Biofuels Market Expansion Act of 2011

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to establish a National Heritage Area in the California Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This legislation will create the first Heritage Area in California.

I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to work with Senator Boxer, Representative John Garamendi, and the County Supervisors from the 5 Delta Counties to prepare this legislation and support their efforts to fully partner with the State, the Federal agencies, and other local governments to improve and care for the Delta.

This bill will establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as a National Heritage Area.

The Delta Protection Commission, created by California law and responsible to the citizens of the Delta and California, will manage the Heritage Area. It will ensure an open and public process, working with all levels of federal, state, and local government, tribes, local stakeholders, and private property owners as it develops and implements the management plan for the Heritage Area. The goal is to conserve and protect the Delta, its communities, its resources, and its history.

It is also important to understand what this legislation will not do. It will not affect water rights. It will not affect water contracts. It will not affect private property.

Nothing in this bill gives any governmental agency any more regulatory power than it already has, nor does it take away regulatory from agencies that have it.

In short, this bill does not affect water rights or water contracts, nor does is impose any additional responsibilities on local government or residents. Instead, it authorizes Federal assistance to a local process already required by State law that will elevate the Delta, providing a means to conserve and protect its valued communities, resources, and history.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast. It is the most extensive inland delta in the world, and a unique national treasure.

Today, it is a labyrinth of sloughs, wetlands, and deepwater channels that connect the waters of the high Sierra mountain streams to the Pacific Ocean through the San Francisco Bay. Its approximately 60 islands are protected by 1,100 miles of levees, and are home to 3,500,000 residents, including 2,500 family farmers. The Delta and its farmers produce some of the highest quality specialty crops in the United States.

The Delta offers recreational opportunities to the two million Californians who visit the Delta each year for boating, fishing, hunting, visiting historic sites, and viewing wildlife. It provides habitat for more than 750 species of plants and wildlife. These include sand hill cranes that migrate to the Delta wetland from places as far away as Siberia. The Delta also provides habitat for 55 species of fish, including Chinook salmon--some as large as 60 pounds--that return each year to travel through the Delta to spawn in the tributaries.

These same waterways also channel fresh water to the Federal and State-owned pumps in the South Delta that provide water to 23 million Californians and 3 million acres of irrigated agricultural land elsewhere in the state.

Before the Delta was reclaimed for farmland in the 19th Century, the Delta flooded regularly with snow melt each spring, and provided the rich environment that, by 1492, supported the largest settlement of Native Americans in North America.

The Delta was the gateway to the gold fields in 1849, after which Chinese workers built hundreds of miles of levees throughout the waterways of the Delta to make its rich peat soils available for farming and to control flooding.

Japanese, Italians, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Greeks, South Asians, and other immigrants began the farming legacy, and developed technologies specifically adapted to the unique environment, including the Caterpillar Tractor, which later contributed to agriculture and transportation internationally.

Delta communities created a river culture befitting their dependence on water transport, a culture which has attracted the attention of authors from Mark Twain and Jack London to Joan Didion.

The Delta is in crisis due to many factors, including invasive species, urban and agricultural run-off, wastewater discharges, channelization, dredging, water export operations, and other stressors.

Many of the islands of the Delta are between 10 and 20 feet below sea level, and the levee system is presently inadequate to provide reliable flood protection for historic communities, significant habitats, agricultural enterprises, water resources, transportation and other infrastructure.

Existing levees have not been engineered to withstand earthquakes. Should levees fail for any reason, a rush of seawater into the interior of the Delta could damage the already fragile ecosystem, contaminate drinking water for many Californians, flood agricultural land, inundate towns, and damage roads, power lines, and water project infrastructure.

The State of California has been working for decades on a resolution to the water supply and ecosystem crisis in the State, and has a long history of partnerships with Federal agencies, working together to resolve challenges to the Delta's historic communities, ecosystem and the water it supplies so many Californians.

The Delta Protection Commission, established under state law, has been tasked by the California State Legislature with providing a forum for Delta residents to engage in decisions regarding actions to recognize and enhance the unique cultural, recreational, agricultural resources, infrastructure and legacy communities of the Delta and to serve as the facilitating agency for the implementation of a National Heritage Area in the Delta.

This legislation will complement the broadly supported State Water Legislation of 2009, which called for a Heritage designation for the Delta.

This legislation authorizes the creation of the Delta Heritage Area and federal assistance to the Delta Protection Commission in implementing the Area. This legislation is just a small part of the commitment the Federal government must make to the Delta. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues at every level of

government to restore and sustain the ecosystem in the Delta, to provide for reliable water supply in the State of California, to recover the native species of the Delta, protect communities in the Delta from flood risk, ensure economic sustainability in the Delta, improve water quality in the Delta, and; sustain the unique cultural, historical, recreational, agricultural and economic values of the Delta.

The National Heritage Area designation for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will help local governments develop and implement a plan for a sustainable future by providing Federal recognition, technical assistance and small amounts of funding to a community-based process already underway.

Through the Delta Heritage Area, local communities and citizens will partner with Federal, State and local governments to collaboratively work to promote conservation, community revitalization, and economic development projects.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2011,'' a bill that would ban the chemical Bisphenol A, known as BPA, from all children's feeding products. I thank my cosponsors Senators Schumer, Kerry, Sanders, and Franken for their support.

I vowed in the last Congress not to give up, and this is why I am introducing a bill that bans the use of BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula, and baby food containers: the products used to provide food and beverages to the most vulnerable.

I have a deep, abiding concern regarding the presence of toxins and chemicals in the daily lives of Americans. BPA is an endocrine disruptor, which means that it interferes with the way hormones work in the body.

The evidence against BPA is mounting, especially its harmful effects on babies and children who are still developing.

I believe we have an obligation to safeguard babies and children from unnecessary exposure to this chemical that is linked to so many health problems.

Over 200 scientific studies show that even at low doses, BPA is linked to serious health problems including: Cancer, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Early puberty, Behavioral problems, Obesity.

This chemical is so widespread it has been found in 93 percent of Americans.

Babies and children are particularly at risk to the exposure of BPA because when they are developing, any small change can cause dramatic consequences.

It may not surprise you that the chemical industry continues to insist that BPA is not harmful. According to at least one study, there is reason to be skeptical about research coming from chemical companies.

In 2006, the journal Environmental Research published an article comparing the results of government funded studies on BPA to BPA studies funded by industry.

The difference is glaring.

Ninety-two percent of the government funded studies found that exposure to BPA caused health problems.

Overwhelmingly, government studies found harm. None of the industry funded studies identified health problems as a result of BPA exposure. Not one.

Clearly, serious questions are raised about the validity of the chemical industry's studies. The results also illustrate why our nation's regulatory agencies should not and cannot solely rely on chemical companies to conduct research on their own products.

The fact that so many adverse health effects are linked to this chemical, the fact that this chemical is so present in our bodies, and the fact that babies are more at risk from its harmful effects leads me to believe that there is no good reason to expose our children to BPA.

This is why we are introducing legislation that protects all babies across the country, no matter which state they happen to live.

This bill will ensure that parents no longer have to wonder whether products they buy for their babies and children will harm them now or later in life.

This bill: Bans the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups within 6 months; Bans the use of BPA in baby food within 1 year; Bans the use of BPA in infant formula within 18 months; Requires that the FDA issue a revised safety assessment on BPA by December 1, 2012; and Includes a savings clause to allow states to enact their own legislation.

This bill makes sense. It's a reasonable step forward to protecting our children's health.

Major manufacturers are already phasing out BPA from their food and beverage products for children.

Food and beverage products for children all have safe, alternative, BPA-free packaging available right now.

Major baby food and formula manufacturers offer BPA-free alternatives including: Nestle's GOOD START, Similac powdered infant formula, Enfamil powdered infant formula, Nestle liquid formula, and Similac liquid formula.

At least 14 manufacturers of baby bottles either offer some BPA-free alternatives or have completely banned its use. They are: Avent, Born Free, Disney First Years, Dr. Brown's, Evenflo, Gerber, Green to Grow, Klean Kanteen, Medala, Munchkin, Nuby Sippy Cups, Playtex, Think Baby, and Weil Baby.

Many major retailers have taken action and sell BPA-free baby bottles and cups: CVS, Kmart, Kroger, Rite Aid, Safeway, Sears, Toys ``R'' Us and Babies ``R'' Us, Wal-Mart, Wegmans, and Whole Foods.

Eight states have already enacted laws banning BPA from children's products: Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Other countries have already moved forward to restrict this chemical. Canada declared BPA a toxic substance, and banned it from all baby bottles and sippy cups. Denmark and France have national bans on BPA in certain children's products.

The European Commission banned BPA from baby bottles, protecting consumers in the European Union.

Clearly, the problem has been recognized and steps are being taken by countries, states, companies, and retailers to remove this harmful chemical.

Let me briefly explain what BPA is.

BPA is a synthetic estrogen. As I stated previously, it is a hormone disruptor and interferes with how hormones work in the body. This chemical is used in thousands of consumer products to harden plastics, line tin cans, and make CDs. It is even used to coat airline tickets, grocery store receipts, and to make dental sealants.

It is one of the most pervasive chemicals in modern life. And, as with so many other chemicals in consumer products, BPA has been added to our products without us knowing whether it was safe or not.

Alternatives exist because there is growing concern about the harmful effects of BPA. The chemical industry continues to try to quiet criticism by reassuring consumers that BPA is safe.

I don't buy it.

As I previously stated, over 200 scientific studies show that exposure to BPA, particularly during prenatal development and early infancy, are linked to a wide range of adverse health effects in later life.

Because of their smaller size and stage of development, babies and children are particularly at risk from the harmful health effects of

Mr. President, in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, on March 23, 2010, the 111th Congress made great strides towards protecting consumers from egregious health insurance company practices. However, despite the passage of this historic legislation, the urgent need to protect Americans from unfair health insurance rate increases remains.

Health insurance premiums have been spiraling upwards nationally at out-of-control rates--10, 20, 30 percent every year--all while big national insurance companies enjoy increasing profits.

Without further legislative action, health insurance companies will continue to do what they have done for far too long: put their profits ahead of people.

Over the past decade, family health insurance premiums have more than doubled, growing a shocking 130 percent, while workers' hourly earnings rose by only 38 percent, and inflation rose just 29 percent.

From 2000-2008, individuals in the employer-sponsored market saw premiums increase an average of 90 percent.

The cost of health insurance continues to outpace income and inflation for other goods and services, and these rapidly escalating costs strain businesses, families, and individuals.

In 2009, 57 percent of people attempting to purchase insurance in the individual market found it difficult or impossible to afford coverage.

All the while, in the third quarter of 2010, the six-largest investor-owned health insurance companies (Aetna, Coventry Health, United Health, Humana, WellPoint, and Cigna) saw a 22 percent increase in combined net income, putting them on pace to break their own profit record.

The problem is that the health reform law did not go far enough to control these unfair premium increases, it leaves a loophole.

Simply stated, there is no federal authority to do anything about these rate increases, even if they are unfair.

We need to close this loophole.

This is why today I am introducing, with Senators Boxer and Inouye, the Health Insurance Rate Review Act of 2011. Representative Schakowsky is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

This legislation creates a federal fallback rate review process, and grants regulatory authority to block or modify rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory.

This legislation is a simple, common-sense solution: for States where the insurance commissioner does not have or

use authority to block unfair rate increases, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can do so.

On March 4, 2010, I introduced similar legislation to what I am introducing today. I worked with the Administration and the Finance Committee in putting it together, and with Representative Schakowsky.

President Obama included it in his health reform proposal, but unfortunately, it did not meet the criteria for reconciliation.

The time has come now to take action.

This legislation is necessary in order to protect consumers from the egregious abuses of insurance companies, especially before the majority of the consumer protections included in health reform are fully in place in 2014.

It is disturbing that year after year, health insurance premiums spiral out control, all while insurance companies enjoy increasing profits.

Insurance premiums make up a higher percentage of household income than ever before, meaning that more and more families have to choose between health care and daily living expenses, saving for retirement, and education.

This is unacceptable, and more must be done to protect consumers.

Everyone by now is familiar with the increases that Anthem/Blue Cross, a subsidiary of WellPoint, was set to impose--as much as 39 percent--for 800,000 Californians.

It turns out that Anthem Blue Cross used flawed data to calculate health insurance premium increases to hundreds of thousands of policyholders in California, resulting in increases that were larger than necessary.

According to an independent analysis, the 25 percent average increase proposed by Anthem should have only been 15.2 percent.

What is most disturbing is that Anthem's case is not an aberration. Far from it.

This is not a problem unique to California. In the spring of 2010, health insurance companies pursued rate hikes in a number of States: as much as 60 percent in Illinois; 72 percent in Georgia; 50 percent in New Jersey; and 40 percent in Virginia, to name a few.

The White House reports that premium rates have been rising across the Nation, with substantial geographic variation.

For employer-sponsored family coverage, premiums increased 88 percent in Michigan over the past decade compared to a 145 percent increase in Alaska.

A report by the Center for American Progress Action Fund found that this summer, WellPoint pursued double digit increases in the individual market for 10 other States: Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The reporting requirements in the health reform law will improve the information available, but right now, comprehensive data on the premium increases insurers are imposing does not exist.

In 2009, despite the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the five largest for-profit health insurance companies, WellPoint Inc., United Health Group Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc., and Cigna Corp., set a full-year profit record. These companies saw a 56 percent increase in profits from 2008 to 2009, from $7.7 billion to $12.1 billion.

Furthermore, when many Americans were experiencing double-digit premium increases in 2009, high unemployment, and an average wage growth of only 2 percent, insurance CEOs gave themselves a 167 percent raise.

CEO pay for the 10 largest for-profit health insurance companies was $228.1 million in 2009, up from $85.5 million in 2008.

This doesn't even include the tens of millions more dollars in exercised stock options, and means that these CEOs raked in nearly $1 billion in total compensation.

In the first three months of 2010, the five largest for-profit health insurance companies, WellPoint Inc., United Health Group Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc., and Cigna Corp., recorded a combined net income of $3.2 billion--a 31 percent jump over the same period in 2009.

Meanwhile, large insurance companies now insure 2.8 million fewer Americans than they did on December 31, 2008. An estimated 59.1 million Americans were uninsured in the first quarter of 2010.

The California HealthCare Foundation reported that 6.8 million California residents lack health coverage.

That is 20 percent of the State's residents who are not able to afford health insurance.

All the while, insurance companies have been reducing the amount they spend on actual health care. As profits and CEO pay increased, the amount of money insurers spent on medical care went down.

The top six insurers drove down the portion of premiums spent on medical care. For example, the share of premium dollars that CIGNA spent on medical care decreased 6.4 percent in the second quarter of 2010 compared to the prior year, and Humana's decreased 7.4 percent.

Now, because of legislation in the health reform law, insurance companies have to spend 80-85 percent of premiums on medical care and quality improvement services, not on profits.

This will go a long way to keeping insurance company greed in check, but we need to go farther.

Clearly without additional legislative requirements, health insurance companies are not going to change.

The Department of Health and Human Services recently published proposed rules defining the rate review process. These regulations are a first step towards protecting consumers and keeping insurers in check.

But they fall short of creating a strong rate review system, and rely too heavily on the notion that public disclosure of rates will cause insurance companies to change their behavior.

The regulations do not grant explicit regulatory authority--either State or Federal--to deny, modify, or block rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory.

The health reform law requires insurance companies to provide justification for unreasonable premium increases to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and post them on their Web sites.

The regulations subject rate increases of 10 percent or greater to additional scrutiny and review, but the State-specific thresholds in 2012 could sanction increases higher than 10 percent.

Transparency and increased scrutiny are steps forward, but there is still this loophole where there is no authority to block or modify even excessive, unjustified, and unfairly discriminatory increases.

This is why I am again introducing my rate review legislation, which will grant this authority.

I believe there needs to be a Federal fallback in States that lack the legal authority, capacity, or resources to conduct strong rate review.

This legislation gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to block premium or other rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory.

In some States, insurance commissioners already have that authority, and that is fine. The bill doesn't touch them.

In Maine, for example, the State superintendent of insurance was able to block Anthem's proposed 18.5-percent increase last year. She approved only a 10.9-percent increase.

In at least 17 States, including my own--California--companies are not required to receive prior approval for rate increases before they take effect.

In these States, the Secretary would review potentially excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory rate increases and take corrective action. This could include blocking an increase, providing rebates to consumers, or adjusting an increase.

Under this proposal, the Secretary would work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to implement the rate review process. States already doing this work will continue to do so unabated and unfettered. The legislation would not affect them.

However, for the consumers in the other 17 States with no authority, such as California, protection from unfair rate hikes would be provided.

Given the variation in State rate review authority and process, I think this proposal strikes the right balance.

There is no need for involvement in States with insurance commissioners that are able to protect consumers. So the legislation I am introducing simply

provides Federal protection for consumers who are currently at the mercy of large health insurance companies whose top priority is their bottom line.

This legislation is particularly important given a recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation showing that many States lack the capacity and resources to conduct adequate rate review, regardless of the State's statutory authority to review rates.

I strongly believe that we need to take action on this. The health reform law made great strides towards holding companies and shareholders accountable for providing health care at a reasonable rate.

However, there is this loophole.

So this bill becomes very necessary. Premiums are increasing every day, and people in many States have no recourse, and no way to know if a particular increase is unfair.

There needs to be a Federal fallback in States that lack the legal authority, capacity, or resources to conduct strong rate review. In States where the Insurance Commissioner is not equipped to review, modify, and block unreasonable rates, my legislation would grant the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to do so.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, the Health Insurance Rate Review Act of 2011, which will close this loophole.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the California Desert Protection Act of 2011.

This bill is an effort to plan for the competing uses--such as conservation, off-highway vehicle recreation, development, and military training--that are now being proposed for the desert. These uses of our public lands can coexist through comprehensive planning, but in the absence of such planning, it's quite possible that none will thrive.

During the previous Congress I introduced similar legislation to help preserve pristine desert lands that were donated to the Federal Government for permanent conservation a decade ago, but that more recently have come under threat of development because of a flawed bureaucratic process that failed to protect them.

Over the last year the bill was endorsed by more than 100 organizations and agencies, and it had a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

I am grateful to Senator Bingaman and his staff for working with me to prepare the bill for further action in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I believe we can revise the bill to address further the needs of renewable energy developers, the Department of Defense, off-road recreation enthusiasts, local government and others, and I look forward to continuing that effort in the new Congress.

I strongly believe that conservation, renewable energy development and recreation can and must co-exist in the California Desert--and this legislation strikes a carefully conceived balance between these sometimes competing concerns.

The key provisions of this bill would designate two new national monuments--the Mojave Trails and the Sand

to Snow National Monuments; add adjacent lands to the Joshua Tree and Death Valley National Parks and the Mojave National Preserve; designate 5 new BLM wilderness areas and protect 4 important waterways--including the Amargosa River and Deep Creek--as Wild and Scenic Rivers; and enhance recreational opportunities in the desert and ensure that the training needs of the military are met.

This bill is the product of painstaking discussions with key stakeholders including environmental groups, local and State government, off-highway recreation enthusiasts, hunters, cattle ranchers, mining interests, the Department of Defense, wind and solar energy companies, California's public utility companies, and many others. I am grateful for all of their efforts.

The previous version of my bill proposed specific improvements to the Department of the Interior's rules governing the development of renewable energy on public lands. I'm pleased that the Department has instituted a number of new policies over the last year which have greatly improved the process. Consequently, the current bill focuses primarily on conservation, recreation and other important uses of the California desert.

However, I intend to work with my colleagues from the West on separate legislation to further expedite the development of wind and solar energy in California and the West.

The California Desert Protection Act, which was enacted in 1994, was a sweeping piece of legislation aimed at conserving some of the most beautiful and ecologically significant lands in my home State.

The law created Death Valley National Park, Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve, as well as 69 desert wilderness areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management, BLM.

Collectively, it protected more than 7 million acres of desert lands, making it the largest land conservation bill in the lower 48 States in U.S. history.

To this day, it remains one of my proudest accomplishments since joining this body.

Much has changed since the passage of the California Desert Protection Act. Many of the impediments that prevented conservation of other pristine desert lands in the area no longer exist.

For example the Department of Defense concerns with designating some wilderness areas near Fort Irwin have been resolved; many mining areas inside national parks and potential wilderness have closed; grazing allotments on both BLM and National Park Service land have been retired by willing sellers; hundreds of thousands of acres of privately owned land have been donated to or acquired by the Federal Government.

Yet even as these issues were resolved, new challenges have emerged. There are now competing demands over how best to manage hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands in the desert.

Some believe the lands should be used for large-scale solar and wind facilities and transmission lines. Others would like to conserve critical habitat for threatened and endangered species.

Some would like more acreage available for grazing or for off-road recreation.

Finally, some would like to see additional lands made available for military training and base expansion.

Two years ago, I learned that BLM had accepted applications to build vast solar and wind energy projects on former railroad lands previously owned by the Catellus Corporation. These lands had been donated to the Federal Government or acquired with taxpayer funds with the explicit goal of conservation.

Approximately $45 million of private donations--including a $5 million land discount from Catellus Corporation--and $18 million in Federal Land and Water Conservation grants was spent to purchase these lands, with the intent of conserving them in perpetuity.

As the sponsor of the legislative provisions that helped secure the deal to acquire the roughly 600,000 acres of former private land, I found the BLM's actions unacceptable.

We have an obligation to honor our commitment to conserve these lands--and I believe we can still accomplish that goal while also fulfilling California's commitment to develop a clean energy portfolio.

I believe the development of these new cleaner energy sources is vital to addressing climate change, yet we must be careful about selecting where these facilities are located.

I plan to work with senators from Western States to improve the renewable energy permitting process to allow quicker development of renewable energy projects on private and disturbed public land. This effort likely requires separate legislation and improved regulation.

I applaud the Department of the Interior's efforts over the last year to address this problem, especially Interior's proposed designation of 24 solar energy zones encompassing 677,000 acres of public land in 6 Western States. By designating these zones in appropriate areas and streamlining the permitting process for projects proposed there, the Department has helped ensure that sensitive areas of the desert can be preserved.

As BLM finalizes the creation of these Zones and its new Solar Energy Program, I will push BLM to create a development zone in the West Mojave, conduct sufficient study of zones to ensure projects in these locations can be permitted quickly, and establish the program's rules as expeditiously as possible.

I will continue to suggest ways that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can improve permitting on private lands, the Defense Department can welcome development on its bases, and the Forest Service can utilize its own lands. These matters may require legislation.

There is enough land in California's desert to protect the most precious areas of the Mojave and aggressively develop renewable resources where permitting will be rapid. California must develop 15,000 to 20,000 megawatts of renewable power to meet its climate goals by 2020, and the current permitting process will need to vastly improve for the state to meet this goal.

First, this bill will ensure that hundreds of thousands of acres of land donated to the federal government for conservation will be protected by creating the Mojave Trails National Monument. This new monument would cover approximately 941,000 acres of federal land, which includes approximately 266,000 acres of the former Catellus-owned railroad lands along historic Route 66. I visited the area and was amazed by the beauty of the massive valleys, pristine dry lakes, and rugged mountains.

In addition to its iconic sweeping desert vistas and majestic mountain ranges, this area of the Eastern Mojave also contains critical wildlife corridors linking Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve. It also encompasses hundreds of thousands of acres designated as areas of critical environmental concern, critical habitat for the threatened desert tortoise, and ancient lava bed flows and craters. It is surrounded by more than a dozen BLM wilderness areas.

The BLM would be given the authority to both conserve the monument lands, and also to maintain existing recreational uses, including hunting, vehicular travel on open roads and trails, camping, horseback riding and rockhounding.

The bill also creates an advisory committee to help develop and oversee the implementation of the monument management plan. It would be comprised of representatives from local, state and federal government, conservation and recreation groups, and local Native American tribes.

Before I go on to the other conservation provisions in the bill, I would like to address one important issue--and that is what should be done about some of the proposed renewable energy development projects proposed for lands included in this monument.

Although it is true that the monument will prevent further consideration of some applications to develop solar and wind energy projects on former Catellus lands or adjoining lands in the monument, it is important to note that of the proposals in question, not a single one has been granted a permit, nor is a single one under review at the California Energy Commission or under formal NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act, review at BLM.

To ensure that creation of the monument does not unnecessarily harm the

firms that worked in good faith and invested substantial time and resources to produce renewable energy in California, the legislation will offer these companies an opportunity to relocate their projects to federal renewable energy zones currently being developed by the Department of the Interior.

Additionally, the monument would not prevent the construction or expansion of necessary transmission lines critical to linking renewable energy generation facilities with the electricity grid.

Second, the bill would establish the ``Sand to Snow National Monument,'' encompassing 134,000 acres of land from the desert floor in the Coachella Valley up to the top of Mount San Gorgonio, the highest peak in Southern California.

The boundaries of this second, smaller new monument would include two Areas of Critical Environmental Concern: Big Morongo Canyon and Whitewater Canyon, the BLM and U.S. Forest Service San Gorgonio Wilderness, the Wildlands Conservancy's Pipe's Canyon and Mission Creek Preserves, and additional public and private conservation lands, including two wildlife movement corridor areas connecting the Peninsular Ranges with the Transverse Ranges.

This area is truly remarkable, and would arguably be the most environmentally diverse national monument in the country. It serves as the intersection of three converging ecological systems--the Mojave Desert, the Colorado Desert, and the San Bernardino mountains--and is one of the most important wildlife corridors in Southern California.

This monument designation would protect 23.6 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail and the habitat for approximately 240 species of migrating and breeding birds, the second highest density of nesting birds in the United States. It also serves as a home and a crucial migration corridor for animals traveling between Joshua Tree National Park, the oasis at Big Morongo, and the higher elevations of the San Bernardino Mountains.

I'd like to make one additional point, and that is that despite its ecological significance, this area is not particularly well-known-- largely because it is managed by a number of distinct entities, including the BLM, Forest Service, National Park Service and private preserves and conservation agencies. So, the monument designation would help to attract more attention to one of California's natural gems.

Third, the bill establishes new wilderness areas and allows more appropriate use of lands currently designated as Wilderness Study Areas.

The 1994 California Desert Protection Act extended wilderness protection to many areas in the desert, yet several areas near Fort Irwin were designated as wilderness study areas in order to allow the base to expand.

Now that Fort Irwin's expansion is complete, it is time to consider these areas for permanent wilderness designation.

The bill protects approximately 250,000 acres of BLM land as wilderness in five areas. These areas contain some of the most pristine and rugged landscapes in the California desert.

Beyond Fort Irwin, the bill also expands wilderness areas in Death Valley National Park, 90,000 acres, and the San Bernardino National Forest, 4,300 acres, inside the Sand to Snow National Monument created by this bill.

The bill also releases 126,000 acres of land from their existing wilderness study area designation in response to requests from local government and recreation users. This will allow the land to be made available for other purposes, including recreational off-highway vehicle use on designated routes.

Fourth, this bill would create the Vinagre Wash Special Management Area.

The agreed-upon designation for this area in Imperial County, near the Colorado River, was reached after careful discussion with key stakeholders.

Although the land possesses some wilderness characteristics, there are also competing interests. The Navy Seals currently use some of this area for occasional training. Additionally, many local residents enjoy touring the rolling hills in the area by jeep.

Through the combined efforts of conservation groups, local residents and county government, and the Department of Defense, a compromise conservation designation was developed.

For the land known as the Vinagre Wash, the bill will create a ``special management area'' covering 76,000 acres, including 12,000 acres of former railroad lands donated to the federal government.

Of these, 49,000 acres are designated as potential wilderness and only become permanent wilderness if and when the Department of Defense determines these lands are no longer needed for Navy Seal training.

This designation will permit the area to continue to be accessed by vehicles and be used for camping, hiking, mountain biking, sightseeing, and off-highway vehicle use on designated routes and protect tribal cultural assets in the area.

Fifth, the bill adds to or designates four new Wild and Scenic Rivers, totaling 76 miles in length. These designations will ensure the rivers remain clean and free-flowing and that their immediate environments are preserved. These beautiful waterways are Deep Creek and the Whitewater River in and near the San Bernardino National Forest, as well as the Amargosa River and Surprise Canyon Creek near Death Valley National Park.

Sixth, the bill adds approximately 74,000 acres of adjacent lands to the three National Parks established by the 1994 California Desert Protection Act: 41,000 acres in Death Valley National Park. This includes former mining areas where the claims have been retired and a narrow strip of BLM land between National Park and Defense Department boundaries that has made BLM management difficult; almost 30,000 acres in the Mojave National Preserve. This land was not included in the original Monument because of the former Viceroy gold mine. However, the mining operations ceased several years ago and the reclamation process is nearly complete. Additionally, a 2007 analysis by the Interior Department recommended that this area would be suitable to add to the Preserve; 2,900 acres in Joshua Tree National Park. This includes multiple small parcels of BLM land identified for disposal on its periphery. Transferring this land to the Park Service would help protect Joshua Tree by preserving these undeveloped areas that border residential communities.

Seventh, the bill designates new lands as Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Areas.

One of the key goals I have strived for in this bill is to find balance to ensure that the many different needs and uses in the desert are accommodated with the least possible conflict. Some of the most frequent visitors to the desert are the off-highway recreation enthusiasts.

In California alone, there are over 1 million registered off-highway vehicles, many of which can be found exploring thousands of miles of desert trails or BLM designated open areas.

However, in order to meet military training needs, the Marine Corps is studying the potential expansion of Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms into Johnson Valley, the largest OHV area in the country. I strongly support providing our troops with the best possible training, but if the Marines need to expand the base into Johnson Valley, this could have potentially resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of acres of OHV recreation lands.

In 2009 I met with Major General Eugene Payne, Assistant Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics, and Brigadier General Melvin Spiese, Commanding General, Training and Education Command, to discuss this issue, and I am very grateful for their efforts to consider base expansion options that would preserve much of Johnson Valley for recreation.

As the result of those meetings, the Marine Corps has committed to studying an alternative that would allow for a portion of Johnson Valley to be used exclusively for military training, another portion to be used exclusively for continued OHV recreation and a third area for joint use. While the environmental review process must first be completed, I am hopeful that this option will prevail for the benefit of the Marines and recreational users of Johnson Valley.

The lesson learned from Johnson Valley is that, despite the vast size of the California desert, there are relatively

few areas dedicated to OHV recreation, and even those areas face increasing competition from other types of uses. These areas are important not only to the hundreds of thousands visitors who enjoy them, but also to the local economy that depends on their tourist dollars. Additionally, by protecting these areas, we also protect conservation areas by providing appropriate places for OHV recreation.

This bill will designate five existing OHV areas in the Mojave desert as permanent OHV areas, providing off-highway groups some certainty that these uses will be protected as much as conservation areas. Collectively, these areas could be as much as 314,000 acres, depending on what, if any, of Johnson Valley is ultimately needed by the Marines.

This section of the bill also requires the Secretary of the Inerior to conduct a study to determine which, if any, lands adjacent to these recreation areas would be suitable for addition. This will help make up for some of the lost acres in Johnson Valley should the Marines decide to expand there.

Finally, this bill includes other key provisions that address various challenges and opportunities in the California desert, including state land exchanges. There are currently about 370,000 acres of state lands spread across the California desert in isolated 640 acre parcels. Because many of these acres are inside national parks, wilderness, the proposed monuments or conservation areas, they are largely unusable. The bill seeks to remedy that problem by requiring the Department of the Interior to develop and implement a plan with the state to complete the exchange of these lands for other BLM or GSA owned property in the next ten years. These land exchanges will help consolidate the state lands into larger, more usable areas that could potentially provide the state with viable sites for renewable energy development, off-highway vehicle recreation or other commercial purposes.

Military activities. The bill ensures the right of the Department of Defense to conduct low-level overflights over wilderness, national parks and national monuments.

Climate change and wildlife corridors. The bill requires the Department of the Interior to study the impact of climate change on California desert species migration, incorporate the study's results and recommendations into land use management plans, and consider the study's findings when making decisions granting rights of way for projects on public lands.

Tribal uses and interests. The bill requires the Secretary to ensure access for tribal cultural activities within national parks, monuments, wilderness and other areas designated within the bill. It also requires the Secretary to develop a cultural resources management plan to protect a sacred tribal trail along the Colorado River between southern Nevada and the California-Baja border.

Prohibited uses of donated and acquired lands. In order to ensure that donated and acquired Catellus lands outside the Mojave Trails National Monument are maintained for conservation, the bill prohibits their use for development, mining, off-highway vehicle use, except designated routes, grazing, military training and other surface disturbing activities. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make limited exceptions in cases where it is deemed in the public interest, but comparable lands would have to be purchased and donated to the federal government as mitigation for lost acreage.

All of these provisions, when taken together, would serve to complement the lasting conservation established by the California Desert Protection Act--while ensuring that other important local uses are maintained in appropriate areas.

Though I have lived in or near San Francisco for most of my life, over the years I have come to truly appreciate California's sweeping desert landscapes.

I remember my first visits to the desert years ago. It was treated like a waste dump. It was full of abandoned cars. Old appliances littered the landscape.

But we have worked very hard to clean it up.

We have worked to make sure that the vast vistas and pristine desert habitat are respected by humanity, and that we give to our children a healthier, more beautiful desert than we inherited.

But if we are to remain successful in the long run, we must not only protect the desert land itself, we must also protect the broader environment from the ravages of climate change, and we must offer economic opportunity to those who live in these areas.

That is the purpose of this legislation. There are many places in the California desert where development and employment are essential and appropriate.

But there are also places that future generations will thank us for setting aside.

I have worked painstakingly with stakeholders to ensure that this legislation balances sometimes competing needs.

This bill, if enacted, will have a positive and enduring impact on the landscape of the Southern California desert by conserving pristine areas while meeting the needs of all desert stakeholders.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 to extend the three expiring provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--the authority to conduct, subject to court order, so-called ``roving wiretaps,'' ``lone wolf'' surveillance, and collection of business records. This legislation will extend these three authorities, otherwise set to expire on February 28, to December 31, 2013.

The bill will also change the expiration date of the intelligence collection authorities provided in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 so they, too, last until the end of 2013.

I firmly believe that the United States Government needs these authorities to help prevent against future terrorist attacks against our nation and to collect vital intelligence insights into the capabilities and intentions of our adversaries. We remain a nation under threat and need to remain vigilant in our defense.

Let me briefly describe the three expiring provisions.

First, court-ordered roving authority is directed against foreign intelligence targets who attempt to thwart FISA surveillance by such actions as rapidly changing cell phones. In a September 2009 letter, the Department of Justice reported to Congress that this authority ``has proven an important intelligence-gathering tool in a small but significant subset of FISA electronic surveillance orders.''

Second, lone wolf authority allows for court-ordered collection against non-U.S. persons who engage in international terrorism but for whom an association with a specific international terrorist group has not yet been identified. In the last Congress, when the Department of Justice advised that it had not yet been necessary for the Government to use this authority, the Department stated that it could foresee circumstances in which a terrorist target had not actually contacted a terrorist group or was known to have severed his association from a terrorist group.

From the events of the last several years, we have all become aware that we may be attacked by a lone, unaffiliated terrorist--or one whose links to

terrorist groups are only clear after an individual is apprehended.

Third, the collection of business records pursuant to court orders. This provision allows the Government to require the production of ``tangible things'' in order to obtain foreign intelligence information as part of an investigation. In the September 2009 letter, the Department of Justice urged reauthorization of that authority because ``[t]he absence of such authority could force the FBI to sacrifice key intelligence opportunities.''

I cannot elaborate into the use of these authorities in this unclassified context. I can say, however, that as the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and as one who reviews the intelligence on the threats we face, we remain a nation under attack. Providing the authorities to collect intelligence to identify and prevent terrorist attacks on the homeland remains necessary.

It is also important to allow Congress, in the future, to conduct a complete review of FISA provisions. By synchronizing the dates when different pieces of the law expire, Congress can consider changes to FISA at once, prior to the end of 2013.

In closing, l would like to assure all Members of the Senate and the American public that extending these sunsets does not shield them from oversight. There is a system of review and oversight in place that consists of the FISA Court, Inspectors General in the Department of Justice and in the intelligence community, regular oversight reviews by the National Security Division at the Department of Justice, a new Director of Compliance at the National Security Agency, and reporting to the Senate and House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. As Chairman of the Senate Select Committee and as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I can assure colleagues that the Senate has placed, and will continue to place, oversight of the Government's surveillance authorities as a major priority.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act, which I also introduced in the 111th Congress. This critical bill reauthorizes and strengthens the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, a program that I was pleased to originally sponsor in the 106th Congress establishing the Coral Reef Conservation Program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA.

Coral reefs are among the oldest and most economically and biologically important ecosystems in the world. They provide habitat for more than one million diverse aquatic species, a natural barrier for protection from coastal storms and erosion, and are a potential source of treatment for many of the world's diseases. From a commerce perspective, reef-supported tourism is a $30 billion industry worldwide, and the commercial value of United States fisheries from coral reefs is more than $100 million.

However, our coral reef ecosystems face many threats including pollution, climate change and coral bleaching, and overfishing to name a few. Coral reefs cover only one-tenth of one percent of the ocean floor, yet provide habitat for more than twenty-five percent of all marine species.

The original Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 recognized the need to preserve, sustain and restore the condition of these valuable coral reef ecosystems. The Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act of 2011 would strengthen NOAA's ability to comprehensively address threats to coral reefs and empower the agency with tools to ensure that damage to our coral reef ecosystems is prevented or effectively mitigated. It also establishes consistent practices for maintaining data, products, and information, and promotes the widespread availability and dissemination of that environmental information.

Finally, the bill allows the Secretary to further develop partnerships with foreign governments and international organizations-- partnerships that are critical not only to the understanding of our coral reef ecosystems, but also to their protection and restoration.

Thank you and I would urge you to support this important legislation to continue supporting NOAA's leadership role in coral reef conservation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the need for inclusion of pharmacists in the National Health Services Corps, NHSC, student loan repayment program. It is imperative that our Nation focus its efforts on increased access to affordable, high quality healthcare for our Nation's underserved communities. Today's pharmacist graduates with a professional doctorate degree. My home State of Hawaii is home to our only school of pharmacy program located at the University of Hawaii at Hilo and this year will mark the school's very first graduating class. Pharmacists are vital to our intent of increasing access to patient-centered, team-based healthcare for all individuals. They collaborate with providers across the continuum of care to improve medication-use related outcomes, provides access to prevention and wellness screening that, among others, can reduce tobacco use and increase immunization rates all of which support provider effectiveness and organizational efficiencies. The integration of the pharmacist across the continuum of care helps increase access to primary and preventive care and allows for better management of chronic disease. Pharmacists support prescribers by focusing on the management of medications preventing adverse events that lead to avoidable emergency room visits and hospital admissions. This collaborative effort among healthcare providers helps improve clinical and economic outcomes and increases patient satisfaction with their care.

The current approach of recruiting and retaining primary care practitioners may limit access to robust patient-centered, team-based care by patients in underserved communities. Today over 88 percent of pharmacy students borrow over $107,000 to help them pay for their education. The incorporation of comprehensive pharmacy services in these particular communities is a primary objective of the Health Resources and Services Administration patient-safety and clinical pharmacy services collaborative. Making pharmacists eligible to participate in NHSC loan repayment program will ensure that the reorganization of our healthcare system envisioned in legislation, federal action, and community-based models all benefit from patient- centered, team-based models of care that integrate comprehensive pharmacy services.

I urge you to consider the benefits of including pharmacists in the NHSC student loan repayment program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I am pleased to introduce my Commercial Seafood Consumer Protection Act, Seafood Safety Act. The Seafood Safety Act will strengthen the partnership between the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, and other appropriate Federal agencies, to coordinate Federal activities for ensuring that commercially distributed seafood in the United States meets the food quality and safety requirements of Federal law. The bill provides for no new jurisdiction and does not alter any existing jurisdiction given to FDA or any other agency. The bill does not include any authorization of appropriations, but seeks only to strengthen existing partnerships and share information.

The bill remains largely unchanged since I first introduced it in the 110th Congress, but this version, like the one I introduced in the 111th, incorporates the FTC as an additional partner since they have broad existing authority for consumer and interstate commerce fraud issues.

Specifically, the bill requires the Secretaries of Commerce, HHS, DHS, and the FTC to enter into agreements as necessary to strengthen cooperation on seafood safety, seafood labeling, and seafood fraud. Those agreements must address seafood testing and inspection; data standardization for seafood names; data coordination for the exportation, transportation, sale, harvest, or trade of seafood; seafood labeling compliance assurance; and information-sharing for observed non-compliance. The bill also increases the number of laboratories certified to inspection standards of the FDA and allows the Secretary of Commerce to increase the number and capacity of NOAA laboratories responsible for seafood safety testing. It allows for an increase in the percentage of seafood import shipments tested and inspected to improve detection of violations. Finally, the bill allows the Secretary of HHS to refuse entry of seafood imports from countries with known violations, and also allows the Secretary to permit individual seafood shipments from recognized and properly certified exporters.

For the safety of the American people, I remain committed to the Seafood Safety Act and look forward to continuing to work to ensure its passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the International Fisheries Stewardship and Enforcement Act, which I also introduced in the 111th. This bill would harmonize the enforcement provisions of the U.S. statutes for implementing international fisheries agreements to strengthen international fisheries enforcement.

Specifically it would grant the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and the U.S. Coast Guard authority to implement international fisheries laws, expand their authorities in carrying out investigations and enforcement activities, and establish interference with investigations as a prohibited act. It would also amend the enforcement provisions of statutes for implementing international fisheries agreements to conform to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, while increasing both civil and criminal penalties for violating international fisheries laws.

The bill also authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to maintain and make public a list of vessels engaged in illegal, unregulated, and unreported, IUU, fishing and authorize appropriate action against listed vessels, which will hopefully allow for strong strides in our fight against illegal activity.

Finally, by creating an International Cooperation and Assistance Program that will provide assistance for international capacity building efforts, training, outreach, and education, it is my hope that we are able to more-successfully combat IUU fishing and promote international marine conservation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

There be no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed

Mr. President, foreign registered ships now carry 97 percent of the imports and exports moving in United States international trade. These foreign vessels are held to lower standards than United States registered ships, and are virtually untaxed. Their costs of operation are, therefore, lower than United States ship operating costs, which explains their 97 percent market share.

Seven years ago, in order to help level the playing field for United States-flag ships that compete in international trade, Congress enacted, under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108- 357, Subchapter R, a ``tonnage tax'' that is based on the tonnage of a vessel, rather than taxing international income at a 35 percent corporate income tax rate. However, during the House and Senate conference, language was included, which states that a United States vessel cannot use the tonnage tax on international income if that vessel also operates in United States domestic commerce for more than 30 days per year.

This 30-day limitation dramatically limits the availability of the tonnage tax for those United States ships that operate in both domestic and international trade and, accordingly, severely hinders their competitiveness in foreign commerce. It is important to recognize that ships operating in United States domestic trade already have significant cost disadvantages. Specifically, they are built in higher priced United States shipyards; do not receive Maritime Security Payments, even when operated in international trade; and are owned by United States-based American corporations. The inability of these domestic operators to use the tonnage tax for their international service is a further, unnecessary burden on their competitive position in foreign commerce.

When windows of opportunity present themselves in international trade, American tax policy and maritime policy should facilitate the participation of these American-built ships. Instead, the 30-day limit makes them ineligible to use the tonnage tax, and further handicaps American vessels when competing for international cargo. Denying the tonnage tax to coastwise qualified ships further stymies the operation of American built ships in international commerce, and further exacerbates America's 97 percent reliance on foreign ships to carry its international cargo.

These concerns were of sufficient importance that in December 2006 Congress repealed the 30-day limit on domestic trading--but only for approximately 50 ships operating in the Great Lakes. These ships primarily operate in domestic trade on the Great Lakes, but also carry cargo between the United States and Canada in international trade, Section 415 of P.L. 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.

The identifiable universe of remaining ships other than the Great Lakes

ships that operate in domestic trade, but that may also operate temporarily in international trade, totals 13 United States flag vessels. These 13 ships normally operate in domestic trades that involve Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In the interest of providing tax equity to the United States corporations that own and operate these 13 vessels, my bill would repeal the tonnage tax 30-day limit on domestic operations and enable these vessels to utilize the tonnage tax on their international income so they receive the same treatment as other United States flag international operations. I stress that, under my bill, these ships will continue to pay the normal 35 percent United States corporate tax rate on their domestic income.

Repeal of the tonnage tax's 30-day limit on domestic operations is a necessary step toward providing tax equity between United States flag and foreign flag vessels. I strongly urge the tax writing committees of the U.S. Congress to give this legislation their expedited consideration and approval.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the legislation I am reintroducing today will extend to qualified teaching hospital support organizations the existing debt-financed safe harbor rule. Congress enacted that rule to support the public service activities of tax-exempt schools, universities, pension funds, and consortia of such institutions. Our teaching hospitals require similar support.

As a result, for-profit hospitals are moving from older areas to affluent locations where residents can afford to pay for treatment. These private hospitals typically have no mandate for community service. In contrast, non-profit hospitals must fulfill a community service requirement. They must stretch their resources to provide increased charitable care, update their facilities, and maintain skilled staffing resulting in closures of non-profit hospitals due to this financial strain.

The problem is particularly severe for teaching hospitals. Non-profit hospitals provide nearly all the postgraduate medical education in the United States. Post-graduate medical instruction is by nature not profitable. Instruction in the treatment of mental disorders and trauma is especially costly.

Despite their financial problem, the Nation's non-profit hospitals strive to deliver a very high level of service. A study in the December 2006 issue of Archives of International Medicine had surveyed hospital's quality of care in four areas of treatment. It found that non-profit hospitals consistently outperformed for-profit hospitals. The study also found that teaching hospitals had a higher level of performance in treatment and diagnosis, and that investments in technology and staffing leads to better care. In addition, it recommended that alternative payments and sources of payments be considered to finance these improvements.

The success and financial constraints of non-profit teaching hospitals is evident in work of the Queen's Health Systems in my State. This 151-year-old organization maintains the largest, private, nonprofit hospital in Hawaii. The Queen's Health Systems serve as the primary clinical teaching facility for the University of Hawaii's medical residency program in medicine, general surgery, orthopedic surgery, pathology, psychiatry, and is a clinical teaching facility for obstetrics-gynecology. It conducts educational and training programs for nurses and allied health personnel. The Queen's Health Systems operate the only trauma unit as well as the chief behavioral health program in the State. It maintains clinics throughout Hawaii, health programs, for Native Hawaiians, and a small hospital in the rural, economically depressed island of Molokai. Furthermore, the Queen's Health Systems annually provides millions of dollars in uncompensated health services. To help pay for these community benefits, the Queen's Health Systems, as other nonprofit teaching hospitals, relies significantly on income from its endowment.

In the past, the Congress has allowed tax-exempt schools, colleges, universities, and pension funds to invest their endowment in real estate so as to better meet their financial needs. Under the tax code, these organizations can incur debt for real estate investments without triggering the tax on unrelated business activities.

If the Queen's Health Systems were part of a university, it could borrow without incurring an unrelated business income tax. Not being part of a university, however, a teaching hospital and its support organization run into the tax code's debt financing prohibition. Non- profit teaching hospitals have the same if not more pressing needs as that of universities, schools, and pension trusts. The same safe harbor rule should be extended to teaching hospitals.

My bill would allow the support organizations for qualified teaching hospitals to engage in limited borrowing to enhance their endowment income. The proposal for teaching hospitals is actually more restricted than current law for schools, universities and pension trusts. Under safeguards developed by the Joint Committee on Taxation staff, a support organization for a teaching hospital cannot buy and develop land on a commercial basis. The proposal is tied directly to the organization endowment. The staff's revenue estimates show that the provision with its general application will help a number of teaching hospitals.

The U.S. Senate has several times before acted favorably on this proposal. The Senate adopted a similar provision in H.R. 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001. The House conferees on that bill, however, objected that the provision was unrelated to the bill's focus on individual tax relief and the conference deleted the provision from the final legislation. Subsequently, the Finance Committee included the provision in H.R. 7, the CARE Act of 2002, and in S. 476, the CARE Act of 2003, which the Senate passed. In a previous Congress' S. 6, the

Marriage, Opportunity, Relief, and Empowerment Act of 2005, which the Senate leadership introduced, also included the proposal.

As the Senate Finance Committee's hearings show, substantial health needs would go unmet if not for our charitable hospitals. It is time for the Congress to assist the Nation's teaching hospitals in their charitable, educational service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, nearly 16 years ago I stood before you to introduce a bill ``to provide an opportunity for the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada to have the merits of their claims against the United States determined by the United States Court of Federal Claims.''

That bill was introduced as Senate Resolution 223, which referred the Pottawatomi's claim to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and required the Chief Judge to report back to the Senate and provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable the Congress to determine whether the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is legal or equitable in nature, and the amount of damages, if any, which may be legally or equitably due from the United States.

Over a decade ago, the Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims reported back that the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has a legitimate and credible legal claim. Thereafter, by settlement stipulation, the United States has taken the position that it would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to settle the claims of the

ottawatomi Nation in Canada for the sum of $1,830,000. This settlement amount was reached by the parties after seven years of extensive, fact-intensive litigation. Independently, the court concluded that the settlement amount is ``not a gratuity'' and that the ``settlement was predicated on a credible legal claim.'' Pottawatomi Nation in Canada, et al. v. United States, Cong. Ref. 94-1037X at 28, Ct. Fed. Cl., September 15, 2000, Report of Hearing Officer.

The bill I introduce today is to authorize the appropriation of those funds that the United States has concluded would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to satisfy this legal claim. If enacted, this bill will finally achieve a measure of justice for a tribal nation that has for far too long been denied.

For the information of our colleagues, this is the historical background that informs the underlying legal claim of the Canadian Pottawatomi.

The members of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada are one of the descendant groups--successors-in-interest--of the historical Pottawatomi Nation and their claim originates in the latter part of the 18th century. The historical Pottawatomi Nation was aboriginal to the United States. They occupied and possessed a vast expanse in what is now the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. From 1795 to 1833, the United States annexed most of the traditional land of the Pottawatomi Nation through a series of treaties of cession--many of these cessions were made under extreme duress and the threat of military action. In exchange, the Pottawatomi were repeatedly made promises that the remainder of their lands would be secure and, in addition, that the United States would pay certain annuities to the Pottawatomi.

In 1829, the United States formally adopted a Federal the policy of removal; an effort to remove all Indian tribes from their traditional lands east of the Mississippi River to the west. As part of that effort, the government increasingly pressured the Pottawatomi to cede the remainder of their traditional lands, some five million acres in and around the city of Chicago, and remove their nation west. For years, the Pottawatomi steadfastly refused to cede the remainder of their tribal territory. Then in 1833, the United States, pressed by settlers seeking more land, sent a Treaty Commission to the Pottawatomi with orders to extract a cession of the remaining lands. The Treaty Commissioners spent 2 weeks using extraordinarily coercive tactics-- including threats of war--in an attempt to get the Pottawatomi to agree to cede their territory. Finally, those Pottawatomi who were present relented and on September 26, 1933, they ceded their remaining tribal estate through what would be known as the Treaty of Chicago. Seventy- seven members of the Pottawatomi Nation signed the Treaty of Chicago. Members of the ``Wisconsin Band'' were not present and did not assent to the cession.

In exchange for their land, the Treaty of Chicago provided that the United States would give to the Pottawatomi 5 million acres of comparable land in what is now Missouri. The Pottawatomi were familiar with the Missouri land, aware that it was similar to their homeland. However, the Senate refused to ratify that negotiated agreement and unilaterally switched the land to five million acres in Iowa. The Treaty Commissioners were sent back to acquire Pottawatomi assent to the Iowa land. All but seven of the original 77 signatories refused to accept the change even with promises that if they were dissatisfied ``justice would be done.''

Nevertheless, the Treaty of Chicago was ratified as amended by the Senate in 1834. Subsequently, the Pottawatomi sent a delegation to evaluate the land in Iowa. The delegation reported back that the land was ``not fit for snakes to live on.''

While some Pottawatomi moved westward, many of the Pottawatomi, particularly the Wisconsin Band, whose leaders never agreed to the Treaty, refused to do so. By 1836, the United States began to forcefully remove Pottawatomi who remained in the east with devastating consequences. As is true with many other American Indian tribes, the forced removal westward came at great human cost. Many of the Pottawatomi were forcefully removed

by mercenaries who were paid on a per capita basis government contract. Over one-half of the Indians removed by these means died en route. Those who reached Iowa were almost immediately removed further to inhospitable parts of Kansas against their will and without their consent.

After learning of these conditions, many of the Pottawatomi, including most of the Wisconsin Band, vigorously resisted forced removal. To avoid Federal troops and mercenaries, much of the Wisconsin Band ultimately found it necessary to flee to Canada. They were often pursued to the border by government troops, government-paid mercenaries or both. Official files of the Canadian and United States governments disclose that many Pottawatomi were forced to leave their homes without their horses or any of their possessions other than the clothes on their backs.

By the late 1830s, the government refused payment of annuities to any Pottawatomi groups that had not removed west. In the 1860s, members of the Wisconsin Band--those still in their traditional territory and those forced to flee to Canada--petitioned Congress for the payment of their treaty annuities promised under the Treaty of Chicago and all other cession treaties. By the Act of June 25, 1864, 13 Stat. 172, Congress declared that the Wisconsin Band did not forfeit their annuities by not removing and directed that the share of the Pottawatomi Indians who had refused to relocate to the west should be retained for their use in the United States Treasury. H.R. Rep. No. 470, 64th Cong., p. 5, as quoted on page 3 of memo dated October 7, 1949. Nevertheless, much of the money was never paid to the Wisconsin Band.

In 1903, the Wisconsin Band--most of whom now resided in three areas, the States of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Province of Ontario-- petitioned the Senate once again to pay them their fair portion of annuities as required by the law and treaties, Sen. Doc. No. 185, 57th Cong., 2d Sess. By the act of June 21, 1906, 34 Stat. 380, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to investigate claims made by the Wisconsin Band and establish a roll of the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi that still remained in the east. In addition, Congress ordered the Secretary to determine ``the [Wisconsin Bands] proportionate shares of the annuities, trust funds, and other moneys paid to or expended for the tribe to which they belong in which the claimant Indians have not shared, [and] the amount of such monies retained in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the clamant Indians as directed the provision of the Act of June 25, 1864.''

In order to carry out the 1906 Act, the Secretary of Interior directed Dr. W.M. Wooster to conduct an enumeration of Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi in both the United States and Canada. Dr. Wooster documented 2,007 Wisconsin Pottawatomi: 457 in Wisconsin and Michigan and 1,550 in Canada. He also concluded that the proportionate share of annuities for the Pottawatomi in Wisconsin and Michigan was $477,339 and that the proportionate share of annuities due the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was $1,517,226. Congress thereafter enacted a series of appropriation Acts from June 30, 1913 to May 29, 1928 to satisfy most of the money owed to those Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi residing in the United States. However, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi who resided in Canada were never paid their share of the tribal funds.

Since that time, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has diligently and continuously sought to enforce their treaty rights, although until this Congressional reference, they had never been provided their day in court. In 1910, the United States and Great Britain entered into an agreement for the purpose of dealing with claims between both countries, including claims of Indian tribes within their respective jurisdictions, by creating the Pecuniary Claims Tribunal. From 1910 to 1938, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada diligently sought to have their claim heard in this international forum. Overlooked for more pressing international matters of the period, including the intervention of World War I, the Pottawatomi then came to the U.S. Congress for redress of their claim.

In 1946, the Congress waived its sovereign immunity and established the Indian Claims Commission for the purpose of granting tribes their long-delayed day in court. The Indian Claims Commission Act, ICCA, granted the Commission jurisdiction over claims such as the type involved here. In 1948, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi from both sides of the border brought suit together in the Indian Claims Commission for recovery of damages. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., No. 28 (Ind. Cl. Comm. Filed May 4, 1948). Unfortunately, the Indian Claims Commission dismissed Pottawatomi Nation in Canada's part of the claim ruling that the Commission had no jurisdiction to consider claims of Indians living outside territorial limits of the United States. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., 115 Ct. Cl. 823, 1950. The claim of the Wisconsin Band residing in the United States that was filed in the Indian Claims Commission was finally decided in favor of the Wisconsin Band by the U.S. Claims Court in 1983. Hannahville Indian Community v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 445, 1983. The Court of Claims concluded that the Wisconsin Band was owed a member's proportionate share of unpaid annuities from 1838 through 1907 due under various treaties, including the Treaty of Chicago and entered judgment for the American Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi for any monies not paid. Still the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was excluded because of the jurisdictional limits of the ICCA.

Undaunted, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada came to the Senate, and after careful consideration, we finally gave them their long-awaited day in court through the Congressional reference process. The court has now reported back to us that their claim is meritorious and that the payment that this bill would make constitutes a ``fair, just and equitable'' resolution to this claim.

The Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has sought justice for over 150 years. They have done all that we asked in order to establish their claim. Now it is time for us to finally live up to the promise our government made so many years ago. It will not correct all the wrongs of the past, but it is a demonstration that this government is willing to admit when it has left an unfulfilled obligation, and that the United States is willing to do what we can to see that justice, so long delayed, is not now denied.

Finally, I would just note that the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is supported through specific resolutions by the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest, largest and most- representative tribal organization here in the United States, the Assembly of First Nations, which includes all recognized tribal entities in Canada, and each and every of the Pottawatomi tribal groups that remain in the United States today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would establish a Native American Economic Advisory Council. This Council's primary duties would be to consult, coordinate, and make recommendations to Federal agencies for the purpose of improving the substandard economic conditions that exist in our Native communities.

Currently, there is no Council, and despite the Federal Government's ``trust'' relationship with Native American tribes, Native Americans themselves continue to rank lowest in quality of life standings. As a nation we need to preserve our Native communities as they are rich with cultural significance and living history.

Native communities are considered ``emerging economies'' that have stalled because of the current economic situation. This bill is an attempt to keep these communities moving by educating, empowering, and encouraging our future Native American leaders to create sustainable economic growth programs in their own communities.

In Hawaii, the cost of living ranges from 30 percent to 60 percent higher than the national average. We have to start planning for economic stability in the future and this bill provides an opportunity to do so. I look forward to working with my colleagues on reinvesting in our Nation's future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would provide authority for the establishment of branch banking facilities on Indian reservations so that the Federally-chartered Native American Bank could enable access to financial services to Indian tribes and their citizens.

Many years ago, as part of my service as Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I met with tribal leaders to discuss the challenges of economic development in Indian country. At that time, I suggested that they might give consideration to a means by which tribal governments could pool their resources and thereby provide the capital that other tribal governments could employ on a short-term loan basis to undertake reservation-based projects that held the potential of stimulating economic growth in their tribal communities.

The tribal leaders with whom I met were very interested in this idea, and in the ensuing years, went forward and established the Native American Bank--which is headquartered in Denver--but continues to manage its first affiliated bank on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana.

As my colleagues know, there are few financial institutions located either on or near Indian reservations, and sadly, there is evidence that some financial institutions have found it apparently necessary to either charge very high rates that they associate with the risk of doing business in Indian country, or to deny financial assistance altogether.

The Native American Bank has stepped into that latter void and has been providing meaningful financial services to tribal governments and their citizens for a number of years.

This bill contains amendments to the McFadden Act that have been carefully sculpted to address only this narrow expansion of capacity on the part of financial institutions serving Indian country.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on behalf of the United States during World War II.

Our Filipino veterans fought side by side with Americans and sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes older, it is important for our Nation to extend its firm commitment to the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us the great Nation that we are today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act.

The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes on the west coast and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact- finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to the U.S., and interned in American camps.

This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm across international borders, into a community that did not pose an immediate threat to our Nation, in order to use them, devoid of passports or any other proof of citizenship, for exchange with Americans with Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our Government, with the help of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons of Japanese descent from streets, homes, and workplaces. Approximately 2,300 undocumented persons were brought to camp sites in the U.S., where they were held under armed watch, and then held in reserve for prisoner exchange. Those used in an exchange were sent to Japan, a foreign country that many had never set foot on since their ancestors' immigration to Latin America.

Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, some Japanese Latin Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin America. Others remained in the U.S., because their country of origin in Latin America refused their re-entry, because they were unable to present a passport.

When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin Americans, it seemed unbelievable, but indeed, it happened. It is a part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps in our country.

The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in 1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans. Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. Government to relocate, intern, and deport Japanese persons formerly living in Latin America. Because this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was unable to fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to include in its published study, urging a deeper investigation.

I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980 Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin Americans subject to a program of relocation, internment, and deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would give finality to, and complete the account of Federal actions to detain and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to reauthorize Title VIII of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act. Title VIII provides authority for the appropriation of funds for the construction of low-income housing for Native Hawaiians and further provides authority for access to loan guarantees associated with the construction of housing to serve Native Hawaiians.

Three studies have documented the acute housing needs of Native Hawaiians--which include the highest rates of overcrowding and homelessness in the State of Hawaii. Those same studies indicate that inadequate housing rates for Native Hawaiians are amongst the highest in the Nation.

The reauthorization of Title VIII will support the continuation of efforts to assure that the native people of Hawaii may one day have access to housing opportunities that are comparable to those now enjoyed by other Americans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill which is of great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation is designed to end space-available travel privileges on military aircraft to those who have been totally disabled in the service of our country.

Currently, retired members of the Armed Services are permitted to travel on a space-available basis on non-scheduled military flights within the continental United States, and on scheduled overseas flights operated by the Military Airlift Command. My bill would provide the same benefits for veterans with 100 percent service-connected disabilities.

We owe these heroic men and women who have given so much to our country a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can never repay them for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation, but we can surely try to make their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. One way in which we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these distinguished American veterans. I have received numerous letters from all over the country attesting to the importance attached to this issue by veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their concern and join me in saying ``thank you'' by supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to enable those former prisoners of war who have been separated honorably from their respective services and who have been rated as having a 30 percent service-connected disability to have the use of both the military commissary and post exchange privileges. While I realize it is impossible to adequately compensate one who has endured long periods of incarceration at the hands of our Nation's enemies, I do feel this gesture is both meaningful and important to those concerned because it serves as a reminder that our nation has not forgotten their sacrifices.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in our effort to accommodate many Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost sight of the significance of this day to our nation. My bill would restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the President to issue a proclamation designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to introduce the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act. This bipartisan legislation will dramatically reduce prescription drug costs by preventing one of the most egregious, anti-consumer tactics ever devised to keep generic drugs off the market.

This amendment would combat ``pay-for-delay'' agreements between brand name and generic drug companies which delay entry of low-cost generic competition. These pay-for-delay agreements are estimated by the FTC to cost consumers $3.5 billion each year, and are estimated by the CBO estimates to cost the federal government more than $2.8 billion over the next decade in higher drug reimbursement payments.

In 2008, $235 billion were spent on prescription drugs in the United States. Generic drugs play a crucial role in containing rising prescription drug costs, by offering consumers therapeutically identical alternatives to brand-name drugs, at a significantly reduced cost. Studies have shown that generic competition to brand name drugs can reduce drug prices by as much as 80 percent. However, in recent years generic entry has frequently been blocked by anti-competitive, anti-consumer agreements between brand-name and generic drug manufacturers that limit, delay, or otherwise prevent competition from generic drugs.

In pay-for-delay agreements, a brand-name drug manufacturer settles patent litigation by paying off a generic competitor with large amounts of cash, or other valuable consideration to stay off the market until expiration--or a time close to expiration--of the brand-name patent. For example, in 2006, the CEO of Cephalon, which makes the sleep disorder pill Provigil, praised the deals his company made with four generic drug-makers to keep generic versions of Provigil off the market until 2012. ``We were able to get six more years of patent protection,'' he said. ``That's $4 billion in sales that no one expected.'' Unfortunately, that $4 billion came from the pockets of American consumers.

At their core, pay-for-delay agreements permit brand-name drug companies to pay off competitors not to compete. The brand name drug company wins because it reaps the profits from eliminating competition. The generic drug company wins because they get paid millions of dollars to do nothing more than drop their patent challenge. But consumers and the American taxpayer loses, to the tune of billions of dollars in higher drug costs every year.

Agreements between competitors, like these, are the most nefarious type of antitrust violation. Unfortunately, when the FTC has challenged ``pay-for-delay'' agreements, courts have favored big industry interests over consumers. Courts have wrongly concluded that this type of basic antitrust violation is immune from antitrust law because it involves the settlement of a patent challenge. In other words, it is permissible for competitors to collude to when it involves a patented drug and in order to keep lower cost drugs out of consumers' medicine cabinets. These misguided court rulings are what make passage of our legislation so vital.

For years, we have seen the use of anticompetitive agreements increase. From 2000 to 2004, there were twenty settlements of drug patent litigation, but we saw no pay-for-delay agreements because drug companies assumed they violated antitrust law. But, these settlements became all too prevalent following three courts of appeals decisions in 2005 which effectively found them to be per se legal and prevented the FTC from taking action on behalf of consumers against these settlements.

In the 2 years following these 2005 court decisions, 28 out of 61 patent settlements had provisions in which the brand name drug company made payments to the generic manufacturer in exchange for the generic manufacturer agreeing to delay entry of generic competition. Clearly, pay-for-delay agreements are not necessary to settle a case because during that same time, 33 cases settled without delaying entry to consumers in exchange for a payment.

Last fall, the FTC released a report which found a record 19 pay-for- delay settlements in fiscal year 2009, the highest ever recorded in a single year. This report convincingly demonstrates the danger these deals pose to consumers. Each of these deals will lead to higher drug costs for millions of consumers. Each of these deals cost the Federal Government large sums in taxpayer money in higher drug reimbursement costs. Each of these deals deprive consumers of needed drug competition. The time for action to stop these anti-consumer, anticompetitive back room deals is now.

Our legislation passed the Judiciary Committee last Congress with a strong bipartisan majority. The Judiciary Committee made several changes to the legislation as it is was introduced in the 111th Congress, and the legislation I am introducing today includes all of these changes. I believe the current version of this legislation represents a well balanced approach to this problem. Under my bill, these settlement agreements will be presumed to be illegal. However, the FTC will need to pursue legal action prior to these agreements being found illegal, and the drug companies will have an opportunity to convince the Judge why these agreement are not in fact anticompetitive. If found illegal, the FTC will have the authority to assess civil penalties up to three times the profits gained by the drug companies.

I believe this measure strikes the right balance. By presuming these agreements to be illegal, and armed with strong civil penalties, this bill will deter drug companies from entering into anti-competitive and anti-consumer ``pay-for-delay'' settlements in the first place. By giving the drug companies a hearing before a neutral tribunal, the drug companies will have their day in court to go forward with those agreements which truly do not harm competition.

The evidence is clear. These ``pay-for-delay'' agreements between brand name and generic drug companies deny consumers the benefits of generic drug competition and costs consumers and the Federal Government billions of dollars. My legislation will give the FTC strong remedies to prevent these agreements when it concludes they harm competition. Millions and millions of Americans that struggle to pay their prescription drug costs and who need low priced generic alternatives are awaiting action on this amendment. I urge my colleagues support for the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation essential to restoring competition to the nation's crucial freight railroad sector. Freight railroads are essential to shipping a myriad of vital goods, everything from coal used to generate electricity to grain used for basic foodstuffs. But for decades the freight railroads have been insulated from the normal rules of competition followed by almost all other parts of our economy by an outmoded and unwarranted antitrust exemption. So today I am introducing, along with my colleagues, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2011. This bipartisan legislation will eliminate the obsolete antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition. This legislation is identical to the legislation that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in the last Congress by a unanimous 15-0 vote.

Our legislation will eliminate unwarranted and outmoded antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition and result in higher prices to millions of consumers every day. Consolidation in the railroad industry in recent years has resulted in only four Class I railroads providing nearly 90 percent of the Nation's freight rail transportation, as measured by revenue. The harmful result of this industry concentration for railroad shippers is well documented. A 2006 General Accounting Office Report found that shippers in many geographic areas ``may be paying excessive rates due to a lack of competition in these markets.'' These unjustified cost increases cause consumers to suffer higher electricity bills because a utility must pay for the high cost of transporting coal, result in higher prices for goods produced by manufacturers who rely on railroads to transport raw materials, and reduce earnings for American farmers who ship their products by rail and raise food prices paid by consumers.

A recent staff report, issued September 15, 2010, of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation also makes clear how railroads have benefited from the unique combination of deregulation and large- scale antitrust immunity, to the detriment of rail shippers and consumers. This Report--titled ``The Current State of the Class I Freight Rail Industry''--stated that ``[t]he four Class I railroads that today dominate the U.S. rail shipping market are achieving returns on revenue and operating ratios that rank them among the most profitable businesses in the U.S. economy.'' The four largest railroads nearly doubled their collective profit margins in the last decade to 13 percent ranking the railroad industry the fifth most profitable industry as ranking by Fortune magazine.

Increased concentration and lack of antitrust scrutiny have had clear price effects--according to the Commerce Committee Report, since 2004, ``Class I railroads have been raising prices by an average of 5 percent a year above inflation.'' The recent Commerce Committee Report concluded that ``Class I freight railroads have regained the pricing power they lacked in the 1980s, and are now some of the most highly profitable businesses in the U.S. economy.'' Given the industry's concentration and pricing power, the case for full fledged application of the antitrust laws is plain.

The ill-effects of railroad industry consolidation are exemplified in the case of ``captive shippers''--industries served by only one railroad. Over the past several years, these captive shippers have faced spiking rail rates. They are the victims of monopolistic practices and price gouging by the single railroad that serves them, price increases which they are forced to pass along into the price of their products, and ultimately, to consumers. And in many cases, the ordinary protections of antitrust law are unavailable to these captive shippers--instead, the railroads are protected by a series of outmoded exemptions from the normal rules of antitrust law to which all other industries must abide.

These unwarranted antitrust exemptions have put the American consumer at risk, and in Wisconsin, victims of a lack of railroad competition abound. From Dairyland Power Cooperative in La Crosse to Wolf River Lumber in New London, companies in my state are feeling the crunch of years of railroad consolidation. To help offset a 93 percent increase in shipping rates in 2006, Dairyland Power Cooperative had to raise electricity rates by 20 percent. The reliability, efficiency, and affordability of freight rail have all declined, and Wisconsin consumers feel the pinch.

And similar stories exist across the country. We held a hearing at the Antitrust Subcommittee in the 110th Congress which detailed numerous instances of anti-competitive conduct by the dominant freight railroads and at which railroad shippers testified as to the need to repeal the outmoded and unwarranted antitrust exemptions which left them without remedies. Dozens of organizations, unions and trade groups affected by monopolistic railroad conduct endorsed the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act in the last Congress. Supporters of the legislation include 20 state Attorneys General, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, NARUC, the Consumers Federation of America, Consumers Union, the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Chemistry Council, the American Corn Growers Association, the American Forest and Paper Association, the American Public Power Association, and the American Bar Association Antitrust Section.

The current antitrust exemptions protect a wide range of railroad industry conduct from scrutiny by governmental antitrust enforcers. Railroad mergers and acquisitions are exempt from antitrust law and are reviewed solely by the Surface Transportation Board. Railroads that engage in collective ratemaking are also exempt from antitrust law. Railroads subject to the regulation of the Surface Transportation Board are also exempt from private antitrust lawsuits seeking the termination of anti-competitive practices via injunctive relief. Our bill will eliminate these exemptions.

No good reason exists for them. While railroad legislation in recent decades--including most notably the Staggers Rail Act of 1980-- deregulated much railroad rate setting from the oversight of the Surface Transportation Board, these obsolete antitrust exemptions remained in place, insulating a consolidating industry from obeying the rules of fair competition. And there is no reason to treat railroads any differently from dozens of other regulated industries in our economy that are fully subject to antitrust law--whether the telecommunications sector regulated by the FCC, or the aviation industry regulation by the Department of Transportation, just name just two examples.

Our bill will bring railroad mergers and acquisitions under the purview of

the Clayton Act, allowing the federal government, state attorneys general and private parties to file suit to enjoin anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions. It will restore the review of these mergers to the agencies where they belong--the Justice Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. It will eliminate the exemption that prevents FTC's scrutiny of railroad common carriers. It will eliminate the antitrust exemption for railroad collective ratemaking. It will allow state attorneys general and other private parties to sue railroads for treble damages and injunctive relief for violations of the antitrust laws, including collusion that leads to excessive and unreasonable rates. This legislation will force railroads to play by the rules of free competition like all other businesses.

Significantly, our bill will not affect in way the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board to regulate freight railroads. It will in no way limit or alter the authority of the STB; the STB will continue to exercise full jurisdiction over the railroad industry.

In sum, by clearing out this thicket of outmoded antitrust exemptions, railroads will be subject to the same laws as the rest of the economy. Government antitrust enforcers will finally have the tools to prevent anti-competitive transactions and practices by railroads. Likewise, private parties will be able to utilize the antitrust laws to deter anti-competitive conduct and to seek redress for their injuries.

It is time to put an end to the abusive practices of the Nation's freight railroads. On the Antitrust Subcommittee, we have seen that in industry after industry, vigorous application of our Nation's antitrust laws is the best way to eliminate barriers to competition, to end monopolistic behavior, to keep prices low and quality of service high. The railroad industry is no different. All those who rely on railroads to ship their products--whether it is an electric utility for its coal, a farmer to ship grain, or a factory to acquire its raw materials or ship out its finished product--deserve the full application of the antitrust laws to end the anti-competitive abuses all too prevalent in this industry today. I urge my colleagues support the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2011.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation essential to consumers receiving the best prices on every product from electronics to clothing to groceries. My bill, the Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act, will restore the nearly century old rule that it is illegal under antitrust law for a manufacturer to set a minimum price below which a retailer cannot sell the manufacturer's product, a practice known as ``resale price maintenance'' or ``vertical price fixing.'' This bill wil ensure that consumers can obtain discount prices at the very time they need them the most.

In June 2007, overturning a 96-year-old precedent, a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court majority in the Leegin case turned the Sherman Act on its head to overturn this basic rule of the marketplace which has served consumers well for nearly a century. My bill--identical to legislation I introduced in the last two Congresses--will correct this misinterpretation of antitrust law and restore the per se ban on vertical price fixing. My bill has been endorsed by the National Association of Attorneys General, 38 state attorneys general, as well as numerous antitrust experts, including former FTC Chairman Pitofsky and former FTC Commissioner Harbour, and the leading consumer groups, including Consumers Union, the Consumers Federation of America, and the American Antitrust Institute. This legislation passed the Judiciary Committee last year.

The reasons for this legislation are compelling. Allowing manufacturers to set minimum retail prices will threaten the very existence of discounting and discount stores, and lead to higher prices for consumers. For nearly a century the rule against vertical price fixing permitted discounters to sell goods at the most competitive price. Many credit this rule with the rise of today's low price, discount retail giants--stores like Target, Best Buy, Walmart, and the internet sites Amazon and EBay, which offer consumers a wide array of highly desired products at discount prices.

Ample evidence exists of the pernicious effect of allowing vertical price fixing. For nearly 40 years until 1975 when Congress passed the Consumer Goods Pricing Act, Federal law permitted States to enact so- called ``fair trade'' laws legalizing vertical price fixing. Studies the Department of Justice conducted in the late 1960s indicated that prices were between 18-27 percent higher in the States that allowed vertical price fixing than the States that had not passed such ``fair trade'' laws, costing consumers at least $2.1 billion per year at that time.

Given the tremendous economic growth in the intervening decades, the likely harm to consumers if vertical price fixing were permitted is even greater today. In his dissenting opinion in the Leegin case, Justice Breyer estimated that if only 10 percent of manufacturers engaged in vertical price fixing, the volume of commerce affected today would be $300 billion, translating into retail bills that would average $750 to $1,000 higher for the average family of four every year.

The experience of the last three years since the Leegin decision has begun to confirm our fears regarding the dangers from permitting vertical price fixing. The Wall Street Journal has reported that more than 5,000 companies have implemented minimum pricing policies. A new business--known as ``internet monitors''--has materialized for companies that scour the Internet in search of retailers selling products at a bargain. When such bargain sellers are detected, the manufacturer is alerted so that they can demand the seller

end its discounting. There have been many reports of everything from consumer electronics and video games to baby products and toys, rental cars and bicycles being subject to minimum retail pricing policies.

Defenders of the Leegin decision argue that today's giant retailers such as Wal-Mart, Best Buy or Target can ``take care of themselves'' and have sufficient market power to fight manufacturer efforts to impose retail prices. Whatever the merits of that argument, I am particularly worried about the effect of this new rule permitting minimum vertical price fixing on the next generation of discount retailers. If new discount retailers can be prevented from selling products at a discount at the behest of an established retailer worried about the competition, we will imperil an essential element of retail competition so beneficial to consumers.

In overturning the per se ban on vertical price fixing, the Supreme Court in Leegin announced this practice should instead be evaluated under what is known as the ``rule of reason.'' Under the rule of reason, a business practice is illegal only if it imposes an ``unreasonable'' restraint on competition. The burden is on the party challenging the practice to prove in court that the anti-competitive effects of the practice outweigh its justifications. In the words of the Supreme Court, the party challenging the practice must establish the restraint's ``history, nature and effect.'' Whether the businesses involved possess market power ``is a further, significant consideration'' under the rule of reason.

In short, establishing that any specific example of vertical price fixing violates the rule of reason is an onerous and difficult burden for a plaintiff in an antitrust case. Parties complaining about vertical price fixing are likely to be small discount stores or consumers with limited resources to engage in lengthy and complicated antitrust litigation. These plaintiffs are unlikely to possess the facts and complicated economic evidence necessary to make the extensive showing necessary to prove a case under the ``rule of reason.'' In the words of former FTC Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour, applying the rule of reason to vertical price fixing ``is a virtual euphemism for per se legality.''

Our Antitrust Subcommittee conducted two extensive hearings into the Leegin decision and the likely effects of abolishing the ban on vertical price fixing in the last two Congresses. Both former FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky and former FTC Commissioner Harbour strongly endorsed restoring the ban on vertical price fixing. Marcy Syms, CEO of the Syms discount clothing stores, and a senior executive of the Burlington Coat Factory discount chain testified as well, both citing the likely dangers to the ability of discounters such as Syms to survive after abolition of the rule against vertical price fixing. Ms. Syms also stated that ``it would be very unlikely for her to bring an antitrust suit'' challenging vertical price fixing under the rule of reason because her company ``would not have the resources, knowledge or a strong enough position in the market place to make such action prudent.'' Our examination of this issue has produced compelling evidence for the continued necessity of a ban on vertical price fixing to protect discounting and low prices for consumers.

The Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act will accomplish this goal. My legislation is quite simple and direct. It would simply add one sentence to Section 1 of the Sherman Act--the basic provision addressing combinations in restraint of trade--a statement that any agreement with a retailer, wholesaler or distributor setting a price below which a product or service cannot be sold violates the law. No balancing or protracted legal proceedings will be necessary. Should a manufacturer enter into such an agreement it will unquestionably violate antitrust law. The uncertainty and legal impediments to antitrust enforcement of vertical price fixing will be replaced by simple and clear legal rule--a legal rule that will promote low prices and discount competition to the benefit of consumers every day.

In the last few decades, millions of consumers have benefited from an explosion of retail competition from new large discounters in virtually every product, from clothing to electronics to groceries, in both ``big box'' stores and on the Internet. Our legislation will correct the Supreme Court's abrupt change to antitrust law, and will ensure that today's vibrant competitive retail marketplace and the savings gained by American consumers from discounting will not be jeopardized by the abolition of the ban on vertical price fixing. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Fast Track to College Act, a bill to support the expansion of dual enrollment programs and Early College High Schools. Such programs allow young people to earn up to two years of college credit while also earning their high school diploma.

I believe the key to our country's economic recovery is a strong investment in our young people. By investing in education, we ensure that today's students are well prepared to compete in a global economy.

Far too many of our students are falling behind in school, and as students struggle with their studies or drop out of school altogether, their futures and the health of our workforce are at risk. Young people who drop out of high school are at increased risk for negative outcomes such as unemployment and incarceration, as well as reliance on public assistance for healthcare, housing, and other basic needs--outcomes that have high costs for their communities and our economy. Conversely, adults who earn bachelor's degrees earn on average two-thirds more than high school graduates and $1 million more than high school dropouts over their working lives.

Studies show many youth drop out because they don't see a practical reason to complete high school or go on to get a college degree. Maybe they don't think they can get into college, don't think they can afford to go, or just don't see the point in going. Dual enrollment programs and Early College High Schools address these issues by showing students that they can succeed in college courses while saving time and money. They don't drop out because they can see that they are on track to a degree--and ultimately a job. By earning college credit, and possibly even an Associate's Degree, students are better prepared after high school to continue their education or pursue career training.

That is why I ask my colleagues to support this bill, which provides competitive grant funding for Early College High Schools and other dual enrollment programs that allow low-income students to earn college credit and a high school diploma at the same time. These programs put students on the fast track to college and increase the odds that they will not only graduate, but also go on to continue their education and secure higher-paying jobs.

This bill authorizes $140,000,000 for competitive 6-year grants to schools, with priority given to schools that serve low-income students. The funding will help defray the costs of implementing new programs, strengthening existing programs, and providing students and teachers with the resources they need to succeed in early college high schools and other dual enrollment programs. The bill also includes $10 million for states to provide support for these programs, as well as an evaluation component so we can measure the program's effectiveness.

I am proud to sponsor this legislation, with the support of Senator Brown of Ohio, because I believe this investment in our schools will help solve the dropout crisis and secure America's future by ensuring that all young people can compete in today's global economy. Further, I believe that all children, regardless of income or other factors, deserve equal opportunities to fulfill their potential, and it is both morally and fiscally responsible for this Congress to invest in high- quality educational programs that help our youth reach their potential.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three bills that I believe will be important for our small businesses, especially our smaller manufacturers. In each of these bills, there is an emphasis on keeping our research and development and manufacturing here in the United States, rewarding our innovative American businesses with predictable credits and equitable treatment, and creating good paying jobs.

The first bill, S. 155, is designed to incentivize keeping jobs in the United States by increasing the existing Research & Development tax credit for companies that produce most of their goods domestically. The Domestic Jobs Innovation Bonus Act would create a bonus R&D Credit that increases incrementally to reward a higher percentage of domestic production. To earn the bonus credit, a company would need to make at least half of their products domestically--and for doing so would receive an additional 2 percentage points on top of the existing R&D credit. The credit would max out at a 10 percentage point increase for companies with 90 percent to 100 percent of their receipts from domestic production. For example, a company with 100 percent domestic production that would normally receive a 20 percent R&D tax credit would receive a 30 percent credit under this proposal.

To be clear, this isn't a tax credit that will benefit every company that has a presence in the United States. It

may not benefit many large, multi-national corporations, but those companies will still have access to the existing R&D Credit, which I support as well.

It is my hope that a credit like this could convince a company that is deciding whether to manufacture and research here or abroad, to choose America.

I am introducing a second bill, S. 156, with Senators Corker and Alexander that would establish a uniform energy efficiency descriptor for all water heaters and improve the testing methods by which that descriptor is determined. Currently, water heaters are lumped into two categories under two federal statutes, based on arbitrary gallon capacity and energy input ratings. ``Smaller'' water heaters are covered by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, NAECA, and must be rated using an energy factor or EF rating. ``Larger'' water heaters are within the scope of the Energy Policy Act, EPACT, and must be rated using a thermal efficiency or TE rating. Not only do the testing methods differ, but a manufacturer is forbidden to place an EF rating on a TE-sized unit, and vice-versa.

This legislation would direct the Department of Energy to work with industry stakeholders to develop a uniform energy efficiency descriptor that applies to all sizes of water heaters. It also would develop a test method to accurately determine that descriptor for all types of water heaters. It is my hope that the water heating manufacturing community can develop and implement the new test method and descriptor that will eliminate confusion and enable consumers and business owners to make informed purchasing decisions on water heaters. In today's tough economy, energy bills continue to stretch family budgets. Families can save money and conserve energy if they have accurate information about how much energy home appliances consume.

The difference between EF and TE ratings was based on the assumption that smaller units were exclusively for residential uses while larger units were exclusively for commercial purposes. Due to advances in manufacturing technology, the assumptions underlying the earlier dividing line are no longer accurate. In fact, both larger and smaller units made by leading U.S. manufacturers are used in residences without regard to which Federal law applies. Yet, Federal legislation continues to be written by taking this distinction into account.

In particular, these American companies are affected by the current disparate energy standards because it can disadvantage some of their products. Establishing one standard will help breakdown a patchwork of incentives and efficiency designations at both the state and federal level. For example, water heaters rated with a TE rating are not eligible for the ENERGY STAR label, and accordingly, not eligible for many state appliance rebate programs that link their incentives to an ENERGY STAR designation. This bill will make it so all products are competing on a level playing field for all incentives.

In addition to the energy savings that this bill will provide, it is also about the jobs potential for companies making these cutting-edge products. A globally-recognized cluster of water technology companies is emerging in the City of Milwaukee and surrounding counties. An important part of this effort is innovative water heater technologies. Incentivizing these products through predictable and equitable standards is vital to these companies.

The third bill, S. 157, would extend the Section 48 investment tax credit to solar light pipe technology. This is a promising new technology that could save our businesses money on their electricity bills, and reduce our overall energy usage--two goals on which we can all agree. Light pipes collect natural light, and then through the use of sensor technology, automatically dim the other lights in a building--thereby using less electricity for the same amount of light.

Despite the clear benefits of the technology, high cost has kept many businesses from using light pipes. Adding this technology to Section 48 will provide that boost that these businesses need to justify the expense.

I became aware of this technology because one of the companies that makes it is based in Manitowoc, Wisconsin. This company, Orion Energy Systems, employs about 250 people, and has been growing even during this tough economic time. In addition to light pipes, Orion makes energy efficient lighting systems, and partners with wind and solar power companies to significantly reduce the energy costs for many of our largest and most distinguished companies. Orion technology has been deployed at more than 6,000 facilities, and has worked with 126 of the Fortune 500 companies. Since 2001, Orion customers have saved more than $1 billion in electricity costs by displacing nearly 600 megawatts.

This credit will help Orion and companies like it create thousands of jobs through the production of the technology as well as installing it.

I urge my colleagues to support all of these bills, and I hope that they are enacted as part of an agenda that focuses on innovation, job creation, and shoring up our vital manufacturing sector.

I compliment Senator Klobuchar on her leadership in trying to find, first of all, leadership in supporting biofuels and alternative energy but also working very hard for the last few weeks to find a compromise on this issue that is a very difficult issue and very divisive here within the Senate.

So we are voting at 2:00 today on these amendments to which Senator Klobuchar has already referred. The first is an amendment by Senators Feinstein and Coburn repealing the incentive for domestically produced ethanol. I emphasize ``domestically produced'' because we do not have to worry about oil sheiks robbing us of all of our resources when you burn ethanol the way you do when you burn imported gasoline. The second amendment is offered by Senator McCain, prohibiting the U.S. Department of Agriculture from using funds for the installation of blender pumps.

These amendments won't lower the price of gasoline at the pump. That is what people today are concerned about--the price of gas at the pump. These amendments won't lessen our dependence on foreign oil. We spend $835 million every day importing oil. And these amendments won't create a single job in the United States. In fact, they will do just the opposite. They will raise the price of gasoline, make us more dependent on foreign oil, and they won't create a single job. Most importantly, these amendments also won't save the taxpayers any money because they stand little chance of being enacted. Even if the amendments were to pass today, they won't get out of this Chamber because of our Constitution that says that revenue measures must originate in the House of Representatives. So when this bill, if it passes the Senate, goes to the House, they are going to reject it, or they use the term ``blue slip'' this bill, and it is going to come back to the Senate. So this bill, with these amendments, is dead on arrival in the other body.

It is also dead on arrival at the White House. We have had indications in a statement that President Obama opposes repealing the incentives and is open to new approaches that meet today's challenges and save taxpayers money.

I remember one of the first policy discussions I had with then-new Senator Obama. I was chairman of the Finance Committee. He came up, and we talked about what we could do working together to promote ethanol as an alternative energy. His idea was incorporated into a piece of legislation that became law. I was glad to work with him on it. So I thank President Obama for the statement he recently gave--again, now, as President of the United States--supporting alternative energies, biofuels, and, in this case, specifically ethanol.

The votes at 2 o'clock, then, are a fruitless exercise. So in a sense we are in political theater here as we debate these issues. We have already had this vote, and it was defeated 40 to 59.

Everybody knows oil is now hovering near $100 a barrel, and everybody knows, as we hear once a month or maybe are reminded every day, unemployment is 9.1 percent. So why has the Senate taken a full week, voting twice, on the same amendment that will increase prices at the pump, increase dependence upon foreign oil, and lead to job loss, or at least do nothing about the unemployment rate?

We should be having this debate in the context of a comprehensive energy plan. This debate should include a review of the subsidies for all energy production, not just singling out ethanol. Nearly every type of energy gets some market-distorting subsidy from the Federal Government. An honest energy debate should include ethanol, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydropower, wind, solar, biomass, and probably a lot of other alternative energies I don't think of right now. By discussing it in the context of an overall energy policy instead of singling out ethanol right now, we would be able to then make sure we have a level playing field for all forms of energy because the government shouldn't be choosing between petroleum and alternative energy, as an example.

When the oil and gas subsidies were targeted, as the ethanol subsidies are being targeted right now and oil and gas subsidies were targeted last month, the president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association had this to say:

Targeting a specific industry, or even a segment of that

industry, is what we would consider punitive and unfair tax

policy. It is not going to get us increased energy security,

increased employment, and it is certainly not going to lower

the price of gasoline.

Well, those very same words could be said about the ethanol debate we are having right now because it would surely increase our energy insecurity, it would increase unemployment, and it is certainly not going to lower the price of gasoline.

So it seems to me that the old saying about what is good for the goose ought to be good for the gander applies. So what is good for a subsidy on petroleum and the people who defend that--why would we want the inconsistency we are demonstrating here? Because

that gets back to how I voted on that provision about a month ago. I voted that we ought to deal with oil and gas and ethanol and all of those things in the same context and make sure they fit into an overall national energy policy.

In December 2010, Congress enacted this 1-year extension of VEETC, the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit, also known as a blenders' credit. We extended it for 1 year. That is what is being repealed in the Coburn amendment. This 1-year extension has allowed Congress and the domestic biofuels industry to determine the best path forward for Federal support of biofuels and for the phasing out of that subsidy.

As a result of these discussions, Senator Conrad and I introduced bipartisan legislation on May 4 that is a serious, responsible first step to reducing and redirecting Federal tax incentives for ethanol. Our bill will reduce and phase out VEETC over a period of a few years. It also would extend through 2016 the alternative-fuel refueling property credit, the cellulosic producers' tax credit that deals with a second generation of ethanol from things other than grain, and the special depreciation allowance for cellulosic biofuels plant property.

Earlier this week, I joined Senator Thune and Senator Klobuchar in introducing another bipartisan bill to immediately reduce and reform the ethanol tax incentive. It includes many of the same features as the bill I introduced last month with Senator Conrad, but it enacts these reforms this year, right now. Senator Thune's approach also leads to significant deficit reduction.

The legislation we have introduced is a responsible approach that will reduce the existing blenders' credit and put those valuable resources into investing in alternative-fuel infrastructure, including alternative-fuel pumps or, as Senator Klobuchar used the term, blender pumps. It would also make significant investments in advanced and cellulosic ethanol. That is the second generation of ethanol. That is where we want to go so we are not using grain for fuel. It is a forward-looking bill that deserves widespread support.

The Thune-Klobuchar bill of which I am a cosponsor will responsibly and predictably reduce the existing tax incentive and help get alternative-fuel infrastructure in place so consumers can decide which fuels they prefer. We shouldn't pull the rug out from under this industry that has made these enormous investments. We need to provide a transition.

I know that when American consumers have the choice, they will choose domestically produced, clean, affordable, renewable fuel. They will choose fuel from America's farmers and ranchers, rather than from oil sheiks and foreign dictators.

Both of the ethanol reform bills I mentioned are supported by the ethanol advocacy groups. In an almost unprecedented move, the ethanol industry is advocating for a reduction in their Federal incentives. No other energy industry has come to the table to reduce or eliminate subsidies. No other energy lobby has come to me with a plan to reduce their Federal support. For sure, Big Oil hasn't come forward with any suggestions on reducing their subsidies.

The best way to get deficit reduction that gets to the President's desk with a Presidential signature is a responsible transition such as the one offered by Senator Thune and Senator Klobuchar. Otherwise, this exercise today and these two votes today are a waste of time. This vote will simply put many Members of this body on record in support of a $2.4 billion tax increase.

I would encourage those who wish to reduce incentives and save taxpayers' money to work with Senators Thune and Klobuchar and the rest of us on a responsible transition that has a chance of being enacted and, most importantly, signed by the President; therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose these two amendments.

I have always said that ethanol shouldn't be singled out, that it ought to be talked about in the context of an overall energy policy. But one of the reasons it has been able to be separated from all of the rest of the alternative energy as well as from all the rest of our energy policies we have for this country is because there is a great deal of ignorance about ethanol. We can tell that in this town when we hear a lot of people mispronounce the word ``ethanol'' with a long ``e.'' So I want to refer to some of these things, and I am going to use statements from the sponsor of the bill and refute some of these things I think are really wrong.

The first one:

We can save $3 billion if we eliminate the VEETC blending

subsidy.

Well, there are a lot of numbers thrown around about how much this incentive costs and how much the Coburn amendment would save. I have a letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation with a score of the Coburn amendment. The fact is, the amendment, if enacted on July 1, 2011, would increase revenue to the Federal Treasury by $2.4 billion, not $3 billion as the author stated. Again, the Coburn amendment, if enacted, would be saving $2.4 billion. That is from the Joint Committee on Taxation; that is not my estimation. That is the estimation of the people who score for the Congress of the United States what impact various tax bills have.

Another statement:

All the blenders of gasoline in the United States--all of

them--have called and written and said: ``We do not want the

$3 billion for the rest of the year.''

I have a letter from the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America--and they go by the acronym SIGMA--to the Senate majority and minority leaders opposing efforts to prematurely and abruptly eliminate the blenders' credit, contrary to the statement I just read that all the blenders want to do away with this.

The letter states:

As the leading marketers of ethanol-blended fuel at the

retail level, SIGMA members and customers are the

beneficiaries of VEETC. Simply put, SIGMA opposes recent

moves to prematurely or abruptly end the subsidies without

any consideration for future fuel and fuel-delivery costs. To

end this incentive immediately would no doubt result in

immediate spike in consumers' fuel costs.

That is the end of the quote from the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America.

So I hope somebody will put that in their pipe and smoke it because the fact that all of these people, we have been told here on the floor of the Senate, don't want this--well, that is an incorrect statement.

Another statement:

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 40 percent

of last year's corn crop was utilized, converted to ethanol.

It is true that almost 40 percent of the corn crop went into the ethanol plant to produce ethanol. But what it doesn't tell us is that out of a 56-pound bushel of corn, there are 18 pounds of animal feed left over that is more efficient in fattening animals than even the original corn. That is called dried distillers grain. So I do not want people of this body to come to me in their ignorance and tell me we are using too much corn and saying it is 40 percent of the corn crop when 18 pounds out of every 56-pound bushel of corn is for very efficient animal feed. So I am going to take credit for that 18 pounds and refute this statement that 40 percent of last year's corn crop was utilized and converted to ethanol.

One bushel of corn produces nearly 3 gallons of ethanol and 18 pounds of high-value animal feed. In 2010, 4.65 billion bushels of corn were used to produce 13 billion gallons of ethanol. But ethanol production uses only the starch from the corn kernel. More than one-third, or 1.4 billion bushels of dry distillers grain, is left over available as a high-value livestock feed.

On a net basis, ethanol production used only 23 percent of the U.S. corn crop--far less than the 40 percent that Senator Coburn claims. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, feed use consumed 37 percent of the U.S. corn supply, much more than the 23 percent consumed by the ethanol production.

The next statement that is incorrect:

The American people ought to take into consideration when

they go buy a gallon of fuel today--you already have $1.72

worth of subsidy in there. It does not have anything to do

with oil and gas drilling.

I believe Senator Coburn is referring to a report from the Congressional Budget Office. For the record, that report relied on the questionable assumption that only a tiny fraction of ethanol consumption is attributable to the ethanol tax credit. Regardless, I am glad he raised this point about subsidies and oil and gas drilling.

Our colleagues may be interested to learn of the hidden cost of our dependence upon foreign oil. And these are not my estimates. I am going to give you references for you to look up.

A peer-reviewed paper published in Environment Magazine in July 2010 concluded that `` . . . $27 to $138 billion dollars is spent annually by the U.S. military for protection of Middle Eastern maritime oil transit routes and oil infrastructure, with an average of $84 billion dollars per year.''

Isn't it convenient to forget those costs of our national defense, such as keeping oil lanes open so we can get oil to the United States that we spend $835 million every day to import oil?

I wish to refer to another one.

Milton Copulos, an adviser to President Ronald Reagan, a veteran of the Heritage Foundation, and head of the National Defense Council Foundation, testified before Congress in a recent year on the ``hidden costs'' of imported oil.

Mr. Copulos stated that by calculating oil supply disruptions and military expenditures, the hidden costs of U.S. dependence on petroleum would total up to $825 billion per year. The military expenditure is equivalent to adding $8.35 to the price of a gallon of gasoline refined from Persian Gulf oil. There is no hidden--this is important about ethanol--because there is no hidden U.S. military cost attributable to homegrown, renewable, environmentally good ethanol.

Here is another statement I wish to refute:

There is a big difference between a subsidy that is a tax

credit and allowing someone to advance depreciation because

they are going to write it off anyhow.

The net effect to the Federal Government's revenue, if you

take all of those away, is still zero.

That statement wants you to believe that all the tax benefits the oil industry gets are just tax benefits; they are not a subsidy. Well, my response is, I have to refer to a September 2000 report by the Government Accountability Office. But that report concluded that the Federal Government has granted tax incentives, direct subsidies, and other support to the petroleum industry. They describe tax incentives as Federal tax provisions that grant special tax relief designed to encourage certain kinds of behavior by taxpayers or to aid taxpayers in special circumstances.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the tax break allowing for the expensing of intangible drilling costs began in 1916. The percentage depletion allowance was enacted in 1926.

The Government Accountability Office estimated that these two tax incentives led to a revenue loss of as much as $144 billion between the time studied by the Government Accountability Office, which goes from 1968, to when the report was given in the year 2000.

I would say to my colleagues that those figures I just gave you are a far cry from the zero revenue effect that Senator Coburn claims for the oil industry. These are the Government Accountability Office's words and figures. They refer to them as tax incentives that resulted in the loss of revenue of more than $100 billion to the Federal Treasury over a 32-year period.

I have heard Senator Coburn on the floor on many occasions talking about the dire fiscal situation our country is in. I find myself voting with Senator Coburn most of the time. But on this issue, I disagree. Yet on this issue, it sounds as though he is arguing about semantics. One is a ``subsidy,'' yet the other is a ``legitimate business expense.'' In other words, in the case of ethanol, it is a subsidy. In the case of Big Oil and their taxes, it is a legitimate business expense.

I am not sure this argument over terminology will give our children and grandchildren much comfort when they are picking up the trillion- dollar tab over the next couple of decades.

The last statement I wish to refute is this:

Corn prices are at $7.65 a bushel.

Well, that had to be a couple days ago because I get a report every day on corn prices at my local elevator in New Hartford, IA. They were $7.10 yesterday. But let me quote again.

Corn prices are at $7.65 a bushel. They are 2\1/2\ times

what they were 3\1/2\ years ago. [Ethanol] has been, this

last year, the significant driver.

Let me suggest, first of all, that he is right, 3\1/2\ years ago, corn was about $7 a bushel. But 6 months later, it was $3.58 a bushel. So anybody who thinks corn is going to stay at this historically high price is not very smart. And if farmers are spending money according to that, they better slow up because they are going to be caught off guard and out of business like they were in the 1980s.

So this is my response, in addition to what I said about corn going down to $3.58: Grain used for ethanol accounts for approximately 3 percent of the world's coarse grain. Let me reflect on that statement for a minute, because you get the opinion, when they say 40 percent of U.S. corn is used in ethanol, that, ye gods, what are people going to eat? But worldwide--and the grain market is worldwide--the global marketplace decides the price of grain. And worldwide, only 3 percent of the coarse grain--and corn is one of the coarse grains--is used for fuel. Because of the increased corn production, the amount of grain available for non-ethanol use is growing.

In the year 2000, there were 2.4 billion metric tons of grain available for uses other than for ethanol. Even with the growth of the ethanol industry, last year there were 2.6 billion metric tons of grain available for uses other than for ethanol.

It is also important to review the cost of corn in retail food prices. The corn price today: The corn cost in a gallon of milk is about 46 cents. The cost of corn in a pound of chicken is 34 cents. One pound of beef takes 92 cents worth of corn. One pound of pork requires 39 cents.

So you have all these excuses coming from the food manufacturers of the United States that ethanol is the cause of food prices rising. But you can see in the figures I just gave you that what the farmer gets out of a dollar's worth of retail food is about 21 cents. And you could cut this in half, and it will be cut in half, like it was 3\1/2\ years ago. But when the price of corn goes down, you are not going to see big food manufacturers reducing their cost of food by 20 percent because they need ethanol as a scapegoat to raise the price of food.

That is all I have to say about ethanol. But I do have an amendment I am submitting to this bill that is before us that is unrelated to ethanol, but it also brings up the same point: that there are a lot of places in this budget we can save money.

Senator Johnson of South Dakota and I are submitting this amendment that pertains to setting limits that any one farmer, including this farmer, can get from farm program payments.

I have been pushing for reform of farm program payments for many years. Some folks from outside of Iowa unfamiliar with this issue may be surprised that I am the Member who keeps pushing these reforms. They may think: Iowa's economy relies heavily on agriculture. Why would a Senator from a farm State such as Iowa want a hard cap on farm payments?

But Iowa farmers understand why I continue pushing for a hard cap. This is about making sure the farm programs provide what they are supposed to provide: a safety net for those who need it; basically, farmers who have the economic incapability of overcoming natural disasters and political issues and international politics that they have no control over that affects the impact of farm income. Those are small and medium-sized farmers. They are not these megafarmers that are 10 percent of farmers getting 70 percent of the benefits out of the farm program.

These small and medium-sized farmers--as, of course, bigger farmers do--play a vital role in supplying our Nation and world with food. However, they are continually, as small farmers, faced with the challenge of rising land prices and cash rents. Many times, young and beginning farmers cannot compete because of high land prices and rents. There is no doubt the rise in commodity prices is part of the reason for higher land prices and cash rents.

But, currently, farm program payments are also placing upward pressure on land prices. This is not how it is supposed to work. What I just said means we are subsidizing big farmers to get bigger. There is nothing wrong with big farmers getting bigger. I do not argue with that in any segment of our economy. But we should not be subsidizing big farmers to get bigger.

The farm program was put in place to provide a safety net for farmers. It is meant to help them get through tough times. The farm program was not created to help big farmers get bigger. Let me repeat for you--because it cannot get enough emphasis--10 percent of this Nation's largest farmers receive 70 percent of the farm program payments.

These large farms do not need these program payments to get through tough times. Small and medium-sized farmers do not need nonmarket factors driving up the land prices and cash rents.

This amendment is a commonsense solution to this problem. Reform the farm program so it works as a true safety net for those it was intended for. We can do that by placing limits on how much a single farm operation can receive in program payments. The government should stay out of subsidizing the growth of large farms.

In addition, this amendment tightens the requirements for people to be considered an actively engaged farmer. For too long, people have gamed the system and received farm payments that the law did not intend.

There have been a number of amendments submitted to the EDA bill before us in the name of saving taxpayer dollars. The ethanol amendment--supposedly that is one of the motives behind it.

By setting hard payment caps, and making these other reforms, we will save the U.S. Treasury approximately $1.5 billion over 10 years.

The headlines around here are dominated by the problems of the budget. Many of my colleagues have come to this floor in recent weeks and discussed government spending and the big debt.

If this body is going to be serious about cutting spending, then this amendment I am laying before you as a limitation on farm payments is a continuation of that effort. Instead of spending time debating the merits of programs that assist the renewable energy industry, an industry that, by the way, helps us wean ourselves off our need for foreign oil, why do we not agree to make cuts in areas we should be able to have an agreement?

This is a simple and commonsense way for us to save money, while at the same time making sure the farm program accomplishes what it is supposed to.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act, which Senator Coburn and I are offering as an amendment to pending legislation. The other cosponsors on this amendment are Senator Webb and Senator Collins. This is identical to a bill that we have submitted. On that bill there are more cosponsors. They are Coburn, Cardin, Webb, Corker, Lieberman, Collins, Shaheen, Burr, Risch, and Toomey.

I want to have the record straight that this amendment is in response to a bill which we have crafted. On Tuesday the Senate voted on the proposal but unfortunately we saw a process battle, which I spoke to on the floor, which I think overwhelmed, in some respects, the debate. That is not the case today. There are ongoing negotiations to see if it is possible to put together a solution which can bring all sides together on this amendment that we will be voting on at 2 o'clock. Thus far we do not have an agreement. However, at least one of our cosponsors of this has said to me--this is Senator Webb--that he would very much appreciate a straight up-or-down vote on Coburn-Feinstein so we know exactly where the Senate stands. It is still possible, even after that cloture vote, if we can reach a successful conclusion to the negotiation that we could have another vote and change that.

Today, this is the first vote that the Senate has taken based on the merits of repealing the ethanol subsidy and tariff. In a nutshell, let me give the reasons. I know of no other product in the United States that has a triple crown of benefits: It is a mandate: oil companies must buy this ethanol; there is a subsidy: oil companies are paid for buying this substance; and this substance known as corn ethanol is protected by a protective tariff which prevents other nations, such as Brazil, from importing ethanol which actually has more beneficial environmental effects.

As a matter of fact, corn ethanol is the least environmentally proficient form of ethanol. Everything else is better than corn; cellulosic is better, algae is better, and sugar is better. The bottom line is we have a triple crown of subsidy, mandate, and protective tariff on the least effective, least environmentally sound ethanol there is.

More importantly, corn ethanol is now used to such an extent that it is having a major impact on food commodity prices and in particular on feed prices. This is particularly true in the poultry industry. I will get to that in a few minutes.

I do want to thank Senators Klobuchar and Thune for good-faith efforts to try to reach a compromise. As part of this compromise, at least from my point of view, a substantial amount of the revenue must be used to reduce the debt and deficit in addition to eliminating wasteful ethanol subsidies and tariffs. These negotiations have been ongoing since Tuesday. We have not yet reached an agreement. The vote at 2 o'clock will not end these talks. I am perfectly willing to continue to talk but I do think it is important that we have a clean up-or-down vote on the Coburn-Feinstein amendment.

The issue at hand is a simple issue. The subsidy given to these oil companies costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year and the tariff actually has the effect of making us more dependent on foreign oil. Let me explain. In 2005, the ethanol subsidy cost taxpayers $1.5 billion. This year that number is nearly $6 billion. In just 6 years it has gone from a cost of $1.5 billion to a cost of nearly $6 billion. There is a reason for it, and I will get to that in a moment, but since 2005, the total cost of this subsidy has been $22.6 billion.

Here is the increase every year: $1.5 billion in 2005; 2006, $2.6 billion; 2007, $3.3 billion; 2008, $4.4 billion; 2009, $5.2 billion; 2010, $5.7 billion; and the all-time high in these last 2 years of $5.7 billion.

However, it continues to rise. The proposal that has been made for an extension to 2015, by some, would cost another $31 billion.

Let me be clear. The subsidy is wasteful and duplicative. It does very little to promote the use of ethanol which oil companies already must use under current law. The renewable fuels standard dictates oil companies use 14 billion gallons of biofuels this year, 20.5 billion gallons by 2015, to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

These volumes, by law, increase every year. It more than doubles by 2022. It is that doubling in volume that will ultimately cost us; we are currently paying oil companies to follow this law.

Let me speak briefly about the tariff. The 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on ethanol imports makes our Nation more dependent on foreign oil. The tariff acts as a trade barrier, placing clean sugarcane ethanol imports from friendly nations at a competitive disadvantage to

oil imports from OPEC. This discourages imports of low-carbon ethanol from our allies and leads to more oil and gasoline imports from OPEC countries, which enter the United States tariff free. So you have a high tariff on ethanol imports but a very low tariff on oil. Sugarcane ethanol, one of the lowest carbon fuels that is widely available, suffers from this tariff.

This tariff makes no sense and it should be repealed. I believe that there is very strong consensus in this body on the tariff issue. The Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act repeals the 45-cent-per-gallon ethanol blending subsidy known as the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit on July 1. The 54-cent-per-gallon ethanol tariff is also repealed beginning on July 1. Two parts of the three-part triple crown of government support are covered in our bill.

The third part of the triple crown is that refineries are already required to use ethanol under the Renewable Fuel Standard. The subsidy pays them to use that mandated ethanol, and ethanol, again, is protected from competition by a very high import tariff.

I think we need to address this quickly because the effects are harmful and the costs are great. At highest risk are increased costs for feed, corn, and other food. Today, 39 percent of the U.S. corn crop is used to produce ethanol, according to the Congressional Research Service. Well over a third of the corn crop is used to produce ethanol. Corn futures reached a record $7.99 a bushel last week, this is an increase of 140 percent over 12 months.

In this graph you can see the rise, from $2 in 2005 to $3 in 2006, going up over 2007, 2008 to over $4, beginning to come down slightly in 2009, continues down in 2010, and then in 2010 to 2011, and 2011 to 2012, it has shot up to well over $6. This is devastating, to poultry farms all over the country. This is devastating to cattle and this is devastating to food commodity prices. These prices will continue to go up if we let these subsidies continue. The annual average price of corn has risen 225 percent since 2006. So from 2005 to today, there has been a 225-percent increase in corn prices. Does anybody think that is good for this Nation? Is it good for farmers who depend on corn feed? I don't think so.

Let me give you some examples. The annual feed cost for Foster Farms tripled over the past year, increasing costs by more than $200 million. That is greater than the firm's largest ever annual profit. Zacky Farms, which is a large farm, has lost $35 million over the last 3 years due to increased corn costs.

I want to read to you for a moment a summary of the impacts on Zacky Farms. Here is the background. Zacky Farms is a family-owned, vertically integrated producer of quality turkey products for consumers in the retail and food service markets. The company is 55 years old but has roots in supplying poultry products to consumers that reach back all the way to 1928, representing three generations of commitment to the business. Zacky currently employs over 1,000 and supplies approximately 2 percent of the turkey consumed in the United States.

During the past 3-plus years, the growing use of corn for ethanol has been nothing less than devastating on Zacky Farms. Why? The cost of turkey feed represent about 60 percent of the final price of turkey products that consumers buy in stores. Corn is roughly 50 percent of the turkey feed formulation, making corn one-third of the cost of a turkey. Soybean meal, usually the second largest ingredient in turkey feed, competes for the same acreage as corn, and consequently the pricing of soybean meal often moves in tandem with corn. The government is sitting on acres and paying farmers not to plant soybeans, thereby encouraging costs to rise. I didn't know that. We are paying farmers not to plant soybeans. Recent reports show that since 1990, there are essentially no new acres available. Ethanol use of corn is therefore driving up other turkey feed ingredient prices also.

The increasing use of corn in ethanol--now nearly 40 percent of the Nation's corn supply--has been a major factor in driving the price of corn from $2 a bushel, to $4 a bushel, to $6 a bushel, and currently $7.75 a bushel. That is what Zacky is currently paying. This dramatic increase has all occurred since the fourth quarter of 2006. The turkey industry has been unable to pass these cost increases along fast enough to maintain profitability.

We were in the caucus on Tuesday, and we heard one Senator talk about how a farm has actually collapsed because of these prices in his State, and a second Senator reiterated his deep concern about what is happening to the poultry interest in his State. So this is not just Foster Farms and Zacky Farms, which happen to be in California, it is all over.

They then go into the impact of corn for ethanol on employees, suppliers, customers, consumers, and family ownership, and they say they have suffered significant losses during the past 3 years, and it has been estimated to be as much as $35 million in losses from 2008, 2009, and 2010, and their banking relationships have been shattered after 60 years of banking. Bank of America told the company to find another bank.

In 2008, the company was forced to implement across-the-board salary freezes and other measures to help control these costs. Turkey prices have jumped dramatically and will continue to increase--in other words, the market is becoming such that turkey is going to become an endangered species, particularly in a down market. And they stopped promotions, such as the free Thanksgiving turkey with the purchase of a certain dollar amount. It goes on and on. This is a very serious issue.

Let me give you another one. Paul Cameron is a commercial cattle feeder from the Imperial Valley. He says:

My company employs 32 hard-working men and women. Many of

these employees are second and third generation to the

livestock business. Our cattle rely primarily on Midwestern

grown corn as their primary source for grain.

This is the conflict here:

This year 41 percent of our Nation's corn crop will be used

up by a heavily subsidized ethanol industry. In a year where

nationally our grain inventories have already been reduced by

adverse weather, corn has risen in price by 140 percent.

Because of this, any chance of profitability in all protein

industries has vanished.

The cattle inventory in our own operation is being reduced

and we have begun the process of laying off many of our

employees. Coming from a county with 27.9 percent

unemployment (April EDD), these good, hard-working people

will be relegated to trying to find jobs where there are

none. These are the very people that take great pride in the

fact that they not only feed a Nation, but also feed the

world.

This is what these subsidies are doing. This is actual testimony read verbatim.

I have a letters from the American Meat Institute, California Dairies, National Chicken Council, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Meat Association, National Pork Producers Council, and the National Turkey Federation essentially saying the same thing:

Corn-based ethanol has distorted the corn market, and

stretched corn supplies to the point production costs have

increased significantly. Additionally, the current import

tariff on foreign sources of ethanol harms United States

consumers by retarding the development of a robust and

sustainable biofuels market.

That is a direct quote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this testimony following my remarks.

Then there is a very long list in a letter to Senators Reid and McConnell from a couple dozen agencies, both agricultural and environmental, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record that letter as well.

Thank you. Also, from the Western United Dairymen Association and from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association as well.

I do this not because I want to run through it all but because I think it is evidentiary testimony to what is happening as a result of what is very bad and egregious public policy. At a time of debt and deficit,

where we are looking to find a compromise solution, which is going to be very difficult. If we reach one, it will have a dramatic impact on this Nation. To continue a program which has the potential to cost tens of billions of dollars makes no sense to me at all.

This summer, experts are predicting a mass slaughter of hogs. The USDA predicts that U.S. corn reserves will sink to their lowest level since the mid-1990s this summer, and rising food prices are contributing to global poverty and instability. So we are faced with a vote today that is very simple. The vote says: End this trifecta of subsidy, mandate, and protective tariff. It says: Do not wait for it to expire at the end of the year, but do it as of July 1. If we do it as of July 1, we will produce approximately $2.7 billion to the Treasury to ameliorate debt and deficit. I think this is an easy $2.7 billion to save.

Now, someone might say: Well, what are you doing to all of the producers of ethanol? Shouldn't we protect them? Well, this has been going on for a very long time--since 2005. To have an industry develop that then becomes dependent on this trifecta of subsidy, mandate, and protective tariff is only going to increase costs in the future. I understand beginning an industry with some help, giving them a leg up, giving them a toehold. That toehold becomes a foothold, and then they go on their own. The ethanol industry instead wants a continuation of the subsidy that effectively goes to the oil companies--the most profitable industry in the United States--continue the subsidy, continue the mandate, and continue to protect ethanol.

You can be sure that if we don't do this now and we wait for it to end at the end of 2012, there will be a fight to continue it. We are all talking about saying no. We are all talking about that the time has come when we have to do business differently. We have a lot of major problems out there. We have a lot of people who need help. Would I rather help those people or would I rather help Big Oil do essentially what they are mandated to do anyway? The choice is easy. The choice is clear. Would I want to continue a high, protective tariff on the least environmentally friendly commodity, corn ethanol? It is not even algae. It is not cellulosic. It is not sugar cane. It is the least environmentally friendly feedstock used to produce ethanol.

I have opposed this from the beginning because I am not that prescient, I just knew that once we started this it wasn't going to end. Once we started it, it was going to be more, more, more. That is the beat. If we can sell it in the next few hours with the proposal that meets the strictures of both sides of this great institution--we are trying to do that, but there are people who strongly believe it should be ended quickly, and that is what this cloture vote this afternoon will show. It would be the first consequential vote of the Senate to say that major subsidies to oil companies, to do what they are mandated to do, have come to an end. Protective tariffs of the least environmentally friendly source of ethanol will come to an end, and they will come to an end in a timely way. This is what the government should be doing.

I would like to yield the floor at this time. I know this has been tough. The big surprise to me has been how emotional our caucus on the Democratic side has been, and I understand the other side's caucus, the Republican side, was emotional as well. This appears to be much more major than the legislation itself might signal. I am very hopeful we will have 60 votes. That would send a very loud message from the Senate.

Thank you very much.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Hon. Tom Coburn,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Dianne Feinstein,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Coburn and Feinstein, The undersigned

livestock and poultry groups appreciate your leadership with

the introduction of ``The Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal

Act,'' which would end 30 years of tax credits for

conventional ethanol and end the tariff on imported ethanol

on July 1st.

At a time when animal agriculture is facing pressures on

many fronts, this legislation would ease the economic strain

that is heavily affecting the industries that rely so heavily

on corn to feed livestock and poultry. Corn-based ethanol has

distorted the corn market, and stretched corn supplies to the

point production costs have been increased significantly.

Additionally, the current import tariff on foreign sources of

ethanol harms U.S. consumers by retarding the development of

a robust and sustainable biofuels market.

If enacted, your legislation would save taxpayers nearly

$3.3 billion in 2011. Experts such as the Congressional

Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office have

already concluded that the subsidy is unnecessary and leading

economists agree that ending it would have little impact on

ethanol production, prices, or jobs.

This legislation will help American consumers by ending the

costly and unnecessary protection and subsidization of

converting corn into fuel. We applaud you for your leadership

on the issue and strongly encourage Congress to pass this

legislation promptly.

Sincerely,

American Meat Institute.

California Dairies, Inc.

National Chicken Council.

National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

National Meat Association.

National Pork Producers Council.

National Turkey Federation.

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

Mr. President, I ask that I could briefly respond to the Senator's comments. Senator Coats and I work together on Intelligence. I have great respect for him. I understand the regional issues involved, so I understand the Senator's thinking. My thinking is, we get a strong vote on this today. This is simply a cloture vote. We have 60 votes. We have some time to see if we can work something out.

One thing I have learned in this whole line of pursuit is, if you give your word, keep it. The only thing you have is your integrity, and I give you my word that we will continue to try to bring both sides together.

I know this is a long journey. I know we will be blue-slipped and we have to come back and we will have to have a bill we can put a tax matter on. That is for a later day. I think we are into this, and so many people want kind of a clean vote, that if we have that, I am prepared to give you my word to continue to try to discuss this.

My own view on these things is to do the very best we can, try to reach a compromise when issues are like this, and march on to the next thing. This has become far harder than I anticipated. I think we are relatively close to a solution, to a compromise. Whether Senator Coburn will accept it, I do not know. But I know these discussions are going on, and all I can do is pledge you my best effort to try to get to something that satisfies everybody.

If you come from a large ethanol-producing State, I understand what this means. On the other hand, I also understand this is going to be the first of many coming down the line. We have to change the way we do business if we are going to carry out the mandate of a prudent government, we have to make a lot of changes. None of it is going to be easy, so we might as well get used to it now. But for whatever it is worth, you have my word I will continue to try.

I thank the Senator.