A bill to require the Attorney General to consult with appropriate officials within the executive branch prior to making the decision to try an unprivileged enemy belligerent in Federal civilian court.

We are now on the debt limit legislation. In a second I will cease speaking so the Senator from Utah can address the Senate.

I think we are making progress. Three amendments are now pending. The first is the substitute amendment raising the debt limit amount; second, an amendment by the Senator from South Dakota on TARP; and third, an amendment by this Senator to protect Social Security. We anticipate the Senators from North Dakota and New Hampshire will be offering their amendment to create a budget commission sometime midday today. I am hopeful the Senate can schedule votes on my Social Security amendment, the Conrad-Gregg commission amendment, and, perhaps, the pending Thune amendment as well early this afternoon. We are hopeful we can continue to process amendments, with the goal of wrapping up this legislation early next week.

Before I take a few moments to describe the amendment I offered yesterday to protect Social Security, I yield the floor so the Senator from Utah may address the Senate.

Madam President, I thank my colleague, Senator Bennett from Utah, for his statement. He makes some very good points. Although I will not be able to support the amendment, I wish to say his presentation and the points he is making are quite good.

Amendment No. 3300

Madam President, I have an amendment which I would like to explain. It is very simple. It will protect Social Security from cuts in the fast-track process proposed to be created in the Conrad-Gregg amendment.

It is clear from the public statements of Senators Conrad and Gregg, they have painted a big red target on Social Security and Medicare. That is what this commission is all about. It is a big roll of the dice for Social Security and Medicare.

Millions of American seniors rely on Social Security. Social Security is a commitment to America's seniors. I might say, if we did not have Social Security, as to estimates I have seen, about half of American seniors today would be living in poverty. Social Security basically has kept a lot of senior Americans from living in poverty. We should, therefore, prevent a fast-track process from reneging on Social Security's commitment to those people and putting a lot of people back in poor economic straits.

Numerous groups representing seniors have called for excluding Social Security from this fast-track process.

AARP, for one, recommends that Social Security be excluded from the commission's deliberations. This is what AARP says:

[W]e urge that Social Security not be considered in the

context of debt reduction; this program does not contribute

to the annual deficit, and its long-term solvency can be

resolved by relatively modest adjustments if they are made

sooner rather than later.

The National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare also focused on Social Security, arguing that it is inappropriate for such a commission. Here is what they wrote:

Incorporating Social Security into such a commission would

signal to America's seniors that the President is willing,

and even eager, to cut Social Security benefits. Ultimately,

older Americans will accept changes in Social Security only

if they have a voice in the decision and feel confident that

changes are solely for the purpose of improving and

strengthening the program. For this reason, Social Security

solvency should not be taken up in the context of a fiscal

commission.

A consortium of groups from the AFL-CIO to Common Cause, to NOW, once again, focused on the problems with allowing the budget commission to change Social Security. Here is what they wrote:

[A]n American public that only recently rejected

privatization of Social Security will undoubtedly be

suspicious of a process that shuts them out of all decisions

regarding the future of a retirement system that's served

them well in the current financial crisis.

The idea of excluding Social Security from fast-track processes is not new. Congress already excludes Social Security from the fast-track reconciliation process.

The text of my amendment is very similar to a provision that appears right now in section 310(g) of the Congressional Budget Act. That Budget Act section prohibits using reconciliation to make cuts to Social Security. That is in the law today. My amendment would do the same for the fast-track procedures in the Conrad-Gregg amendment.

The Senate added the Budget Act section on which my amendment is patterned to the law in 1985. Senator Hawkins of Florida offered the amendment, and the Senate adopted it by voice vote on October 8, 1985. It has been the law for nearly 25 years.

Let me read from some of the debate that occurred that day in 1985. Much of that debate is directly relevant to the amendment I propose today.

Senator Hawkins explained the purpose of her amendment. She said:

This amendment states that changes in Social Security

cannot be made in reconciliation.

Senator Hawkins continued:

The whole idea behind removing Social Security from the

unified budget is to make

changes in the program based on the needs and constraints of

the program itself and not for short-term budgetary reasons.

Social Security is self-financed and has long-term goals. It

should not be subject to the same constraints of programs

competing for scarce general revenue funds. If my amendment

is . . . adopted, it does not mean that changes in Social

Security could never be made. It merely means that if and

when changes are made to Social Security, it would not be in

the context of the budget.

Senator Heinz of Pennsylvania supported the Hawkins amendment. Here is what Senator Heinz said. This is 1985:

I think we first do agree that the legislation needs

language that does what the Senator from Florida suggests

this does; namely, to put an extra lock on the door so no one

can say that Social Security is going to end up in

reconciliation. That is the intent.

Senator Heinz continued:

This language . . . does a very important job by making a

point of order in order against any reconciliation bill that

comes to the floor with Social Security cuts in it.

Senator Heinz made clear that under the provision the Senate was adding to the Budget Act, Congress could still make changes to Social Security, just not in a fast-track vehicle. Senator Heinz went on to say:

[T]he Finance Committee retains jurisdiction over the

programs involving the Social Security Act. And were it

required, for reasons having to do with solvency of Social

Security, reasons of equity, having to do with either the

taxes or the benefits involving Social Security, or any other

reason having to do with it that we might see fit, but not

having to do with reconciliation and the budget process, we

could work our will, as we have in the past, on the Social

Security Program. But not as part of the reconciliation.

Senator Rudman of New Hampshire, a cosponsor of the Gramm-Rudman- Hollings budget process, spoke in favor of the amendment. Here is what he said:

[T]he language offered by the Senator from Florida has one

single effect. That effect is that any reconciliation taken

by the Senate Finance Committee would have to survive a point

of order if it dealt with anything that had to do with old

age assistance.

Senator Domenici of New Mexico, then the chairman of the Budget Committee, also explained the Hawkins amendment in the same way. This is what Senator Domenici said:

This amendment would with specificity say that any

reconciliation bill containing provisions with respect to

Social Security would be subject to a point of order. That is

what this amendment does.

That is what Senators said when they adopted a prohibition on using the fast-track reconciliation process to make changes in Social Security. That is why all those Senators supported excluding Social Security from the fast-track reconciliation process, and I argue that all the same arguments apply today as well.

Let us prevent Social Security from being cut in a fast-track commission process. Let us keep America's commitment to our seniors. I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment to protect Social Security.

I might also say, Social Security is not the cause of our deficit problem. Social Security is running surpluses. For years into the future, Social Security is going to run surpluses. Social Security, thus, reduces the current unified budget deficit. Social Security is not the reason for our fiscal problem.

Furthermore, over the longer term, Social Security is growing with the rate of growth in the economy. Social Security is growing more slowly than health care expenditures. Social Security is not the primary source of long-term fiscal imbalance--all the more reason, I submit, why my amendment should be adopted.

Madam President, I have further correspondence which I wish to read into the Record with respect to my amendment which is pending, as well as with respect to statements by organizations that essentially oppose the Conrad-Gregg amendment. The first is from the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations. It is entitled, ``Proposed Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action.''

It says:

Dear Representative: The Leadership Council of Aging

Organizations (LCAO) is a coalition of national not-for-

profit organizations focused on the well-being of America's

87 million older adults. Today, we write to you and your

colleagues regarding recent efforts to create a commission

that would force changes to entitlement programs, among other

things, through the use of a Congressional fast-track

procedure. We firmly believe that Congress, through its

regular legislative process, is best suited to consider and

address any changes to these programs. While we have

additional concerns regarding the use of such a commission on

Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security income, community

service and Federal civilian military retirement programs,

this letter is directly focused on Social Security. The LCAO

will be sending, under separate cover, a letter devoted to

expressing its concerns with the impact a fast-tracked

commission would have on Medicare and Medicaid.

Last month's Budget Committee hearing on Bipartisan Process

Proposals for Long-Term Fiscal Stability considered the

creation of a commission that would be tasked with addressing

rising Federal debt by ``closing the gap between tax revenue

coming in and the larger cost of paying for Social Security,

Medicare and Medicaid benefits.'' This is a weighty

responsibility, requiring careful review of these critical

social programs on which so many depend. But there is no

guarantee that the members of this commission would have the

necessary expertise to conduct such an intensive review.

That is very valid. How would this commission know how to make those cuts? They don't have expertise on the programs. This would be an outfit that just cuts without having any sense as to how these programs operate and what changes might be made.

Continuing to quote from the letter:

Our concern is that their recommendations, nevertheless,

would be forced through Congress, without amendment(s), under

extremely short timelines and with no opportunity to debate

individual issues or consult with constituents.

In addition to our objections about the proposed commission

process, we are concerned that its mission would imply that

Social Security has somehow contributed to the Nation's

economic woes. Social Security is not a part of the deficit

problem nor is it part of an ``entitlement crisis.'' Its cost

is projected to consume only 6.2% of GDP by 2030 and to

remain slightly below that level for 50 more years. In fact,

the 2009 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees pointed out

that Social Security ran a surplus of $180 billion last year

and had accumulated a reserve of $2.4 trillion.

That is a reserve, a surplus, of $2.4 trillion.

The most recent projections of the Congressional Budget

Office forecast that Social Security will continue to pay

full benefits until 2043.

That is a surplus at least until the year 2043.

Moreover, Social Security, with its dependable, guaranteed

benefits, is the very program that helped us most recently

avoid a 1930s-style depression.

Again, I am reading from the letter from the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations. Continuing:

Even as the banking and financial systems threatened to

collapse, Social Security continued to provide a reliable

economic lifeline to millions of children, disabled workers,

retired workers, and spouses (including widowed and divorced

spouses) dependent on those benefits. These benefits helped

to offset lost earnings and stimulated the economy by

maintaining purchasing power. According to a recent study

by the National Academy of Social Insurance and Benenson

Strategy Group, nearly nine in ten (88%) Americans say

that Social Security is more important than ever as a

result of today's economic crisis.

Social Security remains the bedrock of retirement security

for over 33 million older Americans: On average, households

with Social Security beneficiaries aged 65 and older received

about 64 percent of their income from the program in 2006.

It then gives a reference in parenthesis. The reference is in the letter.

Additionally, Social Security provides a lifeline to 4.1

million children, 7.7 million disabled workers, 2.4 million

spouses or divorced spouses of retired workers and 4.4

million surviving spouses.

The importance and value of Social Security to so many

Americans demands that proposals to change the program be

given the due weight, consideration and debate in Congress

that they deserve. With this in mind, the undersigned members

of the LCAO oppose the creation of a fast-track entitlements

commission.

I am going to read some of the signatories to this letter:

AFL-CIO, AFSCME Retirees, Alliance for Retired Americans,

the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging,

American Society on Aging, Association of Jewish Aging

Services of North America, B'Nai B'Rrith International,

Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc., Gray Panthers,

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &

Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW; Military

Officers Association of America, National Academy of Elder

Law Attorneys, National Active and Retired Federal Employees

Association, National Alliance for Caregiving, National Asian

Pacific Center on Aging, National Association of Area

Agencies on Aging, National Association of Professional

Geriatric Care Managers, National Caucus and Center on Black

Aged, Inc., National Committee to Preserve Social Security

and Medicare, National Council on Aging, National Senior

Citizens Law Center, National Consumer Voice for Quality

Long-Term Care, OWL,

The Voice of Midlife and Older Women, Service Employees

International Union, the Jewish Federations of North America,

Volunteers of America, Wider Opportunities For Women.

I think that letter speaks for itself, but I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I might also add that there is another letter I have. I have referred to this organization already, but I will read their letter. This is from OWL, the Voice of Midlife and Older Women:

Dear President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority

Leader Reid:

We, the undersigned, urge you to preserve and protect two

of the most important and successful government programs in

the history of the United States--Social Security and

Medicare. We ask that you resist the pressure by Wall Street

and conservative members of Congress to form an undemocratic

and unaccountable fast-track ``deficit commission'' that

would cut these programs that are so crucial to the well-

being of the people of our country.

Social Security is not responsible for any part of the

deficit. The 2009 Annual Report from the Board of Trustees

stated that Social Security ran a surplus of $180 billion

last year with a reserve of $2.4 trillion.

That is a reserve of $2.4 trillion.

The Congressional Budget Office, in its August 2009

forecast, said that full benefits can continue to be paid

until 2043. There is ample time to make the necessary

adjustments through the usual legislative process.

The best way to get the cost of Medicare under control is

by reforming the health care system as you are currently

trying to do, not by cutting benefits to the millions of

people whose health is at stake.

That is a very important point. Let me just read it again because it is so true:

The best way to get the cost of Medicare under control is

by reforming the health care system . . . rather than by

cutting benefits to millions of people whose health is at

stake.

Continuing in the letter:

There are many ways to cut the deficit--once our economy

has recovered. In the meantime, Social Security and Medicare

provide a measure of economic stability during a time of

financial crisis in our communities. As Frances Perkins said

on the 25th anniversary of Social Security, ``We will go

forward into the future, a stronger nation because of the

fact that we have this basic rock of security under all our

people.''

In 2010, we'll celebrate the 75th anniversary of Social

Security.

We urge you to stand firm against the proposal for a fast-

track commission that would diminish these programs that

speak so deeply of America's values.

Respectfully yours.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, we anticipate the Senator from North Dakota will join us momentarily. Pending his arrival, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota makes a very compelling case for fiscal discipline. He has been making this case for a good number of years. He has been on the forefront in urging us in the Congress and the country to be more disciplined, to get better control of these deficits, and I appreciate the work of the Senator from North Dakota.

I might say we have no disagreement whatsoever that we need to address our fiscal challenge. We totally agree. I think most Members of the body would agree that is not the issue. Whether we must address the fiscal challenge or not is not the issue. So I wish to get that off the table. We all know we have a huge problem facing us, and it must be dealt with. What we do disagree about, though, is the process; that is, how we address it.

I will have a lot more to say about that later today, but I see the Senator from Arizona on the floor, and he has been waiting patiently.

Certainly.

Amendment No. 3302 to Amendment No. 3299

(Purpose: To establish a Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action, to assure the long-term fiscal stability and economic security of the Federal Government of the United States, and to expand future

prosperity and growth for all Americans)

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

Mr. President, I oppose the Conrad-Gregg amendment. This amendment would set up a new deficit reduction commission and have its recommendations considered and sent to the House under expedited parliamentary procedures. This amendment invites Congress to abdicate its responsibility. This amendment is fundamentally unfair to many of our constituents across the country. This amendment should be defeated.

Under the Conrad-Gregg proposal, 18 people would make recommendations on how to reduce projected midterm and long-term Federal budget deficits. Of the 18 members, 16 would be Members of Congress, and two would be officials in the administration. I might add, if some think the Congress cannot do this, why is this composed almost entirely of Members of Congress? Recommendations of this 18-member commission would be made the subject of votes in both Chambers with no amendments allowed. Thus, the entire package of recommendations would be given to Congress on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

If the Conrad-Gregg amendment were enacted, Members of Congress who were not on the commission would have no say in the development of the commission's recommendations. Members of Congress who were not on the commission would have no ability to change the recommendations. We would have to vote on the entire package on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

If Members of Congress not on the commission found that they favored most of the recommendations but positively abhorred a few of them, they would be given no opportunity to try to change the ones to which they objected. Their choice would be either to vote for no deficit reduction at all or vote for recommendations that they abhor with no way to change them.

Members of Congress should not be put in that position. This amendment would disenfranchise the overwhelming majority of Members of Congress. It would disenfranchise their constituents. This would be fundamentally unfair to their constituents and to them. We should not allow it to happen.

Let me say a few words about the effects of this commission on Social Security and Medicare. If we create this commission, what is to stop it from making further reductions in Medicare spending beyond the changes in the health care reform bill? Although the health care reform bill would reduce some reimbursements to providers, it would not cut Medicare benefits or eligibility one bit, but the commission could recommend cuts in Medicare benefits and eligibility.

I might say, too, the Congressional Budget Office, I remind my colleagues, estimated that the health care reform bill that passed this body would reduce the budget deficit by $132 billion over 10 years and further reduce the budget deficit by between $650 billion to $1.3 trillion in the next 10 years.

What about Social Security? Some people talk as if Social Security is a major factor in the long-run budget deficits, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's projections of the 75-year growth of spending on Medicare-Medicaid and Social Security tells a different story.

As a share of the economy, the growth of Medicare and Medicaid spending before enactment of health care reform is more than seven times the growth of Social Security spending. If we are to reduce the projections of interim and long-term projections of deficit, we should use the regular order of Congress to do so, and for a good reason; that is, because the system is already working. The comprehensive health reform bill awaiting final approval by the House and Senate is solid evidence the system is working.

Once again, the Congressional Budget Office projected--I made the point just a few moments ago--the Federal deficits would be reduced by $132 billion in the first 10 years and by $650 billion to $1.3 trillion in the second 10 years. That is a significant reduction.

The deficit reduction will make a substantial dent in the deficits-- and it has been accomplished entirely through the regular order. We were able to cut deficits through the regular order. It would thus be ironic to give up on the regular order just when it has such a promising result.

There is more work to be done to reduce deficits in the midterm and long term, but the regular order is up to the job of performing these tasks. We should not give up on it prematurely. We should vote against creating a commission that can take away many of the responsibilities the Constitution gave the Congress.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

It has also been said on the Senate floor that one way to get revenue is to go after the so-called gap that exists between revenue that is owed the American taxpayers but not collected--the tax gap, it is sometimes called. I might say why not create a tax gap commission? It does not make sense for this outfit, if it does exist--I don't think it will because I think most Members of Congress will not want to do that--to cut Social Security, which is not the problem--Social Security is projected to be in surplus at least to the year 2043--or to make further cuts in Medicare beyond which we have already done in regular order. What is left? Discretionary spending.

If the real effort is a tax gap, let's have a tax gap commission, not one that is going to cut Medicare and Medicaid. I might add, these people, if there were such a commission, are not qualified. They do not understand the health care system. They don't understand where to make cuts and not to make cuts. They don't understand Social Security that much. The committees of jurisdiction do. They don't understand some of the other programs where they might recommend cuts. They can just whack, whack, whack, or raise revenue. They don't understand the Tax Code. That is not their expertise. They are just going to try to find ways to raise, raise, raise taxes.

It is something on the surface that might sort of sound good--let somebody else do it. I cannot do it, so we will let somebody else do it. I think that is an abdication of responsibility. I think it is like it sounds--too good to be true--that somebody else is going to do it. It is like the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

Why do we run for these jobs? Each of us ought to be a U.S. Senator because we wanted to take the responsibility to do what we thought was right for our people and our States. It is sometimes not very easy. It is sometimes quite difficult. That is why we ran. That is what goes with the territory: step up and make the right decisions and do what needs to be done in conjunction with the President.

The President of the United States is going to make a budget recommendation to the Congress in just a matter of a few days, almost a week or so away. That is the job of the President, to make a recommendation to the Congress of what he thinks our budget should be, and it is up to the Congress to decide how to deal with that.

We have used the regular order on health care to cut budget deficits by a large amount. As I indicated, it worked. I think we should just be courageous enough as Members of Congress to do what is right, step up and do what we have to do. If we do not do the job properly, our voters will get somebody else to do the job. That is their right, that is their privilege, and that is one of the strengths of the process: that they have an opportunity to get somebody else if we are not doing a good job.

I strongly urge the defeat of the Conrad-Gregg amendment. It is just not a good thing to do.

I yield the floor.

Under the previous order, I believe the Senator from New Hampshire is to have the floor.

Mr. President, I would say we are expecting the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, to arrive shortly, and when he does, I will yield to him.

I wish to also respond, briefly, to the Senator from New Hampshire and start by talking about where we agree. I think it is almost always good, when discussing something, for people to look at where there is agreement. Where there is agreement, it builds trust and understanding and, therefore, when possible, there can be even greater agreement. We, clearly, agree it is unhealthy for the government to be running these huge deficits. I think everyone in this body agrees on that point. It is unsustainable, as many have said. But why are we running these big deficits? We are doing so, frankly, because of mistakes made during the financial crisis prompted by the subprime mortgage crisis and also because we have been in a fairly deep recession. That is why these deficits are so large. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. It was something, unfortunately, that had to be done.

We had to come up with some money to help provide some economic stability for this country. After that, as we know, when we are in a recession, unemployment payments are higher and Medicaid payments are higher and a lot of other programs are automatically higher because we enact programs on top of that to help the economy. That is why we are facing these huge deficits. They have grown very significantly in the last several years for those reasons.

So there is no disagreement that, A, we have large deficits, and, B, we have to begin to reduce those deficits. I think there is agreement as to why we came to this place and have these deficits, which are for the reasons I suggested. We also very much agree that we have to reduce these deficits in future years. There is tremendous agreement on that point. We also agree it would be better for the government to reduce our annual deficits to below 3 percent of gross domestic product. There is agreement on that.

Most economic observers and experts think that once our deficits reach 3 percent of gross domestic product, that is not so bad. It is going to take a little effort to get there. But, again, we are where we are because of the recession and because of the financial crisis that occurred in the last several years.

Where we disagree, though, is over the way we respond. We disagree over the powers the Senator from New Hampshire wishes to turn over to somebody else--over to a commission. We disagree on that point. I don't think we should turn the power that Senators and House Members have over to some other body to do something called an entitlements commission.

The Senator from New Hampshire proposes to create such a procedure to protect Senators, frankly, from being attacked for the decisions they make. That is what this is all about, in some respects, to turn this decisionmaking over to somebody else so Senators can say: They did it. They made me do it. He and the Senator from North Dakota proposed a commission, for example, with a fast-track process that would absolve Senators from responsibility for any amendments. Senators could then throw up their hands and say: The commission made me do it.

It sounds as if all of us parents heard something similar from our kids: Daddy, Mommy, something made me do it. I will never forget that many years ago, my son said: Daddy, it just seemed so good. Somebody else suggested the idea, and that made me do it. I couldn't say no.

But on matters as important as Social Security for seniors, on matters as important as Medicare and Medicaid for Americans that have health concerns, on matters as important as the tax rates the government will impose on American families--on those important matters, I think we need an open process where Senators and House Members participate and offer suggestions and offer amendments. On things that important, I do not think we need a procedural shortcut.

Sometimes the most important things are difficult to do. I think most Members of Congress and the Senate who ran for these jobs expected there would be some tough choices, there would be some tough times. I don't think they want procedural shortcuts because with procedural shortcuts, often there are unintended consequences. With procedural shortcuts, often bad things happen, when it is not thought through in advance. Rather, we should have full and open debate. There are fewer surprises with full and open debate when Senators can amend and improve the product, and that is why I believe the Conrad-Gregg commission is a bad idea.

There are alternatives to that proposal. One is that we do it ourselves, we do what we should do, and we do it the right way. But there is also another alternative, an alternative which the President and Vice President--especially the Vice President is working on that sets up an executive commission, not a statutory commission as outlined by the Senators from New Hampshire and North Dakota but, rather, one on which the Vice President has convened a series of discussions, and in that proposal the Vice President has proposed an Executive order where the President would create a commission to consider our fiscal situation. It would also have similar composition, similar powers. It is similar to the statutory commission offered by Senators Conrad and Gregg, but there is only one difference, and that difference is in the process. The Vice President's proposal, which I think the President will announce fairly shortly, would preserve the rules of the Senate. The Gregg-Conrad amendment would not. And it is preserving the rules of the Senate that I think makes all the difference.

Under the proposal that I think will be offered by the President, that is, the executive commission, again, I think it is 18 members, all subjects are considered, and they will report back to the Congress, I think after the election. So everything is very similar, if not exactly the same. The only difference is, under the executive commission, if it is proposed--I think it will be--there is no requirement of a fast- track process as required by the statutory commission.

I tell my colleagues there are other alternatives, there are other ways to address our huge budget deficits. I urge my colleagues to join in support for the Vice President's efforts and oppose the Conrad-Gregg amendment.

I understand the Senator from Connecticut is not here. Maybe the Senator wants to proceed? Oh, he is here. Does the Senator from South Dakota wish to proceed?

Will the Senator yield for a question at that point?

Would the Senator yield on that point since he is raising the subject?

Didn't that same CBO letter also say the health care bill that passed the Senate would reduce the budget deficit? The Senator is throwing out these huge figures--it is going to cost $2 trillion and so on and so forth. I don't know where the Senator got that figure because the Congressional Budget Office, in that same letter or a similar letter--either that letter, in an earlier letter, or in a subsequent letter--reaffirmed that the bill passed in the Senate cuts the budget deficit by $132 billion the first 10 years and cuts the budget deficit by between

$650 billion and $1.3 trillion in the next 10 years. That is what the letter says. The Actuary said the bill extends the life of the Medicare trust fund I think 5 or 6 more years--maybe more than that.

Isn't it true that CBO letter said that the Senate bill reduces the budget deficit by $132 billion in the first 10 years and reduces it in the second 10 years by between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion? Isn't that true?

Will the Senator yield? This double-counting, frankly, is a bogus issue. It kind of sounds good on its face, but it is meant to confuse people.

But even subsequent to that statement about the double-counting, even subsequent to that, is it not true that CBO came out with a subsequent letter that said still the budget deficit is reduced by $132 billion in the first 10 years and $650 billion to $1.3 trillion in the next 10 years?

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a vote in relation to the Thune amendment No. 3301 and that the provisions of the order of December 22 regarding the vote threshold remain in effect and no intervening amendment be in order.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer. I have two subject matters I wish to address. One is the amendment of my friend and colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, that he has just addressed in his remarks, and a second set of remarks regarding Haiti that I also want to address.

I chair the subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee dealing with the Western Hemisphere and, obviously, includes the nation of Haiti, as well as served as a Peace Corps volunteer some 40 years ago on the island of Hispaniola on the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. So aside from the interest we all have in what has happened to the thousands of Haitians as a result of this catastrophic earthquake that has occurred, I have many friends in that country, some of whom I have not heard from in the last week or so, who are lost at this point. I want to address some thoughts on that subject matter as well.

But I want to, first of all, if I can, address the subject matter of the Thune amendment which will be voted on, I gather, at some point either today or tomorrow, whenever that is going to be dealt with here.

Let me begin by, first of all, thanking my colleague from South Dakota. I applaud him for saying that while it was a controversial debate a year ago last fall on whether to have an emergency economic stabilization program, I remember the night that we all gathered here and sat at our desks in this Chamber and voted 75 to 24 on whether to commit as much as potentially $700 billion in order to stabilize our financial institutions and move forward.

It was a courageous vote that a number of our colleagues took that day, many of whom were up for reelection within a matter of days after that vote, and yet cast ballots in favor of it despite the tremendous outpouring of anger over the fact that we were in those economic circumstances to begin with, and that, secondly, we might be committing as much of American taxpayer money to stabilize our financial institutions.

I happen to believe, and I think history is proving to be so, that we made the right choice that evening; that even though it was a painful vote, had we not stabilized those financial institutions, I firmly believe we would be looking at a far more catastrophic set of economic problems both here and around the globe had we not acted.

So while those resources have gone to large financial institutions and to major organizations because that is what was needed to be done, there is an understandable degree of anger and frustration being expressed by our fellow citizenry because people on Main Street, average citizens, have suffered terribly during this process.

There was a point not many months ago where 20,000 jobs a day were being lost in our Nation; 14,000 people a day were losing their health care; 10,000 people a day were losing their homes in the United States to foreclosure. So the American people have suffered terribly as a result of this economic crisis.

But we needed to take those steps. As a result, today, while the news is still far from good, in most corners of this country we are stabilizing an economic crisis. We avoided a depression which we were on the brink of falling into had we not taken that action. So I want to commend my colleague from South Dakota for recognizing the value of that decision.

Now he points out with a chart--it is not up here any longer--the fact that there is about $320 billion which remains unexpended as a result of that decision. The good news is that we crafted that bill that required two separate votes--an initial one for the $350 billion, and then around January of this year--or last year, excuse me--the additional $350 billion would be appropriated and spent. As a result of the good news we have avoided having to expend all of those resources. As a result, there is actually money coming back in.

We have now recouped about $165 billion of the original money that was spent, including over $13 billion in fees and interest payments that were earned back by the Federal Government as a result of those decisions. We all hope the full amount will be recovered. There will be an opportunity in the coming days for all of us to vote on whether we ought to ask those large financial institutions, which were the beneficiary of taxpayer assistance, whether they are going to vote for a fee or a tax, if you will, over a limited number of years on those recipients of billions of dollars of American taxpayer money, to pay that back through fees and taxes.

I hope my colleagues will be supportive of the initiative offered by President Obama in recent days. But the issue before us is whether we ought to shut all of this program down, the remaining $320 billion that is there. I want to remind my colleagues what the administration has suggested, and I believe all of us have embraced, is that small businesses and our community banks in this country are struggling. I do not recall a day over the last number of months when I have not heard a speech on the Senate floor of this Chamber where a Member has not gotten up and talked about what is happening in the absence of credit flowing to smaller businesses in their States, or that community banks in their States are failing because the economy has not reached them, the improving economy.

What the administration has suggested, and I strongly support, as I believe most of us do, is that we need to get assistance and support to these smaller businesses and to these community banks in order that they can survive and get on their feet, and credit will flow where it is not flowing today.

The administration has sent a letter committing to limit the use of these dollars to mitigating foreclosures, which is still serious; support for small banks so they can lend to their communities; facilitate small business lending; and address the deepening crisis in the commercial mortgage banks. Those are the four obligations we are talking about. It is not unlimited. It is not all for ideas that may be floating around here that have little or no merit. It is specifically the areas in which we all know we need to provide help.

We can do this one of two ways. We can do it by appropriating additional money, which goes right to the heart of the argument of my colleague and friend from South Dakota. We cannot afford to do that. Again, the deficits are growing larger by the hour, and to appropriate additional money at a time like this would be very difficult if not unwise in many cases. Or we can take resources we have already appropriated that are not being spent, that could be used exactly for the purposes that are needed for our economy to get moving again. In a sense it is a catch-22. Our economy is only going to improve if small business starts hiring again, community banks start flowing credit again, and we minimize the foreclosure problem.

How do you do it? It doesn't happen magically. It happens because we make intelligent decisions. A year and a half ago, when we voted for the economic stabilization bill, the problem in front of us was the stabilization of financial institutions. So the resources were going to be limited for that purpose. We thought we might need $700 billion. The good news is, we haven't needed that amount and a substantial amount of the money is coming back in. There remains this pool of $320 billion in that fund. Wouldn't it make sense if, in fact,

we are trying to get this economy moving again, to take some of those resources and make it available to small businesses, to community banks to flow credit so they can actually hire people and grow again, to minimize foreclosures? That is what is needed to be done.

We can do it one way or the other, but we can't do it by just talking about it. I beseech my colleagues at this juncture not to vote in favor of this amendment which would deprive us of resources in order to do the things that all of us agree need to be done. I know my friends, most of them here, are not going to be voting for a program that requires additional appropriations for the very argument the author of the amendment has made. We can't afford to do it. If we are not going to do that--and yet we are simultaneously saying we need to do these things in order to get us out of this hole, where average businesses and workers on Main Street in the country can be the beneficiary of some of this help to get our economy moving--where does it come from? Where are the resources going to come from? Why not take some of these resources and dedicate them to exactly the purposes that have been identified by the administration and recommended by Members of this body, both Republicans and Democrats?

If you support the Thune amendment, you deprive us of that opportunity. That is it. The only alternative left, then, is to go through an appropriations process, which we are being told by our friends over here they will not support. Again, what happens is a lot of rhetoric, a lot of talk. After all the help that has gone to the major Wall Street institutions, at the very hour we ought to be trying to help Main Street institutions, these smaller banks, smaller businesses, we will not have the resources to do it. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about this. While this program has been terribly unpopular for all the reasons we have heard from others, at this critical moment, at a time when we could make such a difference, when falling back into a recession again could happen very easily, a deeper recession, at this very hour to deprive the administration, the Congress, the people who care so much about community banks and small businesses, I think would be a huge mistake.

I urge colleagues to reject the Thune amendment. Again, the commitments have been made. These resources go to one of four areas, primarily to community banks to get credit flowing and to small business but also to mitigate foreclosures and to address the deepening crisis in commercial mortgage loans which is there. We have a pool of resources to respond to it.

My hope is, all these dollars will be paid back with interest, as I think there is some evidence as we have seen already may, in fact, occur. But we need to continue on this path, if we are going to succeed in our efforts, watching optimism and confidence be restored to Main Street in America. This is one opportunity for us to do it, to get this job done.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the Thune amendment for all the reasons we have in the past. This is not a new amendment. It has been offered in the past. It has been rejected by colleagues for many of the same reasons I have tried to articulate this afternoon. The arguments haven't changed. What has is the dedication of these resources exactly to the areas that so many of us have talked about over the last number of months. I urge rejection of that amendment.

Haiti

Mr. President, I wish to speak to the subject matter of Haiti and the events of the last week that have occurred in that country. My interest in the subject matter is not any different than that of every single person who has watched with horror the photographs and pictures, the stories of the tragedy that has afflicted that poor, desperate country that occupies one-third of the island of Hispaniola. I bring an added personal attention to it because I have many friends, many of them I have known for 40 years, in the island nation of Haiti. I have been there on numerous occasions over the years, in addition to my first introduction to Haiti at 22 years of age as a Peace Corps volunteer, when I was sent to a small village on the border of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, in 1966, some 40 years ago. My interest and my friendships go back a long time. I am deeply concerned and worried about what is occurring there and what steps we might take as a nation, in conjunction with others, to provide some help to a people who are in desperate need.

I rise to discuss the tragic situation, the humanitarian disaster that has occurred in the wake of last week's earthquake, and the U.S.- led response to this crisis. Last Tuesday, as we all know, as the world knows, one of the largest earthquakes recorded in the area hit about 15 miles from the capital city of Port-au-Prince in Haiti. This massive earthquake brought immediate destruction to Port-au-Prince and surrounding areas and communities, instantly crumbling houses and buildings, destroying roads, seaports, cutting power and water lines throughout the country.

Most tragically, the earthquake has killed tens of thousands of Haitians who, at the time the quake struck, were simply going about their daily lives--desperate lives, I might add, but daily lives. The Government of Haiti has indicated they believe 70,000 of their fellow citizens have been killed in this earthquake. Other officials fear the death toll may be as high or more than 200,000 people as a result of those brief moments that caused that nation state to crumble. These heart-wrenching numbers do not even account for those injured who are homeless, the orphaned without food, water, shelter or any kind of medicine.

The losses extend well beyond Haitians. The United States also lost a dedicated public servant named Victoria DeLong, who was serving as cultural affairs officer at our Embassy in Port-au-Prince. Several more Americans have been killed and many more remain unaccounted for a week later. The United Nations, no stranger to dangerous and difficult missions, has suffered its single greatest loss of life in the history of the United Nations. Over 100 United Nations staffers and peacekeepers remain unaccounted for. The special representative for Haiti, Hedi Annibi, also lost his life.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Senate, I extend our heartfelt condolences to the friends and the families of those who lost their lives in Haiti. They should know they are in our thoughts and prayers every single minute of every day.

This earthquake has been called a disaster of epic proportions. When such a disaster strikes one of our neighbors, a country so close to many of us, our Nation responds, as have others. I applaud President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Administrator Shah for their immediate, robust, and coordinated efforts, which has truly been a whole-of- government response, utilizing resources, skills, expertise of our State Department, USAID, and the Defense Department. Secretary Gates deserves great commendation. Our forces in uniform that poured into the area on a moment's notice to help out, as they always do, deserve particular recognition in this effort. We have deployed thousands of troops to Haiti who are supporting operations at the Port-au-Prince airport, working to provide logistical support, open the port. The United States has sent an aircraft carrier with numerous helicopters to deliver aid to otherwise hard-to-reach places in and around Port-au- Prince, a hospital ship to provide lifesaving medical care, and urban search and rescue teams and doctors to help rescue those trapped and treat those who are injured.

In addition to manpower, the United States has pledged money and supplies, including water, ready-to-eat meals, and medicine to help those in need. This response has demonstrated the generosity and spirit of the American people, especially when it comes to helping others who are in desperate need, as clearly Haiti is. The American people have also responded, as we always do. It is a source of great pride to all of us to watch our fellow citizens, people whose names we will never know, the donations which they have given may not sound like much; but for people who have lost a job, lost a home, as I talked about a moment ago, during this economic crisis, to reach deep into these almost empty pockets to send that $1 or $5 or $10 to help out some family they will never know, some child they will never meet in a place

they may never go to, may never have known about before is, once again, a demonstration of the spirit and heart of our fellow citizens in the United States.

Aid agencies and NGOs have reported an outpouring of support as our fellow citizens have donated money, clothing, and supplies to hundreds of organizations that operate in Haiti today. These donations are absolutely critical at this time. At a time when we can't seem to decide on a bipartisan basis what day of the week it is, to watch President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush, two people who have been political opposites, have very different points of view, sitting down together as two former leaders of our Nation to head the effort to provide relief to Haiti is a demonstration of what we ought to be doing together here on occasions that affect our own citizenry. If two former combatants in the Presidential field can sit down and become a team in responding to a crisis in Haiti, it ought to be a lesson about what we need to be doing when it comes to our own crises here at home.

I commend President Clinton and President George W. Bush for their tremendous work. I commend President Bush's father, who joined with President Clinton back when the tsunami crisis hit Southeast Asia. The Bush family has always responded at times such as this. Both father and son deserve our thanks and commendation for what they have done. Of course, Bill Clinton has dedicated his post-Presidency period to a global initiative to help out every single day in places that are not the subject of news stories, as Haiti is. He, of course, deserves our expression of gratitude as well.

The international community has responded. Over 27 international search-and-rescue teams, with some 1,500 rescuers from around the world, are already on the ground in Port-au-Prince and neighboring communities, searching through the rubble to find those who may have survived. I know all of us sit in absolute stunned admiration for those who have survived 6 and 7 days, living in the midst of rubble, to be discovered alive and be extracted by rescue workers. Our only hope in these waning hours, is that we will find additional people who have somehow miraculously have survived this disaster.

It has been unbelievable. Relief workers, doctors, supplies have arrived from China, Israel, Iceland, Brazil, France, more countries than I can enumerate. The European Union has pledged over $\1/2\ billion in assistance already, and I suspect more will be forthcoming. Despite its own tragic losses, the United Nations has come to the rescue of the Haitian people. The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti has responded heroically to this disaster, organizing supply convoys, conducting search-and-rescue missions, and providing security. On Saturday, the World Food Program fed 40,000 people. Within the next week or two, that number will increase to 2 million. Private organizations are also doing heroic and valued work, including the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children, Partners in Health.

Let me say, particularly on Partners in Health, my great friend, Paul Farmer, who spent years in Haiti as he has in other nations working with HIV/AIDS and other issues, is there, as you might expect, in Haiti. I have spoken to him. He has many needs, as you might imagination. He needs orthopedic surgeons, trauma specialists, skilled nurses, supplies. My hope is, in these coming days, coming hours, we will be able to get those resources to him.

On the ground, the Obama administration and the international community are working as quickly as possible to distribute aid to those in need and to help clear the jam of supplies arriving in Port-au- Prince and Cape Haitian, in some cases, in the northern part of the country. It is critical that aid gets distributed beyond the immediate confines of the airport. Those who survived the quake are now trying to survive, once again, without food and water and medicine and shelter.

At the same time, we must work as quickly as possible to ensure that violence does not break out as people become desperate to survive, as one might expect under these circumstances. The people of Haiti are our neighbors, and it is our duty to help them weather this storm, as others are doing as well.

I strongly agree with Secretary Clinton who, during her trip to Haiti this past Saturday, affirmed to the Haitian people that ``we will be here today, tomorrow, and for the time ahead'' as well.

I wish to take a few minutes to describe what I believe needs to happen at this ``time ahead'' of us that Secretary Clinton referred to. These are not all the suggestions. I know many others are coming in, and we need to think about how we can intelligently respond to this. We can't do it all alone. We need help from the international community, obviously. But there are some steps we can take that I think would make some difference in all this. In order to do that, we must understand where Haiti was the day before the earthquake struck. Despite its location only a few hundred miles from the wealthiest Nation in the history of mankind, Haiti is one of the poorest nations on the face of this Earth. It ranks as the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, with 80 percent of the population living under the poverty lines of this hemisphere.

While recent years showed some positive trends in economic growth, the 2008 hurricanes devastated that country, causing widespread destruction and severely damaging the agriculture sector, upon which two-thirds of all Haitians depend. Remittances to Haiti represented more than twice the earnings from exports and accounted for one-quarter of the gross domestic product of that nation. Haiti has also one of the lowest life expectancies in the world. The average Haitian income is less than $1 a day. In terms of income, less than $1 a day.

Clearly, Haiti had a lot of ground to cover before this earthquake struck, and rebuilding Haiti is not going to be easy for anyone. Many have debated why Haiti remains so poor and what can be done to alleviate poverty, improve public health outcomes, and help that nation develop a sustainable and equitable way forward. This debate is all the more important and necessary as we move forward.

As the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and as an American who knows and cares about Haiti, having worked with the people of Haiti and its leaders for much of my career, I am committed to finding the best solutions to these vexing problems and to working in close coordination with the administration, the United Nations, and our neighbors in the region, including Brazil, Mexico, and others who are already there helping to rebuild Haiti.

I might mention, there are 400 physicians from the island of Cuba who are operating in Haiti today, down there trying to make a difference. Whatever thoughts people have about the Government of Cuba, the fact is, there are doctors there now from that nation that is only a few miles from the northern parts of Haiti who are now trying to save lives.

As we begin to transition from a rescue mission to a medium- and long-term recovery mission, we must think creatively and allocate resources to the most effective and efficient methods for sustainable reconstruction and development. We must find ways to make Haitian agriculture better equipped to feed the people of Haiti, and we must work to forgive Haitian debt.

In April of this past year, Haiti was added to the IMF and World Bank's list of what is called the Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative making them eligible for special assistance with debt relief. This is an auspicious start, and one we must build upon.

Public insecurity has long been a systemic problem, hampering economic growth. Therefore, it is critical we work with the Haitian authorities in that nation and others to build and reform the institutions to bolster the rule of law in Haiti that will be necessary to lift Haitians out of poverty, rebuild the country and attract and maintain foreign direct investment to jump-start that nation's economy.

Throughout this process, we must not get bogged down by old formulas and hardened ways of doing business as usual. We must think outside the box, as the expression goes, marshal the necessary resources and creativity of our friends in the region, and the Haitian people must devise and be a part of a medium- and long-term strategy for this effort.

To that end, Senator Lugar of Indiana, the former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I will be introducing legislation shortly that will help to speed Haiti's recovery by instructing the Secretary of the Treasury to work with other nations to totally relieve Haiti of their outstanding international debt, including the debt incurred through 2011. That ought to be something every nation agrees to do; in the absence of which, I do not know how you can ever talk about economic recovery if you are willing to require a country that does not even have a fully functioning government today to meet those obligations.

Additionally, our legislation will help to spur economic activity, which is absolutely essential if we are going to have any kind of recovery process. We will do so by promoting trade between the United States and Haiti and lifting restrictions that would be barriers to trade being able to flow between Haiti and the United States, putting people to work.

The Haitian people have endured immeasurable suffering in recent days, but their spirit is indomitable. On Sunday, countless ordinary Haitians came together to observe Mass amid the bleak ruins of Port-au- Prince. Their faith in each other and their future may have been tested, but it is far from broken. I stand committed--as I am sure our colleagues throughout this Chamber are as well--to working with them, our fellow citizens here at home, and the international community, not just today but in the weeks and months and even years ahead, to ensure that our commitment to helping Haiti recover is meaningful, sustainable, and rises to the great challenge we face.

With that, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, what we are about to debate is an unprecedented move by the Senator and her cosponsors to overturn a health finding made by health experts and scientific experts in order to stand with the special interests. Now that is clear to me, regardless of what is said on this floor. I listened to my colleague. I never heard her say we want to overturn the experts who found that carbon pollution is a danger to the health of our families.

Now, look, it is very reasonable to debate the best way to clean up the air from carbon pollution. I have a way I think is the best that is supported by many in the environmental community, many in the business community. I have a letter signed--which I would ask to be printed in the Record--by 80 businesses that just took out an ad and said: Let's get on with it. They want to set up the type of system that I do, which would give maximum flexibility to business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

We have many mayors. We had our 1,000th mayor say: Get on with it. Let's get the job done.

Senator Murkowski laid out various ways that we have people working. She left out one way. The House-passed bill. The Senate Environment and Public Works had an overwhelming majority in our committee for our approach. We have Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman--and I support what they are doing--trying to find the 60 votes so we can have the kind of bipartisanship Senator Murkowski lauds. We have Senators Cantwell and Collins coming together--and I am very excited about that--on a new approach on how to deal with carbon pollution, and that debate is appropriate. Let me tell my colleagues what is not appropriate: to repeal a finding that was made by scientists and health experts that carbon pollution is a danger to the health of our children, to our families, to our communities. That is inappropriate, and it has never, ever been done before.

I wish to say where I stand on this. My No. 1 job as a Senator is to protect the health and safety of the people of my great State of California and the people of America. I believe that is our highest calling. The Murkowski resolution is a direct assault on the health of the American people. Make no mistake about it. You can cover it up with lots of words. You can say a lot of things about how proud you are of all the work that is going on to control carbon pollution. But when you get up here and you offer a resolution--and I have it in my hands--that clearly says overturn the endangerment finding that, simply stated, in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling, carbon is, in fact, a danger to the health of our families, to do this is unprecedented. What

would have happened if a Senator came to the floor the year we found out nicotine and cigarettes are addictive and cause cancer--what would have happened if a Senator came down here and said, Oh, no, no. We want to overturn that rule that regulates how much nicotine can go in there. That is something we know better about because we are politicians and, suddenly, we become doctors.

What would have happened if a Senator came down to the floor and said: We don't like the finding by the EPA that lead is a danger to our children and causes brain development issues and we don't want them to act on that. We don't want them to control that. It is OK if they suck it up when they are little babies. Thank God no Senator did that. I don't recall any Senator coming to the floor of this Senate and saying: Asbestos? Well, maybe it is OK if people breathe it in, so let's repeal the rule that says we need to protect our workers from asbestos. No Senator ever did that, thank God, so our agencies could move forward and protect our communities and our people.

Black lung disease, that was a long time ago. There was a connection made between the coal dust and our miners. I don't remember--or I didn't read about--anybody coming to the floor and saying we need to repeal the health finding on this. Because we didn't have any Senators who did that, frankly, and because we had enough respect for health officials, public health officials, scientists, doctors, we let them do their job. Yes, we might have fought it out here: Gee, how much should we spend to protect our workers from black lung disease? How much should we spend to protect our workers from asbestos? How much should we spend as a society to take the lead out of paint? We never, ever had a Senator come down to the floor to try and overturn a finding that was made by the health community.

This is a new low, in my humble opinion. The reason I say that is because, to me, I am here for one reason: to make life better for the people I represent. Repealing scientific health expert findings is not what I should be doing. I should be working to make sure, after I know the fact that there is a danger, what is the best way to get the carbon pollution out of the air. That is totally fair. I can tell my colleagues right now, I am not going to get my way on the best way to do it because we don't have 60 votes for that. I understand that. That is why I am supporting all my colleagues who are working so hard to try and come up with the 60 votes so we don't repeal an endangerment finding. What would have happened to our families if we had Senators who did this? We didn't do that in the past. We listened to the science and the health experts. We took action that saved countless lives. This amendment would harm our families.

If I saw someone coming down the street about to attack my family, I would do exactly what my colleague would do. We would fight back. Whatever it took, we would fight back. Well, this is about the public health. This is about the health of the planet. This is about the future of America. This is about jobs in America. There is lots of debate we can have. But, my goodness, talk about picking a battle over a scientific fact. That is what my colleague is doing.

She says she is standing with the American people. Let me tell my colleagues a few of the American people who strongly oppose what she is doing. The American Public Health Association says: ``We strongly urge you to oppose any resolution that would repeal the public health findings.'' The Association of Public Health Laboratories, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the National Environmental Health Association, the Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Trust for America's Health, the Centers for Disease Control which, under the administration of George W. Bush, started the scientific work that lead to this endangerment finding. Let's be clear. Ninety percent of the work on this endangerment finding was done by the Bush administration. This is such a radical amendment, it throws out all their work too.

Our families come first, and if our families come first in all our minds, then we can battle about how to get the carbon out of the air, but we should not be repealing a finding that clearly states that our family's health would suffer if we don't get this carbon out of the air.

My colleague says she wants to get the carbon out of the air. She is looking forward to working with all the colleagues I mentioned and more. That is great. Believe me, she and I have talked about this, and I hope she comes to the table. It would be wonderful if we got her help and she went on a bill. So far that hasn't happened and that is her choice. Maybe she will write her own bill, and that would be wonderful too. But that doesn't mean because we haven't found the 60 votes that we can afford to come down here and repeal a finding that is very clear about the health of our people.

There are health effects of doing nothing. My colleague says: You know what. It may take us a while to fix this problem, maybe a year. It may take 5 years, by the way. What she wants to do is state that nobody can take action to protect our families from carbon pollution while we dither around here. I am happy we are working. It could take us a long time to get this. Do my colleagues know how long it took to get the Clean Air Act amendments? A long time. It took years. I am not willing to put my family and my State--my families in my State and my State in jeopardy, nor the American people. Because if we take away this endangerment finding and we decide we know better than all the health experts and all the scientific experts, EPA cannot do anything.

My colleague complains about the command and control of the EPA. I wish to talk about that--the command and control of the EPA. These are words that are meant to frighten people. I never heard her come down and say: We want to take away the command and control of the EPA under the Clean Air Act to make sure we don't have smog in the air. I never heard her come down here and say: We don't need to have the command and control of the EPA in making sure that arsenic in the water isn't overwhelming or mercury in the fish. I don't hear her doing that. So all of a sudden, command and control of the EPA is an issue. We have an Environmental Protection Agency to protect our people. If we wind up overturning the health issues that are necessary before they can act, what are we doing here? Playing doctor? That is not why I came here.

We have the EPA every day going out there and controlling hazardous air pollutants: carbon tetrachloride known to cause cancer. Does my friend want to come down and say: Gee, that is command and control; let's take away the ability of the EPA to protect our families from carbon tetrachloride. Naphthalene, another known toxin that causes cancer. Yes, the EPA is out there, command and control, getting it out of the environment. Vinyl chloride, known to cause cancer; cadmium, known to cause cancer and harm the reproductive system. They are all toxins the EPA is working on to make sure our families are protected.

One day I suppose the Senator could come down here and say: Let's repeal the scientific finding that said these toxins cause cancer and then the EPA will not have the ability to use their command and control to protect our families. This is the type of precedent we are setting today, at a time when we know there are more and more chemicals and toxins that are, in fact, impacting our families. Cyanide is another one. Cyanide. The scientists told us it is extremely toxic to people. It harms the nervous system. It harms the cardiovascular system and the respiratory system. We control it through command and control and the EPA because it is a danger. The Supreme Court said, in very clear language, to the Bush EPA: You wasted 8 years. This is a danger to society. In the Supreme Court decision, this conservative court said to the EPA: You better make this endangerment finding.

Here is what we know about the endangerment finding my colleague wants to overturn. There is evidence--this is what the EPA found--that the number of extremely hot days is increasing. Severe heat waves are projected to intensify, which result in heat-related mortality and sickness. It goes on to talk about air quality, and this is important: Climate change is expected to worsen regional ground-level ozone pollution. Exposure to ground-level ozone has been linked to respiratory health problems ranging

from decreased lung function and aggravated asthma to increased emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and even premature death. It goes on and talks about the elderly, people in already poor health, the disabled, people living alone, and the extreme events that are anticipated which, by the way, some people feel are already happening: extreme events such as extreme cold, extreme snow, extreme flooding, extreme drought; some of the things that are already happening.

Why on Earth would the Senate get into the business of repealing science, repealing the work of health experts? There is only one answer. There is only one answer, to me: That is what the special interests want to have happen now because they are desperate, because they know the Clean Air Act does, in fact, cover carbon pollution. The Supreme Court found that. They have nowhere else to turn. The only way to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting our families, the way they protect them from lead and arsenic and smog and naphthalene and vinyl chloride and cyanide and others, is to begin to act.

We know the EPA is very aware we are working on legislation. They have told us, and I think they would tell anyone who would call them, they are not interested in doing some draconian measures now. They are just getting ready. They are just getting started because the science has told us this is a problem. So people can stand here and say: Oh, all we are doing is we are just giving a little time for the Senators to get their 60 votes. Hey, that may not happen in a year or two or three or five or six or eight or ten. Maybe it will happen tomorrow. Believe me, I am working on it.

I am very hopeful that it will work. When you get 80 businesses writing us and telling us in a letter--a new organization called We Can Lead, and these are very, very important businesses all across our Nation--maybe that will help us act.

Until that time, there is only one thing that is available to protect our people, to protect their families and their children and the planet, and that is the Environmental Protection Agency. Maybe if you don't like the Environmental Protection Agency, you can get up here and offer an amendment to do away with the EPA, just do away with it, or try to change the Clean Air Act and say it should not cover carbon--if that is what you want to do. By the way, we would debate that very soundly. It would be a good debate. Don't come here and try to repeal a very important scientific and health finding, because that sets a whole new precedent. Lord knows where it could lead.

We have more letters. My colleague says she stands on the side of the people. OK. That is her judgment. I tell you, if you went out and said to people: Should the Senate repeal a scientific finding that has been signed off on by the Bush administration, the current administration, and health care experts all over the country, they would say: No. What are they doing? Why are they meddling in our health?

That is not how the Senator is explaining her amendment, her resolution. She says: Oh, it is just a little moratorium and it will just stop this for a little while. Not true. It repeals the endangerment finding.

Let me tell you about some other letters we received. There are 195 undersigned endorsers--remember, you heard from my colleague that the people stand with her. We have a letter from 195 signers saying: We urge you to oppose the imminent attack on the Clean Air Act that would undermine public health and prevent action on global warming. This attack comes in the form of an amendment by Senator Murkowski to the debt bill. They thought it was coming in that form. It is now coming in a different form, which is to reverse the endangerment finding.

They go on to say:

The EPA's ``endangerment finding'' is based on an

exhaustive review of the massive body of scientific research

showing a clear threat from climate change.

They go on and they say that their organization has a 40-year track record of protecting the public health.

Yes, as long as I don't lose the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure the speaker after that is from our side. With that understanding, I will not object.

Mr. President, I want to put into the Record a letter from 195 doctors and scientists who are alarmed at this Murkowski amendment to repeal the endangerment finding. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

These doctors and scientists are so alarmed at this Murkowski amendment to repeal an endangerment finding that they have written a letter, and here is who they are. I am going to take the time to read all of these people.

Mr. President, they say:

In sum, we support EPA's actions as a start towards holding

the biggest polluters accountable, reducing America's oil

dependence and jump-starting a vibrant clean energy economy.

A vote for the Murkowski amendment would be a step backwards.

Instead of standing in the way of progress, Congress should

defeat [this resolution].

Communities of faith--I think it is very important when the Senator from Alaska says she stands with the people--let's see where the communities of faith come down. They are saying vote no on the Murkowski amendment. They include the Church World Service; the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life; the Episcopal Church; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; the Jewish Council for Public Affairs; the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; the National Council of Churches USA; the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns; the Presbyterian Church, USA, Washington office; the Missionary Oblates, Justice, Peace/Integrity of Creation Office; the Union for Reformed Judaism; the Unitarian Universalist Ministry for Earth; the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; the United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; the United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society; and United Methodist Women.

I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we also have another letter opposing the efforts of the Senator from Alaska to overturn the endangerment finding. That letter is signed by many members of the business community. I will name just a few, and then I will ask that this letter be printed in the Record. The signers include the CEO of Lucesco Lighting; the president of Cross River Pictures; George Bailey of IBM; physicist Tony Bernhardt from the Lawrence Livermore National Lab; a professor of physics at MIT, Aaron Bernstein. This goes on and on. I am also picking out the Theological Seminary in San Francisco; doctoral students from Stanford; financial adviser, UBS Financial Services; the president of Investment Marketing, Inc. It goes on and on. Seattle University Law School, an assistant professor there. I don't even know, there are so many names. Cofounder of Sybase, New Resource Bank, Environmental Entrepreneurs, Bob Epstein; General Partner of Trinity Ventures; Lakeside Enterprises, Granite Ventures, Tymphany; the former vice president of Oracle; the former executive vice president of Oracle. And on and on. The Sexton Company; ClearEdge Power. It goes on and on. Data Robotics, Inc.; a freelance journalist. This is quite a list of people. It shows the breadth of our great Nation. The Green Energy Czar at Google is involved here; Cisco Systems, Jeff Weinberger, the sustainability lead; Amanda Weitman, senior vice president, Wells Fargo private bank; Solar Project Developers, and on and on.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter.

Mr. President, it is very clear that Senator Murkowski's amendment is causing a ripple throughout the country. It is causing a firestorm of protests among doctors, scientists, and business leaders who believe it is a bad precedent to overturn science. It is hard for me to believe in this century that is what we would be doing.

I wish to have printed in the Record some editorials from various newspapers. One is from the New York Times dated 2 days ago, ``Ms. Murkowski's Mischief.'' They are basically saying, which I thought was interesting:

Senator Lisa Murkowski's home State of Alaska is ever so

slowly melting away, courtesy of a warming planet. Yet few

elected officials seem more determined than she to throw sand

in the Obama administration's efforts to do something about

climate change.

It is unbelievable. They go on to say if she chooses to overturn this endangerment finding, ``rescinding the finding would repudiate years of work by America's scientists and public health experts.''

I think this is important. The work that has been done leading up to this endangerment finding was done by Republican and Democratic administrations alike. To just throw it out with this resolution makes no sense at all. I know Senator Baucus is on the Senate floor. He served as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. He took a very important role in framing a letter where we lay out why this is a very bad idea. I thank him for that.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter that Senator Baucus worked so hard on with his staff. Here is what we say--I think it is important--and then I will have the letter printed in the Record:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently

issued a finding that greenhouse gas pollution endangers

public health and public welfare. In April 2007, the U.S.

Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gas emissions were

covered under the Clean Air Act and the EPA had a duty to

determine whether the endangerment finding was warranted by

science.

Then we go on to say:

Debating policy choices regarding the appropriate response

to unchecked climate change is fair, and the Senate will

continue to evaluate the best tools for addressing greenhouse

gas emissions, but repealing an endangerment finding based

upon years of work by America's scientists and public health

experts is not appropriate.

We urge a ``no'' vote.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter.

Mr. President, the Washington Post said about the Murkowski amendment that hobbling the EPA is not the right course. The correct response is to provide a better alternative. Obviously, they are not in favor of overturning an endangerment finding.

The Scranton Times-Tribune--a very important, I think, editorial, says:

There should be little debate on . . . the premise that

cleaner air is healthier. . . .

I think that is really what we are saying. The scientists are saying let's clean up the carbon and have healthier air.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has a very good editorial. They also come out against this kind of a move by Senator Murkowski and big oil and big coal. They believe this vote is a very important vote.

I ask unanimous consent to have these editorials printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in summary, I will say this: I do not want the American people to misunderstand what is before us in this resolution that will be coming up for a vote at a time determined by Senator Murkowski, as I understand it, under the rules. She is using the rules to be able to do this.

I do not think the American people should be misled into thinking this is about postponing action on cleaning up carbon pollution. It is about something much deeper than that. If her resolution passes and if it does become the law of the land--and I hope and I do not believe it will at the end of the day--what she is doing is something unprecedented.

That unprecedented move is to overturn a finding made by the scientists and the health experts on the impacts of carbon pollution. This has never been done before. Senators play the role of Senators; they do not play the role of doctors. They do not play the role of scientists. I will tell you, if we start doing that, there is no end to what we could do. We could overturn action on controlling the nicotine in cigarettes. We could overturn action to control the lead allowed in paints. We could overturn the science based on limits for arsenic in water. I could go on and list all the toxins--cadmium, carbon tetrachloride, naphthalene, toluene, and it goes on. That is why this is such a dangerous turn of events.

I am very much up for a debate on the best way to solve this problem of too much carbon pollution in the air. We differ. Some of us have one idea, some have another. That is why I am so hopeful that Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman, with all of us working in the background, can come up with the 60 votes necessary. But make no mistake about it, we should not start down the path of overturning a health finding. That is not why we were elected.

I can just speak for my constituents. My constituents sent me here. They want me to protect the health and safety of the people, and that is what I intend to do.

I am very proud of the doctors who have come forward today. I met with one in my office just about an hour ago. They are going to stand with us, and they are going to tell the truth about this. The American people will judge who is on their side. That is up to them. They will make that decision.

Mr. President, I am so grateful for your patience. I have put many things into the Record. I have spoken much longer than I normally do, I am sure to the chagrin of a few people on the other side, which I understand how they feel. But I felt it important to lay out how serious I think this is. Not that I think at the end of the day it will become the law but because I love serving in the Senate. I love the work we do. And one of the things we should not do is overturn science and public health experts. That is exactly what the Murkowski resolution does.

Mr. President, I know Senator Gregg will be speaking, and we have a slot reserved for a Democrat after that conclusion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, over the past 5 months, I have repeatedly expressed concerns about the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to issue backdoor climate regulations under the Clean Air Act. I spoke at length about this issue on the Senate floor in September and then again in December. I have also discussed it with dozens of groups from all across the political spectrum and found there is remarkably widespread agreement with my views on this issue. As the EPA moves closer and closer to issuing these regulations, I continue to believe that this command and control approach is our worst option for reducing emissions blamed for climate change. I also believe that with so much at stake, Congress must be given time to develop an appropriate and more responsible solution.

Today, after consultation with the Parliamentarian, I have come to the floor to introduce a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act that would prevent the EPA from acting on its own. Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, and Senator Landrieu of Louisiana have joined me as cosponsors on this bipartisan resolution, along with 35 of my Republican colleagues.

I have also come to reaffirm and reemphasize my previous remarks on this issue. Given what has been alleged about my intentions, I believe this debate needs to be directed back to its substance and away from the ad hominem attacks and red herrings thrown out in the past few weeks.

There is a legitimate and a substantive debate to be had over whether the EPA should be allowed to issue command and control regulations. I welcome the debate. If there are any Senators who support the unprecedented regulatory intrusion the EPA is

pursuing, I hope those Members will come to the floor and explain why. I strongly oppose that approach. I hope my colleagues will listen to my explanation as to why I feel as strongly about this as I do.

Our bipartisan resolution deals with an incredibly important issue; that is, whether Members of this body are comfortable with actions EPA will take under its current interpretation of the Clean Air Act. I am not comfortable with those actions. Neither are the Senators who have already agreed to add their names to this effort. The Clean Air Act was written by Congress to regulate criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. Its implementation remains subject to oversight and guidance from elected representatives. We should continue our work to pass meaningful energy and climate legislation, but in the meantime, we cannot turn a blind eye to the EPA's efforts to impose backdoor climate regulations with no input from Congress.

The decision to offer this resolution was brought about by what will happen in the wake of EPA's decision to issue the endangerment finding. It is not merely a finding; it is actually a floodgate. Under the guise of protecting the environment, it is set to unleash a wave of damaging new regulations that will wash over and further submerge our struggling economy. Make no mistake, if Congress allows this to happen, there will be severe consequences to our economy. Businesses will be forced to cut jobs, if not move outside our borders or close their doors for good, perhaps. Domestic energy production will be severely restricted, increasing our dependence on foreign suppliers and threatening our national security. Housing will become less affordable and consumer goods more expensive as the impact of the EPA's regulations are felt in towns, cities, and on farms all across America.

My home State is a perfect example of why we must proceed with utmost caution. If these regulations are allowed, the consequences for Alaska will be devastating. Hundreds of facilities will be subject to much greater regulation, including large hospitals, hotels, fish processors, and mines. Energy-intensive businesses throughout the State will be forced to acquire, install, and operate new equipment and technologies. In many cases, this will prove impossible because the technologies are either too expensive or they simply do not exist.

Because the EPA's proposed regulations are such a blunt tool, they will hit my State's energy sector particularly hard. The continued operation of existing businesses and future endeavors alike, including Alaska's three refineries, the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, TAPS, and the proposed Alaska natural gas pipeline, will all be jeopardized.

Take for example the Flint Hills refinery. This is located just south of Fairbanks. This refinery purchases royalty oil out of the pipeline at premium rates, which is critically important to the continued operation of TAPS itself. That 800-mile-long pipeline has been challenged by decreasing throughput as lower volumes are taking longer to arrive from the North Slope. Oil is also arriving at the Flint Hills refinery at lower temperatures than it used to, which requires more energy to heat and craft the crude oil into the marketable fuels Alaskans depend upon. The Flint Hills refinery already struggles to keep its jet fuel output at competitive rates in order to maintain Anchorage's status as a major center for global air cargo. It also faces a relatively inelastic market in Alaska for its other fuel products. The EPA will likely be unable and unwilling to address these issues under its command and control climate regulations.

I mentioned the Alaska natural gas pipeline--something we are working very hard to allow to come about. The construction and operation of an Alaska natural gas pipeline would be significantly hobbled by the EPA. The main reason for this relates to compressor stations which maintain a pipeline's pressures and enable movement of the gas. There is no known best available control technology, as would be required under the Clean Air Act, for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from compressors and no good options for compliance.

I cannot overstate how important these facilities and these projects are to Alaska and to America. Our refineries help ensure the State's status as a transportation hub as well as a strategic base for military operations. The Trans Alaska Pipeline System delivers hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil to Americans each day and most of the revenue for Alaska's State budget. The proposed natural gas pipeline is a pillar of our future economy that will bring Americans billions of cubic feet of clean-burning natural gas. Collectively, these projects mean well-paying jobs for thousands of hard-working Alaskans. While the EPA's endangerment finding may be described as an effort to protect our environment, it would actually damage the very foundation of my State's economy.

Alaska isn't the only State that would face dire economic consequences. My colleagues need to consider the ripple effect of this decision and the heavy economic burden it will place on those throughout the lower 48. This was foreshadowed in New Mexico back in September. In December, Kentucky faced the same situation; Arkansas, just last week. The EPA has ordered regulators in each of these States to go back to the drawing board on plans to build new powerplants. These decisions were all the result of this EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act and represent a fundamental departure from the permitting process Congress had envisioned for this statute. The implications are clear. The people who live in those States are already feeling the effects. Construction is being delayed. Jobs are not being created or, more importantly, being filled. Commerce is suffering. Depending on what becomes of these proposed plants, local residents may have to brace for a spike in energy prices as well.

Seen in this light, the EPA's regulations will not only add a thick new layer of Federal bureaucracy, but they will also serve to depress economic activity, to slow it down, to make it more expensive, to render it less efficient. If you thought the recession made for good environmental policy, I expect you will love what the EPA has to offer. Obtaining Federal air permits is already an exercise in administrative agony that can take years and cost millions of dollars. That is before the existing system is overwhelmed by millions of new applicants.

Instead of accepting that the Clean Air Act is not appropriate for this task, the EPA has proposed to lift its regulatory thresholds to 25,000 tons per year for greenhouse gases. That represents a clear departure from the statute's explicit requirements and has opened the Agency to litigation--costly, time-consuming, and endlessly frustrating litigation. Lawsuits are already being prepared against the EPA's so- called tailoring proposal. When the final rule is issued, it will be challenged. I expect the courts will then reject it, as it has no legal basis, and then restore the regulatory thresholds to 100 tons and 250 tons per year. Before long, the Agency will find itself mired in the regulatory nightmare it has sought to avoid.

Again, it is hard not to find this both surreal and deeply disturbing. The national unemployment rate has spiked to 10-plus percent. Yet here in Washington Federal bureaucrats are contemplating regulations that will destroy jobs, while millions of Americans are doing everything they can just to find one. Moreover, given the amount of time it has taken us in the Senate to consider health care and the list of many other bills waiting to be considered, it appears there will not be enough time for Congress to debate energy and climate legislation before the EPA takes action. That means the people of our States have no voice in this process. They will be subject to rules and regulations that affect their lives and their livelihoods without ever having had an opportunity to express their concerns through their representatives in Congress.

Perhaps the most important question that needs to be answered is, Why would the EPA want to pursue these regulations right now when we should be focused on getting our economy back on track? Environmental advocates, senior Democrats, the administrator of the EPA, and even the President have repeatedly said they prefer congressional legislation. So with such

widespread and high-level agreement, one would think it would be easy to suspend the Agency's efforts. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Many of those same individuals are somehow convinced that the threat of EPA regulations is somehow useful, somehow necessary. It is no secret that this is the centerpiece of a highly coercive strategy. It is the administration attempting to force the Congress to pass a climate bill more quickly than it otherwise would. For my part, that strategy has failed so far. It will continue to fail in the months ahead because Members of Congress will not enact bad legislation in order to stave off bad regulation. What the administration's strategy has done is to put Congress in a difficult position.

It is apparent to almost all of us that more time is needed to develop a good climate policy that can draw the bipartisan support of a majority in the Senate. We are working on it. My staff is actively working to develop a wide range of approaches for reducing emissions. We know Senator Cantwell and Senator Collins have recently introduced a new approach. Senators Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman are hard at work on their tripartisan proposal. As the EPA proceeds with its greenhouse gas regulations, Congress remains far from completing its work, and we are left with no choice but to shift at least part of our focus to halting the EPA's efforts.

As I have stated before, my goals here are twofold: to ensure that Congress has sufficient time to work on climate legislation and to ensure that the worst of options, which is a massive expansion of the Clean Air Act, does not occur before that task is finished.

In addition to the Senators who have signed on as cosponsors of our bipartisan resolution, there are a variety of stakeholders who have expressed strong support for slowing or stopping the EPA from issuing its greenhouse gas regulations. Many of these comments have focused on the tailoring proposal, while others oppose the endangerment finding itself. Some at the outer edges of the environmental community, obviously, disagree. But I think much of the rest of America--including State officials, businesses, farmers, and taxpayer advocates--all share our belief that the Clean Air Act should not be used to regulate emissions.

I would like to give you a few examples.

The Governor of Alaska, Sean Parnell, has written:

The fundamental question posed by the proposed rule is

whether greenhouse gases can be effectively regulated under

the Clean Air Act. We think not. Attempting to force fit the

Clean Air Act to the purpose of regulating greenhouse gases

will be ineffective and will negatively impact Alaska. . . .

The proposed rule would bury Alaska's businesses,

institutions, and the State's environmental agencies in

regulatory burden.

The Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, has written:

Regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act

will undoubtedly increase the cost of energy, increase the

cost of doing business, increase the cost of consumer

products, and jeopardize millions of jobs by putting U.S.

manufacturers at a disadvantage against foreign competitors.

The Governor of West Virginia, Joe Manchin, commented:

At a time when our state is fighting to save jobs and

stabilize the economy, we cannot afford to act carelessly.

EPA has taken a risky and unprecedented step in promulgating

this rule. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is a

matter that should be left to Congress, and EPA would be wise

to seek Congressional action instead of attempting to

regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Even the California Energy Commission, based in the State with the strictest environmental standards, felt compelled to weigh in because, as they state, ``EPA's proposed PSD tailoring threshold jeopardizes California's renewable energy strategy.'' So instead of speeding the transition to cleaner energy, California is actually worried that the EPA's proposals will actually slow down their progress.

Dozens of State Governors and attorneys general have submitted comments opposing at least one of the EPA's regulations. But comments from our elected officials are not the half of it.

The National Taxpayers Union has issued a press release that says, in part:

At a time when taxpayers are feeling the biggest squeeze

since the Great Depression, it's unconscionable that Congress

is responding with regulatory and legislative proposals that

will only make matters worse.

Then, in a letter that was delivered to me just yesterday, the American Farm Bureau Federation wrote that its delegates have unanimously adopted a resolution that ``strongly supports any legislative action that would suspend EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.''

The letter goes on to assert that:

How carbon emissions should be regulated is a matter to be

decided by elected officials; that debate is now ongoing on

Capitol Hill. It is there that these policy questions should

be answered.

Finally, the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy has concluded that the EPA's greenhouse gas rules will likely have a ``significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. . . . Small businesses, small communities, and small non- profit associations will be affected either immediately or in the near- term.''

As public awareness of our bipartisan disapproval resolution grows in the days ahead, I expect there will be many more statements that will be issued in support of its passage. While there is an extremely vocal minority that does not support it, I do hope my Senate colleagues will look at the broad coalition that does and join us to oppose the EPA's regulations.

Before I wrap up, Mr. President, I would also like to address the criticisms and arguments that have been made by those who oppose my efforts. I would like to address four of the latest claims in hopes of putting them to rest.

First of all, I would like to reiterate that our bipartisan disapproval resolution deals with the EPA's current interpretation of the Clean Air Act and has nothing to do with the science of global climate change. I would also remind my critics that I cosponsored a cap-and-trade bill in the last Congress and last year worked with the members of the Senate Energy Committee to craft a bipartisan clean energy bill. That bill, unfortunately, has been languishing on the Senate calendar for nearly 8 months now, just waiting to be called up and considered, which I think is a real shame because it would lead to significant emissions reductions and greater energy security for our country.

I would also like to address a rather creative claim that has been made that somehow I am attempting to ``gut'' the Clean Air Act or subvert it into a ``Dirty Air Act.'' I have to admit, when I first saw this, it actually made me laugh because it is so wildly inaccurate. Neither my previous amendment nor this resolution would have any effect on pollution standards and controls. Neither would change a single word of the current statute. My resolution would simply prevent the massive, unwarranted expansion of this statute by halting the EPA's efforts to use it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions--a purpose for which it was never intended, and a role that it simply cannot fulfill without serious and detrimental consequences.

It has also been stated that this resolution will somehow--somehow-- prevent Congress from working constructively on climate legislation this year. Not the case. My resolution will restrain the EPA's ability to issue greenhouse gas regulations, but it will have absolutely no bearing on Congress's ability to debate climate policy. It is especially ironic that these comments were made by the Senator who has complete control of the Senate calendar. So if climate legislation does not come up this year, it is abundantly clear to me who will have made that decision.

The last claim I would like to address is the allegation about who helped draft my September amendment, which I might remind colleagues was never offered and is no longer on the table. Not only are those allegations categorically false, but they highlight--they highlight-- the unwillingness of opponents of this measure to engage in the real policy discussion we should be having. The question so many of the individuals and groups opposed to my efforts have failed entirely to answer is if they honestly think--if they honestly think--that EPA climate regulations under the Clean Air Act would be good or bad for America.

I hope the debate over this resolution will stay rooted in substance. There is

plenty of substance for us to debate. There is a legitimate and a substantive debate to be had about whether the EPA should be allowed to issue these regulations before Congress has had an opportunity to fully debate the issue of climate change. In my mind, the answer is no. Congress must be given the time it needs to develop a responsible policy that protects both the environment and the economy.

We are not incapable or even unwilling to legislate on this topic. So far, this Congress has merely failed to develop a balanced measure that draws enough support to be signed into law. We can remedy that shortcoming, and I remain committed to playing a constructive role in that effort.

I believe the looming specter of EPA regulations is actually a big part of the reason we have had difficulty moving forward on climate legislation. Even though we know that some approaches for reducing emissions are greatly inferior to others, there is inexplicable resistance to removing even our worst option from consideration.

I have not heard one Member--one Member--say he or she prefers regulation over legislation. I have not heard one Member say that. Yet that option is not only still around, but it is also closer than ever to becoming reality. As long as it remains out there, it will be plan B for those who wish to address climate change at any cost. If this issue has become so politicized that some Members would support EPA regulation instead of a legislative effort aimed at passing a bipartisan bill, that would not only be a tragedy for our constituents but I believe also a sad day for us in the Senate.

If we are serious about fulfilling our duty to our constituents and giving this issue the full debate it deserves, we should take the EPA regulations off the table. Without a backstop that says ``emissions will be reduced, one way or another, no matter how painful,'' supports of climate legislation would have to get serious about finding common ground and bipartisan cosponsors.

Major environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act all faced opposition at the outset. That is no secret or surprise. But Members worked together to resolve concerns instead of threatening to take a different and more damaging course.

As Senator Ed Muskie would later write, the Clean Air Act ``was passed unanimously after just two days on the floor,'' which prompted Senator Eugene McCarthy to remark that he had ``finally found an issue better than motherhood--and some people are even against motherhood.'' The Clean Water Act passed by a vote of 86 to 0, and the Safe Drinking Water Act did not even require a rollcall vote. It was passed by voice vote.

The Senate has a history of coming together to overwhelmingly support commonsense environmental legislation. But today, however, as we seek the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we are being presented with a false choice between unacceptable legislation and unacceptable regulations. We are being told--threatened really--to pass a bill now or the economy will suffer. A number of Senators are trying to develop bills that can be signed into law, but even as that work continues, the EPA's endangerment finding has opened the door to further economic damage.

I believe Congress must take that option off the table, and we can do that by approving the bipartisan disapproval resolution that 39 Senators have now submitted. Allowing the EPA to proceed will endanger jobs, our economy, and our global competitiveness. That should be an outcome we can all agree to avoid.

If you truly believe that EPA climate regulations are good for the country, then you can vote to oppose our resolution. But if you share our concerns and you believe climate policy should be debated in Congress, then vote with us to support it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to discuss an amendment I am offering with Senator Gregg to create a bipartisan fiscal task force. The task force would be designed to develop a bipartisan legislative package to address the Nation's long-term fiscal imbalances. There would be a requirement that the package come before Congress for a vote.

Under the rules of the Senate, our amendment requires 60 votes to pass. If we do not reach the 60-vote threshold, I will continue to push for the creation of a special process to deal with our debt, and I will fight to ensure any special process results in legislation that will get a vote in the Senate and in the House. We cannot afford another commission whose recommendations sit on a dusty shelf somewhere at the Library of Congress.

I believe our country is at a critical juncture. We have seen in the previous administration the debt of the United States double. We are on course over the next 8 years for at least another doubling of the debt. And already we are reaching precarious levels, record levels--record levels that have never been seen before in this country.

I believe nothing short of the economic future of the country is at stake. I point to this recent Newsweek cover from December 7 of last year entitled ``How Great Powers Fall; Steep Debt, Slow Growth, and High Spending Kill Empires--and America Could Be Next.''

Here is what the article went on to say:

This is how empires decline. It begins with a debt

explosion. It ends with an inexorable reduction in the

resources available for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. . . .

If the United States doesn't come up soon with a credible

plan to restore the Federal budget to balance over the next

five to 10 years, the danger is very real that a debt crisis

could lead to a major weakening of American power.

The process has already begun. As I indicated, in the previous administration the debt doubled. Foreign holdings of U.S. debt more than doubled. We can see the track we are on. From 2001, at the beginning of the Bush administration, the debt skyrocketed, and it continues to grow with the economic downturn and the projections from the Congressional Budget Office for the future. In fact, we now estimate that the gross debt of the United States could reach 114 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States. That has only been equaled in U.S. history after World War II. At that point, the debt came down very rapidly.

There is no forecast that shows this debt coming down and certainly no projection and no forecast that it will come down rapidly. Instead, what we have is a forecast by the Congressional Budget Office that the debt will continue to explode. Instead of being 100 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States, the debt will rise to a level of more than 400 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States.

By any account, that is an unsustainable course. We have had before the Budget Committee the testimony of the head of the Congressional Budget Office saying the course we are on is clearly unsustainable. We have had the testimony of the head of the General Accounting Office saying the current course is clearly unsustainable. We have had the testimony of the Secretary of the Treasury, both in the previous administration and this one, saying this trajectory is clearly unsustainable, and we have had the testimony, clear and compelling, by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve that this course is absolutely unsustainable.

I have said to my colleagues repeatedly that the debt is the threat. It is something we must face up to. We have been through a very sharp economic downturn. In the midst of a sharp economic downturn, you do not raise taxes or cut spending. That would only deepen the recession. In fact, we could have seen this country plunge into a complete collapse, and we would not have been alone. I think many of us believe we just narrowly averted a global financial collapse. One reason it was averted is because of actions by this administration and the previous administration and this Congress--steps that were taken to provide liquidity to prevent a global collapse. But those steps also added to the deficit and debt. We have to acknowledge that. We have to be very straight with people that those steps were necessary to avert a collapse, but they also contribute to the long-term crisis we confront--a crisis of a debt growing too rapidly and forecasts to reach a level unprecedented in our national history, a debt level that could threaten the economic security of the United States.

Many people have asked me: How does this threaten the economic security of the country? Very simply, this debt is increasingly financed from abroad. In fact, last year 68 percent of the new debt created by the United States was financed by foreign entities--68 percent. China has now become our biggest creditor. They have signaled publicly and privately that they are increasingly concerned with the fiscal policy of the United States. They are increasingly concerned about the security of their loans to the United States. Other countries have expressed concern as well. If those countries decided they would no longer extend loans to the United States, we would then be very quickly in a serious situation. It would mean we would have to either cut spending sharply or raise taxes dramatically or raise interest rates in a significant way to attract new borrowing, new lenders. The consequences of a failure to address these issues goes right to the heart of the economic strength of the country.

As I said, in the article in Newsweek, they say:

If the United States doesn't come up soon with a credible

plan to restore the Federal budget to balance over the next

five to 10 years, the danger is very real that a debt crisis

could lead to a major weakening of American power.

For those who believe there is no crisis and we can just stay with the status quo, this is a quote from the National Journal cover story in November. The article was titled ``The Debt Problem Is Worse Than You Think.'' It stated:

Simply put, even alarmists may be underestimating the size

of the [debt] problem, how quickly it will become unbearable,

and how poorly prepared our political system is to deal with

it.

I believe the National Journal got it about right. We are on a course that is clearly unsustainable. Virtually every expert says to us that this is so.

The consequences of a failure to deal with the debt are enormous. They could go right to the heart of the economic strength of the country. So Senator Gregg and I have come to the floor with a proposal to have everything on the table, to have a bipartisan commission evaluate various options for dealing with our long-term debt threat and to come back with a proposal. But they can only come back if 14 of the 18 members of that commission agree on a future course, a supermajority, a bipartisan majority. If 14 of the 18 agree, that plan comes to Congress for a vote. Members here will decide. This is not outsourcing the responsibility. This is giving an independent commission the responsibility to come up with a plan, but that plan would have to be voted on by Members of the Senate, Members of the House, and under our formulation it would require a supermajority in both Chambers to pass. Of course, the President would retain his veto powers. He would be able to veto any proposal passed by the Senate and the House. I believe the prerogatives of the Senate and the House are preserved. It will require a vote of supermajority here and in the House and, of course, signature by the President.

The former Chairman of the Federal Reserve has talked about the urgent need to address the long-term debt situation. This is what he said on December 17 of last year in testimony before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee:

The challenge to contain this threat is more urgent than at

any time in our history. . . . . [Our] nation has never

before had to confront so formidable a fiscal crisis as is

now visible just over the horizon.

I believe the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve has it right. We face an unprecedented threat. Never before in our Nation's history have we looked forward and seen the prospect, if we continue current policies, of a debt that would equal 400 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States. That has never, ever faced this country. That is a threat with which we are unfamiliar.

The response Senator Gregg and I have crafted over 2 years of debate and discussion with many of our colleagues is one that is based on the principle of accountability. All of the task force members would be directly accountable to the American people. There would be 18 members--10 Democrats, 2 from the administration, and 8 Republicans. So in terms of Members of Congress, it would be even: 8 Democrats, 8 Republicans. They would have to be currently serving Members of Congress selected by the Democratic and Republican leaders. The Secretary of the Treasury and one other administration official would serve representing the administration, for a total of 18.

The bipartisan fiscal task force would provide broad coverage. Everything would be on the table--entitlements, revenue, discretionary spending. Spending and revenues all would be before them for a judgment on how we deal with the debt threat.

The work of the fiscal task force would enjoy expedited procedures-- procedures we have used before to bring especially difficult issues to both the Senate and the House. The recommendations would only be submitted after the 2010 election. There would be fast-track consideration of the proposal in the Senate and the House. There would be no amendments. It would be an up-or-down vote. The final vote would come before the end of the 111th Congress.

Again, I wish to emphasize I am not proposing that we take action to raise revenue or cut spending in the midst of an economic downturn. That would be counterproductive. But we do need to face up to this long-term debt. The provisions that would come from any commission, I am sure, would be ones that would be put in place over time. They would be phased in. The Commission would be cognizant that our economy remains weak and, in fact, may require even additional debt in the short term.

The bipartisan fiscal task force would ensure a bipartisan outcome. Fourteen of the eighteen task force members would have to agree to the recommendations for it to come to a vote, and final passage would require supermajorities--a three-fifths vote in both the Senate and the House. Also, the President must still sign off. As I indicated earlier, he would retain his full veto powers.

This approach has been criticized by both the left and the right--the left, a group of organizations that have banded together to say this kind of approach could lead to reductions in Social Security and Medicare--cuts in Social Security and Medicare. I would simply say to them: Look at where we are. Look at where we are. Social Security and Medicare are both cash negative today. The trustees of Medicare say Medicare will go broke in 8 years. Social Security will take somewhat longer. But both are on a path to insolvency if we fail to act.

It hasn't just been from the more liberal side of the spectrum that the criticism has come, but also on the right. The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial calling the debt reduction commission--or the deficit commission--a trap. They say it is a trap that will lead to higher taxes; to more revenue. So on the left and the right we have those complaining that if you move forward to deal with the debt, you are going to make reductions in programs and you are going to increase revenue. I think that is undeniably the case. If you are going to deal with this debt threat, we are going to have to make changes in the spending projections of the United States. We are going to have to make changes in the revenue base of the country.

I would suggest to those who are concerned about tax increases, the first place to get more revenue is not with a tax increase. The first place to get more revenue is to collect what is actually owed. If you examine the revenue streams of the United States, it jumps out at you that we are collecting about 80 percent, or even somewhat less than that, of what is actually owed. If we were collecting the money that is actually owed under the current rates, we would be doing very well. But we have offshore tax havens, abusive tax shelters, a tax gap--the difference between what is owed and what is paid--and we also have a tax system that is completely out of date.

We have a tax system that was designed at a time when we did not have to be worried about the competitive position of the United States. Now we do. The world has changed and our revenue system has not kept pace. Instead, it is hemorrhaging with offshore tax havens costing us, according to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, over $100 billion a year in lost revenue.

If anybody doubts the proliferation of offshore tax havens, I would urge them to Google offshore tax havens and see what you find. We did that last year and got over 1 million hits, including my favorite: live offshore tax free by putting your funds in offshore tax havens.

The reality is this: We have a dramatic imbalance between spending and revenue. The revenue is the green line, the spending is the red line. Look what has happened with the economic downturn: Revenue is at its lowest point in 50 years as measured as a share of the economy. Revenue is less than 15 percent of the gross domestic product of the country. Spending has skyrocketed to 26 percent of the gross domestic product of the country. You can see that is far higher than it has been going back 30 years.

Of course, we understand why, in the middle of a sharp economic downturn, the automatic stabilizers take effect--unemployment insurance, a whole series of other measures to try to prevent an even steeper downturn. So spending goes up, revenue goes down, the deficits widen, and the debt explodes. That would not be so troubling if the long-term trend didn't tell us the debt will continue to grow from these already high levels.

The need for tax reform, I think, is clear: We have a tax system that is out of date and hurting U.S. competitiveness. As I mentioned, we are hemorrhaging revenue to tax havens and abusive tax shelters. The alternative minimum tax problem threatens millions of middle-class taxpayers--something that was never intended. That cries out for reform. These long-term imbalances must be addressed. Simplification and reform, we know from experience, can keep rates low and improve the efficiency of the system.

The arguments I have advanced this morning are arguments that have now been endorsed by more and more budget experts as they look at the long-term threat to the country. Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, said this:

The recommendation of Senators Conrad and Gregg for a

bipartisan fiscal task force is an excellent idea. I hope

that you succeed.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the chief economic adviser to Senator McCain in his Presidential bid, said this in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee just last year:

I am a reluctant convert. I have always felt that this is

Congress' job, and, quite frankly, it ought to just do it.

And that attitude has earned me no friends and has gotten us

no action. So I have come around to the point where I'm in

favor of something that is a special legislative procedure to

get this legislation in front of Congress and passed.

Mr. Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, said this in testimony before the Budget Committee last year:

It is going to require a different approach if we're going

to solve the long-term fiscal imbalance. It's going to

require a fundamental change in approach, because I don't see

realistically how we're going to get there through the

existing mechanisms.

Here is a quote from David Walker, the former head of the General Accounting Office.

I think the regular order is dysfunctional as it relates to

these types of issues. And it's, quite frankly,

understandable, because you're talking about putting together

a

package that crosses many different jurisdictions. And the

idea that that would end up emerging from the regular order I

think is just totally unrealistic.

That was testimony before the Budget Committee in 2007 by the Comptroller General.

Leon Panetta, the former chairman of the House Budget Committee and the former Chief of Staff to President Clinton, now the Director of the CIA, said this in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee in response to the question: Shouldn't we rely on just the regular order; the normal committee process?

It'll never happen. The committees of jurisdiction will

never take on the kind of challenges that are involved in

this kind of effort. If you just leave them under their own

jurisdictions, that will never happen.

It hasn't happened, and I am chairman of one of the committees. I accept that the normal process is not going to deal with a threat of this magnitude. It is going to take all of us, Democrats, Republicans, Congress, and the administration, working together to fashion a plan that deals with the long-term debt threat; that also deals with the short-term need to restore jobs, to restore economic growth, and to build the economy.

These things are not contradictory. They, in fact, are complementary. We must do both. We must restore economic growth and economic strength and, at the same time, we must deal with the long-term debt threat. That is the proposal Senator Gregg and I bring to the floor. We urge our colleagues to seriously consider what we have offered. It has 35 cosponsors, about evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. I know it is a tall order to get to 60 votes in the Senate. It is especially hard when organizations on the left are opposing it and organizations on the right are opposing it for very different reasons. But this is a case of the challenge of the middle holding.

That has been the great strength of America--our ability to take on tough challenges and meet them. Whether it was World War I or World War II, the Great Depression or all the other challenges this country has faced, over and over America has proven it is up to the challenge. I believe we are up to this challenge as well, and I believe people working together can come up with solutions that would be credible not only to markets in this country but markets around the world that are beginning to wonder: Does America have the ability to face up to the debt threat that overhangs the future economic strength of the country?

I appreciate this time. I thank the chairman for allowing this time. I know Senator Gregg will be coming to the floor in about an hour for his presentation on the same subject. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

May I call up the amendment before we move on?

Mr. President, I call up the Conrad-Gregg amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I thank my colleagues for this opportunity to present our amendment.