community health
centers, but at the same time we give huge tax breaks for millionaires
and billionaires. Furthermore, the Republican proposal would also lower
taxes for the largest corporations in this country. My point is, we all
do understand that this country has a serious deficit problem and a $14
trillion national debt. I think every Member of the Senate is concerned
about the issue and wants to address it.
The question is, Do we move toward a balanced budget on the backs of
the weakest, most vulnerable people in our country, on the backs of the
poor, the children, the elderly, the disabled? That is one way we can
do it or do we ask for shared sacrifice? Do we say to the wealthiest
people in the country, do we say to the largest corporations in this
country: You are part of America, too, and you have to help us get out
of this deficit crisis.
Last week, I issued a list of 10 major corporations--10 major
corporations that paid nothing in taxes in recent years, and, in some
cases, actually got a rebate from the Federal Government after making
huge profits. To my mind, instead of cutting back on Head Start and
Pell grants and community health centers--which will have a devastating
impact on low- and moderate-income Americans--maybe we might want to
ask General Electric, which made $26 billion in profits over the last 5
years and received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS, maybe we might
want to ask them to pay something in taxes.
I think it is a bit absurd that the average middle-class person pays
more in Federal income taxes than does General Electric. Maybe we want
to change that. Maybe we want to ask Chevron, which made $10 billion in
profits in 2009, which got a $19 million dollar refund from the IRS,
maybe to pay something in taxes so we can move toward deficit reduction
in a way that is fair.
Here is the bottom line: corporate profits are at an alltime high.
The richest people in this country are doing phenomenally well. The
middle class is in decline. Poverty is increasing. Republican answer:
More tax breaks for the very rich, lower corporate taxes, but stick it
to working families in a horrendous way, which will cause massive pain.
We are at a fork in the road in terms of public policy. Do we develop
public policy which protects all our people, which expands the middle
class, or are we at a moment in history which moves this country
aggressively toward oligarchy, in which we have a small number of
people at the top with incredible wealth and incredible power, while
the middle class continues to disappear.
Now is the time, in my view, for working families all over this
country to stand and say: Enough is enough. We need shared sacrifice as
we go forward. We do not need to see the middle class in this country
further disappear.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.

amendment no. 236

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to speak to amendment No.
236 to exempt farmers, ranchers, and small businesses from EPA
regulation of greenhouse gases.

[[Page S2159]]

The science is clear: greenhouse gas pollution is causing climate
change. Climate change is here, it is real, it is human caused, and it
will hurt our economy and the health of our kids and grandkids.
In Montana we are already seeing the effects. According to Dr. Steve
Running at the University of Montana, the duration of the wildlife
season in the western United States has increased by 78 days since the
1970s. This trend is driven by earlier snowpack melt and less summer
precipitation due to climate change. And this trend costs jobs in
Montana's tourism and timber industry.
Climate change also endangers our national security. According to a
report recently authored by retired Navy ADM Frank Bowman, ``Even the
most moderate predicted trends in climate change will present new
national security challenges.'' That is why the Pentagon included
climate change among the security threats identified in its Quadrennial
Defense Review.
I believe that we all have a moral responsibility to leave this world
to our kids and grandkids in better shape than we found it. That means
we ought to deal with climate change by reducing our emissions of
greenhouse gas pollution. But we must do so in a manner that does not
hurt the economic recovery.
Small businesses and agriculture are the drivers of our economic
recovery and job creation. Of the 200,000 jobs added in March, over
half were created by businesses with 50 or fewer employees. And over 90
percent of the 200,000 jobs created last month were created by
businesses with 500 or fewer employees. My amendment ensures that these
businesses can continue to add jobs.
My amendment is very simple. It exempts farmers, ranchers, and small
businesses from EPA's greenhouse gas pollution regulations.
Under my amendment only about 15,000 of the more than 6 million
stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases in the country would be
regulated by EPA. These 15,000 sources are large plants run by big
corporations. And over 96 percent of these 15,000 sources already have
to get permits under the Clean Air Act for emissions of criteria
pollutants. Moreover, these 15,000 polluters account for 70 percent of
greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources in the country. So
under the Baucus amendment, small businesses would be protected, while
the biggest polluters that account for the vast majority of emissions
would have to comply with the law.
EPA is going forward with regulations to reduce greenhouse gas
pollution. We ought to ensure these regulations preserve our outdoor
heritage, protect our children's health, promote our national security,
and protect small businesses, farmers, and ranchers. My amendment does
just that, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PRYOR. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PRYOR. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business
for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Fiscal challenges

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, we find ourselves in dangerous territory.
While Republicans and Democrats continue to point fingers and hold
fiery press conferences, a government shutdown is quickly approaching.
The blame game is like quicksand: it has the ability to drag down not
only the Senate and the House but the entire economy and our country.
No matter how one looks at it, a shutdown would be reckless and
irresponsible.
We can get this short-term budget problem resolved if all parties
would turn off the rhetoric and stop the campaigning. A few extreme
partisans stand in the way of progress, blocking a good-faith effort of
many others seeking common ground. I ask them to take to heart what it
says in the book of Isaiah: Come now, let us reason together.
We need to overcome this budget impasse and live up to the oath we
took and to the people we represent. Larger challenges await our
attention. It is not in our best interest to see the government shut
down. I don't think it is in the best interest of the Nation to
continue on this deficit-spending cycle we have been on. We owe it to
the American people and the world that is watching us to show American
leadership on both our short-term and long-term fiscal challenges.
I would like to see us turn our effort to the blueprint provided by
the debt commission. I commend the bipartisan group of Senators who
have begun to turn part of this plan into legislation.
We must find ways to reduce spending, address entitlement programs,
and reform the Tax Code. Now, with all the momentum and opportunity
built up over the last few months, is the time to lead. We must make
the serious decisions to get our Nation out of the red so we can be
competitive in the future. Again, I say let's turn off the rhetoric and
be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
In Washington, the blame game has become par for the course. It has
become politics as usual. In fact, it is one thing that people in my
State are sick and tired of and one of the reasons why they have lost
confidence in the Congress and in our government. Besides that, how in
the world does holding press conferences and pointing fingers at others
help resolve anything? Besides that, it is not true because the truth
is that we are in this fiscal situation we are in today because of
decisions all of us have made over the last decades. In fact, I saw
yesterday in the paper where Speaker Boehner was talking to some of his
caucus about getting ready for the shutdown, and there were ovations
over there. There are no ovations over here for a government shutdown.
We do not want to see it. I am not only talking about Democrats. I
don't know of any Republicans in the Senate who want to see a shutdown.
In fact, from my standpoint, one of the tests I use when I look at
politicians is, the louder they are and the more often they have press
conferences to blame other people, that probably means the more they
are to blame for the problems we have today.
I certainly hope that as the elections roll around next year, the
American people will remember many of the politicians' attempts in
Washington to avoid responsibility for this terrible fiscal crisis.
One thing we need to keep in mind is that what we are talking about
this week in terms of shutting down the government--and I hope that
doesn't happen--is really only important for the next 6 months. We are
only talking about for the rest of this fiscal year. The real battle,
the more meaningful discussion and debate and fight, even, that we need
to have is over long-term fiscal policies. The next 6 months--I don't
want to say that is not important, because it is--is a time for us to
demonstrate to the American people, to the markets, and to the world
that we can come up with political solutions to the very challenging
problems we face.
I am also concerned in this fragile economy that if we do shut down
the government, that might be something that would shake this economy
and actually, possibly, stop it in its tracks. I hope it will not
reverse it, but I do have a concern about an abrupt cutoff of
government spending, what that might do to the economy.
Our fiscal challenges that the debt commission focused on and many of
us have focused on are beyond politics. They are bigger than politics.
They are more important than the next election. In fact, they are more
important than our own personal political fortunes. This fiscal
situation we are in is not about the next election; it is about the
next generation.
If we look back at the time that we call the Battle of Britain, one
of the things Winston Churchill said that always stuck with me is,
``Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to
so few.'' He was talking about those brave men who flew the airplanes
over Great Britain to protect the skies and the British people and to
win the war, to stop Nazi Germany from invading and defeating the
British Empire.
The ``so few'' we have today are Tom Coburn, Dick Durbin, Mark
Warner, Saxby Chambliss, Mike Crapo, and Kent Conrad. Those few have
been

[[Page S2160]]

meeting for weeks, even months, to try to come up with a comprehensive
budget agreement based on the blueprint of the debt commission. These
six Senators are not politicians; they are statesmen. They are trying
to do what is right for the country. They are trying to do what is in
the country's best interest, not their own. I guarantee my colleagues,
each one of the six will face tremendous criticism from their own
parties and from other quarters about what they are trying to
accomplish. To me, that is courage, leadership; that is what being a
Senator is all about.
I know right now there are six of them meeting. I know that at some
point, once they come out and once they are ready to announce what they
want to do, many others will join that effort. But we need to cheer
them on and encourage them to finish the hard task they have begun.
I am reminded, when I think about those six sitting in the Capitol
and in various rooms around the Capitol, of that phrase in the
Declaration of Independence right before our Founding Fathers signed
that great document where they say: ``We mutually pledge to each other
our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.'' This is our time to
put it all on the line. We need to put our political lives on the line,
our political fortunes on the line, and our honor. We need to honor the
commitment we have made to this country when all 100 of us stood up--in
fact, when all 535 of us stood up--and took the oath of office that we
were going to do what was right for the country.
I mentioned the Book of Isaiah a few moments ago. I am reminded that
many times in the Old Testament, whether in the prophets or Proverbs,
we are always encouraged to do right, to do justice, to show mercy. We
want to really be upright and true. That is what they call us to do and
what they want us to do.
I am also reminded that in the New Testament, when Jesus is talking
to the political and religious leadership of his day, he says: Are you
so blind?
Are we so blind that we cannot see the forest for the trees, that we
can't understand how important it is for this country to get our debt
and deficit where it needs to be? Are we so blind that we are not able
to see that we need to put everything on the table, that this is a time
for great leadership and shared sacrifice, and we all have to give up
something to get this done?
It is our time to lead. This may be the greatest challenge of our
generation, of any of us who are serving either in the House or Senate
right now. This may be our one moment in history for greatness. I
sincerely hope we rise to the challenge because I believe the future of
the Republic depends on it.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10
minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Pesticide Regulation

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about another
example of an EPA that, I believe, is out of step with American
agriculture.
EPA continues to pursue regulations that would require farmers to
file for an additional permit if they want to apply pesticides, while
just last month EPA Administrator Jackson mentioned ``the critical work
that farmers are doing to protect our soil, air, and water resources.''
Yet the EPA continues, I believe, to handcuff our farmers and our
ranchers with very stringent new regulations but still expects them to
do all they can to feed a hungry world.
Time and time again, farmers have consistently proven to be excellent
stewards of the environment. They make their living from the land, and
they are very mindful of maintaining and protecting and improving it. I
speak from experience. I grew up on a farm.
Unfortunately, we have watched organizations use the courts to twist
laws against American agricultural production. A Democratic Congressman
from California recently noted that EPA ``often pursues a course of
agency activism.'' He points out that EPA is using the settlement of
lawsuits to give them jurisdiction over issues that may not be allowed
under existing law.
More and more we are seeing important policy decisions that impact
agriculture arise not from the legislative process, where it should
arise from, but from the litigation process where a lawsuit settlement
results in policy decisions being made.
In January 2009 a court overturned the normal practice of allowing
farmers to apply pesticides as long as they complied with labeling
requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, which is known as FIFRA.
The Sixth Circuit Court ruled that EPA doubly regulate pesticide
applications under FIFRA and the Clean Water Act. Well, at least 25
Senate and House Members, including myself, supported an amicus brief
urging review of the court's very ill-advised decision. But, instead,
the Obama administration chose to wave the white flag, ignoring the
science and caving to activists. They urged the Supreme Court not to
hear the case and to let the ruling stand.
For years EPA managed pesticide permitting within established
environmental and safety requirements. Yet the administration refused
to defend what was a very established, longstanding approach. The EPA
asked for a 2-year delay to write the permit and set up a compliance
regime. They moved forward with onerous permitting requirements for our
producers that will provide no environmental gain. This would subject
the pesticide applicators to new and duplicative requirements--a
distinct shift in how the EPA regulates pesticides. It created a whole
new world. This additional permitting is now inefficient, it is
unnecessary, and I would argue it is inappropriate for agriculture.
EPA's permitting requirements also present a challenge to local
public health officials who work to control mosquitoes and prevent the
spread of disease. The American Mosquito Control Association estimates
that complying with the additional regulation could cost each pesticide
user at least $200,000 and potentially $600,000 in California
alone. The dual permit requirement may reduce the availability of
pesticides proven to control mosquito populations. Thus, the ability of
public health officials to control mosquitoes and the spread of disease
will be hindered.

We all know bugs and weeds won't wait on another additional permit
from EPA, and I surely don't think farmers and public officials should
have to go through this additional process. Last week, the House of
Representatives passed the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act--H.R. 872.
It passed with overwhelming support. I am very pleased to report it was
a bipartisan vote of 292 to 130. Democratic Congressman Collin
Peterson, with whom I worked when I was Secretary of Agriculture and
whom I have a lot of respect for, said this:

It was never the intent of Congress to burden producers
with additional permit requirements that would have little to
no environmental benefit.

I could not agree more with the former chair of the House Agriculture
Committee. But he is not alone. Fifty-seven of his Democratic
colleagues supported this bipartisan legislation to set the record
straight and send a clear message to the EPA.
Here in the Senate, I am a cosponsor of a similar bill Senator
Roberts introduced this week. I am pleased to stand here today and
support his bill. Both of these bills are designed to eliminate this
burdensome, costly, redundant permit requirement for pesticide
applications. I commend his efforts here. He is trying to do something
to solve this problem while protecting farmers and ranchers from
additional regulation, but also very mindful of our environment.
I urge the majority leader to act quickly on the legislation to
address the EPA's redundant and costly double-permitting requirements.
We can address this in the Senate. If we don't find a solution, our
producers will continue being told how to operate in a very difficult
environment. Our producers already deal with the uncertainty of Mother
Nature. We should

[[Page S2161]]

not infuse even more uncertainty into their lives in the form of these
regulations that duplicate with no discernible benefit.
President Obama recently promised to eliminate programs that
duplicate each other. In fact, he issued an Executive order calling for
a governmentwide review to identify programs that either duplicated or,
as he said at the time, were just plain dumb. I submit to my colleagues
that this pesticide double regulation is unnecessary and as dumb as it
gets.
We should support our farmers and ranchers as they produce safe,
affordable food. They are working to protect the land. American
agriculture can continue to feed the world, and our farmers will
continue to care for the land, unless we set up unnecessary roadblocks.
This redundant pesticide permitting requirement is another example of
overreach. I hope the Senate will follow the example of the House which
voted resoundingly in a very bipartisan way to correct this situation.
We cannot afford to delay, with the compliance date right around the
corner. It is a deadline we simply cannot ignore.
Mr. President, thank you. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Amendment No. 183

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my
strong opposition to any attempt to prevent the Environmental
Protection Agency from doing its job and protecting our families and
our environment. The amendments being considered here in the Senate
would hurt our environment and harm our national security by increasing
our dependence on foreign oil. They would devastate our public health
efforts, and take us in the wrong direction as we fight to compete and
win and create jobs in the 21st century clean energy economy.
The positions of leading scientists and doctors and public health
experts are clear. Global climate change is real, it is harmful, and it
has to be addressed. Rolling back EPA's standards would be devastating
to the health of our families, and especially our children. These are
settled issues in the scientific world. We shouldn't be spending time
debating them over and over on the Senate floor.
By the way, with the price of oil spiking and families paying more
and more at the pump, we ought to be focused on ways to move our
country away from our dependence on foreign oil. These amendments would
do exactly the opposite. They will disrupt efficiency standards that
sacrifice billions of gallons of fuel savings and increasing our
foreign imports. They will derail the cooperative efforts of automakers
and autoworkers and EPA and States to develop these unified, national
standards that provide certainty for businesses to invest in new
technologies. Frankly, they would be harmful to our national security.
Every dollar we spend overseas to pay for oil is more money in the
pockets of countries that are too often far from friendly to our
national security interests, and that doesn't make any sense to me.
But this debate isn't just about health and the environment, and it
is not just about our national security dependence on foreign oil. It
is also about jobs and the economy, which is exactly what we ought to
be focused on right now.
We are currently working on legislation on the floor to help small
business owners to innovate and grow, to give them the resources they
need so they can expand and add jobs and compete in a global economy.
These amendments being considered to that bill will move our country in
the opposite direction.
First of all, they are going to cause massive uncertainty and
upheaval for clean energy companies such as the McKinstry Company in my
home State of Washington that is working right now to create jobs and
grow and create a clean energy economy. If the rules of the game keep
changing, businesses are never going to have the confidence they need
to invest and add workers.
Second of all, we all know America needs to move quickly into the
21st century clean energy economy. Other countries such as China and
India are pouring resources into investments that are creating jobs and
building infrastructure. We need to make sure we position ourselves to
compete and win in this critical sector.
That is why instead of harmful legislation and amendments that would
take us in the wrong direction--instead of doing that--we should be
talking about policies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil,
support our national security objectives, and unshackle our economy, so
we can tap the creative energy of our Nation's workers and support good
family wage jobs, and make sure our workers continue leading the way in
this 21st century economy. That is the direction our country needs to
be moving--toward a healthy and clean environment and toward the clean
energy jobs of the future. We can't bury our heads in the sand and
expect our energy and our environmental problems to somehow disappear.
The longer we put off dealing with these issues, the more it is going
to cost us in the future, and that is exactly what the amendments on
the floor today will do. They are bad for the environment, they are bad
for the economy, and they are dangerous to our family's health.
The science on these issues is very clear and it is something the
people in my home State of Washington take very seriously. Because when
families across America go outside for some fresh air or turn on their
tap and hope to have a clean glass of water, they expect these
resources to be just that: clean.
Once again, I strongly oppose any attempt to take away the EPA's
ability to do their job, and I hope we can work together to find real
solutions to the critical problems that face our country.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today the President is heading to
Philadelphia to talk about energy. Well, the President talks a good
game but, unlike energy, talk is cheap.
The President plans to host a townhall meeting about his new energy
policy. I think it is time the rhetoric face the reality of what the
country is seeing, experiencing, and dealing with. If the President
truly wants to get a handle on energy costs, he needs to start by
immediately stopping his Environmental Protection Agency from
attempting to enact backdoor cap-and-trade regulation.
That is exactly what the EPA is doing. The only effect that can have
is to increase energy costs on American families. The President himself
admitted as much in 2008. At that time, in an interview with a San
Francisco newspaper, he said: ``Under my plan of a cap-and-trade
system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.''
Is the President serious about decreasing U.S. dependency on foreign
oil? If so, he should then rescind his veto threat against today's
congressional legislation regarding the policies of the EPA.
That is why I am here in support of the McConnell amendment. The
McConnell amendment keeps energy prices low. It prevents the EPA from
blocking the development of domestic energy. It restores the Clean Air
Act to its original congressional intent. I support the McConnell
commonsense amendment.
Most likely, today we will hear more of the same from the President
in his speech and townhall meeting in Philadelphia, and more of the
same is the last thing the American people need right now. American
families are facing increasing gas prices. Our national security is
being jeopardized by dependence on foreign sources of energy. Unrest in
the Middle East and North Africa is driving high prices even higher.
The Department of Energy has made an estimate that families all
across this country will spend $700 more on gasoline this year than
they did last year. Meanwhile, the President will most likely deliver
another speech with great goals but limited action.

[[Page S2162]]

With gasoline at over $3.50 a gallon, the President fails to
appreciate the effect his administration's policies have on families
with bills, with kids, and with mortgages to pay.
In 2008, President Obama, then a candidate for President, said that
the problem wasn't that gas prices were too high but that they had
risen too fast. In his words, he said he ``would have preferred a more
gradual adjustment.'' This may explain why the President spent his
first 2 years in the White House undermining and abandoning an all-of-
the-above approach to energy. It is no wonder that he is now trying to
cast blame on those who are offering a responsible alternative.
The President says he wants to cut our imports of foreign oil by a
third by 2025. Well, to me, he doesn't appear to have the right vision
or political will to get there. The United States has the most combined
energy resources on Earth, but when faced with new sources of U.S.
energy, the administration's automatic response has been to regulate,
delay, or to shut down.
The President's ``say one thing, do another'' policy is making the
pain at the pump even worse. His approach is long on making promises,
short on taking responsibility. He talks of his concern for the people
affected by the gulf oilspill. Yet his drilling shutdown in the Gulf of
Mexico killed their jobs and strangles energy production even today.
U.S. offshore oil production is expected to drop 15 percent this year
thanks to the policies of this administration.
The President's claim that blaming his administration for ``shutting
down oil production''--he says it doesn't track with reality. But I
will tell you that the administration's stalling on gulf oil and gas
drilling permits is so antibusiness that even former President Bill
Clinton called it ``ridiculous.'' Even as the President says he wants
to cut oil imports, he told an audience in Brazil a week or two ago
that he wants the United States to become ``one of Brazil's best
customers'' for oil. He said he would expedite new drilling permits. He
claims oil companies are ``sitting on supplies of American energy just
waiting to be tapped.'' But the biggest thing standing in the way is
redtape from his own Interior Department and EPA. While ``use it or
lose it'' makes for a nice sound bite, it ignores the reality that the
Obama administration's own policies are the most significant roadblock
we have to drilling and exploring for American energy.
The President also claims to support alternative fuels. Yet he didn't
once mention converting coal into fuel or tapping oil shale. Oil shale
production could produce an estimated 800 billion barrels of
recoverable oil. That is three times the amount of Saudi Arabia's oil
reserves.
The way we can address our economic and national security needs is by
producing more American energy. We can't afford to pick and choose our
energy at a time of uncertainty. We do need it all. This means allowing
more U.S. exploration and lifting the burdensome regulations that make
it harder for Americans to produce more energy.
Renewable energy is part of it, it is important, but there is no way
green energy and green jobs can replace the red, white, and blue energy
and jobs that have continued to power our country for over a century.
Until the administration acknowledges this, the administration's
policies will continue to make the pain at the pump even worse. That is
why I urge the Members of this body to adopt the McConnell amendment.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the
McConnell amendment. I listened to my distinguished colleague from
Wyoming, and I enjoy working with him, but this is one subject on which
we fundamentally disagree.
This isn't about energy production; this is about clean air. This
amendment is a blatant attack on the Clean Air Act, and, from my
perspective in New Jersey, any attack on the Clean Air Act is an attack
on New Jersey.
Primarily because of dirty, old, out-of-State coal plants, every
county in New Jersey is noncompliant with the Clean Air Act--not by
what we do but what other States do. One of those coal powerplants is
the aging Portland Generating Station, located just across the Delaware
River. This plant emitted 30,000 tons of sulfur dioxide in 2009. That
is almost three times the amount of all seven of New Jersey's coal
plants combined. So we have cleaned up our act. Others need to do it
for the collective air we breathe as Americans. Its pollutants waft
across the Delaware River into numerous New Jersey counties, causing
and exacerbating a whole host of respiratory illnesses, from asthma to
heart disease. If not for the Clean Air Act, my State or any other
State similarly situated would not have been able to petition the
Federal Government to stop the pollution this Pennsylvania plant spews
into New Jersey's air.
Just last week, New Jerseyans received some good news. Under the
authority of the Clean Air Act, the Federal Government proposed a rule
that would grant my State's petition. If finalized in coming months,
the rule would lead to an over 80 percent reduction in the Portland
coal plant's sickening sulfur dioxide emissions. If not for the Clean
Air Act, my State would not have this victory within its grasp. It
wouldn't have the opportunity to protect its citizens. We simply cannot
gut the one piece of Federal legislation that protects the air we
breathe.
Imagine having to tell your children they cannot go outside to play
because the wind is not blowing quite the right way, because the air
they will breathe will damage their lungs. The McCloskeys from Delran,
NJ, don't have to imagine that scenario; they know it. Let me tell you
about Erin McCloskey. On poor air quality days in the summer, their
daughter Erin could not even make it to the family car, much less go
outside and play, without starting to wheeze. Family activity began to
revolve around trips to the doctor, treatments, and stays at the
hospital. It was a severe economic hardship on the family not just
because of costs but also because all of these trips made it difficult
for Erin's mother Natalie to hold down a job.
The McCloskeys are not alone. Four-year-old Christian Aquino, from
Camden, NJ, suffers from severe asthma. He takes six different
medications a day to control asthma attacks, but still his mother, Iris
Valerio, lives with the constant fear that an attack is around the
corner. On bad air days, they avoid going outside, and when on the
highway in traffic, the windows are kept closed.
Fourteen-year-old Samaad Bethea, of Elizabeth, NJ, also suffers from
severe asthma. He has been on daily steroid medication to control his
asthma for 3 years. If he skips a day, his lungs start to falter and he
can't catch his breath. His mother Sharon realized that pollution in
their old neighborhood was triggering attacks and had an opportunity to
move the family. Since that move, Samaad has been doing much better,
but he still requires daily steroid medication.
These children are part of a sobering national reality, a New Jersey
reality. Their days revolve around inhalers, steroids, and constant
anxiety over when air pollution will trigger another severe asthma
attack.
According to the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
each year over 10,000 New Jerseyans are hospitalized due to asthma
attacks triggered by air quality problems. Thousands of sick days are
taken each day in New Jersey by either asthmatics or parents of
asthmatics, with huge consequences for the New Jersey economy. Asthma
attacks triggered by air pollution cause scores of premature deaths in
my State each year.
Erin McCloskey, Christian Aquino, and Samaad Bethea bring these
statistics to life. While the causes of their asthma are many, air
pollution is a common trigger. The Clean Air Act directly impacts their
health, their quality of life, and even the ability of their parents to
get or keep a job. For them and for thousands of children like them,
weakening the Clean Air Act will mean more days sequestered in their
homes and more emergency room visits.
The McConnell amendment--the one I call the dirty air amendment--is
the first of many amendments we can expect to see that are aimed at
preventing the Federal Government from regulating polluters under the
Clean Air Act.

[[Page S2163]]

Caring about children's health means not allowing polluters to place
profits ahead of people, ahead of the well-being of our children--and I
mean all children, no matter their race, ethnicity, or class. Low-
income and minority Americans continue to be disproportionately exposed
to pollution that is harmful to their health. A recent analysis showed,
for example, that two-thirds of U.S. Latinos--about 25.6 million
Americans--live in areas that do not meet the air quality standards
under the Clean Air Act. Perhaps this begins to explain why Hispanic
Americans are three times more likely than Whites to die from asthma
attacks, why Latino children are 60 percent more likely than Whites to
have asthma.

Low-income and minority Americans will also be disproportionately
affected by the impacts of climate change. Let's be clear. The
scientific consensus is overwhelming. Climate change will increasingly
create more frequent and more extreme storms, more violent and
sustained heat waves, meaning more costly and dangerous floods and
droughts. Hotter summer days will mean more ozone formation and more
bad air quality days. In this way, climate change directly endangers
all of us, our children, and our children's children. But changes in
weather patterns and increasingly extreme weather events also result in
indirect effects. The security of our food supply will be at risk due
to more frequent heat stress. The security of water supplies will be at
risk due to droughts.
For all of these reasons, scientists agree that climate pollution
endangers public health and welfare. That is well understood, and we
can curtail these risks by regulating climate pollution. But, no, big
polluters want to kick the can down the road. They want to pretend they
aren't polluting. Big polluters want to pretend these risks aren't
real. They want the McConnell amendment to pass so they can continue
business as usual.
This is not about energy because if the New Jersey coal-fired plants
ultimately reduced their emissions by 80 percent, it is a question of
an investment. They are still producing energy. There are 9.3 million
people in the State. They are producing energy, but the reality is that
they are doing it in a cleaner way. That is what this issue is about.
We must not allow polluters to set our priorities. How many children
in New Jersey or in other parts of the country face the reality of
dirty air? How many children are we willing to have deathly ill in
order to allow polluters to continue to spew toxins into the air we
collectively breathe? Doing so risks not only our health and that of
future generations, it risks the promise of a green economy built on
clean energy jobs, energy-efficiency innovations, and reduced waste and
pollution.
I urge my colleagues to stop the effort to gut the Clean Air Act and
to defeat this amendment. Let's make sure we bequeath to future
generations the ability to have air that, ultimately, we can
collectively breathe, that doesn't sicken our families and undermine
our collective health.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it
is so ordered.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for
the McConnell amendment. This amendment prevents EPA from continuing to
reach beyond Congress's clear intent under the Clean Air Act.
Congress did not authorize greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean
Air Act. This amendment is an appropriate response to clarify the law
that is being misinterpreted. The EPA should not be making policy
decisions beyond the authority clearly granted to the Agency by
Congress.
Let us remember, last year, Congress rejected the cap-and-trade
agenda on a bipartisan basis. The EPA's agenda is a job-destroying
agenda. It will raise the price of energy, food, and gasoline. The cost
of this policy will be transferred to the people of Arkansas and all
Americans every time they shop at the store.
The EPA's agenda will not lead to a cleaner environment. American
manufacturing will be hurt, and our manufacturing capacity will be
replaced by foreign competitors with weak environmental standards. This
amendment will allow individual States to keep existing policies in
place by permitting them to regulate emissions as they see fit.
This amendment also enables the EPA to focus on the important
purposes of the Clean Air Act, which I strongly support. The Clean Air
Act must be used to protect the public from harmful pollution. The
Clean Air Act was not intended to address climate change concerns.
Finally, let me address a myth we keep hearing. Some have stated the
Supreme Court is forcing the EPA to take this heavy-handed, backdoor,
cap-and-tax approach. This is wrong. The Supreme Court stated that the
EPA can decide whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and
welfare. Many Senators believe the Supreme Court's interpretation of
the law is wrong. Yet EPA made a political decision based on the
Court's ruling to expand their jurisdiction far beyond what Congress
intended. This amendment will correct that action.
Others have stated this amendment would permanently eliminate the
EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases. This is also wrong. No
policy is permanent unless it is part of our Constitution, and even the
Constitution can be amended. We can enact this amendment and still have
a debate in this body about needed policy changes in the future.
Finally, let me quickly address some of the alternatives to this
amendment that are being suggested. Some of my colleagues have
suggested delaying the EPA's actions by 2 years. Others have suggested
that one sector of the economy or another should be exempted from EPA's
unnecessary and burdensome rules.
I would suggest these proposals do not provide the cover some
Senators want. Bad policy is bad policy whether carried out this year
or 2 years from now. Our job creators need certainty. Restraining the
EPA for 2 years will not provide the certainty they need to invest and
create more jobs. Exempting one sector of the economy is also not
enough. There is no excuse for protecting just one sector while
watching Americans in other sectors lose their jobs to foreign
competitors.
At the moment, our priority must be job creation, protecting our
industrial and manufacturing sectors, and keeping gas and food prices
low. We must make sure the EPA avoids politically driven initiatives
and becomes focused on its core mission: protecting air and water
quality and preventing exposure to toxic contamination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. FRANKEN. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Franken pertaining to the submission of S. Res.
133 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and
Senate Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few moments on
behalf of the McConnell-Inhofe amendment. I thank them for their
leadership in dealing with governmental regulation of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases, amendment No. 183. I want to share a few
thoughts about a matter that is important to me. I served several years
as ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. I am interested in
our legal system and how it works. I have to say that the Supreme Court
ruling that resulted in the situation we are in today is a classic
example of how unelected officials--not just judges--can make laws and
regulations in a manner that is dramatically contrary to the ideals of
the American Founders, and in a manner that is contrary to the ideals
on which this country was founded, ideals that require accountability,
that require responsibility and that allow the American people to hold
their officials responsible and accountable for what they do.
For this reason alone I believe the McConnell-Inhofe amendment should
be agreed to, because we are talking about a situation in which
unelected

[[Page S2164]]

governmental employees are systematically going about regulating
emission of CO2 in the country under a very attenuated
theory. They were never given the explicit authority to do so.
They will, under the power they have asserted, have the ability to
regulate your automobile, the heating unit in your home, hospitals,
businesses, cities, and anything else that utilizes carbon fuels to
produce energy. This is what it is all about.
How did it happen? What occurred here? Well over forty years ago,
Congress passed the first Clean Air Act, and since then, Congress has
amended the Act several times. Congress was focused on cleaning up the
air and dealing with smog, particulates, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur
dioxide--all of these pollutants were being emitted into our atmosphere
and were affecting the health and well-being of Americans, particularly
in cities, and Congress took action to contain that, and it has helped
produce a much cleaner environment. Pollution was far worse 40 years
ago than it is today. Our atmosphere has far fewer dangerous pollutants
in it and, in that regard, the Clean Air Act has been very successful.
But since this Earth was created we have had a marvelous balance.
Human beings and animals breathe in air. They take in oxygen out of
that air and they breathe out carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not a
pollutant. We have never considered it to be a pollutant. Plants, as
you know from your basic high school classes, take in carbon dioxide
and emit oxygen as part of a life cycle process that is marvelous and
wonderful beyond our ability to express.
Over the course of centuries and millennia, plants in the world took
in carbon dioxide and, eventually, were buried in the earth. As a
result, the carbon dioxide in those plants was trapped underground and
developed into coal, oil, and other fuels. In recent years we have been
taking those fuels out of the ground and burning it and, as a result,
releasing the carbon dioxide.
When the Clean Air Act was passed, there was no discussion or thought
about any potential danger of a warming planet. Congress did not have
the slightest idea at that time that thousands of bureaucrats would be
able to one day take the Clean Air Act that they passed and control
every home, every business, every city, every car, and every hospital
in America.
What happened? The concern over global warming arose. Whatever people
believe about that, the concern certainly is out there. Many people
believe it is a serious threat. Others think it is not so serious. But
at any rate, a lawsuit was filed. That is what we have so much of in
this country. People file lawsuits, especially on environmental issues.
They said: The planet is warming, and one reason it is warming is
because there is a global warming gas, CO2, that is being
emitted more today, and this is a danger to us and we believe it is a
pollutant now. So, they would call CO2, which naturally
occurs in our atmosphere and is used by plants and vegetation, a
pollutant because the planet is warming. What do you say, Supreme
Court? The Court responds: We say it is a pollutant, and the EPA should
be allowed to regulate it. By a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court
seems to say, but not with much clarity, that EPA should look at
regulating CO2 because that is what they said the Clean Air
Act meant to allow.
First of all, I don't think the statute meant that. I agree with the
four judges who dissented. I believe Congress never had any intent
whatsoever to give EPA the ability to control the emission of
CO2 all over America. I have no doubt of that. It is not in
the statute in a way that would clearly enable the Supreme Court to say
that. I suspect it was a product of activism. Judges got excited about
the claim several years ago regarding the danger of CO2 and
global warming. Never mind that there seems to be actually less concern
today about global warming. In any event, those judges wanted to see
CO2 regulated and they interpreted the statute in a manner
that would allow for it. Now the Environmental Protection Agency is
setting about to do so. It is a major intervention by the U.S.
Government in every aspect of American life.
EPA regulation of carbon dioxide has the potential to drive up costs
for individual Americans as they heat their homes and drive their cars
and will place a real burden economically on the American economy. It
will put us in a bad situation economically.
So the McConnell-Inhofe amendment says: Wait a minute. Congress did
not approve that. We do not want to do that yet. We do not want EPA
regulating CO2 all over the country unless we direct them to
do so--unless we, the elected representatives, decide it ought to be
done. This important decision should not be made by five out of the
nine members of the Supreme Court with lifetime appointments, totally
unaccountable to the American people, or tens of thousands of
governmental employees--public servants, bureaucrats--in the
Environmental Protection Agency. They do not get to do it either.
It is our responsibility. If we are going to impose a massive
regulatory burden on every American in this Nation, this Congress ought
to decide when and how and under what circumstances it should be done.
We have people in this Congress and in this government who act like
Congress has no control over it. They think: The Supreme Court rules,
and EPA issues its regulations.
Well, why do you not do something about it? They say: Oh, that just
happens. We do not have any responsibility. It is not our
responsibility. Do not blame me. You do not like it. Well, it was not
my fault. I did not pass the Clean Air Act over 40 years ago. I was not
on the Supreme Court. I am not an EPA bureaucrat.
But we are the United States Congress, and we are accountable to the
American people. It is a question of constitutionalism. It is a
question of separation of powers. This a question of responsibility. If
we were to decide that the emission of CO2 is a significant
danger to our environment and it ought to be regulated, let's vote to
say so.
At this point in time, we are not able financially and there is not
enough scientific evidence or justification for going forward with the
regulation of CO2. And I am constrained to believe massive
regulation is not the appropriate thing to do today--but that is a
decision Congress ought to make.
We ought to be held accountable for the decisions we make. That is
the way our country was set up to conduct issues of importance. I have
to tell you, this is a big issue that is before the Senate. We should
have tremendous debate, weeks of debate, because federal regulation of
these kinds of emissions could result in hundreds of billions of
dollars in cost--or even trillions of dollars in cost, if we set about
to regulate all CO2 in America. It just is.
I do not see how it can be disputed. Unfortunately, we act like we
are washing our hands of it. The Supreme Court did not make a policy
decision that this was the right thing to do. That is not their role.
In fact, they will deny that is what they did. They would say: All we
did was take a statute passed long ago, before global warming was even
considered an issue to be confronted by the Congress, and decided that
the statute Congress passed then allows EPA to regulate CO2
now. And because of five justices, an unelected group of American
employees are setting about to regulate carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases. We do not need to do that.
The American people should not allow this to happen. They should
demand that their Congress be responsible for what it does when it
imposes such a monumental cost on the economy and the American people.
That is our responsibility. The McConnell-Inhofe Amendment before the
Senate today faces up to that squarely. It says we are not going to
allow this circuitous route of interpretation of statutes to result in
one of the most massive governmental intrusions in American life to
occur. It ought to be a matter of intense public debate and national
discussion before such a thing happens.
I salute my colleagues for offering their amendment. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S2165]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 215

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, we are going to be voting this
afternoon on a number of EPA amendments, one of which is mine, which
calls for a short 2-year waiting period but does not shut down in any
way the EPA, particularly on CAFE standards.
So I have two messages: One is that I hope but doubt--but
nevertheless hope--people will vote for my amendment. As of last
December, I would have gotten every Republican vote, but when they
broke away from the omnibus reconciliation agreement those votes all
went out the window. I think they will all vote for the McConnell
amendment, which I think is a mistake. So let me explain.
First of all, I am very opposed to the McConnell amendment. I think
it is foolish. It overreaches. It is briefly satisfying and devastating
on a long-term basis. A case in point: It undermines the ability--
because it obliterates the EPA--to set CAFE standards. Too few people
in this body understand that 31 percent of all carbon emissions come
out of the rear end of trucks and cars and other vehicles and that the
right and the power and the science to set CAFE standards is an
incredibly--incredibly--important mission of the EPA.
Under the McConnell amendment, that, along with everything else EPA
does, is out the window on a permanent basis. It is goodbye EPA
forever. That strikes me as not a mature approach to legislation.
I understand the frustration. We have that in West Virginia. The EPA
does not understand necessarily the nuances of economic situations,
that there is a more exacting way to present legislation. So I call for
a 2-year timeout period, but I do not abolish EPA. I just say for a
period of 2 years they should not do regulations on power stations,
manufacturing plants, or oil refineries. That strikes me as not being
fatal; it strikes me as something that could become law.
The most important point I can say about the McConnell amendment--I
just pray this sinks in; it will not, but I pray that it will--there is
not one chance in 10 trillion that the McConnell amendment will become
law. It will not happen. He shuts the EPA down permanently, in all
respects, forever. It will never happen. I doubt it will pass the
Senate. It will certainly not pass at any other level where it counts.
So why do they do that? They do that because it does not solve the
problem; it makes a point. It makes people feel good because they are
mad, but, in fact, it does great destruction to our future. It does not
solve a problem, and I am here to solve problems.
What I think we do need is a timeout just to stop the imposition of
EPA regulations that do not allow for development of clean
technologies--and that would hurt the economy at a very critical point
in our still slowly moving recovery--but to do it in a way that keeps
us all focused and working on a long-term energy policy.
Yes, we have had problems with the EPA in West Virginia, but the
answer is not to get rid of the agency forever. It is just
incomprehensible to me that mature people could actually be for that,
vote for that, espouse that, but they have.
As of last December, when we were doing the Omnibus appropriations
bill, every Republican had agreed more or less to vote for my bill--
just a 2-year timeout which should not affect CAFE standards. Then all
of a sudden nine Republicans defected. The election had already been
held. The House was about to go into Republican hands. Once they
defected, then everything crashed down. All of the votes I would have
gotten from the Republican Party are now gone. I doubt I will get any
votes from the Republican Party and not many from my own party, which I
regret but I understand.
I believe in clean coal. People say ``coal.'' I much like it better
if they say ``clean coal'' because if it is just coal the way it is in
the ground, we are not going anywhere, and natural gas will overtake
coal, put them out of business. I have said this to the coal operators
quite frequently. They do not believe me, but I think it is true.
It has happened in North Carolina in 12 powerplants. It is happening
in Ohio. It is happening in lots of places. I have nothing against
natural gas. We have a lot of natural gas. Natural gas, however, has
one-half of the carbon that coal does. It has one-half. They call
themselves a clean fuel, and in relation to coal in the ground, they
are, but 50 percent is a long way from what we are already doing in
West Virginia, which is taking 90 percent of the carbon out of coal as
it comes out of the ground.
It goes to a powerplant, where there is Dow Chemical Company on the
one hand, and American Electric Power on the other, and they have
already--and I have been to see their plants, and I have seen their
results, and I went with Secretary Chu--they are taking 90 percent of
the carbon out of coal. That is not bad. You can call that clean coal.
We have a gigantic energy problem. We need everything we can get. I
was even prepared to be for nuclear, which is about 20 percent of our
current power structure. I am not sure where I am right now. I have to
think more deeply about that. I am worried because our powerplants are
old, also, as the Japanese ones are.
So all I can say is, I am for keeping our eye on the ball. I am not
for making us sort of feel good on a very temporary basis. Everybody
gets mad at the EPA. It is just sort of like an opening day in American
baseball. You just do it and people cheer. But if you do it the way it
is done in this amendment, by abolishing the agency, that is a long
season, and it is a bad win-lose record.
So I hope my amendment will get sufficient votes. I am not sure. I do
not think it will because I think the folks on the other side of the
aisle have completely deserted it because they feel a great solidarity,
want to show their power, and along comes an elimination bill. I just
could not be for that. Morally I could not be for that.
I am strongly for West Virginia coal miners. I just came back last
night from the first anniversary of the 29 coal miners who died. It was
not an anniversary; it was a memorial. It is a powerful, powerful life
being a coal miner. It is unknown to most people what it is like, what
the dangers are, but they do it and they are strong. But what they
produce could be cleaned up. The technology is there. That is what my
amendment would do: give a 2-year timeout to let us work the
technology, try to be convincing to Wall Street, and then we could be
on our way to have not only natural gas but every single alternative
energy that you and I could possibly think of--perhaps minus ethanol,
but that is a different story--and we would be on our way.
In any event, it is a clear choice. Clean coal has to play a role in
meeting our energy needs. It is abundant. It can be clean. The
technology is there. More is on the way. So I hope people will vote for
my amendment, and I hope very strongly they will vote against the
McConnell amendment.
In the final analysis, I guess if they do not, and they vote for the
McConnell amendment, they are going to lose anyway because it is never
going to get anywhere. It is a guaranteed loser in the legislative
process. I think mine could be helpful.
I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.

Amendment No. 183

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in a couple of hours from now the Senate
will vote on the Inhofe-McConnell amendment which would prevent the EPA
from moving forward with dangerous--I said ``dangerous,'' but certainly
harmful to business and certainly costly--greenhouse gas regulations. I
would hope my colleagues in the Senate will support that amendment for
a number of reasons because it bears heavily on one of the great
debates we are having in the country today. I think the American people
must find it confusing--I certainly do--when you get all these mixed
signals coming from the elected leaders in Washington, DC.
The American people must be incredibly confused because the President
has said--rhetorically, at least, he has talked about the need to
reduce our dependence, our dangerous dependence, upon foreign energy.
He talked recently about getting the number of barrels of oil we import
every day down by one-third at the end of this decade. The fact is, we
do spend $1 billion every single day on foreign oil. There is $1

[[Page S2166]]

billion we export from this country because of the addiction we have to
foreign sources of energy.
The problem is, everything this administration is doing is contrary
to that goal. If we look at policies that are coming out of Washington,
DC, right now, today, they completely contradict this idea that we
ought to be moving toward energy independence and getting away from
this dangerous dependence we have on foreign sources of energy.
I will make a couple of points.
We have, of course, in the Gulf of Mexico the so-called permitorium.
We have not been issuing permits to explore, to continue the work that
is being done down there in terms of energy exploration. The Outer
Continental Shelf has been put off limits by this administration, and
many Federal lands where there are abundant energy resources have also
been placed off limits. In fact, there were some areas that had been
developed or where there were going to be permits issued for
exploration in some of the States in the West where we know we have
abundant energy resources that have now been repealed or pulled back by
the administration--just recently, 77 in the State of Utah, 1 in the
State of Montana. We have enormous resources right here in our own
country we could be developing that would get us away from sending this
$1 billion a day, every single day, to countries around the world
because of our addiction to energy.

The other thing tried in the Congress last year was a cap-and-trade
bill. It passed the House of Representatives. It passed narrowly. It
was never voted upon in the Senate because there wasn't political
support for it. That legislation would have also dramatically increased
the cost of energy in this country, making it more expensive for our
small businesses to run their operations, and imposed dramatically
higher electricity and fuel costs on American consumers. That was a
given. I think everybody conceded that was the case. But because there
wasn't political support for it on Capitol Hill, it ended up not
becoming law.
What we have now coming out of the EPA is essentially a cap-and-trade
bill through the back door. The EPA has decided they will do by
regulation what they could not get done--the administration could not
get done--through the political process in Congress.
The point I wish to make about that is the cap-and-trade bill, which
was widely debated and discussed at the time, would have driven up
energy costs for people in this country. This proposal by the EPA would
have the exact same impact and effect. In fact, if one is concerned
about economic growth and job creation, which we all should be--Lord
knows, when we have almost 9 percent unemployment and lots of people in
this country looking for work, that ought to be our No. 1 priority--the
fact that we would be putting policies in place that would be counter
to creating jobs and getting capital deployed out there in our economy
probably defies explanation, at least for most Americans.
In fact, the American Council for Capital Formation projects that the
uncertainty created by the EPA's climate change regulations would
increase the risk premium of capital by 30 to 40 percent.
The additional uncertainty is projected to reduce U.S. capital
investment by as much as $400 billion per year.
So I would argue that if we are serious about creating jobs, if we
are serious about growing the economy, why would we want to sideline
hundreds of billions of dollars of capital every single year because of
these onerous and costly regulations?
This is a major reason why there is $2 trillion today sitting on the
sidelines. It is talked about a lot, but nobody seems to be concerned
about changing that. What I hear repeatedly from those who are able to
invest and have capital to put to work is, they don't like the economic
uncertainty coming out of Washington. In most cases, if not in every
case, it is focused on these regulations, on regulatory agencies,
particularly the EPA, that continue to come up with new proposals to
drive up the cost of doing business in this country.
There was a Charles River Associates study which projected the EPA's
cap-and-trade regulations could increase wholesale electricity costs by
35 to 45 percent and reduce average worker compensation by $700 per
year.
What is unfortunate about this whole situation is that the
regulations will drive up energy and gasoline prices the most for
middle- and low-income families. That is where the impact is going to
be most felt.
Roger Bezdek, who is the former Director of the Bureau of Economic
Analysis at the U.S. Department of Commerce, concluded recently that
EPA's regulations:

. . . will impact low income groups, the elderly, and
minorities disproportionately, both because they have lower
incomes to begin with, but also because they have to spend
proportionately more of their income on energy, and rising
energy costs inflict great harm on these groups.

I would go on to point out that perhaps the greatest burden of
increased energy costs resulting from these new greenhouse gas
regulations will fall upon the elderly Social Security recipients who
represent 20 percent of all households in this country and who depend
primarily on fixed incomes. They have limited opportunity to increase
their earnings from employment. They get hit the hardest. What these
regulations are going to do is target and hit the people who can least
afford to deal with them.
So we have an opportunity to do something about that. I think what we
are seeing with the EPA and many of these government agencies is an
example of overreach, which is a function, in my view, of bureaucracies
that have gotten too big. We all talk about government. There is going
to be, I think--I hope, at least--a great debate over the next couple
years as we address this issue of spending and debt, about the size of
government and how much government intervention we ought to have, and I
think most Americans have concluded that government has gotten too big
and it has grown too fast. Perhaps the greatest example is these
Federal agencies that have this tremendous propensity to want to
regulate everything they can out there, to the detriment of many of our
small businesses and those who are trying to create jobs.
As an example of how much our government has grown, the historical
average for this country and what we spend on the Federal Government as
a percentage of our total economy, as a percentage of our GDP, is about
20.6 percent. This year, it is over 25 percent. So the government
continues to expand, continues to grow relative to the economy. The
private economy continues, by virtue of comparison, to shrink. We ought
to be looking at what we can do to grow the private economy, what we
can do to create jobs, what we can do to create economic growth in this
country as opposed to the things that are being done to expand
government.
The solution we have put forward today, the Inhofe-McConnell
amendment, is--there has been a lot of discussion about what it would
or wouldn't do, but I wish to point out for my colleagues some things
it would not do because it does get at the heart of this issue, which
is preventing the EPA from moving forward with these costly and
burdensome regulations.
There are a number of things it does not do. It does not prohibit
States from regulating greenhouse gases and addressing climate change.
The amendment expressly allows States to keep existing policies in
place and allows States to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as they
see fit. The bill also makes clear that any changes States have adopted
in their State implementation programs and title V operating permit
programs pertaining to greenhouse gases are not federally enforceable.
The McConnell amendment does not overturn the agreement between the
White House, California, the automakers, the EPA, and the Department of
Transportation on greenhouse gas emissions from cars. A lot has been
made out of that issue. That is something the McConnell amendment does
not do. In fact, the amendment expressly preserves the auto agreement
and the most recently enacted fuel efficiency standards.
In 2017 and beyond, the amendment ensures that any future national
auto regulations concerning greenhouse gases will be decided by
Congress, which, frankly, is where it should be

[[Page S2167]]

decided, which is why this overreach is such an example of big
government gone bad.
The McConnell amendment does not overturn clean air and public health
protections under the Clean Air Act. The amendment maintains all the
Clean Air Act's provisions to protect the public from harmful
pollution. Thousands of Clean Air Act regulations would remain
untouched by this amendment. Certainly, this amendment does not, as has
been suggested, gut the Clean Air Act. In fact, it is the contrary.
The amendment does, however, clarify that Congress never gave the EPA
the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases for
climate change purposes. That responsibility, as I said before, lies
and should lie with the Congress.
Finally, the McConnell amendment does not stop the U.S. Government
from taking any action to address climate change. The amendment puts
Congress in charge of U.S. climate and energy policy. Also, the bill
expressly preserves Federal research development and demonstration
programs addressing climate change.

So if Democrats in Congress want to enact climate change regulations,
I would encourage them to bring a climate change bill to the floor.
This is where it should be debated, by the people's representatives,
not decided by bureaucrats in some Federal agency, which is what the
EPA regulations would, in effect, do.
There are a number of amendments that have been offered by our
Democratic colleagues which I would describe as political cover
amendments. They are hearing the same thing we are from their small
businesses, from agricultural groups, and from consumers across this
country about what these regulations would do and how they would
adversely impact electricity and fuel costs in this country. So they
are trying to give themselves some cover to be able to vote for
something.
I wish to point out that all these other amendments being offered by
our Democratic colleagues as alternatives to the Inhofe-McConnell
amendment don't get the job done. We talked a little bit and we heard a
little bit earlier today about the Rockefeller amendment, which has the
2-year delay in it. But, again, there is a very limited scope to that
amendment. The temporary nature of the amendment is going to provide
very little relief for businesses and consumers across this country. If
it is enacted, permits for new projects and the jobs associated with
those projects could be stalled until after the 2-year period. There is
no assurance that any of these permits would be issued during this 2-
year period when this amendment would be in effect.
The Rockefeller amendment would not stop or delay other EPA methods
for increasing energy prices, such as the national ambient air quality
standard for CO2. The Rockefeller amendment does not prevent
climate change nuisance suits sponsored by environmental activist
groups hostile to energy development.
I can say the same thing essentially about some of the other
proposals out there. The Stabenow amendment also has a 2-year delay,
but it allows EPA to continue moving forward with rulemaking. It just
wouldn't allow them to finalize those rules until the end of the 2-year
period. If the amendment is enacted, permits for new projects and the
jobs associated with those projects could again be stalled until the
end of that 2-year period.
There are a number of flaws in all these amendments, none of which
are designed to do the job. If we are serious about doing something to
address what the consumer groups, the farm organizations, and the
business organizations are asking us to do; that is, to prevent the EPA
from moving forward with something they don't have the statutory
authority to do and should be reserved for the Congress, but they are
going to move forward with it anyway--if we are serious about
addressing that issue, the only alternative is to support the Inhofe-
McConnell amendment. It is that simple. It is that straightforward. All
these political cover amendments that are being offered by our
Democratic colleagues are simply that. They are cover amendments and
they don't get at the heart of the issue.
I would again go back to where I started; that is, to say we ought
to, in this country, be seriously debating policies that will move us
away from the dangerous dependence we have on foreign energy. As I said
earlier, every policy coming out of Washington, in my view, is designed
to make it more difficult to develop the very energy sources that will
create a domestic energy supply in this country that would release us
from this grip that foreign countries have on us with regard to energy.
I hope the Inhofe-McConnell amendment will pass today and will have
bipartisan support. It has already been talked about that perhaps none
of these will reach the 60-vote threshold. What I would say to my
colleagues is, again, if we are serious about trying to solve this
issue, if we are serious about trying to make sure electricity and fuel
costs don't go up dramatically for our constituents, then this is the
amendment we need to be for. The other amendments don't get at the
issue. They are political cover amendments.
I think it is pretty straightforward when we look at the number of
groups that have come out opposed to those amendments and in favor of
the Inhofe-McConnell amendment. I will just mention briefly, again, the
American Farm Bureau and the Chamber of Commerce and other small
business organizations that have come out in support of the Inhofe-
McConnell amendment and opposed to the amendments offered by our
colleagues.
I wish to read a quote from one of those letters:

Congress, not the EPA, should be guiding America's energy
policy. Without action by lawmakers, EPA's regulations will
make it difficult to attract new manufacturing capacity and
jobs in the United States, let alone double U.S. exports in 5
years, which is what our goal has been, as President Obama
has pledged.

This letter is signed by a number of organizations, including the
National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of
Wholesaler Distributors, the National Association of Independent
Business, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. As I said before, I have
other letters from major farm organizations, including the American
Farm Bureau, in support of the Inhofe-McConnell amendment and opposed
to the other political cover amendments that are being offered by our
Democratic colleagues.
Let's get this done right. Let's send a message to the EPA and to the
administration that this is the job for the Congress to deal with. This
is something the people's representatives should be dealing with, not
unelected bureaucrats and Federal agencies that clearly have an agenda
but an agenda that is completely contrary to capital formation, to
competitiveness, to job creation, and to economic growth. That is what
this Congress should be focused on, and that is why a vote in support
of the Inhofe-McConnell amendment is so important.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of rhetoric on the
floor of the Chamber today defending why air pollution is just fine,
explaining why dismantling air pollution regulations is really in the
interest of our economy and our families. Indeed, my colleague from
South Dakota has listed a little shop of horrors--that the status quo
creates economic uncertainty, that the air pollution regulations
increase the risk rate of capital, that they destroy jobs, that they
even hurt the elderly, that they are an abuse of power, unauthorized by
Congress. I am wondering what else is left on the list of reasons to
defend the dismantling of air pollution regulations that protect the
American people, that are popular in the eyes of American citizens
because they want to live in a world where they can enjoy breathing the
air throughout our Nation.
Let's start by recognizing that the truth about the McConnell
amendment is that it increases our dependence on foreign oil. We have
heard something about it driving up the cost of oil. Is that right?
Well, no, it is not. Repealing the endangerment finding and taking away
EPA's part of the regulation of mileage standards is estimated to
increase our consumption of oil by 455 million barrels.

[[Page S2168]]

Gas prices are about $3.50 a gallon right now. So the McConnell-
Inhofe amendment represents a $68 billion expenditure on additional
oil. It means importing $68 billion more of oil. It means exporting $68
billion in additional American dollars overseas to strengthen the
economies in the Middle East, Nigeria, or Venezuela. That energy tax--
the McConnell-Inhofe tax--is one that goes out of our country and hurts
us in the worst way. It goes directly to oil companies--out of the
pockets of working families, to some of the most profitable
corporations in the history of human civilization. Gasoline prices are
set by the law of supply and demand. If you increase demand for oil,
you also drive up the price. So, if anything, the McConnell-Inhofe
amendment doesn't decrease the cost of gasoline; it increases the cost
of gasoline.
Politifact.com took on this issue because Members of Congress backing
this amendment were arguing that it keeps gas prices from increasing.
Politifact.com--that independent evaluator of claims made on the floor
of the Senate, House, and other places--ranks that claim as false.
I can tell you that it is in our interest as a nation to decrease our
dependence on oil, not to increase it. We need to decrease that
dependence because it is important for our national security. We need
to decrease that dependence because millions of dollars that are sent
overseas often end up in the hands of those who don't share our
national interests. We need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil
because when those dollars leave our economy, they leave our family's
finances. They don't end up in the retail stores or circulate here in
America. Indeed, our purchase of foreign oil accounts for about 50
percent of our foreign trade shortfall.
At a time when both parties should be working together to put
America's interests first on energy, the McConnell-Inhofe amendment
increases our addiction to oil--foreign oil--and creates a supply
impulse that raises the price of oil. Isn't that context completely
misguided?
Perhaps the real issue is public health. This McConnell attack on the
Clean Air Act asks Congress to vote in lockstep against the scientific
judgment of EPA's scientists and to tell the agency charged with
protecting the public health and the health of our children to ignore
dangerous carbon pollution.
In 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million asthma
attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, and 86,000 emergency room visits
because clean air isn't just pleasant, it is, in fact, healthy. It is
great for the American quality of life to be healthy. You know, that is
amazing progress that has been made over the last 20 years under the
bipartisan Clean Air Act of 1990.
Instead, this amendment would yield to those short-term impulses that
have come up on all sorts of aspects of the Clean Air Act. Each time
the agency has moved to say that this is a concern, there are those who
say: No, no, in the short-term, that might cost me to adjust and we
might have to do things slightly differently. Ten years later,
everybody says: You know, it is good that we thought about mercury in
the air, it is good that we took on lead in the air, and so on and so
forth. Taking a longer term view, we need to stay together and resist
these short-term impulses to take and dismantle the Clean Air Act.
The American Lung Association has specifically said the McConnell
amendment is ``a reckless and irresponsible attempt to once again put
special interests ahead of public health. The American Lung
Association, the American Public Health Association, and the Asthma and
Allergy Foundation of America have urged that we resist the temptation
to dismantle the Clean Air Act, which the McConnell-Inhofe amendment
does. There is a very simple reason for that: Each of these amendments
would have EPA put aside the practice of using science to set
commonsense standards to protect public health. Instead, these
amendments would have the science world put their head in the sand
about these problems.
Indeed, I am not just concerned about the McConnell amendment; I am
concerned about all of the amendments we are considering today that are
designed to deflect, delay, and dismantle the protection of clean air.
The Baucus amendment would take away EPA's ability to use the best
science to continue to modify and tailor the standards they are setting
for carbon pollution and their ability to make sure major polluters are
all covered. The Stabenow and Rockefeller amendments would put a 2-year
delay on pollution standards. It is tempting to think that a 2-year
delay might be an acceptable middle ground, but a 2-year delay in
protecting public health is 2 years too long.
Let me be very clear about this debate. The McConnell amendment and
other associated amendments we will consider are wrong because we
should not increase our reliance for energy on the most unstable
regions of the world. We should not ship American dollars overseas for
energy. We should not tolerate more pollution in our air and water. We
should not decrease our ability to build on America's foundation of
ingenuity and its inventiveness and respond to air pollution challenges
and make those environmental decisions in clear partnership with a
stronger economy.
I think that all of our constituents across this country, as they
think, as parents, about the future of their children, know clean air
is the right course. But our children probably understand better than
we do another key aspect of this, because this conversation today is
largely about carbon pollution.
We need to wrestle with the fact that carbon pollution has a very
substantial impact on the temperature across this planet. Before the
Industrial Revolution, we had a carbon dioxide level of about 270 parts
per million. The basic scientific consensus is that the level of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere needs to be kept somewhere below 350 parts
per million. I would be pleased to report to you today that before we
get to that point of 350, we are going to be able to make the
adjustments necessary so that we don't end up in a situation where we
are creating long-term adverse consequences for our planet. Indeed, we
crossed that 350 boundary long ago. We are at 390 now, headed for 400.
Ten to 15 years ago, it was going up one part per million per year; now
it is going up two parts per million. So the curve is getting steeper,
the pace is getting steeper. We are seeing this reverberating from
coral reefs, to Arctic tundra; we are seeing it in ice sheets, in
glaciers; and we are seeing it in insect populations that are thriving
and decimating the forests of the Northwest, where I come from, that
weren't there a few years ago. We are seeing it in all kinds of
patterns across this planet.
When I visit university campuses, as students talk about the issues
nearest to their hearts, the top issue is that we must address this
threat to our planet. This conversation goes to the heart of it. My
generation isn't as up to speed as our college students are about this,
but the planet cannot wait for them to graduate, pursue their careers,
run for office, and arrive here on the floor of the Senate. So it is
our responsibility as Americans who are concerned about our dependence
on energy, as Americans who are concerned about keeping our dollars in
our economy and creating jobs, and as Americans who are concerned about
the sustainability of our practices, to say no to McConnell-Inhofe and
no to the other amendments being brought forward to delay or destroy or
dismantle the Clean Air Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

Amendment No. 281

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we are going to have a series of stacked
votes at 4 o'clock. I want to spend a few minutes on three or four
amendments and clarify some of the things I have heard rumbling.
One is that we have an amendment that will, in fact, take away
unemployment insurance for millionaires. Mr. President, 2,840
households who reported an income of greater than $1 million or more on
tax returns were paid $18.6 million in unemployment insurance benefits
in 2008. That number is higher in 2009. We don't have the final numbers
yet. This included over 800 earning over $2 million and 17 with excess
income of $10 million collecting unemployment benefits. We have an
amendment that will prohibit that.
There has been some concern to say that the costs associated with
that, the way it was scored by CBO, would neutralize it; the savings
versus the cost

[[Page S2169]]

to eliminate that would be even. Even if that is true--and we have done
a calculation, and we think it costs about $900,000 a year to have
people applying for unemployment sign a statement that their income is
not above $1 million. But even if it costs the same as what we are
spending, we should not be giving unemployment benefits to people who
are earning $1 million a year. It is foolish, and it exacerbates the
tendency of enriching those who are already there versus what
unemployment insurance is for--so those who are truly dependent on it
can survive. I wanted to clarify that point.
Regarding the second amendment, in March the GAO, in response to an
amendment I put on the last debt limit, issued a report listing what
they think are billions of dollars in savings in terms of duplication.
I would be remiss to not say that our President embraced that. In his
State of the Union speech, one of the goals of his administration is to
eliminate duplication and consolidate.
So we have two amendments that are going to be on the Senate floor.
One is mine and one is the amendment of the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye. They are both designed to
save us $5 billion, but there are two big differences between those
amendments.
My amendment tells OMB to have the study, find the $5 billion, report
to us what they can do themselves and what they need us to do to help
them. Senator Inouye's amendment waits 6 months from the time we pass
the bill--5 months for the study to come back, and then for us to do
it, which means we won't have any savings at all until we are well into
fiscal year 2013. Every year we waste $5 billion on something we
shouldn't is a year we are borrowing $2 billion of it just to pay the
bill.
So I understand it is a cover vote, but what it means is we will
never get the $5 billion in savings, whereas my amendment will get us
$5 billion worth of savings this year. The way we get rid of a $1.6
trillion deficit is $1 billion or $2 billion or $5 billion at a time.
Everybody recognizes the duplication. What we are asking the
administration to do is take the very low-hanging fruit they can
recognize right now, do the rescission, recommend to us, and then we
act on it, rather than waiting 2\1/2\ years to get that done.
So it is very straightforward. We know there is significant
duplication in the Federal Government. Let me just give some of the
findings of the GAO report. Remember, this isn't Tom Coburn's report;
this is a GAO report, and they only looked at one-third of the Federal
Government--the first third. They have two more reports to come to us,
with the second and third, and then yearly. We will get this report
yearly on the problems of duplication in the Federal Government.
We have 47 job-training programs across 9 different agencies that we
spend $18 billion on, and not one of them has a metric on it to see if
it is effective. We are doing a study now in the Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations on what were the reports of the people who have been
through this as to where it is helpful and where it is not because in
our legislation, where we pass these job-training programs, we didn't
ask for metrics to see if they were effective. So this is an area where
we can consolidate one or two. Only three of those have charges that
are totally separate from the others. The rest of them overlap one
another.
There are five departments, eight agencies, and over two dozen
Presidential nominees overseeing bioterrorism. We know we can
consolidate that. We will actually be much better when we do in terms
of our efficiency and communication between agencies. That is $6.48
billion a year.
We have 20 agencies, 56 programs dedicated to financial literacy, and
we don't even know what they cost. The GAO couldn't determine what they
cost. So 56 different programs on financial literacy, and we are
teaching people? We have a $1.6 trillion deficit, and we are teaching
Americans financial literacy? If we should teach them that, which is
not a bad goal, why do we need 56 programs to do that?
We have 80 economic development programs across 4 different agencies.
We are spending $6.5 billion. Just consolidating administrative costs
across those agencies could save $100 million, $200 million, $300
million.
We have 15 agencies for more than 30 food-related laws. Even the
President mentioned salmon. If they are in saltwater, they have one
agency; if they are in fresh water, they have another agency. That is
foolish. Why duplicate the work of one agency with another?
We have 18 nutrition programs--they are very important to our kids
and those who are dependent on them--at $62.5 billion. Do we need 18
programs to do that? Could we do it with 10, 8, 2, 3? The questions
haven't been asked, but let's ask the OMB to look at the low-hanging
fruit and to take the $5 billion out and work with Congress to get it
done in the next appropriations cycle.
There are 20 homeless programs across 7 agencies at $2.9 billion; 82
teacher quality programs, 16 agencies and $4 billion. Why would we have
82 teacher training programs? It just shows the magnitude of the
problem that we have in terms of getting our budget under control, not
managing effectively, and not doing the oversight we should.
We have 52 programs for entrepreneurial efforts. I don't have any
problem with that, but why do we need 52? We have 35 programs to
oversee infrastructure. Overseeing infrastructure is important, but why
do we need that many programs? There are 28 programs to oversee new
markets--28 different programs funded by the Federal Government across
6 different agencies to oversee new markets. We could consolidate a lot
of that.
So the President has said he wants to do this. We ought to give him
the tools that will help him do it more quickly because every day we
wait it costs us more money.
Finally, we will have a vote ultimately on the ethanol blenders'
credit. I have been remiss not to give the No. 1 leader on that--who
has a bill of her own--Senator Feinstein, credit because she has led on
this for a long time. Her bill is slightly different than the one we
are going to offer, but she has led on that issue. She understands the
importance of the environmental impact of burning ethanol, when we are
actually burning more fuel and putting out more CO2 than we
would with pure gasoline because of the inefficiency of ethanol.
So I wanted to recognize her, and when we come to the vote on the
blenders' credit I will ask her to speak on that, if she would.
Finally, I would say in regards to that issue, for people who don't
understand, we are going to spend $5 billion this year paying the major
oil companies 45 cents a gallon to blend ethanol into gasoline. There
is a Federal law that requires a mandate. It is called the renewable
fuels mandate. Last year it was 12.5 billion gallons; this year it is
13.2. It is over 22 billion gallons 5 years from now that have to be
blended.
We have a letter from the people who receive this tax credit--who are
going to receive this $5 billion--who say they do not want the $5
billion; they do not need the $5 billion. Yet we are going to have some
resistance around here of not stopping a payment to those who receive
it, and who don't want it, for something that is already mandated by
law. They have put it in a letter saying they do not want it. It is
already in the record.
Now, why would we continue to spend $5 billion of our kids' money on
something they do not want, that isn't going to change the outcome, and
that we will have to borrow 40 percent of to make the payment? It is
beyond me that we would do that, and so it is my hope we will be
successful in overturning that.
With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Before the Senator from Oklahoma leaves the
floor, I wanted to join him in supporting the commonsense amendment he
just outlined. The Coburn-Udall amendment would fix what I think most
Americans, if not every single

[[Page S2170]]

American, would be shocked to discover; that is, millionaires and
billionaires have been drawing unemployment benefits.
Now, unemployment insurance is a critical temporary safety net for
Americans who need help to get by when they fall on tough times, but
providing unemployment insurance for millionaires, much less
billionaires, who do not need it for their basic necessities is
fiscally irresponsible, to put it mildly. Frankly, it doesn't make much
sense.
I think Senator Coburn put it best when he said it is foolish. We all
recall that for months last year we struggled to find ways to put
unemployment benefits in the hands of Americans who were really
struggling in the face of this tough economic downturn. It was
controversial and we worked hard on that in the Senate. It was drawn
out because unemployment benefits are expensive, but I supported
extending those benefits for out-of-work Americans because they help.
We found a way, ultimately, to pay for them. But little did we know, in
taking care of these good Americans, it was made even harder because
literally--and this number astonishes me--thousands of millionaires and
billionaires were abusing the system to draw extra payments for
themselves. So it increased the price tag for all the rest.
In the end, we are talking about values. We are talking about hard
work and playing by the rules. That is how most Americans operate. But
there are a few folks always looking to game the system, and I can't
believe that some of the most well-off among us have been asking for a
government paycheck while out-of-work Americans, day in and day out,
look for jobs. They want to provide for themselves, and they want to do
it in an honest way. They don't want to draw those unemployment
benefits. That is a decision and action of last resort.
We have had 13 straight months of private sector growth. We have
added almost 2 million jobs. But our economy is still fragile, and too
many Coloradans and too many Americans are looking for work. Families
in my State, and I know in the neighboring State of Oklahoma, are
working to balance their budgets and find a way to set aside money for
college, taking care of their kids. Asking them to pay for unemployment
insurance for millionaires is unbelievable.
So I am truly honored to work with my colleague from Oklahoma. This
would save $100 million. As the Senator said, every day we wait, we
waste money. Every day we don't take an opportunity to save money, we
are doing a disservice to the taxpayers.
So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a smart
change, and it avoids tarnishing an otherwise worthy and critical way
to temporarily assist Americans who have fallen on tough times.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator for his cosponsorship and support on
this amendment. I haven't had a chance to share this with the Senator--
because I just received it--but I have a breakdown from the IRS of the
22 States that don't have any millionaires because they screen for it.
Actually, it is not millionaires, it is those earning more than $1
million a year. In other words, these are people who actually have
incomes of greater than $1 million a year in terms of adjusted gross
income.
There are probably many more who have less than that, but we are
saying here is a cutoff. It is a legitimate cutoff. So there are 22
States that don't allow this right now in their process.
I was wrong in my statement on the $600,000 or $800,000. The
calculation of the cost of putting this in is $200,000 a year. So for a
very minimal cost, we will save $20 million a year, at minimum. We are
also going to create a system that will do what it is designed to do--
not to help those who are already very comfortable but to help those
struggling to make ends meet and find themselves out of a job.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the report of unemployment compensation and adjusted gross income of $1
million or more.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

FILERS REPORTING UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION AND ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME OF
$1M OR MORE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax year
State reported on F1040 -------------------------------
2006 2007 2008 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................. * * * *
Alaska.................................. * * * *
Arizona................................. 17 * 15 12
Arkansas................................ * * * *
California.............................. 454 526 569 494
Colorado................................ 20 18 18 19
Connecticut............................. 72 79 143 148
Delaware................................ * * * *
District of Columbia.................... * * * *
Florida................................. 87 87 72 90
Georgia................................. 13 20 18 17
Hawaii.................................. * * * *
Idaho................................... * * * *
Illinois................................ 91 136 161 141
Indiana................................. 14 15 16 14
Iowa.................................... * 13 * *
Kansas.................................. * * 11 13
Kentucky................................ * 10 * *
Louisiana............................... 14 * * *
Maine................................... * * * *
Maryland................................ 28 19 21 19
Massachusetts........................... 114 130 110 143
Michigan................................ 19 32 22 26
Minnesota............................... 22 22 25 25
Mississippi............................. 10 * * *
Missouri................................ * * 21 *
Montana................................. * * * *
Nebraska................................ * * * *
Nevada.................................. 11 17 21 12
New Hampshire........................... * * * 10
New Jersey.............................. 164 217 328 251
New Mexico.............................. * * * *
New York................................ 263 375 661 493
North Carolina.......................... 11 32 20 19
North Dakota............................ * * * *
Ohio.................................... 21 21 37 12
Oklahoma................................ * * * *
Oregon.................................. 13 12 18 17
Pennsylvania............................ 100 114 126 125
Rhode Island............................ 21 17 * 12
South Carolina.......................... * * 10 10
South Dakota............................ * * * *
Tennessee............................... 14 19 10 20
Texas................................... 70 67 60 74
Utah.................................... * * * 12
Vermont................................. * * * *
Virginia................................ 20 16 13 18
Washington.............................. 34 42 46 42
West Virginia........................... * * * *
Wisconsin............................... 44 21 27 16
Wyoming................................. * * * *
Other/Blank............................. * * 11 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of Filers.............. 1,850 2,182 2,695 2,383
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: IRS does not report data where the number of Taxpayers is less
than 10. Cells with less than 10 observations are represented with an
asterisk. The above data are for taxpayers filing a Tax Year 2009 Tax
Return.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, the Senator makes important
points, and it is a small investment, if you will, the $200,000, in
saving the taxpayers significant amounts of money. As the Senator
points out, the important outcome is that the integrity of the
unemployment insurance system is maintained.
I also would note, as the Senator from Oklahoma did, the point that
it is $1 million in income or more, not whether an individual has
assets or something in that amount--in other words, a rancher who is
fortunate enough to have lands valued at significant enough levels but
who is illiquid and may be struggling to make ends meet. This applies
to people, as the Senator points out, who have incomes of over $1
million annually. That makes sense.
This is an important amendment. I urge all our colleagues to support
it. We have a chance to vote for it later today.
Mr. President, it is my understanding that I was speaking on Senator
Coburn's time, and I ask unanimous consent that the agreement reflect
such allocation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this afternoon, this Chamber is going
to face a clear question: What matters more, children's health or
polluters' profits? We will be voting on amendments that would cripple
the government's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act.
This is a landmark law that protects our children from toxic
chemicals in the air and illnesses such as asthma and lung cancer. In
2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million cases of childhood asthma
and more than 160,000 premature deaths. The numbers are big, but
numbers do not mean much unless it is your child. If it is your child,
there is no number that is too large to take care of that child's
health.

[[Page S2171]]

If you want to know the real value of clean air to American families,
talk to parents who live in fear of their child's next asthma attack.
It is a fear my family knows very well. I have a grandson who is a
terrific athlete, who is very energetic. He suffers from asthma. He is
an athletic child. Every time he goes to play soccer, my daughter--his
mother--will check first to see where the nearest emergency room is.
She knows very well that if he starts wheezing, she has to get him to a
clinic in a hurry. No parent should have to worry about letting their
children play outside.
The fact is, the Clean Air Act has improved life for millions of
young people. The Supreme Court and scientists agree that the Clean Air
Act is a tool we must use to stop dangerous pollution.
This picture demonstrates so clearly what it is like with smog in the
air, and it permits us to imagine what it looks like inside a child's
lung. This picture shows what toxic skies look like. It is an ugly
scene, but it is much uglier when it is inside the child's lungs or a
child's body or anybody who is sensitive to polluted air. That is the
picture coming out of the smokestacks, and the picture turns into
reality when it is in the lungs or the body of an individual.
Allowing companies to reduce pollution, they say, would cost too much
for polluters. Too bad. What is a life worth? What does it mean to
someone who is sensitive to polluted air not to be able to get out or
stop coughing or stop wheezing?
Allowing companies to continue polluting does not eliminate the
costs. It simply shifts the costs to our families, our children, and
all of us who breathe that air.
The American Lung Association and five other health groups sent a
letter opposing all of these amendments. They say:

The Clean Air Act protects public health and reduces health
care costs for all by preventing thousands of adverse health
outcomes, including: cancer, asthma attacks, heart attacks,
strokes, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and
premature deaths.

I am aware of the threat asthma can be. I had a sister who was a
victim of asthma. If our families traveled together, she would have a
little respirator that could be plugged into the cigarette lighter hole
and enable her to breathe more comfortably. One day she was at a school
board meeting in Rye, NY, where she was a member of the school board.
She felt an attack coming on. Her instinct was to try to run to her car
so she could plug in the machine to the lighter hole. She collapsed in
the parking lot, and she died 3 days later. We saw it upfront and
personal. It was a terrible family tragedy. She had four children at
the time.
When we hear talk about how threatening it is to control pollution,
we say, no, the threat is to family health and to our well-being. That
is what we are about in families with young people across this country
and across the world.
It does not matter what the cost is. There is not a family in the
world that would not dispose of all of their assets to protect and
continue the life of a child.
History shows that the cost of cleaner air is very low compared to
its enormous benefits. Thanks to the Clean Air Act, fewer parents miss
work to take care of children suffering from asthma. More families
avoid the crushing health care costs associated with a heart attack or
stroke. People live longer, more comfortably, and have more productive
lives. Simply put, weakening the Clean Air Act puts the profits of
polluters ahead of the health of our children.
To see what the United States would look like without the Clean Air
Act, we only need to look at China. On a visit there, I was scolded by
the minister of environment that the United States was using too much
of the world's oil, creating difficulties in the air. When I was in the
minister's office, I invited him to join me at the window 23 stories up
in the air. We looked outside and we could not see the sidewalk. That
is how thick the polluted air was. The air in China is so polluted that
many people wear masks when they walk outside. We do not want to be
doing that in America.
This poison must not be the future. I do not want it for my
grandchildren, and I do not want it for anybody else's children or
grandchildren.
In our Senate, in our Congress, our goal must be to take care of our
obligations to protect our families. And the strongest obligation
anyone has, anybody we know who has children does not want to endanger
their health. I ask all of my colleagues: Stand up. Vote down these
dangerous efforts to destroy the Clean Air Act. It belongs as part of
our environment. It protects our children, it protects the environment,
and we must not let this opportunity be misunderstood and say: We have
to vote no to give polluters a preference before our children.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 183

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak against the
radical McConnell-Inhofe amendment and in opposition to the efforts to
overturn the Supreme Court. We should not be gutting the Clean Air Act
and public health and environmental protections that are important to
every American.
These anti-environmental, anti-public health, anti-economic riders, I
believe, do not belong on a small business bill. When we boil it down,
what is at stake is pretty straightforward. It is about the common good
versus the special interests. The facts speak for themselves. According
to some comprehensive reports, the Clean Air Act will save our economy
$2 trillion through the year 2020. And even more importantly, the Clean
Air Act will cumulatively save 4.2 million lives by 2020.
Those are striking numbers, and that is why it is so important that
we protect the Clean Air Act and turn down these radical amendments
that would effectively overturn it.
Congress has stopped other radical attempts to overturn laws that are
about protecting our environment and protecting the safety of American
people. I remember the debate on MTBE, in 2003, on the Senate floor.
MTBE was a highly toxic fuel additive, and very small amounts of it
could severely contaminate water supplies. Yet MTBE manufacturers who
were on the hook for billions of dollars of cleanup wanted a free pass.
They wanted immunity. They came to the Senate hoping to get that. Yet a
bipartisan group of Senators stood up to that proposal, and the
proposal to let MTBE manufacturers off the hook was turned down.
There have been other attempts to overturn the Clean Water Act, the
Endangered Species Act, the Superfund Cleanup Act. Sometimes they get
only as far as draft bills or a committee hearing. Sometimes we have
votes on them. But these issues all have one thing in common--it is
about the greater good versus special interests. Time and time again,
Congress has wisely come down on the correct side of the issue and has
rejected these proposals by special interests.
The environmental protections that we have continue in force today
because we have consistently stood up to fight for them. Passing an
anti-EPA amendment would hurt our economy. That certainly is the case
with the McConnell-Inhofe amendment. It would overturn hard-won gains
from the 2007 Energy bill that put CAFE standards in place to improve
fuel economy standards for American consumers. These standards were
passed with bipartisan support and save consumers as much as $3,000
over the life of a car through higher fuel efficiency. The proposed
McConnell-Inhofe legislation seeks to overturn these advancements.
It is these fuel economy standards, which passed with bipartisan
support in 2007, that are helping us to wean ourselves from dependence
on foreign oil--not more domestic drilling. We could drill in every
pristine, untouched corner of the United States--and sometimes it seems
like the backers of those interests would like us to do just that--but
in response to these calls, I would suggest you look at a recent letter
Senator Bingaman and I received from the Energy Information
Administration.

[[Page S2172]]

I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Department of Energy,

Washington, DC, Mar. 25, 2011.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cantwell: This is in response to your letter
of March 15, 2011, which seeks a better understanding of some
of the long term impacts of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA).
As noted in your letter, the long-term energy outlook which
the Energy Information Administration (EIA) released just
before EISA was signed into law (Annual Energy Outlook 2008
Early Release) projected a significant increase in U.S.
dependence on imported petroleum through 2030. This finding
is reversed in EIA's latest Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2011
Early Release), which projects a decline in U.S. dependence
on imported petroleum over a forecast horizon that extends
through 2035. Furthermore, over the 2008 to 2030 period, the
cumulative reduction in net petroleum imports between the two
sets of projections is about 26 billion barrels.
The policies enacted in EISA are responsible for much of
the change in projected U.S. oil use. In particular, EISA
mandated significant strengthening of both the corporate
average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for cars and light
trucks and the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that was first
enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. However, other
changes that have occurred since the AEO2008 Early Release
was issued, including the outlook for oil prices and economic
growth, have also influenced the more recent projections
presented in the AEO2011 Early Release.
Following enactment of EISA, EIA conducted sensitivity
analyses starting from the AEO2008 Reference case to estimate
the effect of its key provisions. From these calculations, it
is clear that EISA alone is responsible for a major reduction
in projected oil consumption, which in turn reduces oil
imports on an almost 1-for-1 basis. By 2030, the fuel economy
standards provisions in EISA were estimated to reduce light-
duty vehicle gasoline-equivalent fuel consumption by between
2.1 and 2.2 million barrels per day relative to a scenario
where vehicle efficiency did not improve above the floor set
by standards in effect at the time of enactment. Relative to
a baseline that included projected market-driven improvements
in fuel economy, the savings in fuel consumption due to the
fuel economy provisions were still estimated at 1.2 to 1.4
million barrels per day. Furthermore, the RFS provisions of
EISA were estimated to further reduce petroleum consumption
by 0.3 to 0.6 million barrels per day in 2030.
The AEO2011 Early Release, which reflects current laws and
regulations, does not include a further increase in fuel
economy standards for model years 2017 through 2025 that is
now under consideration in the regulatory process. The
forthcoming release of the full AEO2011 will include
alternative scenarios of increased light-duty vehicle fuel
efficiency to illustrate how further actions by policymakers
in this area could affect projected U.S. oil use and imports
over the next 25 years.
Finally, while there are a variety of ways to place the
major change in projected net petroleum imports resulting
from EISA into perspective, comparisons to the level of U.S.
proven crude oil reserves can be clarified by explicitly
recognizing that reserves are only a subset of available
domestic resources. As discussed in my recent testimony
before the House Committee on Natural Resources, additions to
crude oil reserves replaced over 93 percent of cumulative
U.S. crude oil production of 19.6 billion barrels from 2000
through 2009. For this reason, total U.S. crude oil reserves
declined only modestly over that decade, decreasing from 22.0
billion barrels at the start of 2000 to 20.7 billion barrels
at the start of 2010.
I hope that this information is responsive to your inquiry.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further
questions or concerns.
Sincerely,

Richard G. Newell,

Administrator, Energy Information
Administration.

Ms. CANTWELL. In 2007, the Energy Information Administration was
predicting that our foreign dependency was going to continue to
increase in the coming decades. I should note that after the 2005
Energy bill, I heard some of my colleagues on the other side say that
that EIA forecast was the great predictor and that it was going to help
us reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But the truth is, the
subsequent EIA analysis made after we passed the 2007 Energy bill says
just two policies in that landmark bill--the increase in CAFE standards
and the renewable fuel standards--are responsible for a downward
revision of projected U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
So the things that have made us less dependent on foreign oil are the
very things people are trying to gut from important legislation that is
already on the books. It is not the case that additional drilling,
drilling, drilling and saying to the EPA: ``Ignore the Supreme Court on
the Clean Air Act,'' is going to help us. Reducing demand is going to
reduce prices at the pump. Look at the example of the U.K., which
produces almost all of its own oil from the North Sea. They still got
hammered in 2008 when oil prices peaked at $147 a barrel because there
is a world market price for oil. So to refute the notion that we should
skirt our environmental responsibilities and drill, drill, drill to
protect ourselves from high oil prices, we need to look no further than
the U.K. example.
I don't understand why the minority leader wants us to increase our
Nation's reliance on foreign oil. I think we should be getting off
foreign oil and not allowing polluters to addict another generation to
that product. I think we should be getting off foreign oil, rather than
have future U.S. generations compete with the Chinese for every last
remaining supply of ever more expensive oil.
I agree it would be better if Congress acted to address our need to
diversify our Nation's energy sources. I am anxious to work with my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to develop legislation that
would use the power of the free market to do that and protect consumers
at the same time. I am certain there is a bipartisan solution we can
all agree to. But we can do this and solve our carbon pollution problem
by working together, not by burying our heads in the sand and saying we
can ignore the Supreme Court's edict to enforce the Clean Air Act.
There is a way to reduce carbon pollution and transition to a 21st
century economy and we can and should work together to achieve these
goals. It does not have to be about picking winners and losers, and we
can protect consumers in the process. I want to work with my colleagues
on a framework that embodies these principles. But, until then, I urge
my colleagues to vote against these amendments that will undermine our
Clean Air Act; that will actually increase our dependence on foreign
oil, force consumers to buy more gasoline, and make our air dirtier.
We can do better and I hope we will.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer, the chair
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, be the next Democratic
speaker and that she have up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the
remarks of Senator Boxer, who I understand wants to speak for 10
minutes, I be recognized for about 10 minutes. That will be about the
timeframe we have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wanted to speak on the McConnell
amendment that Senator Inhofe has worked so hard to bring up, and also
Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. We all know what is happening to gasoline
prices in the United States right now. They have gone up now and the
average is about $3.60 a gallon. What we are looking at are more
increases in those gasoline prices if the EPA is allowed to take an
authority it does not have and regulate greenhouse gasses.

[[Page S2173]]

Some of the other amendments offered on this subject are well
intentioned, but they do fall short of actually making a difference.
The amendment before us repeals EPA's effort. It is very simple and
very clean. Small businesses are struggling to survive, struggling to
keep workers, and trying to make it in very small margins in this
economic time.
Families are facing higher energy costs. We are all suffering. I have
a pickup truck which I love to drive. I filled it up a couple of
weekends ago. It was about $60. That is a pickup truck. That is a basic
form of transportation for many Americans. Farmers depend on affordable
energy prices. They must put gasoline in their trucks, diesel in their
harvesters, use energy-intensive fertilizer.
Higher costs for farmers means higher costs for food. You are talking
about now an inflation we cannot afford in this kind of economic
environment. During all of this, the EPA now wants to impose a new gas
tax on America in the form of greenhouse gas regulation.
Last Congress I issued a report that documented how the Kerry-
Lieberman climate legislation would impose a $3.6 trillion gas tax on
the American people. Using the data from EPA and the Energy Information
Administration, we calculated that climate legislation would impose a
$2 trillion gasoline tax, a $1.3 trillion diesel fuel tax, and a $330
billion jet fuel tax.
According to the EPA and the senior Obama administration officials,
regulations would be even worse than legislation. That was one of the
main arguments they used in support of climate legislation, that the
regulations would be even worse than cap-and-trade legislation.
But that is exactly what we are getting with the EPA now trying to
regulate what we could not pass in the legislature, for good reason.
The Baucus amendment could shield small businesses and farmers from EPA
permit requirements, but it codifies the requirements for energy and
fuel producers, meaning everyone in America will still pay higher
energy prices.
The Stabenow and Rockefeller amendment only delays the higher energy
costs and job losses for 2 years. That is not good enough. I hope my
colleagues will see that this is our time to tell the EPA we will
determine what we want them to regulate. That is the responsibility of
the Congress. We are to make the laws, they are to implement them. They
are not to reinvent them in their own model of what they have the
authority to do, and we have not given them the authority to regulate
greenhouse gases. The refineries say this added amount of regulation is
going to cost so much that they will have to raise their prices in
their factories, and that assuredly will raise the price of oil and
gasoline through its use in our country.
This is an amendment. There is only one amendment of all the
amendments on this subject that will do the job. It is simple and
clear. It would eliminate the EPA's ability to make regulations in an
area that Congress has not authorized it to do. That is what we need to
do. Congress needs to take the reins and halt the overregulation that
is hurting our small businesses and hurting our economic recovery.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the McConnell-Inhofe-
Murkowski amendment.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, we are in the midst of another rapid
increase in the price of oil and gas at the pump faced by our
constituents. Rather than address this issue in a positive manner, we
are once again debating an amendment whose authors believe that they
have the expertise to determine that the EPA was wrong to conclude that
greenhouse gases are pollutants, despite the preponderance of
scientific evidence.
The McConnell amendment disregards the advice of leading scientists,
doctors, and public health experts by not only overturning EPA's
scientific endangerment finding but also telling EPA that it must
continue to ignore what America's science experts are telling us about
the dangerous impacts of carbon pollution.
The Supreme Court concluded in 2007 that the Clean Air Act's
definition of air pollutant includes greenhouse gas emissions,
rejecting the Bush administration's refusal to determine whether that
pollution endangers Americans' health and welfare. The Senate should
similarly reject this amendment, which would overturn that science-
based decision.
There are many far-reaching consequences of this amendment, but I
want to focus my attention on how it will disrupt the broadly supported
and partnership-driven fuel efficiency standards for new cars and light
trucks, thereby forfeiting many hundreds of millions of barrels of oil
savings, including savings for the American consumer, and potentially
re-opening the debate to contentious litigation.
This would be a major step backwards in our efforts to decrease the
cost of fueling at the pump. The price of gas weighs heavily on the
budgets of American families, currently $3.56 per gallon in Rhode
Island and an increase of 27 percent over the same time last year. The
cheapest gallon of gas is the one that you do not need to buy, which is
why I have long championed improved fuel efficiency.
Last year's vehicle efficiency and emissions standards will save
consumers more than $3,000 in fuel costs over the lifetime of new
vehicles. Increasing the standard to 60 mpg by 2025 could result in
$7,000 in savings. Our competitors in China and Europe already have
higher efficiency standards. It is time that we create manufacturing
jobs here in America by producing cars that save consumers money at the
pump. I have been heartened to see our auto industry begin to do just
that, but we need to go further.
The McConnell amendment would accomplish the opposite by creating
business uncertainty for our existing standards and stopping the
development of future efforts to save more oil and money.
This amendment is part of the ongoing concern over how we will reduce
carbon pollution, and there will always be the need to balance the
needs for business development and environmental protection. But it
does not have to be an either or position. A healthy environment is
important for a strong economy, and the 40-year track record of the
Clean Air Act has shown us that the two can work well in concert.
We need to define our energy future, one that ends our dependence on
foreign oil and confronts the challenges of climate change. This
amendment accomplishes neither and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there are various proposals before us that
would impact efforts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to
address greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global climate
change.
While I have concerns regarding EPA's regulatory efforts in this
regard, Senator McConnell's amendment not only restricts EPA's
regulatory work, but it would explicitly overturn an important science
based EPA finding that greenhouse gas emissions may endanger the public
health and welfare of current and future generations. Further, the
McConnell amendment would repeal the mandatory reporting of emission
levels of greenhouse gases, which began in 2009. The results of that
reporting will help inform important policy decisions regarding how to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Senator Rockefeller's amendment would establish a 2-year delay on any
EPA action pertaining to greenhouse gas emissions from stationary
sources, with the hope that Congress will act to reach a legislative
solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide. I could
support that because I prefer comprehensive climate legislation with
targets and timetables that are technologically achievable instead of a
regulatory regime administered by the EPA to address greenhouse gas
emissions.
However, I cannot support the Rockefeller amendment because of its
impact on the regulation of vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. The
amendment would explicitly allow regulation of vehicle greenhouse gas
emissions by EPA to go forward under the Clean Air Act, which leaves
intact the authority for the EPA to grant a waiver to the State of
California to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. The stated
goal of the Obama administration, one I strongly support and have
fought for, is to have a single national standard for vehicle fuel
economy and greenhouse gas emissions, as is currently the case for
model years 2012-2016. That

[[Page S2174]]

goal is defeated, however, if states can individually regulate these
emissions, because the result is a patchwork of overlapping and
conflicting regulations.
Senator Stabenow's amendment has many provisions I support. For
instance, unlike the McConnell amendment, it would not nullify the EPA
finding based on science that greenhouse gas emissions may endanger
public health and the environment. It would also allow EPA to move
forward with its reporting requirements, which will help inform policy
makers as to how to best reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Stabenow
amendment would also allow the EPA to move forward with its planning to
reduce greenhouse gases from stationary sources. Emissions of
greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural sources would also be
excluded from EPA regulation related to global climate change.
However, the Stabenow amendment would also leave intact EPA's
authority under the Clean Air Act to issue vehicle greenhouse gas
emissions standards and authority for EPA to grant a waiver to the
State of California. I support the EPA and the Department of
Transportation together developing a single national standard. If there
is going to be a single national standard for 2017-2025, then logically
there must also be preemption of state authority in this area. I cannot
support an amendment that addresses EPA authority but leaves in place
its authority to grant a waiver that is so problematic for our
manufacturing sector.
I particularly regret that I cannot support the Stabenow amendment
because it also includes an extension of the so-called section 48C
advanced energy manufacturing tax credit, which I support. This tax
credit--enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--
provides an important incentive for energy manufacturers to continue to
invest in facilities in the U.S. I very much support extension of this
tax credit and will work with my colleagues to try to extend it.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, I urge rejection of all of the amendments
offered today that would gut the Environmental Protection Agency's
ability to enforce our Clean Air Act.
It has been proven time and time again that we can have both a clean
environment and grow our economy. In fact without a clean environment,
it is more difficult for us to grow the economy. Without the Clean Air
Act we would be spending trillions of dollars more on health care costs
and lost work days. Over its 40 years the Clean Air Act has been one of
the world's most successful environmental and health protection laws
reducing exposure to pollutants such as lead, ozone, sulfur dioxide,
smog-forming gases, and mercury and other heavy metals and toxics.
Thanks to the Clean Air Act millions of lives have been saved by
preventing premature deaths, heart attacks, cancer, asthma, and other
life-threatening illnesses. But even after 40 years of action,
pollution in many areas of the country still violates basic health
standards, putting tens of millions of Americans' lives at risk.
In Vermont, while we don't have any coal-fired powerplants, we are
still the victims of their pollution as it travels by wind across our
borders into the Green Mountain State. Throughout the Nation, hundreds
of thousands of Americans suffer every year from illnesses linked to
emissions from powerplants, refineries and other large sources of air
pollution and greenhouse gases.
Yet there are some powerful special interests and some Members of
this body who would like to strip the EPA of its authorities to enforce
the Clean Air Act because they reject the notion that greenhouse gases
are air pollutants and harmful to public health, or they believe that
we just cannot afford clean air. Methane, nitrous oxide, carbon
dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons and other compounds are the ingredients of
a pollutant cocktail forced on many millions of Americans.
The Supreme Court has determined that the Clean Air Act is
``unambiguous'' and that greenhouse gases, such as those I just
mentioned, are ``without a doubt'' air pollutants under the Clean Air
Act. As such, EPA is required to regulate these emissions since they
endanger public health. The Supreme Court has given the EPA little
choice, and the science is clear they must act.
The McConnell amendment would have politics, not science, decide
which pollutants are hazardous and which pollutants should be
regulated. If politics had been allowed to trump the compelling
scientific evidence, we may have never phased lead out of gasoline, or
reduced ozone-depleting chemicals, or tackled acid rain. Over the years
powerful special interests have sought to block EPA's actions on all of
these issues, arguing that the science was weak and the costs
unjustified. Once again they are crying wolf and trotting out the same
discredited arguments to fight greenhouse gas regulations today.
In enforcing the Clean Air Act, EPA is doing the job that Congress
mandated decades ago. These amendments that attack the Clean Air Act
would force the EPA to turn a blind eye toward polluters, the same
polluters that are spending millions of dollars to lobby against the
Clean Air Act.
I urge every Senator to talk to the parents and grandparents of
children in their home States who suffer from asthma. Take the time to
hear about the trips they have had to take to the emergency room and
about the countless hospital stays because of the air they breathe,
something so many of us take for granted. These attacks on the Clean
Air Act would also lead to more heart attacks, more strokes, more
cancer, and shorter lives.
I arrived in the Senate just 5 years after the Clean Air Act of 1970
was introduced and unanimously passed by the Senate. I have supported
efforts to reduce life-threatening pollutants, such as lead and
mercury. And I will support efforts to reduce hazardous greenhouse
gases, just as a majority of Americans do.
The truth is that the McConnell amendment and the other EPA
amendments we will vote on today would hurt public health, cost
consumers more, stifle the invention of new pollution prevention
technologies which grow the U.S. economy and jobs, and further slow our
transition to renewable energy sources. Since passage of the Clean Air
Act, the benefits have proved to be 42 times greater than the estimated
costs of cleaning our air. Our GDP has tripled since the Clean Air Act
was passed.
In Vermont we are fortunate to have two of the preeminent innovation
companies in the world, IBM and GE. These corporations and others like
them rely on regulatory certainty when deciding what investments to
make in research, technology, and expansion into new markets. These
attempts to strip EPA of its authority under the Clean Air Act to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions would send the wrong market signals
to our innovators.
Myths are myths and facts are facts, and the fact is that pollution
standards are by law both achievable and affordable.
They encourage energy efficiency, which reduces energy demand,
reduces fuel consumption, drives down our dependency on fossil fuels
and foreign oil, reduces operating costs, and lowers energy prices. In
fact the most prevalent compliance response to EPA's carbon regulations
will be using current and newly developed technologies to increase a
plant's energy efficiency.
The McConnell amendment would render meaningless the progress that we
have already made to invent new products that consume less fuel,
pollute less, and create American jobs--jobs that cannot be sent
overseas. The McConnell amendment would penalize those pioneering
facilities that have already taken steps to clean up industry, and
reward those who have seen these new standards coming for years, but
have chosen to do nothing to protect the public. Instead they now
pressure Congress to let them off the hook and to pass the long term
health costs along to the public.
The evidence in favor of embracing a cleaner future is clear. We have
an opportunity to encourage our innovative companies to be global
leaders in new clean energy technologies that will create jobs here in
America. We must stop supporting the dirty, outdated and inefficient
technologies of the past.
By eliminating EPA's ability to impose scientific, health-based
limits on carbon pollution from the Nation's largest polluters, the
McConnell amendment and the other amendments that attack the EPA would
only end up taking a hefty toll in Americans'

[[Page S2175]]

health and costing consumers more by increasing oil consumption and
forcing them to pay higher fuel costs.
We need to support efforts for clean air and to reduce our dependence
on fossil fuels. Lives are at stake. In 2010, in just 1 year, the Clean
Air Act prevented 160,000 cases of premature death. By 2020, that
number is projected to rise to 230,000.
The air we breathe is the heritage of the American people, not the
property of the big polluters.
The people of this great country deserve better, and they want clean
air as well for their children and grandchildren. That is why I urge
defeat of these amendments to gut enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
Stand up for a future with clean energy and economic growth that
depends on a clean environment. Take a stand for the American
innovation that will create more American jobs and technology to
protect the public's health and the environment. And help more
Americans live longer lives.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am here because I want to urge a no vote
on all these amendments that essentially stop the Environmental
Protection Agency from doing their work as it relates to air pollution.
I am here to do that because never before have we ever interfered in
the enforcement of the Clean Air Act. It has worked because we have
seen tremendous advances in our clean air. Pollutants cause or
contribute to asthma, emphysema, heart disease, and other potentially
lethal respiratory ailments.
We know from the work of the Bush administration and that of the
Obama administration that the endangerment finding that said greenhouse
gases were dangerous for our health predicted that ground-level ozone
would increase if we did nothing, and we would have more cases of
asthma and coughing, and people staying home from school, and staying
home from work.
The EPA's endangerment finding is key. Here is what they told us:

Severe heat waves are projected to intensify, which can
increase heat-related deaths and sickness.

Remember, this is relating to carbon pollution, greenhouse gases,
exactly what my colleagues are trying to either slow down cleaning up
or stop cleaning up, in an unprecedented assault on our nation's
health--unprecedented assault on our nation's health.
We even had a Senator stand up here and say, EPA does not have the
right to regulate carbon pollution, greenhouse gas emissions. I would
urge that person, and everyone else saying it, to read the Clean Air
Act. It is so clear. And, by the way, the Bush administration did not
want to enforce the Clean Air Act, and they went all the way to the
Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said no.
It is very clear in the Clean Air Act that, yes, Congress meant we
should control this type of dangerous pollution once an endangerment
finding is made. And that was made. What the McConnell amendment does--
and my friend Senator Inhofe was actually the author of the full bill,
the same thing--is essentially say that the EPA is overridden. They
repeal the endangerment finding. That is like my coming here and
saying, I want to repeal science that says that smoking causes lung
cancer. Okay? I want to play doctor. I want to play scientist. It is
absolutely a dangerous precedent because it involves our people.
Climate change is expected to worsen regional smog pollution, which can
cause decreased lung function, aggravated asthma, increased emergency
room visits, and premature deaths.
Why on Earth do my colleagues want to repeal an endangerment
finding--by the way, Senator Murkowski tried and it failed, and it is
going to fail here today. But the fact is, why should we play doctor? I
know some of us have a great elevation of ourselves; a couple have
doctorate degrees, but most of us are not scientists and doctors. We
act as if we are. I am too humble to repeal science. That is what they
do here.
Let's look at the health successes of the Clean Air Act. In 2010
alone, the act prevented 160,000 premature deaths, 1.7 million asthma
attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, and 3.2 million lost days of school. I
am telling you, the Clean Air Act has been a great success. The number
of smog-related health advisories in Southern California has dropped
from 166 days in 1976 to zero days in 2010.
Why on Earth would we want to mess with a law that has been working?
It has been working. I defy anyone to point out a law that has worked
as well as this one. We went from 166 days in Los Angeles, where people
were told not to go outdoors, to zero days in 2010, because the EPA--by
the way, created by a Republican President, Richard Nixon--does its
job.
Look at the bipartisan support for the Clean Air Act. First of all,
it passed the Senate 73 to 0, the House 375 to 1. The conference report
was approved unanimously, and now, suddenly, I cannot find a Republican
to say they fully support the Clean Air Act. What has happened to my
friends on the other side of the aisle? This was a bipartisan issue. It
certainly is with the people.
In 1990, we had a bipartisan vote signed by President George Herbert
Walker Bush: Senate, 89 to 10; House, 401 to 25. That is why so many
people in this country still support the Clean Air Act. Let's look at
the results of that bipartisan poll we have. Bipartisan support.
It was created, the EPA, by Richard Nixon. Republican President
George Herbert Walker Bush signed the reauthorization, and 60 percent
of the people in this Nation--and this is a poll that was taken
February 14 of this year--say that the Environmental Protection Agency
should update Clean Air Act standards with stricter air pollution
limits. Listen. Stricter air pollution limits.
The polluters do not like it. They are crying all the way to the
bank. They had the biggest profits they ever had, the oil companies.
They do not want the EPA enforcing the law. By the way, my colleagues
name this amendment something like The Gas Reduction Price Act or
something like that.
They say this is going to help us stop gas prices from rising. It has
nothing to do with that. Every time we move forward with Clean Air Act
authorities, there are predictions from all the polluters about how
horrible it will be, and we never had such a period of prosperity since
Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act.
Sixty-eight percent say: Congress, stay out of the Clean Air Act
standards. Leave them alone. Don't change them. The McConnell amendment
and the others, all interfere.
Sixty-nine percent say EPA scientists, not Congress, should set
pollution standards. This McConnell amendment and the others all put
Congress in the middle.
The people are smart. They don't want politicians deciding what to do
about their health. They don't come to us when they have asthma. They
don't come to us when they get cancer. They rely on physicians. They
rely on scientists. But we are playing doctor today. We are going to
repeal or try to repeal the endangerment finding that went along with
the EPA deciding to move forward and enforce decreases in carbon
pollution.
On March 14 the Washington Post had a very interesting article, an
op-ed piece signed by Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Administrator from
2001 and 2003, and William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator from 1970 to
1973, two Republican former heads of the EPA. They wrote:

Today the agency President Richard Nixon created in
response to the public outcry over visible air pollution and
flammable rivers is under siege. The Senate is poised to vote
on a bill that would, for the first time, disapprove of a
scientifically based finding, in this case that greenhouse
gases endanger public health and welfare.

This is signed by two Republican former heads of the Environmental
Protection Agency. The McConnell amendment is radical in the extreme.
We have never before played doctor around here and repealed a
scientific finding that said a certain type of pollution is a problem.
They also said:

It is easy to forget how far we have come in the past 40
years. We should take heart from all the progress and not, as
some in Congress have suggested, seek to tear down the agency
that the president and Congress created to protect America's
health and environment.

If we are interested in bipartisanship, why don't we look at the
facts. The

[[Page S2176]]

fact is, the American public supports EPA and the Clean Air Act. The
fact is, Richard Nixon created the EPA. The fact is, George Herbert
Walker Bush signed the Clean Air Act amendments. The fact is, it is
very clear in the Clean Air Act that carbon pollution, any pollution
related to climate change, is covered.
This is a reality check from someone who believes we should not go
down this dangerous path of playing doctor, playing scientist,
overturning the Environmental Protection Agency, which enjoys almost 70
percent support among the people of this greatest of all nations.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I agree in one respect with the Senator
from California. Actually, we agree on a lot of points. We agree on
infrastructure and things that we know the country needs. But in the
area of the Clean Air Act, she said: Show me one Republican who
supported it. I supported the Clean Air Act. It has been a tremendous
success.
Stop and look at the real pollution. I am not talking about
greenhouse gases. I am talking about the six real pollutants and what
has happened. It is amazing the success of the Clean Air Act. I agree
with that.
I remind everyone, though, that the Clean Air Act would not be
regulating CO2 except the court said: If you want to do it,
you can. They did not mandate that it be done. That is worth
considering.
Since I have the time until we will be voting on the first of three
cover votes before they get to my amendment, I wish to correct my good
friend from California. She referred to it as the McConnell amendment.
It is the McConnell-Inhofe amendment. In fact, it came from my bill
that I introduced with Fred Upton sometime ago, a bill that is going to
be voted on in the House Representatives today. So it is appropriate
that we take it up now. This amendment has been postponed six or seven
times. I applaud the majority leader for letting us have these votes.
It is important that we do this.
This is what I believe is important. People need to understand a
couple of things: First, this is all about, starting in the 1990s when
they had the Kyoto convention that we were supposed to ratify,
President Clinton never did submit it to the Senate for ratification.
Nonetheless, it was one that regulated greenhouse gases. I remember at
that time the Wharton School did an analysis that asked: What if the
United States were to ratify the Kyoto treaty and live by its
requirements? What would the costs be?
It came out somewhere in the neighborhood of between $300 and $400
billion. We never ratified it because the President never submitted it
for ratification. Then in 2003, there came a number of votes. Almost
every year we had legislation introduced that would do essentially what
the Kyoto treaty would have done, which would have been cap and trade.
We had MIT and others look at it to see what in fact would be the cost
if we were to do this.
I can remember when my good friend, the junior Senator from
California, Mrs. Boxer, and I talked on the Senate floor the last time
we defeated her bill--I think this might have been the Waxman-Markey
bill, but it doesn't matter because they are all the same--I stipulated
to the science. I said: All right. Let's assume the science is right.
It isn't, but let's assume it is so we don't have to talk about that.
Assuming it is, let's talk about the economics. That is where we
developed what it would cost.
In my State of Oklahoma, I have a policy that when we talk about
billions and trillions of dollars I try to put it into context as to
how it will affect taxpayers in my State. I have a very simple thing I
do. I take the total number of families who file tax returns and then I
do the math. If I divide that, say, $350 billion a year, that means the
average taxpayer in my State would have to pay $3,100 a year in
additional taxes in order to pay for the cap-and-trade regime that
comes with any type of legislation. We talked about that. Continually,
we defeated each bill that came along.
This is the key. The Obama administration is very beholden to some of
the far leftwing people. He had a commitment to try to pass some kind
of cap and trade. He said: If we can't do it legislatively, we will do
it through regulation. So we had all these regulations that EPA started
coming down with.
I have to mention, of these regulations, one was very significant
because I remember when she was before our Environment and Public Works
Committee, I said to her--this is right before going to the big U.N.
party in Copenhagen about 18 months ago--I have a feeling, Madam
Director, that you are going to come up with an endangerment finding.
When you do, it has to be based on science. What science will you base
it on?
She said: Primarily on the IPCC.
To make sure everybody understands, the IPCC is the United Nations.
They are the ones who came up with this whole thing and said this is
what the end of the world is going to be.
I said: If you are going to have an endangerment finding that
CO2 is an endangerment to health, then it has to be based on
science. What science will it be based on?
The answer was, the United Nations. It is going to be based on the
science of the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
That is the United Nations.
Coincidentally, right after that is when climategate came, and they
found that they had been cooking the science for about 10 years and
that the legitimate interests and input of real scientists were
rejected. So the science just flat wasn't there.

That is why I said at the time that we had this bill up, I will
stipulate to the science, even though the science is not there. I know
it is not there, but what is there is the economics.
Here we were, faced with a situation where we were looking at the
possibility of the Environmental Protection Agency regulating
CO2. I contend that they can do it if they have an
endangerment finding, but they don't have to do it. The economic
punishment to America would be tremendous. However, it wouldn't do any
good.
Here is the big question: What if I am wrong? People have asked me:
Inhofe, what if you are wrong? You have been leading this fight for 9
years. What if CO2 does endanger health and cause global
warming and all these scary stories we hear?
My response to that is, if that is the case, it is not going to make
any difference because even the EPA director admits if we unilaterally
pass some type of regulation that stops the regulation of greenhouse
gases, it is not going to affect the overall release of CO2
emissions.
The reason is simple. If we do it only in the United States, we would
argue that is not where the problem is. The problem is in China,
Mexico, India, and Third World countries that don't have any emission
controls at all. So I think everyone agrees if we pass something like
these regulations of the EPA unilaterally, it would not reduce
emissions at all. Consequently, we would be incurring economic
punishment to achieve nothing.
I would take it one step further. As we chase away our manufacturing
base, as they say would happen, we would be in a position where they
would go to countries where there is no emission controls. It would
actually have the result of increasing emissions.
Even if Senator Boxer is right in everything she says, she is wrong
in the respect that if we pass it, it will not lower emissions. That is
the fact.
We are running out of time, but I have the time right up to 4
o'clock. I will go over four things that will happen, finalizing the
vote that is going to be at 4.
Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. INHOFE. Let me finish because I am going to need all the time.
Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes prior to
the vote on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, is the Senator talking
about doing it after 4 o'clock?
Mr. BAUCUS. Before the vote, yes.
Mr. INHOFE. If he would include me to speak for 1 minute at that
time, I have no objection.
Mr. BAUCUS. That would be fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Senator Baucus will have an amendment up. I think it is
interesting. I refer to these three amendments as cover amendments. In
other

[[Page S2177]]

words, there are a lot of Democrats who don't want to vote to take away
the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate
greenhouse gases, so they have offered other amendments. The Baucus
amendment is one that is going to exempt certain small people, some
small farmers and all that. But that doesn't exempt them from having
their electricity rates escalate.
The American Farm Bureau says: We don't want any of the cover votes.
We don't want the Baucus bill. We don't want Stabenow, and we don't
want Rockefeller. Stabenow would also have a delay in certain parts of
the regulation. The Rockefeller vote, which is going to be the third
vote, is one that would have a 2-year delay. In other words, it says we
can go ahead and do the regulation, but we will kind of put it off for
2 years.
The real vote and the one that is critical--and if there is anyone
out there who doesn't want to go home and say: I am responsible for
passing the largest tax increase in the history of America by defeating
the Inhofe-McConnell amendment, then go ahead and vote that way. That
is going to be a serious problem--not for me but for the Senators who
might vote the wrong way.
The McConnell-Inhofe amendment will be the fourth vote. This is the
critical one. The rest are cover votes.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that in addition to my being able
to speak for 2 minutes and Senator Inhofe 1 minute, that Senator Boxer
also be allowed to speak for 1 minute on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 236

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have a very commonsense amendment. It
basically says: The general rule makes sense, but there should be a
couple exceptions. The general rule is that we should have regulations
on greenhouse gas emissions, but not for agriculture. I am talking
about agricultural producers, not processors, the regulations which
would still apply to processors.
We are talking about producers, agricultural producers. They should
be exempt. Currently, there are not regulations. EPA may or may not
pass regulations that affect agricultural producers. I think we should
make clear to agriculture they are exempt. They are not the big
greenhouse gas polluters.
Second, this amendment puts in place and codifies EPA's attempt to
deal with small business with its tailoring rule. It may or may not be
upheld in the courts. Passage of this amendment would allow this to be
upheld in the courts.
Essentially, there are 15,000 emitters of greenhouse gas emissions
that are the big ones. The other 6 million basically are the very small
ones. What about the big ones, the 15,000? Those are large plants run
by big corporations. They essentially produce most of the greenhouse
gas emissions. Ninety-six percent of these 15,000--the big ones--are
already subject to EPA criteria. They have to get permits. Moreover,
they emit 70 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions.
So I am just saying, for small businesses--there are a lot of them--
it is very important they be exempt from EPA regulations. It is common
sense. In general, it is OK, but it exempts agriculture and it exempts
small business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Montana has
consumed his 2 minutes.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, a point of inquiry, not to be taken from
the time I have. The inquiry is, When we get into the four votes, are
we going to have additional time arguing for and against the
amendments?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate, equally divided,
between the stacked votes.
Mr. INHOFE. OK. I would ask the Chair, these 2 minutes are having to
do with the Baucus amendment, the first one we will vote on; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe each have 1
minute.
Mr. INHOFE. On the Baucus amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. INHOFE. OK. I thank the Chair very much.
Let me go first. In deference to my good friend, Senator Boxer, I
said I would go first and she can go last.
Let me mention, this is only on the Baucus amendment. Yes, the
Senator is right in presenting his amendment that it does exempt
farmers and some small businesses from the higher costs and all that.
But here is the problem with that: All we have to do is read the
statement by the American Farm Bureau where they say: Look, all of our
farmers across America--even if this only affects the refiners and the
manufacturers, that increases the cost of fuel and the cost of fuel is
going to go higher and we do not get anything for it. For that reason,
they oppose the Baucus amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, when Senator Baucus talked to me about
his amendment, it sounded quite reasonable to make sure we codify the
tailoring rule of the EPA, which exempts broad swaths of American
businesses from their work on enforcing carbon pollution reductions.
But as it came out--and I discussed this with him--it goes further. It
harms the promotion of clean, renewable biomass, effectively stopping
EPA's ability to use the Clean Air Act to encourage this kind of
alternative energy.
It also undermines the Clean Air Act's New Source Review Program for
carbon pollution, which ensures that the biggest polluters use modern
pollution control technologies. It basically says the EPA cannot go and
enforce it using the New Source Review unless there is another
pollutant involved.
So as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I
have deep concerns. The Baucus amendment is opposed by leading public
health organizations: 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 the Trust for America's Health, as well as clean
energy business, environment, and conservation organizations.
For that reason--although I fully understood the initial intent, and
I thought it was laudable--this has transformed into an amendment that
I do not support and the leading public health organizations do not
support. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Baucus amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to Baucus amendment No. 236.
Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 7, nays 93, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 51 Leg.]

YEAS--7

Baucus
Begich
Conrad
Hagan
Johnson (SD)
Klobuchar
Levin

NAYS--93

Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kirk
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 7, the nays are 93.
Under the previous order, requiring 60

[[Page S2178]]

votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.

Amendment No. 277

There will now be 2 minutes of debate on the Stabenow amendment. Who
yields time?
The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. For years, I have consistently and repeatedly said that
we need to have a balanced and comprehensive American energy policy.
We can't just impose regulations; we need smart incentives to create
the technology for a clean energy economy.
The Stabenow-Brown amendment is based on the framework developed on a
bipartisan basis for the past 2 years to develop a truly comprehensive
policy that would allow us to phase in regulations.
This amendment would allow the EPA to do its work but would have the
enforcement of that work be done in 2 years. We would build on the
successful advanced energy manufacturing tax credit, known as 48C,
which has created jobs at 183 businesses in 43 States.
We have put the right incentives into place because we know when we
do that we help businesses create good-paying jobs, and we can reduce
carbon pollution at the same time.
Our amendment also follows what the EPA has indicated is its
intention toward agriculture by giving our producers the certainty they
need.
This amendment is a commonsense approach to addressing the issue of
clean energy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Senator Inhofe
and I will speak for 30 seconds each. Is that in compliance?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators have that right. The Senator from
California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the Stabenow amendment suspends full
implementation of the Clean Air Act as it relates to carbon pollution
for 2 years, which is going to cost jobs and harm America's
competitiveness. Worse than that, I think around here ``delay'' is
sometimes a code word for ``never.''
A 2-year delay could become a long-term delay. It becomes more
expensive, and in the meantime our air gets dirtier.
I will close with this: 68 percent of the people believe Congress
should not stop EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards. Yet this
amendment, and all of the others, do just that.
Let's stand with the people, with the American Lung Association, with
the physicians who have taken a stand against all of these amendments,
and allow EPA to do its job.
I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me join my friend from California
and say that the Stabenow amendment is similar to the one we voted on
before. It admits that the EPA will harm manufacturers, but it doesn't
do anything to protect anybody from the higher price of energy. The
farmers will tell you that, and everybody else will. With the 2-year
delay, EPA can drop its regulatory hammer on farmers and businesses. I
urge your vote against this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
277.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 7, nays 93, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 52 Leg.]

YEAS--7

Brown (OH)
Casey
Conrad
Johnson (SD)
Klobuchar
Pryor
Stabenow

NAYS--93

Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kirk
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 7, the nays are 93. Under the
previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment,
this amendment is rejected.

Amendment No. 215

Under the previous order, there is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 215, offered by
the Senator from West Virginia.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, my plan would put EPA on hold for 2
years and no more, but not on hold from many of its other duties, for
example, CAFE standards.
Many of our colleagues do not realize--and certainly the ones who are
going to support the McConnell amendment do not realize--that 31
percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in this country come from the
backs of trucks and cars. I do not stop them from going ahead and doing
that. But I want breathing space so we can take 2 years--yes, there is
a lot of frustration in my State about EPA and permits, and I
understand that very well. But I want to take 2 years so we can think
as a body and actually come up with an energy policy. I am ready for
that.
I am not the same person I was 2 or 3 years ago on this subject. But
we need that time. I ask my colleagues respectfully to support my
amendment. It stops at the end of 2 years, which continues the use of
CAFE standards, allowing EPA to set those standards. I ask my
colleagues to vote against the McConnell amendment, which I think is
truly a stunning aberration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I will take 30 seconds and yield to my
friend Senator Inhofe.
For the reasons we already said about public health or the protection
of our Clean Air Act, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Rockefeller
amendment.
Let me add one other point. The American renewable energy industry
has written to us and told us that the uncertainty of a 2-year delay is
more than 2 years. It causes American renewable energy companies to be
at a disadvantage with foreign energy companies, costing Americans
jobs. Uncertainty adds to job loss in America.
For the sake of the public health of Americans, for the sake of our
economy, I urge my colleagues to reject the Rockefeller amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, the 2-year delay encourages bureaucrats
to stall new permits. It does not accomplish anything. It delays new
construction, and it delays new jobs.
One of the interesting points about all three of these amendments is
that everyone agrees EPA should not be regulating greenhouse gases. If
you are going to have a root canal, does it help to wait 2 years?
I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
215.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 12, nays 88, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 53 Leg.]

YEAS--12

Brown (MA)
Collins
Conrad
Graham
Johnson (SD)
Landrieu
Manchin
McCaskill
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Rockefeller
Webb

NAYS--88

Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer

[[Page S2179]]

Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 12, the nays are
88. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of
this amendment, this amendment is rejected.
The Senator from Delaware.

Amendments Nos. 244 and 161 Withdrawn

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
pending Landrieu second-degree amendment No. 244 and the Johanns
amendment No. 161.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 183

Under the previous order, there is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 183 authored by
the Senator from Kentucky.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I think we learned something just in the
last half hour, and that is that 90 percent of the Members of this
body, of the Senate, do not think the EPA is qualified to regulate
greenhouse gases. They voted against the Baucus amendment, the Stabenow
amendment, and the Rockefeller amendment. I have referred to those as
cover amendments. You don't get much cover when they get less than 10
percent of the vote.
So now is the chance to really do something. If you really want to do
something that is going to stop the overregulation we get that is so
offensive to the majority of people, we can do it with the Inhofe-
McConnell amendment.
First of all, we know what the cost of this will be. The cost will be
somewhere in the neighborhood of $300 billion a year. It will be the
largest tax increase in the history of this country.
Secondly, what do you get? People have asked: Inhofe, what if you are
wrong? What if these greenhouse gases are going to destroy this
country?
If we are wrong, let's look at the response we received from the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson.
When we asked her at a public meeting, if we were to pass these
regulations or any of these cap-and-trade bills, would this have the
effect of lowering the greenhouse gases, the answer was no because it
would only affect the United States of America.
This is your chance to vote against a major tax increase to the
American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President and colleagues, the question is simple:
Can we protect our environment and grow our economy? And the answer is
yes.
Forty years ago, naysayers claimed the Clean Air Act, signed into law
by then-President Richard Nixon, was too costly and would doom our
economy. They were wrong. We heard the same doom-and-gloom predictions
in 1990 when President George Herbert Walker Bush led the effort to
strengthen the Clean Air Act. They were wrong again. Since 1970, the
efforts of the Clean Air Act have outweighed the cost 30 to 1, and the
GDP has grown by more than 200 percent. The Clean Air Act has saved
hundreds of thousands of lives, trillions in health care costs, and
grown our economy. Now the naysayers warn that reducing carbon
pollution will doom our economy. Ronald Reagan might say: Well, there
they go again. But history and science say they are wrong.
If we don't take action, here is what it will mean: higher health
care costs in America, destroyed coastlines, and an ever-growing
dependence on foreign oil. That is not a recipe for economic success;
it is a recipe for failure.
Let's keep America on the right course--one that saves lives and
grows our economy. Please join me in voting against the McConnell
amendment.
I thank my colleagues.
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 183. The clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kyl
Landrieu
Lee
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--50

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). On this vote, the yeas are
50, the nays are 50. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for
adoption of the amendment, the amendment is rejected.

Amendment No. 281

Under the previous order there are now 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 281, offered by
the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a straightforward amendment that
eliminates individuals who have adjusted gross incomes of greater than
$1 million per year from receiving unemployment benefits. Last year, we
had 2,383 people who received unemployment benefits and also had an
income tax return that had adjusted gross incomes above $1 million. We
had 40 that had adjusted gross incomes above $10 million per year. It
is a very straightforward amendment. I hope we would support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend
from Oklahoma in supporting this amendment. He laid out the case in the
strongest terms possible. We are spending $100 million a year providing
unemployment insurance for people who make over 1 million a year. It
doesn't make any sense. It undercuts the integrity of the unemployment
insurance program and it would save $100 million, as I mentioned. I ask
all of you to join us in supporting this amendment. Let's save the
taxpayers some money.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]

YEAS--100

Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi

[[Page S2180]]

Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 100, the nays are
zero. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of
the amendment, the amendment is agreed to.

Amendment No. 286

Under the previous order, there is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to Amendment No. 286 offered by the
Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, my amendment addresses the concerns raised
by the Coburn amendment, but it does so by using existing authorities
established by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. My amendment
accomplishes the same objectives, but it maintains the proper deference
to Congress on matters of appropriations.
The Coburn amendment simply duplicates that existing authority but
removes the checks and balances. I urge a yes vote on the Inouye
amendment and a no vote on the Coburn amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. COBURN. I was looking for Senator Warner in the Chamber.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to urge adoption of the Coburn
amendment. I believe the Coburn amendment actually adds teeth. We have
a study here of duplicative programs from GAO. We have got to make sure
we are, as we debate closing down the Federal Government, attacking
real programs.
We ought to be able to save $5 billion of administrative duplication
within the 82 programs that were given in this guideline in the GAO
report. I would urge adoption of the Coburn amendment after the Inouye
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Inouye
amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 56 Leg.]

YEAS--57

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--43

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are
43. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of
this amendment, the amendment is rejected.

Amendment No. 273

Under the previous order, there is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 273 offered by the
Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have one more vote in this series of
votes. This will be the last vote tonight. We are now going to continue
working on this piece of legislation. People should talk to the manager
of the bill if they have other amendments. We have quite a few we have
to work through, but I think we have had a lot of success today.
We are still working on seeing if we can get a budget deal,
everybody. I have a meeting at the White House at a quarter to 9
tonight with Speaker Boehner.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Coburn-
Warner amendment. Refreshing everyone on the point I made just a couple
moments ago, the GAO created a study that gives us a guidepost of where
we can start eliminating some of the duplication and replication in
Federal programs. This does not go to the heart of service delivery. It
does go to anybody who has been a Governor or mayor in this body, who
knows you can find, in moments of tough times, savings at the
administrative level. This is a guideline. If we cannot find $5 billion
in administrative savings from this guidepost, then this study will go,
along with many others, to sit on a shelf.
So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Coburn-Warner
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, since 1974, there has been a law on our
books that does exactly what this amendment proposes to do. It does so
without taking away the checks and balances we have in the government.
It also does so in a proper way. It goes through the Congress of the
United States.
This is an appropriations matter. So, therefore, I hope all of us can
vote no on the Coburn amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 36, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 57 Leg.]

YEAS--64

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Warner
Wicker

NAYS--36

Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Cochran
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Udall (NM)
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). On this vote, the yeas are 64,
the nays are 36. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the
adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.

Amendment Nos. 184 and 217

Under the previous order, amendments Nos. 217 and 184 offered by the
Senator from Oklahoma are agreed to.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to briefly explain my vote
in favor of amendment No. 273, offered by Senator Coburn. The amendment
seeks to save at least $5 billion by consolidating duplicative and
overlapping

[[Page S2181]]

government programs. I wholeheartedly support efforts to save taxpayer
money by eliminating waste, fraud, abuse and inefficiency within the
Federal Government. A congressional responsibility that I take very
seriously is our day to conduct oversight of Federal agencies.
I recognize that Senator Coburn's amendment is based on a Government
Accountability Office report to Congress which identified programs and
initiatives that have duplicative goals or activities. The report
included 34 areas where billions of dollars could be saved. It included
seven areas within Defense Department programs. It proposes saving
millions by consolidating Federal data centers that today are spread
across 24 Federal agencies. It identifies duplication in 44 separate
employment and training programs, which could save millions of dollars.
I also understand that the blender's credit for ethanol was singled out
in the report.
In voting in favor of the amendment, I want to make clear that I do
not consider the ethanol blender's credit to be a duplicative program,
nor do I believe it should simply be eliminated. I would also like to
make clear that the GAO report suggested a number of policy options
that Congress could consider when revising the tax incentive. My
colleagues should know that I, along with other Members of the Senate,
are currently working to reform and restructure the tax incentives for
ethanol production and consumption. Many of the reforms we are
exploring are the same options suggested by the GAO report.
It is my hope then, that the Senate will consider thoughtful,
constructive reforms to the ethanol tax incentive, rather than the
proposal put forth by Senator Coburn with amendment No. 220 that would
end the incentive immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

____________________