A joint resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

Will the Senator from Montana yield for a question?

I listened to the statements made today by the Republican leader about the increase in this fee that is to be paid into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. I would like to ask the chairman of the Finance Committee, currently, the fee is 8 cents a barrel?

And the price of a barrel of oil, as of this morning's Wall Street Journal, is $71.99 a barrel?

So this is a small, tiny fraction--one-tenth----

Of the current fee. One-tenth of 1 percent as best I can calculate it.

That is being paid by oil companies into a fund so that if there would be a spill and the oil company responsible couldn't pay for it, they would have at least accumulated enough money to protect the taxpayers----

From this liability.

Twenty-one years ago. I might also ask the chairman of the Finance Committee, it is my understanding that the total value of the current Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is somewhere in the range of $1.5 billion?

So the effort in this bill is to increase that per-barrel tax paid by oil companies for this oilspill liability fund to----

Forty-one cents. So 41 cents would represent, as I calculate it, one-half of 1 percent of the current cost of a barrel of oil.

Right. So the argument from the other side is that even if we accumulated this money and put it into this fund for cleaning up spills, we shouldn't count it as additional money being held by the Federal Government at the same time; is that correct?

And if we fail to count it as an additional source of revenue being held by the Federal Government, is it not true that it would be subject to a budget point of order, which would then require 60 votes, and that would allow the oil companies to find 41 friends on the Senate floor--and I think I know where they will start looking--to defeat this effort to create this tax?

Could I also ask the chairman of the Finance Committee, in this situation--where BP is clearly responsible for the mess in the Gulf of Mexico and has at least stated its responsibility; where we have a deep-pocket defendant that declared $5.6 billion in profits the first quarter of this year--if the next spill or the next accident resulting in multibillion-dollar damage to the Gulf of Mexico, or wherever, is caused by a company without deep pockets, is this fund the only place to turn to protect taxpayers?

And if we fail to increase this tax and increase the size of this fund, it means the taxpayers would be called on to bail out other oil companies that may be responsible for similar damage in the future?

So all the protests from the other side of the aisle about this 40-cent tax on big oil companies is basically not only to protect the big oil companies but to put the taxpayers on the hook for another bailout----

If we run into another oilspill?

I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. President, pending before the Senate is a bill that includes many provisions. It is known in shorthand as the extenders bill because each year there are portions of the Tax Code which expire, and they relate to a lot of different things we kind of take for granted--the biofuels tax credit, for example--and other things. Each year, Congress extends or reauthorizes those portions of the Tax Code, and most of them are noncontroversial.

The obvious question many people ask who are affected by them is, Why do you do this every year and go through this exercise? It is an honest and legitimate question. I just say that the honest answer is, Because the extenders themselves are not controversial; they are popular. They become the spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine go down because they usually accompany other things that have more controversy with them. That is the way politics works. That is the way the Congress works, and that is what we do each year. This year is no exception, and we are considering the extension of portions of the Tax Code and including with it other things that will have an impact on the country and on the economy.

When I look at what is included in this bill, which is going to be important, there are several provisions that I think are critically important for the economy.

Most of us believe we would be better off in America if we stopped exporting good-paying American jobs overseas. So the President has said repeatedly and many of us have said in our speeches on the floor and back home that we want to stop rewarding in the Tax Code companies that decide it is to their economic advantage to locate overseas, closing down a factory in Galesburg, IL, and moving over to Europe or Japan or China or India or wherever it happens to be. So this bill, first and foremost, eliminates major tax cuts and loopholes available to U.S. corporations that want to relocate their business operations overseas. I think that is eminently sensible. Why would we in our Tax Code reward companies that want to leave the country, companies that want to eliminate American jobs? That is the No. 1 thing this extenders package does, in addition to extending some of the tax provisions I mentioned earlier.

It also provides help for small businesses across America. If we are going to get out of this recession sooner rather than later, we really need to depend on small businesses in America that will be able to step up and hire more people. We all think about the big company that is going to locate its new plant in our hometown and create 1,000 or 2,000 jobs. Occasionally, that happens. But more likely than not, the job growth in most communities and most cities will be when smaller businesses can hire 1 or 2 people or maybe 10 or 20 people. Cumulatively, those efforts result in a growth in the American workforce. This bill, as a second part, creates tax incentives and help for small businesses to hire more people in this weak economy.

Those are the two pillars of the bill: stop the export of American jobs by eliminating the tax incentives in our American laws that reward companies for sending jobs overseas and, secondly, create an environment in our Tax Code and programs that help small businesses retain and hire more American workers. I cannot think of two better things to do in a weak economy. Yet it seems there is opposition to this bill from the Republican side of the aisle. There are some who may support it, and I hope they do. I hope it genuinely becomes a bipartisan bill.

But there is a genuine concern about some other provisions that I would like to address.

I don't know that there is an American alive today who is unaware of what is going on in the Gulf of Mexico. I don't know what day we are in--60, 61--of this terrible environmental disaster where the BP rig blew up, killing 11 innocent people, and then the oil started spewing into the Gulf of Mexico. British Petroleum came in and has been trying vainly to stop this oil from flowing into the gulf. They have said repeatedly that they will make this all whole at the end of the day; they will stop the oil from flowing and set about repairing the damage, which is extensive.

Twenty-one years ago, I was on a congressional trip up to Prince William Sound in Alaska. The Exxon Valdez, a large tanker, had run aground because the captain, they think--it was alleged--had been drinking and didn't pay attention. It gashed the hull of the boat and ended up spewing oil in every direction. I will never forget that as long as I live because there was this black, dirty, sludgy oil all over everything. We went out on a Coast Guard ship and looked at it. You would see these horrible situations where, in this pristine Alaskan environment, everything would be covered with this black oil, and you would look down into the rocks and you could see as deep as you could see that there was more and more of that oil.

I asked Senator Murkowski of Alaska what Prince William Sound is like

21 years later, and she said things have gotten back to a more normal state but some things have changed forever. Some species of fish, such as the herring, are just gone from this particular place. Maybe at some distant point in the future, they will return, but for the last 20 years, they have been extinct and gone. I hope Mother Nature takes care of that over time. You can see that it will take a long period of time.

We don't know what is going to happen in the Gulf of Mexico, but we know it will be expensive, first, in terms of human life--losing 11 people--and, second, in terms of the environmental damage, which is incalculable at this moment; that is, the economic cost of the damage.

If there is any encouraging thing--and there isn't much--in this whole conversation, it is the fact that British Petroleum is a very wealthy company. In the first 3 months of this year, they announced $5.6 billion in profits. When they say they can pay for the damage, it is clear that they have deep pockets and they can pay. And they will pay. The taxpayers will not pay.

There is a provision in this bill relating to this issue that has become controversial on the floor. We decided back in the time of the Exxon Valdez spill that we would create an oilspill liability fund. In other words, we would collect money and put it into a ``rainy day fund'' that would be there in case of an environmental disaster to pay for the damage. We collect, under current law, 8 cents for every barrel of oil to put into this fund. This morning's paper tells us that a barrel of oil is selling for $71.99, so 8 cents represents about one- tenth of 1 percent of the cost of a barrel of oil. It is a tiny, small amount.

Over time, with all the oil that has been explored and produced, we have collected over $1 billion into this oilspill liability fund, thinking we were prepared for the worst. We couldn't imagine what happened in the Gulf of Mexico, where $1.5 billion wouldn't even come close to paying for the damage that has been created by this BP disaster. So this bill will increase the amount of tax on a barrel of oil to 41 cents a barrel.

Remember, the price of a barrel of oil is $71.99, and we are going to charge 41 cents to be put into this oilspill liability fund. There is an objection to this from the Republican side of the aisle. Their objection is a little hard to follow because they are kind of tied up in a budgetary argument here. I think it is pretty clear to see what the choices will be. If we don't collect this money for every barrel of oil and put it into an oilspill liability fund, God forbid if there is another environmental disaster; there won't be enough money to pay for it.

Today, British Petroleum has its slimy fingerprints all over this mess. We know they are going to end up holding the bag, as they should. They have the money to pay for the damages associated with it. But what about tomorrow? What if the company involved is not as well off as BP? What if they are bankrupted by an environmental disaster and they go out of business? Who then is going to compensate the shrimpers, the oystermen, the fishermen, the tourist industry, the resorts, and all the others who are affected by all this? At that point in time, you would look to this oilspill liability fund. But the $1.5 billion it currently holds is not enough to do the job. That is why this bill increases the amount per barrel of oil from 8 to 41 cents, so instead of one-tenth of 1 percent, it is about one-half of 1 percent of the current cost of a barrel of oil that will be set aside as an insurance fund.

The Republicans are objecting to this. You have to ask them, what is the alternative? If the oil companies don't pay so that we have an insurance fund for the next environmental disaster, who will pay? I think we know the answer. It will require another taxpayer bailout, which means taxpayers across America will be called on to come up with the emergency disaster funds to pay for the next environmental disaster, God forbid it ever occurs. Isn't it better to have the industry drilling for oil building up the reserves in this oilspill liability fund so that the taxpayers don't end up ultimately paying for the cleanup? It is obvious to me. The alternative is unacceptable, but the alternative is what is being argued for on the Republican side of the aisle. They want to step aside from what is the clear responsibility of the big oil companies and those who would drill.

Yesterday, we had a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we talked about the liability of the oil companies in this situation. It turns out that Senator Patrick Leahy, of Vermont, and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, from Rhode Island, did some research on it and found that most of the law that governed this situation was ancient law--150, 160 years old. The law, for example, for the 11 people who died on this oil rig in the explosion limits the recovery of their surviving families to the actual monetary losses--in other words, how much future income will be lost to that family because of the death of that worker. They cannot collect for any loss of companionship due to the death of a father or husband, and they cannot collect punitive damages, except to the amount of the actual compensatory damages--one to one. There is a limit to what they can recover.

Yesterday, Christopher Jones testified about his brother Gordon, who died as a result of the explosion on this rig in the Gulf of Mexico. He showed us photos of the family, the two little boys--one born after the father died and another young boy and his mom. It was so compelling.

The argument was made by a man representing the oil and energy industry that it would be reckless for us to expand the liability of oil companies beyond the current limitations in the law. I think it is reckless for us to consider allowing anybody to drill in the Gulf of Mexico who doesn't have the bonding and wherewithal to stand up for any damages they should incur. Why in the world would we allow anybody to go out in this circumstance, when we can see what happens when it goes wrong, and do it again without having some sort of insurance that protects those involved working there, as well as those who are affected by the environment around the Gulf of Mexico? They have no business drilling, as far as I am concerned, if they are not financially responsible and if they cannot stand behind their operations to make sure the taxpayers don't end up in a situation where they are vulnerable.

The Republican position that says we should not impose a new tax on oil companies to make sure there is enough money in an oilspill fund so that the taxpayers won't have to pay for these disasters in the future is a position that is indefensible. It is a position that makes no sense.

They argue, incidentally, that if we collect this money, we should somehow say it won't be used for any other purpose. Well, the money will be used for the purpose of oilspill cleanup, but because it will be a new asset of the Federal Government, it will be shown on the books on the positive side. We are collecting the tax, gaining the asset, and increasing in a small way our budget picture on the positive side. I think they are lost in a budgetary argument that really is, in effect, trying to protect the oil companies from this new tax.

I hope my colleagues won't be discouraged in this debate but will stand by the efforts of the committee to impose this new tax responsibility. I hope that as Members of the Senate consider this bill--and I see my friend from Ohio here, and I will yield momentarily to him--they will try to understand how difficult it might be to explain why they voted against a bill that eliminates tax breaks for American companies that want to locate their businesses overseas and why they voted against a bill that provides help for small businesses in America to hire more workers in a time of high unemployment. Those are the two most important elements in this so-called extension bill. I hope--wouldn't it be a great day--we could have bipartisan support for those two basic ideas and at the end of the day do something on the floor to create jobs in America and, in the process, do it in a sensible way that builds for our future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, pending before us on the floor is the bill from the Senate Finance Committee, the extenders bill relating to the Tax Code, but I would like to address an issue which is to come before the Senate tomorrow. It is an issue that rarely comes here under a procedure that was designed to give Congress a voice in the determination of regulations and rules promulgated by a President and the administration.

The Senate has entered into a unanimous consent agreement to consider S.J. Res. 26 tomorrow, which would disapprove of the Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment. As a result of this action by the Senate, if we

vote, we will vote in disapproval of this endangerment. The EPA's action was in response to a Supreme Court order that it make a determination about whether greenhouse gases as pollutants could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

This is an interesting story because it began with a question that was posed to Carol Browner, then head of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Bill Clinton. As I was told the story, the Republican leader in the House, Tom DeLay, asked Carol Browner of the EPA whether the Clean Air Act covered greenhouse gases, and she said she would have to get back to him because that particular question had never been directly asked or answered. After long study, she replied in the affirmative, which was not the reply the gentleman from Texas was expecting. This led to a flurry of lawsuits and questions because it really raised the question as to whether greenhouse gases, as we know them, going into the atmosphere are dangerous to the health and safety of people living on Earth and particularly here in the United States.

The EPA studied this for a long period of time. The Supreme Court considered this case, as to whether the Clean Air Act applied to greenhouse gases, and ultimately concluded that it did but left it to the EPA to make the final determination as to whether in fact these greenhouse gases were dangerous. The EPA responded to the direction provided by the Supreme Court by proposing to find that the emission of six greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluorides-- threatened the public health and welfare of current and future generations and the combined emissions of these same gases from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these greenhouse gases and hence the threat of climate change.

So, literally, tomorrow the Senate will be debating and voting on the question of climate change and whether greenhouse gases in fact are dangerous to the environment and the health and safety of people living in the United States. This has been a long, torturous process that led us to this moment. But the resolution being offered by the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, would basically ask the Senate to find against the scientific findings linking greenhouse gases and climate change. The judgment of the EPA was based on scientific findings that showed that the concentration of greenhouse gases is at unprecedented levels compared to the recent and distant past; the effects of climate changed observed to date and projected to occur in the future will have impacts on public health and welfare; and the emissions of greenhouse gases from on-road vehicles regulated by the Clean Air Act contribute to climate change.

There are those who deny the connection between greenhouse gases and what is happening to the Earth, the world in which we live. There are some who do not believe in climate change, they do not believe in global warming, and they are very vocal in their positions.

I have had many groups come to see me on the issue from my State of Illinois. Many of them are farmers, agricultural groups, and I have made a point of asking these farmers--as they tell me they oppose any type of efforts to control carbon, to tax it or measure it in the future--a very basic question: Do you believe human activity on Earth is leading to changes in the world we live in--climate changes, the melting of glaciers, different problems with pollution, public health issues, asthma, lung problems? And I have been surprised, at least initially, to find that none of them believed it--not one. Three--after I asked this repeatedly--three said they had some questions about it, but not one said they believed it; that human activity was changing the world in which we live. I said to them: It is very difficult for us to have a conversation let alone a debate about this issue if you don't buy the premise, if you don't buy the starting point that things we are doing--the way we live, the way we produce electricity, the way we move from one place to another--create pollution which changes the Earth.

This resolution by Senator Murkowski basically takes the same position: that the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that these greenhouse gases are a danger to us in the future and now is wrong. The EPA did not reach this conclusion lightly, as to whether there was a connection between greenhouse gases and the safety and health of people living on Earth. They had over 380,000 public comments they elicited for this work.

The EPA endangerment finding has been supported not only by their conclusions but peer-reviewed literature in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. For the Senate to decide tomorrow that greenhouse gases do not pose a danger to our environment or our own health is comparable to the Senate voting against gravity, saying basically we are going to disagree with the scientific conclusion on gravity.

I could argue without gravity the space program would be a lot cheaper. But the fact is, gravity is a scientific finding backed up by virtually everyone. Here we have a scientific finding backed up by the National Academy of Sciences, and the Senator from Alaska is going to ask us to vote tomorrow to reject it--the Senate to reject it. We will stand in judgment of these scientists and find they are wrong.

By what authority could we reach that conclusion? They have gone through this long process of concluding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the planet we live on and our lives in the future. They have suggested we need to take that into consideration when we talk about the fuels we burn in the future, the way we generate electricity in the future, and start making plans to improve fuel efficiency, energy efficiency, to reduce the dangers associated with this.

I think this is an important vote, maybe a historic vote. It is also interesting who supports the position of Senator Murkowski that we basically reject the sound science behind the EPA position. It is a position backed by many groups but particularly supported by big oil. The big oil companies are concerned about the impact of measuring greenhouse gas emissions and carbon emissions on the environment because it directly impacts the product they create and produce and sell.

Here we are in the midst of an environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico brought on by one of the biggest oil companies on Earth, and we are now going to consider in the Senate a Murkowski resolution that is supported by the same big oil interests asking us to reject the finding by the EPA that greenhouse gas emissions do pose a danger to our environment and the people living in the United States.

I say to my colleagues, tomorrow I hope they will think long and hard about this vote. This is not just another vote about another political issue. The credibility of the Senate is at issue. If we are going to stand in judgment of these scientific findings and reject them, then I think we will at least subject ourselves to a level of criticism that we have not accepted basic and sound science as it has been developed.

There are many groups supporting the Murkowski resolution. I mentioned big oil. But there are many groups that oppose the Murkowski resolution. Among them are the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Children's Environmental Health Network, the American Nurses Association, the American Lung Association, Public Health Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Association of Schools of Public Health, Union of Concerned Scientists--the list goes on and on.

It is interesting, too, that automobile manufacturers oppose the Murkowski effort to reject the science behind greenhouse gas emissions. An alliance of automobile manufacturers and 11 member companies have written to us expressing concern over the Murkowski resolution that would overturn the EPA's endangerment finding on greenhouse gas emissions.

. . . if these resolutions are enacted into law, the

historic agreement creating the One National Program for

regulating vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions

would collapse.

They are, of course, referring to an agreement which is trying to move toward more fuel-efficient vehicles and vehicles that pollute less. An agreement is being reached. Most Americans

would agree that is a good thing. But the basis for agreeing it is a good thing is the belief that what is coming out of your tailpipe is not necessarily good for the world we live in, and if we can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by moving toward hybrid engines, electric cars, getting better mileage in cars we do use, it is a good thing for the American owning the car--they buy less fuel oil--and it is a good thing for the environment because there are fewer emissions.

If the Murkowski resolution prevails, we are rejecting the scientific basis for believing that what comes out of your tailpipe can be harmful to the world in which we live. That is a position which is hard to understand and difficult to explain.

The auto workers have written to us asking us to vote against the Murkowski resolution, saying they are very concerned that such a vote ``would unravel the historic agreement on one national standard for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions.''

We have had EPA Administrators from Presidents, both Democratic and Republican--under Nixon, Ford, and Reagan--who oppose the Murkowski resolution: Russell Train, William Ruckelshaus, many faith groups, a long list of environmental groups, and key stakeholders who oppose this Murkowski resolution. The list goes on and on.

It will be an interesting vote tomorrow to see if this Senate, this historic and traditional body, will be looking forward to the future and realizing if we do not take better care of the world we live in, we will not be leaving as clean a world, as safe a world to our children in the future.

The Murkowski resolution says ignore the science, ignore the findings, and ignore the responsibility we face to do something about this problem. I think that is clearly a move in the wrong direction, and I hope my colleagues will reject this resolution when it comes before us tomorrow.

There are some who have argued if we do not pass the Murkowski resolution the EPA will start regulating just about everything in sight. When my farmers come here and start worrying about the tractors they drive in the fields, I wonder if they have taken a close look at what the EPA rule has suggested.

There are approximately 900 currently regulated facilities, and the EPA estimates there will be about 550 more that would be affected by this rule. No small farms, restaurants, or midsize commercial facilities emit enough carbon to be regulated by the EPA. Many of these entities have been frightened by people who have been exaggerating the reach of the EPA or their interest in this particular issue.

When you look at the phase-in called for by the EPA, they are dealing with the largest emitters of pollution in our country. What I think it does is, unfortunately, make the debate somewhat distorted to suggest it is going to apply to a farmer or small businessperson because the EPA's schedule and rules do not.

The alternative of doing nothing is unacceptable from my point of view. I do believe, sadly, things are changing for the worse in many respects when it comes to the environment of the world in which we live. I do believe there has been, as the EPA has found, an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and accumulation of those emissions in the environment which have had a negative impact on the world.

I have seen the photos--most everyone has--about the warming of this Earth. Although there are clearly days and weeks when we have a lot of cold weather--we had it in Washington--we know on average the temperature of the world we live in is going up. As it does, things change: glaciers melt, there is more water in the oceans, currents change, the temperature of the water that moves around the world changes, and climate patterns start to change as well.

We need to do something about it. Voting for the Murkowski resolution is a step in the wrong direction. It basically says we are walking away from our responsibility, a responsibility which, though it is politically difficult, I think is a responsibility we must face because the science and our human experience lead us to that conclusion.

I know it is going to mean some changes in the world. I come from a State where there is a lot of coal. That coal is a source of a lot of energy. But it also could be the source of a lot of pollution. There are ways to deal with it.

I see the Senator from Missouri on the Senate floor. He and I have come together, not on every issue but at least on the notion of carbon sequestration. The idea is to take the emissions from an electric powerplant using coal, for example, and pipe them deep into the earth well below any surface where they could escape. I think this is one of the technologies, one of the scientific processes that should be researched as a possibility.

Let me conclude, because I see my colleague on the floor, by urging my colleagues to oppose the Murkowski resolution tomorrow. This resolution wants to basically reject scientific findings that have been backed up across the world. It would subject this body to not only criticism but maybe even ridicule for us to step away from basic scientific findings which have linked the activities of humans on Earth and a change in the Earth in which we live. We need to accept that basic premise and accept that basic responsibility.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about an amendment I have filed and look forward to getting pending in a short while. This is an amendment which addresses many of the issues we have been hearing about this morning about which the American people are concerned.

This amendment helps us lower the record-breaking deficit this country is facing, and this amendment will help us transform our energy system away from fossil fuel--away from the oil disaster that we are seeing in the gulf right now--to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. So for all my colleagues who are concerned about record- breaking deficits, I hope they will support this amendment which I will explain in a moment. And for all of my colleagues who understand that the future of this country is not offshore drilling, I hope they will support this amendment.

Let me explain briefly what this amendment does. At a time when the profits of big oil companies are soaring, at a time when we are in the midst of the largest oilspill in our Nation's history--one of the greatest ecological disasters this country has ever experienced--at a time when we desperately need to end our dependence on oil and gas and seriously transform our energy system by investing in energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy, this amendment is simple and it is straightforward and I think it addresses all of those concerns.

This amendment simply repeals over $35 billion in tax breaks to the oil and gas industry. Let me repeat that. This amendment simply repeals over $35 billion in tax breaks to the oil and gas industry, all of which were recommended for elimination in President Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget. What this amendment is doing is simply bringing to the floor of the Senate the recommendations that were in President Obama's budget.

According to OMB, the repeal of these tax breaks would be equivalent to about 1 percent of domestic oil and gas industry revenues over the next decade. This is not an onerous attack on the oil industry. In other words, the cost to the oil and gas industry of repealing these tax breaks is negligible. And $25 billion of the money saved under this amendment would be used to reduce the deficit and $10 billion would be used to invest in the highly successful Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program over a 5-year period.

This amendment does two things. For all of my friends, and every American who is concerned about a $13 trillion national debt and record-breaking deficits, this amendment says let us put $25 billion into deficit reduction. For all of us who are concerned about transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, this amendment says, over the next 5 years let's put $10 billion into the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, which provides funding to States, cities, and towns all over America to begin transforming energy in their communities.

This amendment is supported by Physicians for Social Responsibility, Friends of the Earth, Public Citizen, moveon.org, Center for Biological Diversity, One Sky, Environment America, the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace.

If there is anything we should be learning from the gulf disaster, the horrendous disaster we are experiencing today on the gulf coast, it is that it is time to move aggressively away from polluting and unsafe fossil fuels which are getting more and more difficult to produce as we move farther and farther offshore to drill for them. With a $13 trillion national debt, the last thing we need to be doing is giving huge tax breaks to big oil and gas companies that have been making record-breaking profits year after year.

As I indicated before, all of the oil and gas tax breaks that my amendment seeks to repeal have been targeted for elimination in President Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget. So

here we are. For all of my deficit hawk friends: $25 billion into deficit reduction by asking the oil industry, which has been hugely profitable in recent years, to start paying their fair share of taxes.

Let me quote from a speech that President Obama gave on this subject.

Our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize

our national security. It will smother our planet. And it

will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk.

. . . If we refuse to take into account the full cost of our

fossil fuel addiction--if we don't factor in the

environmental costs and national security costs and true

economic costs--we will have missed our best chance to seize

a clean energy future. . . . The time has come once and for

all for this Nation to fully embrace a clean energy future.

Now, that means . . . rolling back billions of dollars of tax

breaks to oil companies so that we can prioritize investments

in clean energy research and development.

That is the end of the quote from President Barack Obama. Frankly, that is what this amendment is all about.

Let me give one interesting example of the absurdity of continuing to provide tax breaks to the oil and gas industry. Last year, ExxonMobil, the most profitable corporation in the history of the world, reported to the SEC that not only did it avoid paying any Federal taxes, it actually received a $46 million refund from the IRS. How is that, folks? So, for all of the taxpayers in this country, people who are making $30,000 or $40,000 a year, who are prepared to pay their fair share of taxes, we have a situation where last year ExxonMobil, the most profitable corporation in the history of the world, reported to the SEC that not only did it avoid paying any Federal taxes, it actually received a $46 million refund from the IRS.

We have a lot of working people in the State of Vermont who make $50,000 or $60,000 a year, working 6 or 7 days a week in order to take care of their family. They pay taxes. ExxonMobil, the most profitable corporation in America, gets a refund from the IRS. If anyone thinks that makes sense I would like to hear about it.

ExxonMobil is the same huge oil company that had enough money to pay a $398 million retirement package to its outgoing CEO, Lee Raymond, a few years ago, so it is a real struggling company. They make more profits than any company in the history of the world and paid their outgoing CEO $398 million in a retirement package but they cannot afford to pay a nickel in taxes. In fact, they get a tax refund. Do you think we need to change that system? I do.

ExxonMobil is the same company that is making its profits by gouging consumers at the pump by charging higher and higher prices for gasoline even when demand is low and supply is high. In Vermont, gas is now $2.85 a gallon. That has to stop.

This amendment would begin to make sure that ExxonMobil, BP, and other big oil companies pay at least a minimal amount of their record- breaking profits in taxes to the Federal Government so we can begin to deal with our record-breaking deficit; so we can begin the process of transforming our energy system.

Let me be clear. As millions of Americans have lost their jobs, their homes, their life savings, and their ability to send their kids to college because of this horrendous Wall Street recession, we cannot continue to allow big oil companies to make out like bandits. In the first quarter--I refer people to this chart--in the first quarter of 2009, when our gross domestic product shrank by 6.4 percent and overall corporate profits decreased by 5.25 percent--that is what a recession is about; profits are down, overall corporate profits--the five largest oil companies were still able to earn over $13 billion in profits. As this chart shows, during the last 10 years the five largest oil companies--ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, ChevronTexaco, and ConocoPhillips-- earned over $750 billion in profits: a 10-year period, $750 billion in profits. That is not chickenfeed.

During the first quarter of this year, big oil's profits increased by 85 percent--not bad, 85 percent. Instead of using these profits to invest in renewable energy and to prevent oilspills, big oil and gas companies are primarily using this money to buy back their own stock and enrich their CEOs. According to the American Petroleum Institute, between 2000 and 2007 the entire oil and gas industry, of all of their profits--remember, $750 billion of profits over the last 10 years-- invested only $1.5 billion in North American ``nonhydrocarbon investments'' aimed at reducing the Nation's dependence on oil. That is less than one-quarter of 1 percent of their profits during this time period.

Meanwhile, the CEOs of big oil companies have received hundreds of millions in retirement packages and total compensation. Over the last 5 years, Ray Irani, the CEO of Occidental Petroleum, received over $725 million in total compensation; John Hess, the CEO of the Hess Oil Company, has received over $240 million in total compensation; David Lesar, the CEO of Halliburton, has received over $114 million in total compensation; James Mulva, the CEO of ConocoPhillips, has received over $95 million in total compensation; and Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, made over $30 million in total compensation over that 5- year period. Further, since 2002, the five largest oil companies have repurchased almost $270 billion of their own stock.

It is important for the American people to understand how excessively we are subsidizing fossil fuels and benefiting big oil. It is not only that they are making record-breaking profits; it is not only that they are not paying their fair share of taxes; it is not only that they are not investing in renewable energy so we can break our dependency on fossil fuel and clean up this planet, but in addition to that, they are receiving huge amounts of taxpayer subsidies. These guys who tell us how terrible the big government is are not hesitant to be running here to Capitol Hill to get their fair share of their welfare payments.

As this chart shows, according to the Environmental Law Institute, from 2002 to 2008, the U.S. Government provided more than $70 billion in fossil fuel subsidies compared to just over $12 billion for wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and other renewable energies which in fact are the future of this country in terms of energy. This set of priorities is totally absurd. We have to put an end to the outrageous tax breaks and subsidies that have been given to big oil and gas companies.

But that, again, is not all this amendment would do. It is not only $25 billion in deficit reductions. This amendment begins to move us away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and renewable energy by investing $10 billion into the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program. The stimulus package provided $3.2 billion for this highly successful program, and that money is filtering throughout 50 States in America. Hundreds and hundreds and thousands of communities are now making energy efficiency improvements in their townhalls, in their schools, and they are moving toward sustainable energy as a result of this program. We would put $10 billion more, over a 5-year period, into a program which finally moves us away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy and energy efficiency.

Let me give an example of how this program is working. This program is helping to build wind turbines in Carmel, IN, to power its city sewer treatment plant. It is being used in Salt Lake City, UT, to provide loans to businesses to make energy efficiency upgrades. It is being used in Columbus, OH, to make 29 public buildings more energy efficient.

I think, as everybody knows, the most significant thing we can do today, the best return on our dollar, is energy efficiency. That is what they are doing in Columbus, OH. That is what they are doing in Vermont. That is what they are doing, in fact, all over this country, as a result of programs such as the Energy Efficiency Block Grant Program. It is being used in Portland, ME, to retrofit 55 public buildings. It is being used in Miami, FL, to convert landfill gas into the production of electricity. Methane gas out of rotting organic matter in a landfill provides electricity. What can be smarter than that? It is being used in New York City to help homeowners and businesses with energy efficiency and renewable energy loans, among many other projects we are seeing all over America, 50 States utilizing this program, young people getting involved in thinking about energy, energy efficiency, sustainable energy. We need to keep

these investments in energy efficiency and conservation going and that is what this amendment does.

Finally, this amendment would dedicate $25 billion for deficit reduction. At a time of record-breaking deficits and debt, we simply cannot continue to give oil and gas companies huge tax breaks.

When it comes down to it, this amendment asks a very simple question: Which side are you on? Which side are you on? Are you on the side of big oil and gas companies or are you on the side of reducing the deficit, reducing our dependence on oil, saving consumers and businesses money on their energy bills, and saving the planet we live on? I would hope most of our colleagues here are on the side of doing what is right for the American people. That is what this amendment is about. I understand that anytime you stand up to big oil and to big gas companies, there is going to be a lot of political push back. We know that since 1990 the oil and the gas industry has made over $238 million in campaign contributions, and over the past 2 years alone, they spent over $210 million on lobbying. With the BP disaster in the gulf coast, my guess is these guys are all over the place now lobbying and sending out their campaign contributions. But this amendment is the right thing to do. It should bring together all of us who are concerned about transforming our energy system, all of us who are concerned about lowering our record-breaking deficits.

I intend to be offering this amendment. I look for widespread support on both sides of the aisle.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to set aside the pending amendment to call up amendment No. 4318 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, at a time when the profits of big oil companies are soaring, at a time when we are in the midst of a horrendous and huge oilspill on the gulf coast, at a time when we desperately need to end our dependence on oil and gas and significantly increase our investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy, the amendment I am offering is simple and it is straightforward. This amendment simply repeals over $35 billion in tax breaks to the oil and gas industry, all of which were recommended for elimination in President Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget.

Specifically, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the repeal of expensing of intangible drilling costs, repeal of percentage depletion for oil and gas wells, and repeal of the domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and gas production would save $35.3 billion over a 10-year period. According to OMB, the repeal of these tax breaks would be equivalent to about 1 percent of domestic oil and gas industry revenues over the next decade--1 percent. In other words, the costs to the oil and gas industry of repealing these tax breaks is negligible.

More than $25 billion of the money saved under this amendment would be used to reduce the deficit, and $10 billion would be used to invest in the highly successful Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program over a 5-year period.

So we are accomplishing two very important goals. Every day, Members of the Senate come down here and they say we have to deal with the deficit. Under this amendment, we would save $25 billion for deficit reduction. That is pretty significant. Second, Members come down here every day and talk about the need to transform our energy system, to move to energy efficiency and sustainable energy--wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, other technologies. This amendment puts $10 billion in moving us away from fossil fuel. So it accomplishes two very important purposes.

This amendment is cosponsored by Senator Whitehouse and Senator Wyden. We have support for funding for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, from the National Association of State Energy Officials, and the National League of Cities. Taxpayers for Common Sense strongly supports our efforts to repeal the oil and gas tax breaks and pay down the deficit. Also supporting our amendment are the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Conservation Law Foundation, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Friends of the Earth, Public Citizen, moveon.org, Center for Biological Diversity, One Sky, Environment America, and Oceana.

If there is anything we should be learning from the gulf disaster, it is that it is time to move aggressively away from polluting and unsafe fossil fuels which are getting more difficult to produce and more expensive to produce and that we must move toward safe, clean energy.

With a $13 trillion national debt, the last thing we need to be doing is giving tax breaks to big oil and gas companies that have been making recordbreaking profits, year after year.

I know there are some people who come down here and say that one way to deal with the deficit problem is to privatize Social Security, to privatize Medicare, to place at risk the retirement benefits of millions of senior citizens. I think that is a very bad idea. There are other people who come down to the floor and talk about cuts in education, cuts to health care that the middle-class and working families of this country desperately need. I think cutting those programs is a bad idea. But I think going after some of the largest and most profitable corporations in this country, which have not paid their fair share of taxes, is a positive and intelligent way to deal with deficit reduction.

Let me quote from the President of the United States, Barack Obama, in his statements on this subject. Again, what we are proposing is what President Obama has recommended in his 2011 budget. This is what President Obama said:

Our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize

our national security. It will smother our planet. And it

will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk.

. . . If we refuse to take into account the full cost of our

fossil fuel addiction--if we don't factor in the

environmental costs and national security costs and true

economic costs--we will have missed our best chance to seize

a clean energy future. . . . The time has come, once and for

all, for this nation to fully embrace a clean energy future.

Now that means . . . rolling back billions of dollars of tax

breaks to oil companies so we can prioritize investments in

clean energy research and development.

That is exactly what this amendment is all about. Let me give just one example. I hope people are listening to this one. Let me give one example of the absurdity of continuing to provide tax breaks to the oil and gas industry.

Last year, ExxonMobil, the most profitable corporation in the history of the world, reported to the SEC that not only did it avoid paying any Federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million refund from the IRS. So middle-class Americans, people in Vermont and all over this country who are working 50 and 60 hours in order to provide the necessary income they need to pay the bills for their families, those folks go out and they pay their income tax. They may not be too happy about it, but they understand that in a civilized society you have to pay taxes to pay the bills of government. Not ExxonMobil. The most profitable corporation in the history of the world last year not only avoided paying any Federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million refund from the IRS. If that makes sense to anybody--maybe it does--it surely does not make sense to me.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the page of ExxonMobil's 10-K report to the SEC that discloses this information.

ExxonMobil is the same huge oil company that has had enough money to provide a $398 million retirement package to its outgoing CEO, Lee Raymond, just a few years ago. They made more money than any corporation in the history of the world last year. They did not pay any Federal taxes. In fact, they got a huge refund from the Federal Government. And some years ago this particular corporation paid out $398 million in retirement package for its CEO. I do not think that makes a whole lot of sense. I think we ought to end that nonsense and end it now. This country is at record-breaking deficits. We cannot allow large corporations such as ExxonMobil not to pay taxes.

ExxonMobil is the same oil company that is making its profits by gouging consumers at the pump by charging higher and higher prices for gasoline even when demand is low and supply is high. In Vermont, it is $2.85 a gallon. Working people are having a hard time paying high prices for gas. It does not matter whether demand is high or low, it appears that gas prices go up. This amendment would begin to make sure that ExxonMobil, BP, and the other big oil companies pay at least a minimal amount of their huge profits in taxes to the Federal Government. That, it seems to me, is the very least we can do.

Let's be clear. As millions of Americans have lost their jobs, their homes, their life savings, and their ability to send their kids to college as a result of this Wall Street-induced recession, we cannot continue to allow big oil companies to make out like bandits. Enough is enough. In the first quarter of 2009, when our gross domestic product shrank by 6.4 percent, and overall corporate profits decreased by 5.25 percent, the five largest oil companies were still able to earn over $13 billion in profits. That is in the middle of a severe recession.

As this chart shows, the combined annual profits of the five largest oil companies during the last 10 years--these five companies, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, ChevronTexaco, and ConocoPhillips--earned over $750 billion in profits. Not bad. Not bad.

During the first quarter of this year, big oils' profits increased by 85 percent. Instead of using these profits to invest in renewable energy and to prevent oilspills, big oil and gas companies are primarily using this money to buy back their own stock and enrich their CEOs.

According to the American Petroleum Institute, between 2000 and 2007, the entire oil and gas industry invested only $1.5 billion in North American nonhydrocarbon investments aimed at reducing the Nation's dependance on oil. That is less than one-quarter of 1 percent of their total profits during this time period. So here you have these companies making huge profits. They are not reinvesting that money in making our country cleaner and in moving us away from fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, the CEOs of the big oil companies have received hundreds of millions of dollars in retirement packages and total compensation. Over the past 5 years Ray Irani, the CEO of Occidental Petroleum, received over $725 million in total compensation--$725 million, in a 5- year period, is not too sloppy.

John Hess, the CEO of the Hess Oil Company, has received over $240 million in total compensation; David Lesar, the CEO of Halliburton, has received over $114 million; James Mulva, the CEO of ConocoPhillips, has received over $95 million; and Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, made over $30 million in total compensation over the past 5 years.

Further, since 2002, the five largest oil companies have repurchased almost $270 billion of their own stock. When we talk about asking the oil companies to start paying their fair share of taxes, we should also remember that the Federal Government has provided very generous subsidies above and beyond tax breaks for the oil companies. As this chart shows, according to the Environmental Law Institute, from 2002 to 2008, the United States provided more than $70 billion for fossil fuel subsidies, compared to just $12 billion for wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and other renewable energy. This makes no sense at all. We have got to put an end to the outrageous tax breaks and subsidies we have been giving to oil and gas companies.

But that is not all this amendment would do. This amendment would also invest $10 billion into the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $3.2 billion for this highly successful program. It is already having a very positive impact in creating jobs, in saving energy in all 50 States of our country.

I am now quoting from a letter sent, in support of the $10 billion block grant funding that this amendment provides, from Tom Cochran, the executive director of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. This is what Mr. Cochran says:

Throughout the United States more than 1,200 cities are now

receiving direct funding under the EECBG program. We strongly

support your efforts to secure predictable and ongoing

funding for the EECBG program allowing the nation to continue

to invest in these successful local energy and climate

initiatives which have been shown to reduce energy use,

harmful greenhouse gas emissions and environmental

degradation.

Let me give you some examples of how this program, of which this amendment would provide $10 billion over a 5-year period, is working. This program is helping to build wind turbines in Carmel, IN, to power a city sewer treatment plant. It is being used in Salt Like City, UT, to provide loans to businesses to make energy efficiency upgrades. It is being used in Columbus, OH, to make 29 public buildings more energy efficient. It is being used in Portland, ME, to retrofit 55 public buildings. It is being used in Miami to convert landfill gas into the production of electricity. It is being used in New York City to help homeowners and businesses with energy efficiency and renewable energy loans, among many other areas.

I know in my State of Vermont, dozens and dozens of communities and

schools are using this money to make their buildings more energy efficient and, in some cases, move to sustainable energy. We need to keep these investments in energy efficiency and conservation going. That is exactly what this amendment would do to the tune of $10 billion.

Finally, this amendment would dedicate $25 billion for deficit reduction, $10 billion for the block grant program to make our country more energy efficient. And the $25 billion for deficit reduction at a time of record-breaking deficits and debt, we simply cannot continue to give oil and gas companies huge tax breaks.

I know it is easy for some of my colleagues to come to the floor and talk about the deficit, talk about the debt we are leaving our kids and grandkids. It makes for great rhetoric. But, occasionally, you are going to have to stand up if you are serious about the debt and deficit and take on some of those very powerful special interests who are getting huge tax breaks, do not need those tax breaks and do not deserve those tax breaks. It is more important to protect our kids and grandchildren here and the deficit than it is to give tax breaks to ExxonMobil. When it comes down to it, this amendment asks a very simple question: Which side are you on? Are you on the side of big oil and gas companies, companies that year after year after year are making huge profits or are you on the side of reducing the deficit, reducing our dependence on oil, saving consumers and businesses money on their energy bills, and saving the planet we live on? That is what this amendment is about.

I understand that there will be opposition to this amendment. I have seen it surface already. After all, since 1990, the oil and gas industry has made over $238 million in campaign contributions. And over the past 2 years alone, this industry has spent $210 million on lobbying, probably half a billion dollars since 1990 on campaign contributions and lobbying. They have gotten a lot for that, I must confess. For that investment, they have gotten a lot in tax breaks and subsidies. But I think now is the time, given the oilspill in the gulf, because of the threat of global warming, in order to clean up our country, in order to create jobs and energy efficiency and sustainable energy, we have got to say to big oil: Sorry. No more. No more. You are going to have to start paying your fair share of taxes so we can transform our energy system and so we can begin to deal with this very serious deficit problem.

This amendment is the right thing to do for deficit reduction. It is the right thing to do to transform our energy system. It is the right thing to do for consumers. I ask my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, in a few moments I will speak on the pending business before the Senate--the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act--but before I do, I would like to refer to the comments of the Republican leader, as well as the statement of the Senator from Louisiana that he gave yesterday.

For several months now, Americans have witnessed a massive oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico, Americans have seen the sweeping environmental damage, and Americans have seen the dramatic economic effects. It is something that is overwhelming, it is appalling, and it is incredible how much damage is being created by the BP gulf oilspill. I am sure to the average observer there might seem no better time than now to ask oil companies to contribute more to shoulder the burden of the oilspill. Actually, they have caused the spill--at least one company has--and they should bear the burden.

This, then, would seem to be an appropriate time to raise the oilspill liability tax. The oilspill liability tax is pretty small. It is 8 cents a barrel. That is all it is currently. One would have to come up with a pretty creative argument if one wanted to protect big oil companies from this fee.

Well, the Senator from Louisiana, and just now the Republican leader, have done that. They have come up with a pretty creative argument to protect the oil companies. The Senator from Louisiana, for example, has returned to the last refuge of bean counters, and he has cried double counting. The double counting argument seems to be a favorite among bean counters, Mr. President. It seems to be the argument one falls back on when one cannot argue the substance and one just wants to muddy the waters. In reality, the funds collected by raising the oilspill liability tax will strengthen the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. That is simple arithmetic. But opponents of raising the tax on big oil companies want to make it less attractive for doing so. They want to make it so that the funds collected by raising taxes on big oil do not count in the Federal budget. That way it will be less effective and less attractive to raise taxes on big oil.

So don't be misled by the green eyeshades talk. Don't be misled by the bogus charges of double counting. Don't buy into the arguments of those who want to protect big oil. I urge my colleagues that when we get to it later today to vote against the Vitter amendment and to reject the arguments we have been hearing today that raising the per- barrel tax for funds which go into the oilspill liability fund is somehow double counting because, clearly, that money goes into the trust fund, and funds from that trust fund are then used to pay for the cleanup and some damage that has occurred and also counts toward reducing the Federal deficit because it is extra money that goes to government debt and, therefore, is money which is not doubled counted.

I urge my colleagues to reject those arguments.

I will yield to the Senator.

That is correct.

Of the current fee.

That is true.

That is correct. I might also say this fund was created in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill.

I think that is the amount. I am not certain, but it is about that.

Forty-one cents.

The current oil priced at $71 a barrel.

I might say that is my reading of the Budget Act; that is correct.

That is exactly correct.

That is the precise theory of all trust funds in the first place, but now the cap needs to be raised.

If the fund is not large enough, that is exactly correct.

Mr. President, I know my friend wants to speak, but let me just set the lay of the land so my friend from Vermont can speak.

The Senate has returned to the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act. I want to remind my colleagues this bill is about jobs. It is about helping 15 million Americans who have lost their jobs as well. We are talking about people who have worked, who want to work, and who will work again. These are our neighbors, and they need our help.

The Labor Department just reported that although things are getting better, there are still five unemployed Americans for every job opening available--five. For comparison, throughout 2007 there were fewer than two unemployed workers for every job opening. Again, today there are five. We need to do more to help create jobs. We need to continue to help those who do not have jobs to get by.

Let me also remind my colleagues that hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans need the assistance in this bill just to get by. The Senate needs to pass this bill, and we need to do it soon. As I have noted, this bill is about jobs. This bill is about helping the 15 million Americans who have lost their jobs. I remind my colleagues about that because, so far, aside from the substitute, none of the amendments offered is about jobs or about helping the 15 million Americans who have lost their jobs.

Many of the pending amendments are worthy efforts, but I encourage my colleagues to stick to the task, to address the subject at hand, and to pass this bill. People need help.

Right now, we have five amendments pending: this Senator's amendment in the nature of a substitute, the Sessions amendment to cap appropriations, the Cardin amendment to provide for dependent coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, the Franken amendment to create the homeowner advocate in the Home Affordable Modification Program, and the Cornyn amendment for more reports on government debt.

The majority leader has requested that the Senate address the backlog of pending amendments before we allow more amendments to become pending. That is why I am serving notice that until we have voted on some of the pending amendments, I will be obliged to object to setting aside any of the pending amendments in order to allow further amendments to become pending. Thus, we would like to line up some of the votes, Mr. President.

If possible, we would like to have votes at least by noon or, at the very latest, 2 p.m. We very much hope we can make some progress today-- not just hopefully but make progress. It is our obligation to make progress. That is our job. People elected us to do what is right for America. It is right to help extend these so-called tax extenders, the R&D tax credit, and so on and so forth, but it is also right to make sure unemployment benefits are available for those who are out of work.

I urge us to come together and do our work in these next couple of days. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we are hoping to reach an agreement soon on a procedure during which we can cast votes on various amendments. The first would be an amendment by Mr. Cardin; the next, Mr. Roberts; and then the Sessions amendment. At the conclusion of the Sessions amendment, I think we will then have 40 minutes of debate, and then the Baucus amendment and then the Cornyn amendment, but that will be outlined much more specifically in a unanimous consent request which I think should be coming fairly quickly.

I wish to say a word or two about the Roberts side-by-side amendment with respect to medical devices. I think it is important to remind ourselves that we are a democracy. Sometimes I think that is forgotten. That is, we are a country of laws. This is a country where we live by the will of the majority, as enacted into law.

It used to be that we here in the Senate would air our differences, vote, and then move on. I must say that lately, and especially with regard to health care reform, many on the other side of the aisle appear to be unable to move on. Many on the other side of the aisle appear unwilling to accept the results of our legislative process as enacted into law and signed by the President. Many on the other side of the aisle appear simply unwilling to accept the new health care law. Some come to the floor daily to complain about it and, in a sense, relitigate it. It is already passed. It is the law. For the life of me, I don't understand why Senators don't realize that now is the time, since the law has been enacted, to offer constructive remarks to help make sure it works even better. We are here to serve the American people. We are not here to score partisan political points. I think most people at home want the Senate to work to offer ideas to help make the recently enacted health care reform law work even better.

So today, unfortunately, we have again an amendment to carve out an exception to the medical device fee that helps pay for health care reform. This amendment would pay for the loss of revenue by leaving more Americans without health insurance. We are in a situation where if we cut out this medical device provision, then we have to make it up in some way, so this amendment would pay for the lost revenue by leaving more Americans without health insurance.

Senator Roberts offered this amendment a few minutes ago, and it would again seek to make changes to the medical device excise tax that is set to go into effect in the year 2013. The Senate rejected an amendment earlier in the year very much like this one. It rejected it during consideration of the

Health Reconciliation Act on March 24. We have already been there. We voted on this, not only in the health care reform bill that passed, but we also already voted on this amendment, and the Senate rejected an amendment very similar to this and rejected it soundly by a vote of 57 to 40. Here we are again.

But, still, some on the other side of the aisle appear unwilling to move on. So for the same reasons we rejected this amendment in March, we should reject it again today. We should not exempt one set of medical device manufacturers from contributing their fair share toward health care reform. We should not decrease the number of Americans with health insurance, which this amendment would do--decrease the number of Americans with health insurance. We should, therefore, reject the Roberts amendment.

Let me describe the amendment in a little bit more detail. First, the amendment tries to exclude certain medical device sales from assessment. As my colleagues will recall, a fee was placed on various providers to help pay for health care reform, and in virtually every case, the providers agreed to the fee. They would rather not have to pay a fee, but they agreed to it. They didn't cause a big fuss. Why? Because, as a result, more people would have health insurance, and with more health insurance, providers generally make a little more money. What they may lose on markup they could make up in volume as more people would have health insurance.

Products that consumers will buy at retail are already excluded. Further attempts to exclude devices are attempts to undermine the entire medical device policy.

The health care reform bill included shared responsibility for all health care industries. I would remind my colleagues, that was the basic premise of health care reform. We are all in this together. Shared responsibility. All Americans help share responsibility-- individuals, companies, insurance companies, manufacturers, doctors, hospitals. It is shared. All Americans share. It is about the only way we could make health care reform work in this country, and reform we must because of all the waste that otherwise occurs in our system. There are some estimates that there is up to 29 percent waste in the American health care system. That is a lot of money. We spend about $2.5 trillion a year on health care reform and waste in the American health care system. That is a lot of money. We spend about $2.5 trillion a year on health care reform, and 29 percent comes out to around over $800 billion of waste. I am not saying we can get all of that waste out of the system, but I am saying the passage of this legislation will go a long way, in many respects because of its very strong provisions to attack fraud and abuse in Medicaid and Medicare.

The health care reform bill included shared responsibility for all health care industries. Medical device companies pledged to do their part. They pledged to do their part, and they must do their part. This is particularly true since that industry will see at least 32 million more customers as a result of reform, leading to substantial new profits. The device industry and many other industries in health care will see 32 million more customers as a result of this health care reform law we passed, leading to substantial new profits for them.

This amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas also seeks to weaken the individual responsibility requirement in health reform-- weaken it. Remember, this is a shared responsibility. He wants us to weaken a large part. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the requirement is one of the most critical pieces of reform; that is, that requirement that the Senator wishes to weaken. CBO, again, states this requirement is one of the most critical pieces of reform. Without it, we lose coverage for millions of Americans. Without it--without that reform--premiums could spike by up to 15 to 20 percent in the nongroup market. Premiums were likely to go up 15 to 20 percent in the nongroup market if this health care reform bill had not passed. That is the analysis of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

So, clearly, we must resist efforts to weaken the individual responsibility policy in the health care reform bill. I, therefore, do not support this amendment.

I have a couple of other matters. I have not had much opportunity to speak today, so I wish to speak on those matters. I see my good friend from Utah wishes to speak and I will try to speak quickly so he can make his remarks.

The Senator from Arizona came to the floor a few moments ago to attack a number of laws we have enacted this Congress. First, he attacked the Recovery Act. The Senator from Arizona ridiculed the Recovery Act's effects. But we here turn to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for the straight facts. What are the facts? I think it was the late Senator Moynihan from New York who once said, you know, you can argue the policy, but you can't argue facts. Facts are facts. Facts are very tenacious things that are there that you can't wish away. So what are the facts, according to the Congressional Budget Office? The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that in the first quarter of calendar year 2010, the Recovery Act's policies raised the level of real gross domestic product--that is adjusted for inflation--raised the level of gross domestic product by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent--not zero, not decreased but raised--raised the gross domestic product in the United States between 1.7 percent and 2.4 percent. Also, CBO says the Recovery Act lowered the unemployment rate by between .7 percentage point and 1.5 percentage points. That is the conclusion of the Congressional Budget Office.

What else did the Congressional Budget Office say? That the Recovery Act increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million--increased the number of people employed. That is the consequence of the act. The Congressional Budget Office further states that it increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise. I think that is pretty clear.

I respect the ability of the Senator from Arizona to state his own thoughts. That is why we are here in the Senate, in many respects. But we can't dispute the facts as stated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the facts which I just recited.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed and that no intervening amendment be in order prior to the votes, with 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote, with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after the first vote in the sequence, the succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes each: Cardin amendment No. 4304; Roberts amendment No. 4325; Sessions amendment No. 4303, with a modification which is at the desk, and that the amendment be modified.

That depends on how long the remarks are going to be.

I am sure they are going to be wonderful. That wasn't the question.

We will work it out. We can always delay the first vote until, say, 5 minutes after 4 to accommodate the Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, prior to enactment of health care reform, there was no law that required insurers to extend coverage for young adults to remain on their parents' plans.

For years, getting a diploma also meant losing your health insurance. And whether you went on to college or not, it was often hard as a young person to find affordable coverage.

Overall, Americans in their twenties were twice as likely to go without health insurance as older Americans.

For too many young Americans over the years, the answer to these questions was simply to go without health insurance and hope that you stayed healthy.

Under the new health reform law, insurers will be required to allow all Americans under the age of 26 who do not get health insurance through their job to stay on their parents' plan.

And beginning in 2014, children up to age 26 can stay on their parent's employer plan even if they have another offer of coverage through an employer.

This provision is scheduled to go into effect in September. But every major insurance company--more than 65 in total--and several major self- insured organizations have said they will provide continuous coverage for young adults this summer.

The amendment by the Senator from Maryland would make it possible for the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program to follow the lead of private insurance companies and make this coverage available sooner, as well.

This is a worthy goal. And the amendment would have negligible effects on the budget. And so I support the motion by the Senator from Maryland and urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Amendment No. 4325

Mr. President, the Roberts amendment would address almost exactly the same matter the Senate voted on March 24. We rejected it then and we should reject it now.

The amendment would carve out an exemption for certain medical device manufacturers from paying their fair share of costs for health care reform and it will be paid for by reducing the number of people to be covered by health insurance. The last thing we should do is cut back on health insurance coverage, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this is the Sessions-McCaskill amendment. We have voted at least four times on this amendment. The Senator from Alabama has offered pretty much the same amendment.

For now, four times the Senator from Alabama has sought to fix caps on the work of the appropriations process. Three times the Senate has rejected this amendment. I think we should do so today. The amendment by the Senators from Alabama and Missouri robs the Appropriations Committee and the Congress of flexibility to respond to changed circumstances in years to come. It would set budget caps, binding years into the future, no matter what happens between now and then.

So for all of the reasons the Senate rejected this amendment three times before, I believe we should reject it again today. The Sessions amendment seeks to change the budget process; therefore, it violates the Congressional Budget Act. I thus raise a point of order that the Sessions amendment

violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 20 minutes of debate, with the time equally divided, with respect to the Cornyn amendment No. 4302, and that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk; that Senator Baucus then be recognized to offer an amendment on the same subject as the Cornyn amendment; that the two amendments be debated concurrently for the total time as specified above, with no intervening amendment in order to either amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote with respect to the Baucus amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Cornyn amendment, as modified; that prior to any succeeding votes in this sequence, there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled in the usual form, and that any succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes; that the next amendment to be offered be from the majority and then an amendment from the Republican side.

Mr. President, pursuant to the previous order, I call up my amendment No. 4326 and ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with once it is reported.

Mr. President, I support transparency. I think most of us do, certainly in concept. I support the transparency and deficit reduction goals of the Cornyn-Kyl amendment. But that amendment is unworkable. Why? Because it requires Treasury to speculate about the intent behind foreign purchases of U.S. Treasuries. How in the world is Treasury going to be able to know the intent behind foreign purchases of U.S. treasuries?

The Cornyn-Kyl amendment also sends the wrong message that the United States is deeply suspicious of foreign holders of U.S. debt, and it potentially could chill foreign purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds. I do not think we want to do that now.

Purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds have held interest rates very low. We are very lucky. We are very lucky. I do not think many appreciate this: With the budget deficits we have, and even with unemployment way too high, things could be much worse; that is, if interest rates were much higher. But investors like the safe haven of U.S. Treasuries--and that is domestic and foreign purchases of U.S. Treasuries--and that is helping to keep interest rates down at very low rates, and that is keeping inflation down at very low rates. We are lucky that is a condition we are experiencing in the United States today.

With America just beginning to recover from the financial crisis, we cannot risk our ability to finance the debt. We cannot risk it. For those reasons, I must oppose the Cornyn amendment.

However, I urge Senators to support my side-by-side amendment, which meets the transparency objectives of the Cornyn-Kyl amendment, but could actually be implemented and will avoid roiling financial markets in this time of uncertainty.

Think a bit about what is happening in Europe. This is an uncertain time. This is not a time to be taking big risks. Rather, it is a time to be steady as she goes and be smart and be steady.

My amendment would require the President to submit an assessment to Congress on the risks posed by foreign holdings of U.S. debt, but without unnecessarily singling out individual countries. I do not think we want to single out individual countries because that has too great a risk of unintended consequences.

My amendment would require the GAO to assess the risk associated with Federal debt, but it would not impose an unconstitutional requirement on the President.

I am joined in this amendment by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Kerry, and the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd. I urge Senators to support the Baucus-Kerry side-by-side amendment and oppose the Cornyn-Kyl amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the rest of my time, and I wonder if the Senator from Texas is prepared to yield back his.

I yield back our time as well, and I move to table the Cornyn amendment. Wait. Which amendment is up first?

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as I understand it, although the Senator from Texas personally is, the other side is not prepared to yield back the rest of their time. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time and Senator Cornyn's time as well.

That is correct. I understand you are OK, but your side is--now they are OK. So now that we have that settled, all time is yielded back.

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

Mr. President, the Cornyn amendment is a dangerous one. It would send the wrong message to people who are buying America's debt. It would send a message that we are suspicious of people who buy our debt and would require the Treasury to opine the intent of purchasers of U.S. debt. It would thus discourage people from buying American debt. This would cause us to have to pay higher interest rates on our debt, and that would mean higher rates of inflation. It would roil the bond markets at a sensitive time. Look at what has happened in Europe and the softness there.

For lots of reasons I think it is unwise to undertake this risky adventure.

Yes.

Mr. President, I move to table the Cornyn amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 26, the resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, relating to the endangerment for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Today's debate and this resolution are about whether this Congress will allow an executive branch agency--EPA--to unleash a regulatory onslaught that within a few years will capture homes, small businesses, farms, hospitals, and apartment buildings in an expensive, intrusive, and bureaucratic regulatory program. The consideration of this resolution is about preserving the traditional and constitutional role of Congress as the elected representatives of the citizens of this country to make necessary and proper laws for the Nation.

Congress is the appropriate branch of the Federal Government to debate and design a climate change policy. Many have complained that the Senate is taking too long to do this, but that doesn't mean EPA should go ahead and regulate on its own. It is also highly cynical for administration officials to suggest that the specter of EPA regulations should force Congress to act. I don't appreciate the implied threat that if Congress doesn't go along with EPA then the agency will impose costly regulations.

Many argue that passage of the resolution would prevent increases in the vehicle fuel economy and undo the ``historic'' agreement among the Federal Government, several states, labor unions, and the auto industry. It doesn't. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--NHTSA--has had authority to regulate and increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy--CAFE--standards for more than 30 years. In fact, Congress directed the agency to increase the standards to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020 in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. And these new standards will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. EPA's activities on fuel economy through its so-called tailpipe rule are unnecessary to achieve the desired results, given the authorities already held by NHTSA.

Many also argue that passage of the resolution is contrary to the science of climate change. A letter generated by the Union of Concerned Scientists claims the resolution ``ignores'' the scientific findings of EPA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and that the resolution is an ``attack'' on the Clean Air Act. They must not have read the resolution as even a cursory review of it will dispel this notion.

The resolution states, ``That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding . . . and such rule shall have no force or effect.'' This means the agency cannot use the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gas emissions. This does not speak to the issue of whether climate change is happening or what is causing it. Those who claim the resolution ignores science appear to be avoiding the debate over the economic consequences and legal validity of EPA's approach. I also believe that they are attempting an end-run around a skeptical Congress. I am sorry, but that is not how the American system of government works.

I know the climate in changing. In 2006, I visited Greenland. I toured the Kangia Ice Fjord and took a boat tour of Disko Bay to view the world's largest glaciers and icebergs floating in the bay. These glaciers were formed more than 1,000 years ago. I saw the glaciers melting and the remains of a 4,000-year-old village. Obviously, it was warm enough in the past for humans to live and thrive in that part of the world, even though in recent memory we only think of Greenland as covered in ice. I talked to the scientists who have studied Greenland's glaciers for decades. They told me that while the climate is changing they don't know with any certainty if the changes are natural or caused by human activity or a combination of the two. I found it interesting that while some glaciers are

melting, some are increasing in size. We just don't see what is happening on the back side.

The President and the Administrator of EPA, Lisa Jackson, have said their preference is for Congress to act. They know the Clean Air Act was not designed for controlling greenhouse gases. Yet they are swiftly moving ahead. Last week, EPA issued a final rule for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act's permitting programs. The so-called tailoring rule is the fourth significant action taken by the administration to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The first major action was EPA's determination--the Endangerment Finding--that greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-duty trucks endanger human health and welfare. On April 1, 2010, EPA finalized the light duty vehicle rule controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Clean Air Act, when a pollutant becomes subject to regulation by one provision of the Act, it then becomes subject to regulation under other provisions. Hence, greenhouse gas emissions are now subject to regulation under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration--PSD--and title V operating permit programs. It is only a matter of time before greenhouse gases are subject to other provisions in the law, such as national ambient air quality standards.

Under current law, the title V program permitting requirements are triggered when a facility releases 100 tons per year of a regulated pollutant. For the PSD program, the threshold is 250 tons per year. In the final rule, EPA ``tailors'' the application of the programs to significantly higher threshold levels. Without the tailoring rule, EPA estimates that about 6 million sources, including 37,000 farms and 3.9 million single family homes, will be required to obtain Clean Air Act permits.

EPA's own documents call the tailoring rule a commonsense approach to addressing greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act permitting programs. But I don't follow the agency's logic. The rule states emissions from small farms, restaurants, and all but the very largest commercial facilities will not be covered by these programs at this time. The rule establishes a schedule that will initially focus the permitting programs on the largest sources and without this tailoring rule the lower emissions thresholds would take effect automatically for greenhouse gases on January 2, 2011.

The agency, in its proposed rule, recognized the inherent problems with using the Clean Air Act. The proposed rule states, ``This extraordinary increase in the scope of the permitting programs coupled with the resulting burdens on the small sources and on the permitting authorities was not contemplated by Congress in enacting the PSD and Title V programs.'' It further states that, ``The new rules would apply Title V to millions of sources Congress did not intend to be covered and would impede the issuance of permits to the thousands of sources that Congress did intend to be covered.''

It is cold comfort that the smallest sources will not be regulated until 2016. We have a rule now that says it is not if but when hospitals, farms, small businesses, and apartment buildings can expect to have to apply for a clean air permit. We can only imagine what will happen to the economy if EPA is successful and its plans to fully regulate greenhouse gas emissions under all of the authorities of the Clean Air Act come to fruition.

One of the most troubling aspects about the tailoring rule and EPA's approach to its suite of greenhouse gas regulations is that there is no economic analysis. The agency hasn't even attempted to quantify the economic costs and regulatory burdens it will impose on American businesses and consumers. We have no idea what it will mean for jobs, economic growth or small businesses. Even though we can't quantify it or point to a document, it is not hard to imagine the significant costs it will impose.

While EPA isn't worried about this, States, businesses, unions, and individuals are. For example, in March, 20 Governors, including Governor Sunny Purdue of Georgia, wrote House and Senate leadership expressing grave concern about EPA's efforts to impose greenhouse gas regulations. They believe EPA's actions will place heavy administrative burdens on State environmental quality agencies just as States are expected to face their worst financial situations over the next 2 years. The Governors also are concerned that the regulations will be costly to consumers and could be devastating to the economy and jobs. The Governors believe that complex energy and environmental policy initiatives should be developed by elected representatives at the State and national level but not by a single Federal agency.

While Georgia believes the final rule is an improvement over the proposed one, there are still significant concerns. Most notably is its legal vulnerability. I quote from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Air Protection Branch comments on the proposed rule:

The GHG Tailoring Rule appears to be legally vulnerable and

may not provide intended relief from the statutory permitting

thresholds for PSD and Title V. If the Tailoring Rule is

vacated, the workload for permitting authorities will

increase exponentially at a time when State and Local

governments are experiencing severe budgetary challenges due

to the current economic climate. Vacatur of the GHG Tailoring

Rule seems to be a very real possibility.

The letter further states:

We also believe that EPA has failed to take into account

the length of time that it will take for permitting

authorities . . . to go through rulemaking, . . . hiring, and

training in order to implement the mandate of regulating GHG

emissions under the Title V and PSD permitting programs. In

Georgia, rulemaking will be required in order to insert the

new GHG emission thresholds. Rulemaking will also be required

in order to increase Title V fees consistent with the Clean

Air Act requirement that permitting programs collect enough

revenue to implement the program requirements. Given the

current state of the economic situation in our state and

country, this issue should not be taken lightly. Then,

permitting authorities must hire and train staff to issue

these complicated permits. This could take up to two years

after the requirement is triggered. Raising the regulatory

threshold will not abate the predicted permitting backlog if

additional permitting personnel are not in place at the time

the additional workload occurs.

EPA is moving ahead despite these concerns and the economic consequences of its plans. They will increase energy prices, add to administrative costs for companies, decrease job creation, and create a large new government bureaucracy, which will endanger economic recovery and limit future growth. While the final rule with its phased-in implementation is a small step in the right direction, the Clean Air Act continues to be the wrong tool for the job, and EPA's timeline and its shaky legal foundation will continue to create significant uncertainty for the State permitting agencies and businesses community.

At this time, there is no other option to stop EPA from moving ahead. Some of our colleagues have introduced measures to provide for a time out; others are looking at ways to codify the tailoring rule and provide permanent exemptions for small businesses. However, there are no plans for the Senate to consider these measures. If there were another option, I would be open to it.

The Congressional Review Act was designed for the purpose of reviewing agency actions. The majority leader understands this and recognizes that, ``overburdensome and unnecessary federal regulation can choke the life out of small businesses by imposing costly and often-ineffectual remedies to problems that may not exist.'' No description could be more accurate about EPA's greenhouse gas regulatory plans.

Some argue that it would be a dangerous precedent for Congress to stop EPA's endangerment finding. However, it is far more dangerous for the Nation if Congress allows an agency to impose these regulations under a law that was not designed for the purpose. By issuing the tailoring rule, the administration has again reminded us that if Congress won't legislate, EPA will regulate. I believe my colleague from Alaska was correct when she called this a highly coercive strategy. I am appalled by the actions of EPA.

There is a reason why the U.S. Senate hasn't acted on a cap and trade bill. This is because analyses of these bills shows they cause significant economic harm--job losses, higher energy prices, higher gas taxes, less economic growth.

It makes no sense for Congress to pass job-killing legislation in order to stave off costly regulation.

The House and Senate cap and trade bills are truly bad for agriculture. They would dramatically increase energy and other input costs and, according to EPA, would cause the shift of 59 million acres out of production into trees. With a growing world population to feed, our farmers and ranchers will need to produce more food in the future, not less. If enacted as written today, cap and trade legislation would only push agriculture production overseas, raising many of the same concerns that have been expressed about the loss of manufacturing jobs.

Rather than driving American agriculture offshore, a more sensible approach would be to increase food, fuel, and fiber production right here at home. In this Nation, we have an abundant natural resource base, an economy built on open and transparent markets, and sufficient protections for consumers and the environment.

Last fall, Texas A&M University released a study on the House cap and trade bill. I mention it again today because it is most instructive of what we can expect to see in the agricultural sector under a cap and trade regime.

Texas A&M University used its representative farm database to study the effects of the House bill at the farmgate level. This database was developed to help Congress better understand the effects of legislation at the individual producer level. The study shows that 71 out of 98 farms in the database will be worse off under the House bill. The 27 farms that benefit do so because other producers go out of business they benefit because there are fewer acres in production, thus crop prices rise.

Some producers will see increased revenue from an offset program, but it is not a significant factor in the profitability of farms in the analysis. The study also dramatically shows the regional disparities of the House bill. Only some cornbelt farmers benefit. It's hard to imagine that members of the Senate Agriculture Committee will be able to endorse a policy that disproportionally favors certain commodities, few producers and one part of the country at the expense of others.

In January, 150 agriculture organizations sent a letter to my colleague from Alaska supporting the introduction of the resolution. These groups wrote that, ``Such regulatory actions will carry severe consequences for the U.S. economy, including America's farmers and ranchers, through increased input costs and international market disparities.'' They also believe that, ``EPA's finding puts the agricultural economy at grave risk based on allegations of a weak, indirect link to public health and welfare and despite the lack of any environmental benefit.''

On May 18, I received another letter from 49 different agriculture groups. They state:

Without relief from Congress, we fully expect the

application of these programs to have severe economic impacts

on agriculture. Not only will producers likely incur

increased costs as a result of the regulatory impacts on

other economic sectors, but agricultural producers will

eventually be directly regulated. The final EPA tailoring

rule estimates the average cost for these permits is $23,200

per permit. For the 37,000 farms identified by EPA as likely

to require permits this would cost them more than $866

million just to obtain the permit.

In contrast to the campaign slogans and feel-good messages of hope and change for farmers, ranchers and rural America, this administration is causing great pain through its actions, especially its economic policies and far-reaching regulatory programs and goals. The endangerment finding and related regulations are only one set--albeit a very significant set--of regulatory actions facing producers and rural America. By themselves, these will impose higher energy costs on rural residents and businesses. Higher costs in rural areas mean fewer jobs and opportunities for those who live there.

Another immense expansion of Federal regulatory authority that will have severe consequences for producers and rural landowners is the administration's support for legislation to grant EPA and the U.S. Corps of Engineers--Corps--nearly unlimited regulatory control over all ``intrastate waters,'' including all wet areas within a State, such as groundwater, ditches, pipes, streets, gutters, and desert features. The administration supports giving EPA and the Corps unrestricted authority to regulate all private and public activities that may affect intrastate waters, regardless of whether the activity is occurring in or may impact water at all. Unbelievably, the administration supports eliminating the existing regulatory limitations that allow commonsense uses such as those allowed with a prior converted cropland designation. I strongly oppose this effort to expand EPA's and the Corps' regulatory control. I do not believe the Federal Government should regulate all wet areas within a State.

The administration also is attempting to circumvent one of the most highly regarded environmental statutes--the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, that governs the licensing and use of pesticides. This is a well-crafted law that balances the risks and benefits of pesticide use. EPA has an excellent staff of scientists and experts working in this area. However, the agency's political leadership is trying to implement by regulatory fiat a precautionary approach, which is contradictory to current law.

For example, last fall, EPA proposed to add language to pesticide product labels that will forbid pesticide applications that result in drift that could cause harm or adverse effects. For many years, EPA and state pesticide regulators recognized that a small amount of drift inevitably will occur, and that when pesticides are applied according to their label instructions, this small amount of drift does not cause an unreasonable adverse effect. If an unreasonable adverse effect is likely to be caused by a certain use of a pesticide, FIFRA requires, and Congress expects, the label to reflect that information and appropriate mitigation be required.

In April, I wrote to EPA, along with the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and other colleagues, about the need for greater clarity in pesticide drift policy and noted that such clarity would benefit the agency, pesticide users and State regulatory agencies. However, we noted that the proposal set forth vague standards and would not have clarified pesticide drift policy. It also exceeded the authority granted to the agency by FIFRA. We asked the proposed policy to be reconsidered. I am pleased to note that recently EPA made the right decision to do so.

One other issue I raise reflects the administration's willingness to cast aside rational, science-based policy when given the opportunity to impose additional regulation. In January 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in National Cotton Council v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that would require pesticide applications to be permitted under the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--NPDES. The permit would be in addition to any label requirements or restrictions already placed on the use of the pesticide under FIFRA.

Unfortunately, the administration refused to appeal the decision even though it admitted in a filing with the U.S. Supreme Court this year that the Sixth Circuit Court reached the wrong decision. Pesticides are not pollutants under the Clean Water Act and have never been. Instead, EPA, for political reasons, has been working to develop a NPDES general permit for discharges from the application of pesticides. EPA released the draft permit last week for public comment and will issue a final permit in December 2010. Pesticides applications must be covered by a permit by April 9, 2011. Is your State ready to issue these permits? Are your producers and applicators ready to apply for them?

This has been a particular concern for State and public health officials as it has the potential to seriously affect their ability to control mosquitoes, especially those carrying the West Nile Virus. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 720 cases, including 32 deaths, attributed to the virus in 2009. This is better than 2008, in which there were 1,370 cases, including 37 deaths. In 2009, two of those deaths were in my home State of Georgia.

Talk about overburdensome, unnecessary regulation! Requiring producers, pest control agencies and other users to obtain NPDES permits will do nothing to enhance the environment. It

only doubles the number of permitted entities and creates new requirements for monitoring, surveillance, planning, recordkeeping, and reporting that only will create significant delays, costs, reporting burdens and legal risks from citizen suits. These permits will provide absolutely benefit only cost.

All issues regarding water and pesticides are addressed by EPA as part of the pesticide registration process. If there are concerns, mitigation is required. We are fortunate we have a strong law that requires rigorous science and careful balancing of risks and benefits.

The Endangerment Finding and related rules, along with the other environmental regulations planned by the administration will hurt the productivity of American farmers and ranchers and make the future for U.S. agriculture far less bright than it should be. These actions are basically a backdoor tax on every American family and business by unelected bureaucrats. Federal regulation is not the key to success or jobs in rural areas or in any other part of this Nation.

Some claim that EPA's actions should scare Congress into passing a cap and trade bill, but I disagree. Congress should not be bullied into passing bad legislation and neither should it stand for an agency that is vastly overreaching. The choice is clear to me--do Senators want EPA to impose a regulatory regime that it has tenuous authority to create or do you want Congress to make the laws of the land? If you believe Congress should develop laws and set policy, then vote in support of the resolution. I strongly oppose EPA's actions and plan to vote yes on the Murkowski resolution.

Madam President, this is a very important debate. The Murkowski resolution we are considering today would overturn the endangerment finding developed by scientists and health experts in both the Bush and Obama administrations that too much carbon pollution in the air is dangerous--dangerous for our families, dangerous for our environment. Imagine, 100 Senators--not scientists, not health experts--deciding what pollutant is dangerous and what pollutant is not. Personally, I believe it is ridiculous for politicians, elected Senators, to make this scientific decision. It is not our expertise; it is not our purview.

The Murkowski resolution threatens jobs, jobs that we need, that are made in America for America.

Our hearts break every day that we look at what is happening in the Gulf. It seems to me more than ironic that Senator Murkowski is advocating repealing the scientific finding that too much carbon pollution in the air is dangerous, at the same time every American sees graphic evidence on television every single day of the deadly carbon pollution in the Gulf of Mexico.

We see here in the saddest pictures what too much carbon-based pollution does in water, what it does to our shorelines, what it does to our beaches, what it does to our wetlands. I will show a couple of other photographs. They are almost too painful.

But what we do here has consequences. And for someone to come to this floor and say too much carbon is not dangerous, then I am sorry, we are going to have to look at these pictures even though we do not want to. We know the devastation this causes. Our eyes do not deceive us.

This horrific spill in the gulf has disrupted the lives of hundreds of thousands of people employed by fishing industries, tourism industries, recreation industries along the gulf coast. So, yes, this resolution, this Murkowski resolution, is about jobs.

Yesterday, Madam President, in your committee on which you serve--and I am so proud to have you as a member of the committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee--we heard from Captain Michael Frenette. He owns the Redfish Lodge in Venice, LA. He shared with us the terrible pain, both personal and economic, that the people of the gulf region are living through.

This is what he said:

The possibility truly exists for many livelihoods to cease;

livelihoods that have existed for generations and now are on

the brink of financial disaster because of poor decisions by

a supercorporate entity that has created the worst oilspill

in history off the coast of Louisiana.

This spill is threatening the $18 billion in economic activity generated by fishing, tourism, and recreation on the gulf coast. The economic damage in the gulf could last for years to come, although we will, of course, do everything in our power to mitigate that damage.

I want to show you the pictures of the unspoiled California coastline and talk a moment about our coastal economy. Ever since I have been elected to public life--I was a county official, then a House Member, and then the

greatest privilege of all, to serve in this body--I have fought to protect our coasts. I have fought to protect our coasts because I believe they are a gift from God. I believe it is our responsibility to protect that gift and to leave that gift for future generations. I have fought to protect that coast and I have fought to protect those businesses, the businesses that depend on it.

There are so many other beautiful areas such as this along our Pacific coastline--spectacular rocky islands, sandy beaches, estuaries. We must preserve these treasures.

Now $23 billion is the economic activity that supports 388,000 jobs off the coast in California. In my home State, our 19 coastal counties account for 86 percent of the State's annual activity, for more than $1 trillion. We must move to clean energy, to protect our environment, to protect our jobs. We have to move away from the old ways.

No one can tell the American people that carbon is not a danger, because they have seen it every day of this spill. To say there is no danger, and that is what we would be saying today, is absolutely contrary to everything people are seeing every day, and do it for big oil. That is what this is about. Big oil backs the Murkowski resolution.

So whose side are we on? Are we on the side of the people? Are we on the side of clean energy jobs? Are we on the side of the lobbyists and special interests that are behind this resolution?

How does the Murkowski resolution threaten clean energy jobs? We know that to move forward with smart regulation of this pollutant, you have to have the endangerment finding. It is the predicate for moving forward. Therefore, it is the predicate for the incentives that will come for clean energy technology.

We must transition away from those old polluting sources of energy. We must look toward the future with optimism. And, again, all you have to do is look at the gulf. That is the irony of the timing of this Murkowski resolution.

I think when the timing was set, it was before the gulf spill. But the gulf spill tells us why the Murkowski resolution is so wrong. To repeal an endangerment finding, straightforward, made by health experts in the Bush administration, scientists in the Bush administration, health experts in the Obama administration, scientists in the Obama administration, for 100 elected people, with no expertise to say, we know more than the scientists in the Bush and Obama administrations, we know more than the health experts in the Bush and Obama administrations is the height of hubris. It is wrong. I know we all feel that we have powerful positions here. We have no right to do this. What is next? What are we going to do next, repeal the laws of gravity? If we start down this path, there is no end in sight. Any Senator can decide that she or he knows more than the scientists. Maybe we will say the Earth is flat and come down here and argue that one too.

Everyone knows we are not going to move away from the old energies overnight. We need to work together to make sure we do it right. But we need to move, move toward a clean energy economy, and the good jobs that come with it. This will set us back on purpose. On purpose. Because the very people who are bringing you this have not come forward with any bill to move us away from these old energies. They are stopping us from doing it. They admit it.

Let's hear what John Doerr, who is one of the leading venture capitalists in this country and in the world--he helped launch Google, he helped launch Amazon. He tells me that more private capital moves through the economy in a day than all of the governments of the world in a year. This is where we are going to get the stimulus money to grow jobs.

He told us that clean energy legislation is the spark we need to restore America's leadership. He predicted that the investments that flow into clean energy would dwarf the amount invested in high-tech and biotech combined.

Mr. Doerr said:

Going green may be the largest economic opportunity of the

21st century. It is the mother of all markets.

We can either believe the oil lobbyists or we can believe the people on the ground who have shown that they know where the economic opportunities are. If we go this route, and we repeal this endangerment finding, you are moving away from clean energy. You are moving away from these opportunities. You are moving away from these technologies that will be made in America for America and, frankly, the technologies the whole world wants.

A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trust found that 125,000 jobs were generated during the period of 1998 to 2007 in my home State. Those jobs, those clean energy jobs, were generated 15 percent faster than the economy as a whole, and 10,000 new clean energy businesses were launched in that period. So when we look back at California, what do we see? We see the greatest area of job growth and new businesses is clean energy. What a tragedy. If we pass this today, and it were to become law--which I doubt, but it could, and that is its purpose--we would completely walk away from America's leadership in clean technology, turning our backs on the leading venture capitalists in our Nation who are telling us, do not do this.

Nationwide, Pew found that jobs in the clean energy economy grew much faster than traditional jobs. Clean energy jobs grew at a national rate of 9.1 percent, compared to 3.7 percent for traditional jobs between 1998 and 2007. So if you do not want to believe John Doerr--but I suggest you do, because he founded Amazon and Google, he funded them-- let's listen to Thomas Friedman. His book is, ``Hot, Flat and Crowded.'' Here is what the central theme is:

The ability to develop clean power and energy efficient

technology is going to become the defining measure of a

country's economic standing, environmental health, energy

security, and national security over the next 50 years.

As I said, the EPA finding that too much carbon pollution is dangerous for our people and our environment is the key incentive to moving forward toward our clean energy economy. It is the basis upon which we move forward. It is the basis upon which we see their incentives then in place for clean energy technologies.

If this finding were eliminated under the Murkowski resolution, not only would it be, I believe, a worldwide embarrassment that the Senate is now taking to repealing health findings and scientific findings, but it would stop in its tracks the economic opportunities that come from clean energy technology.

We cannot ignore the basic finding that is made in this endangerment finding that carbon pollution in the air presents a very serious danger, threatening the health of our families, our quality of life, and our natural resources. I guess if we pass the Murkowski resolution, there would not be any danger anymore because we said so. I mean, you know, we can pass a resolution that says there should not be any more rain, and I guess then there would not be any more rain. We cannot ignore the basic scientific conclusion in that endangerment finding. If we were to do this, it would be extraordinary and unprecedented.

In 2007, the Supreme Court was clear when it ruled that carbon pollution and other greenhouse gas emissions are air pollutants, and they directed the EPA to determine whether this pollution endangers our health. So EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency--and I want to say to my colleagues, it is not the Environmental Pollution Agency. If you want to create an Environmental Pollution Agency, let's have a vote on that. It is the Environmental Protection Agency.

They are not supposed to be influenced by the politics of the day, as you know. They are charged with protecting the health of the kids, of our families, of our senior citizens, whether they are in Alaska, California, New York, or anyplace else in America. They are not the Environmental Pollution Agency. As much as big oil would like to dictate to them, they are not going to be dictated to by big oil.

By the way, the EPA was set up by Richard Nixon. Let's be clear here. Some of the officials from these States, Republicans, have weighed in against the Murkowski resolution and we will show that in a bit here.

EPA did what they were directed to do by the court. They had to do what the scientists and the health experts

told them to do. Again, the Murkowski resolution would overturn these findings. Leading scientists, physicians, and many others agree with the finding and have told us how much damage carbon pollution in the atmosphere can do. That is why they have stated their strong opposition to the Murkowski resolution.

Less than a month ago, the National Research Council, which is an arm of the National Academy of Sciences comprised of America's leading scientists, concluded that climate change is occurring. It is caused largely by human activities, and it poses significant risks for and is already affecting a broad range of human and natural systems. The National Research Council further concluded that changes in climate pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems, including freshwater resources, the coastal environment, ecosystems, agriculture, fisheries, human health, and national security.

EPA Administrators under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan oppose the Murkowski resolution. Let's be clear. This should not be a partisan issue. It may wind up being that, but it should not.

Russell Train, EPA Administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, writes: I urge the Senate to reject this and any other legislation that would weaken the Clean Air Act or curtail the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to implements its provisions.

William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator under Presidents Nixon and Reagan, said: Thanks to the 2007 Supreme Court decision on global warming, EPA clearly has the right to regulate carbon. Anyone who would take away that power--it is a terrible idea.

William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator under Nixon and Reagan, said the Murkowski resolution is a terrible idea because this is the way we are going to address the problem of climate change.

Eighteen hundred scientists wrote to us opposing efforts to overturn this endangerment finding. In a letter to us, these scientists wrote: We the undersigned urge you to oppose an imminent attack on the Clean Air Act which would undermine public health and prevent action on global warming.

They go on to say: EPA's finding is based on solid science. This amendment represents a rejection of that science.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter signed by 1800 scientists.

I also wish to display the public health organizations that oppose the Murkowski resolution.

We have to decide whom we want to listen to. Do we want to listen to big oil or politicians or do we want to listen to public health organizations that oppose the Murkowski resolution? I ask the American people to determine which side they are on--the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Children's Environmental Health Network, the American Nurses Association, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, Trust for America's Health, Physicians for Social Responsibility, National Environmental Health Association, American College of Preventative Medicine, American Thoracic Society, the Association of Public Health Laboratories, the Association of Schools of Public Health, the Hepatitis Foundation International, the Union of Concerned Scientists. Again, we have included for the record the scientists, 1,800 of whom signed a letter to us opposing this.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter signed by these entities as well as a separate letter from the American Lung Association.

These are the experts. These are the people we rely on when our children get sick. They don't take them, with all due respect, to Senator Boxer for a checkup or Senator Murkowski for a checkup. They go to the pediatrician. The pediatricians oppose the Murkowski resolution. They are afraid of it because they know who is behind it. They know it is the special polluting interests, the big polluters who give big money to politicians. They know that. They are smart.

Let's be clear. We have on our side the people who are responsible for taking care of our kids, taking care of families, looking out for their health. They don't have any political skin in this game. They don't have any special interest in this game. They have one concern-- the health of our families.

Overturning a scientific finding that states that carbon pollution is a threat to the health and well-being of the American public is a dangerous step. It would lead us down a perilous road that sets a precedent for appealing other scientific findings. I talked a little bit about that.

I want to talk specifically about two other findings that maybe one day any Senator, on either side of the aisle, could seek to repeal. Imagine if we had done this on lead, lead and children.

In 1973, EPA did what it had to do and issued an endangerment finding for lead in gasoline. At the time, the lead endangerment decision was controversial. This was the EPA under Richard Nixon. They said there was too much lead in gasoline. They said it was a danger to our kids. They said it would cause harm to the brains of our children. So the Administrator under Richard Nixon, William Ruckelshaus--who opposes the Murkowski resolution today--reached the conclusion that lead presented a significant risk of harm to the health of our population, particularly our children. What if a Member of Congress came down and said: We are going to overturn that. We don't like that rule. We don't like that finding. We disagree. We don't think it causes a problem. Can my colleagues imagine what would have happened? We would have seen the phase down of lead in gasoline delayed for a decade or more, leaving another generation of Americans exposed to serious health threats. We would have seen hundreds of thousands more children with impaired mental function. That is a fact. It may be a fact the other side doesn't want to hear, but it is a fact. That is why we have former members of the Nixon administration opposing the Murkowski resolution.

Let's look at the science behind the dangers of smoking. What would have happened if people didn't agree with Surgeon General Everett Koop--another Republican administration--and they came down and said: Well, we are going to speak for the tobacco companies here. Let's repeal that. Nicotine isn't a problem, not a problem at all. Let's just overturn that health finding.

Again, I ask my colleagues do they want to stand with the health experts, the lung association, the pediatricians, the nurses, or do they want to stand with the powerful special interests? It is a simple question. Every Member has to answer that.

We have to stop this attack on science and health. We have to stop this attack on the safety of our citizens. Our families come first.

I think it is important to note that overturning this endangerment finding--supporting the Murkowski resolution--is opposed by the auto industry and the autoworkers. This is what they tell us. We are spending $1 billion a day importing foreign oil. Do Members like that? Then vote for the Murkowski resolution. It is going to set us back. We won't get off foreign oil if we go down this path.

This is why we have the automakers opposing Murkowski: On behalf of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and its 11 member companies, I am writing to express concern over the proposed resolutions of disapproval. If these resolutions are enacted, the historic agreement creating the one national program for regulating vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions would collapse.

The autoworkers are asking us not to do this. Let's see what they say: The UAW is deeply concerned that overturning EPA's endangerment finding would unravel the historic agreement on one national standard for fuel economy. And they go on.

Clearly, we are at a point where we are finally seeing the auto industry come back to life. Let's not pass the Murkowski resolution and get them off track. After all the debate and all the arguments, I know the Senators from Michigan care deeply about what is happening to their autoworkers and their auto companies. We are very clear here what side they are on.

In summary, the Murkowski resolution would upend a historic agreement between auto companies, autoworkers, environmental groups, leading States such as California that formed the foundation of the recent EPA and DOT standards.

I am going to include for the Record a host of quotes from our national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to climate change will be, over the next 20 years, the leading cause of conflict putting our troops in harm's way. That is why we have so many returning veterans who want us to move forward and address this issue so we can create the new technologies that get us off this foreign oil. Every time we import oil, we hurt ourselves. We have to get off these old energy sources. It is a transition. It is not going to happen overnight. But if we do things such as the Murkowski resolution, we will create chaos. We are going to see jobs lost. We are going to see us continue in an economic situation that has no new paradigm for economic growth, as we have learned from our venture capitalists, as we have learned from analysts, such as Thomas Friedman, who are so clear on this point.

The question before us is this: Will we protect the people we represent from dangerous pollution or will we choose to reject science? Will we choose to ignore the findings of the scientific community, the public health officials, and national security experts?

If we care about jobs--I know the Presiding Officer does--if we care about moving to a clean energy economy, if Members care about health, if they care about our environment and our natural resources, then they should vote no on proceeding to this resolution.

I hope we will carry the day. I know it will be close. But I have to tell my colleagues, this is a significant moment for the Senate because if we move down this path, ``Katy, bar the door.'' Any resolution, any health finding, any scientific finding is subject to politics. I would have thought that in the Senate, we might disagree with how to deal with the scientific finding--in other words, what kinds of rules and regulations should come out of it--but not to repeal the scientific finding itself. That would be unprecedented in the worst of ways.

I have used my time, the first half hour; am I correct?

Madam President, I have a number of fantastic speakers we will hear from in the next ensuing time.

I yield the floor.

How much time remains on the Republican side?

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that whatever extra time was given to the other side be added to our time.

Madam President, at this point, we are going to hear arguments against the Murkowski resolution from Senator Durbin for 6 minutes, followed by Senator Reed of Rhode Island for 5 minutes.

Madam President, our speakers at this time will be Senator Shaheen for 5 minutes, Senator Sanders for 5 minutes, and Senator Cantwell for 5 minutes.

Madam President, at this time I yield 10 minutes to Senator Feinstein, followed by 10 minutes to Senator Carper.

I yield 5 minutes to Senator Menendez, followed by 5 minutes to Senator Cardin.

Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Do we have 2 unused minutes?

I would ask if we could carry that time to the next segment, please.