[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.

                          ____________________