Pay for War Resolution

Mr. President, I rise to speak on my pay-for-war resolution, which I am submitting today. This resolution would change the way we pay for war spending, and it would change the way we deliberate about going to war.

This is not a symbolic resolution. It would return us to the traditional American way of paying for wars, where the Congress and the Nation confront head-on the financial cost, commitment, and sacrifice of going to war. This is something I believe in strongly. It is an issue I have been working on for months. This did not start with Libya, though Libya certainly gives it a new urgency.

A number of my friends on both sides of the aisle have expressed concerns about the potential costs of the war in Libya, but this resolution is broader than Libya. It is about how we are going to pay for any wars in the future. The resolution seeks to reestablish a fiscally responsible way of paying for our wars.

It is fiscally responsible because it would require that war spending be paid for or offset, as we say in the Senate. It is also morally and politically responsible because it would reestablish the connection between the citizenry of the United States and the cost of going to war--a burden that is now shared solely by the men and women of the military and their families, while the rest is passed on to future generations in the form of debt.

Over the last 10 years, our wars have been paid for by borrowing, mostly from China and other countries willing to finance our debt, and by giant emergency spending bills. That is unusual in American history and, frankly, my resolution is aimed at making sure it stays unusual. Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us well over $1 trillion. In fact, the Congressional Research Service's most recent estimate is that, including this fiscal year, Congress will have approved $1 \1/4\ trillion for Iraq and Afghanistan--$806 billion for Iraq and $444 billion for Afghanistan.

That is a staggering sum of money, and it has been financed through debt, through borrowing from other countries, and emergency supplemental spending bills which go on our debt. What is more, the Iraq war was accompanied by a massive tax cut. That failed fiscal experiment created the impression that going to war requires no financial sacrifice. We know that is not true.

The question is, Who will bear the financial sacrifice, the generation that has decided to go to war or its children and grandchildren? The Iraq and Afghanistan wars drove up our deficit. They didn't single-handedly create our deficit problem, but they made it much worse. If we are going to fix our deficit problem, rejecting how we finance those wars must be part of the solution.

We have to ensure that the manner of funding--by borrowing--the Iraq and Afghanistan wars remains an anomaly in American history. That is exactly what my resolution seeks to do. It will ensure that future wars don't make our deficit and debt problem worse. It will ensure that Congress and the American people face the financial sacrifice of going to war, and it will force us to decide whether a war is worth that sacrifice.

A huge gap has grown between the majority of the American people and the small proportion who serve in the military. So much sacrifice has been asked of them and their families, yet so little of the rest of us. My resolution will reconnect those who serve and our larger society.

The Obama administration is taking an important step in seeking to reduce reliance on emergency spending bills and, instead, budget for war through the regular budget process. They have included an overseas contingency operations account over and above the budget for the day- to-day operations of the Defense Department. That account is where we now find our war funding. But the improvements the Obama administration has made are not enough. The momentous decision to go to war deserves a way of paying for those wars that matches the seriousness of that decision.

Overseas contingency operations should be paid for. Thus, my resolution simply says that if there is a new overseas contingency operation requiring new funding beyond the Defense base budget, that funding must be offset. It does not specify how that offset is to be found, leaving it up to Congress to decide. Different people have different ideas. Some may propose spending cuts, others may propose revenue increases or a combination of the two. But the bottom line is, Congress must find a way to pay for the cost of new wars we decide to undertake.

More specifically, this pay-for-war resolution creates a point of order so any Senator can object to a legislative proposal that allows for spending on new overseas contingency operations that is not deficit neutral. But it has some flexibilities. First, it allows the cost for war in a given year to be offset over 10 years. Because of how the budgeting process works now, spending cuts must be found in the same year of funding as the war spending. But if there is any offset on the revenue side, it can be spread out over 10 years.

My resolution also allows the offset requirement to be overridden by a vote of 60 Senators. So if three-fifths of us deem it important enough to spend on an overseas contingency operation without paying for it ourselves, that can happen. I believe this fully addresses any concern people might have about unduly tying the hands of the President or of the Congress, for that matter. If there were a genuine emergency that required immediate military response in the short term, and that could not be covered by the base defense budget, my resolution would not tie our hands. Any true emergency would certainly motivate enough of us to vote to waive the point of order.

Similarly, if at a particular time our economic circumstances make it especially ill-advised to offset the spending on a war, we would be able to waive or override the offset requirement with 60 votes here in the Senate.

Let me talk briefly about how this resolution handles Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, we are where we are on Iraq and Afghanistan. This resolution is not meant to drive policy on those wars. It is forward looking. Earlier I mentioned the Obama administration's praiseworthy effort to reduce reliance on emergency supplemental spending bills. My resolution would strengthen that effort by exempting the spending on those wars from this offset requirement but only up to the amount of the President's regular budget request. Anything above that cap would be subject to the offset requirement. For example, for fiscal year 2012 the President requested $118 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. Any costs over and above that request would need to be offset. That number should go down as we draw down from Iraq and Afghanistan. This idea is derived, by the way, from a recommendation of the President's fiscal commission.

The idea that we should pay for our wars is not a Democratic idea. It is not

a Republican idea. It is not left or right, it is not antiwar, it is not pro-war--it is common sense. That is why my resolution has garnered expressions of support from a diverse range of organizations and defense and budget experts. It is supported by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Noted fiscal hawk David Walker, the former Comptroller General of the United States, has expressed his support. So has Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

A number of experts have stated the rationale for the bill very powerfully. Here is what Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution said:

Senator Franken's proposal is serious and smart. It seeks

to remedy a major problem of the last decade--fighting wars

while not asking the broader nation for sacrifice and

commitment and meanwhile racking up Federal debt in a way

that endangers the economic progress of future generations.

Here is what William Niskanen and Ben Friedman of the Cato Institute said:

Democracies cannot accurately evaluate policies with hidden

costs. Deficit financing sends war bills to future taxpayers.

That limits the extent to which voters and their

Representatives weigh the wars' costs against other

priorities. The effect is to make war feel cheaper than it

is.

Here is what Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research said:

The vast majority of people in the country have no direct

connection to the people serving in the military. If we think

that a situation requires the men and women in our military

to risk their own lives, then the rest of us should at least

be willing to pay for the costs of this adventure with our

tax dollars.

My resolution makes budgetary sense and it makes moral and political sense. That is why I am confident my resolution will garner the support of my colleagues and of the American people. I think Americans understand that the way we have gone about paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--by borrowing and putting the financial burden on later generations instead of taking it on ourselves--is not good budgeting and, frankly, it is not good decisionmaking about war. Right now we are hiding the costs of war by shifting their financial burden to future generations and we are refusing to consider the real sacrifices that war requires of a nation--not just the members of the military. That has to change. We need to start paying for war and it needs to be part of the larger conversation about how we address our Nation's deficit and debt.

Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few moments on behalf of the McConnell-Inhofe amendment. I thank them for their leadership in dealing with governmental regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, amendment No. 183. I want to share a few thoughts about a matter that is important to me. I served several years as ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. I am interested in our legal system and how it works. I have to say that the Supreme Court ruling that resulted in the situation we are in today is a classic example of how unelected officials--not just judges--can make laws and regulations in a manner that is dramatically contrary to the ideals of the American Founders, and in a manner that is contrary to the ideals on which this country was founded, ideals that require accountability, that require responsibility and that allow the American people to hold their officials responsible and accountable for what they do.

For this reason alone I believe the McConnell-Inhofe amendment should be agreed to, because we are talking about a situation in which unelected

governmental employees are systematically going about regulating emission of CO2 in the country under a very attenuated theory. They were never given the explicit authority to do so.

They will, under the power they have asserted, have the ability to regulate your automobile, the heating unit in your home, hospitals, businesses, cities, and anything else that utilizes carbon fuels to produce energy. This is what it is all about.

How did it happen? What occurred here? Well over forty years ago, Congress passed the first Clean Air Act, and since then, Congress has amended the Act several times. Congress was focused on cleaning up the air and dealing with smog, particulates, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide--all of these pollutants were being emitted into our atmosphere and were affecting the health and well-being of Americans, particularly in cities, and Congress took action to contain that, and it has helped produce a much cleaner environment. Pollution was far worse 40 years ago than it is today. Our atmosphere has far fewer dangerous pollutants in it and, in that regard, the Clean Air Act has been very successful.

But since this Earth was created we have had a marvelous balance. Human beings and animals breathe in air. They take in oxygen out of that air and they breathe out carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. We have never considered it to be a pollutant. Plants, as you know from your basic high school classes, take in carbon dioxide and emit oxygen as part of a life cycle process that is marvelous and wonderful beyond our ability to express.

Over the course of centuries and millennia, plants in the world took in carbon dioxide and, eventually, were buried in the earth. As a result, the carbon dioxide in those plants was trapped underground and developed into coal, oil, and other fuels. In recent years we have been taking those fuels out of the ground and burning it and, as a result, releasing the carbon dioxide.

When the Clean Air Act was passed, there was no discussion or thought about any potential danger of a warming planet. Congress did not have the slightest idea at that time that thousands of bureaucrats would be able to one day take the Clean Air Act that they passed and control every home, every business, every city, every car, and every hospital in America.

What happened? The concern over global warming arose. Whatever people believe about that, the concern certainly is out there. Many people believe it is a serious threat. Others think it is not so serious. But at any rate, a lawsuit was filed. That is what we have so much of in this country. People file lawsuits, especially on environmental issues. They said: The planet is warming, and one reason it is warming is because there is a global warming gas, CO2, that is being emitted more today, and this is a danger to us and we believe it is a pollutant now. So, they would call CO2, which naturally occurs in our atmosphere and is used by plants and vegetation, a pollutant because the planet is warming. What do you say, Supreme Court? The Court responds: We say it is a pollutant, and the EPA should be allowed to regulate it. By a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court seems to say, but not with much clarity, that EPA should look at regulating CO2 because that is what they said the Clean Air Act meant to allow.

First of all, I don't think the statute meant that. I agree with the four judges who dissented. I believe Congress never had any intent whatsoever to give EPA the ability to control the emission of CO2 all over America. I have no doubt of that. It is not in the statute in a way that would clearly enable the Supreme Court to say that. I suspect it was a product of activism. Judges got excited about the claim several years ago regarding the danger of CO2 and global warming. Never mind that there seems to be actually less concern today about global warming. In any event, those judges wanted to see CO2 regulated and they interpreted the statute in a manner that would allow for it. Now the Environmental Protection Agency is setting about to do so. It is a major intervention by the U.S. Government in every aspect of American life.

EPA regulation of carbon dioxide has the potential to drive up costs for individual Americans as they heat their homes and drive their cars and will place a real burden economically on the American economy. It will put us in a bad situation economically.

So the McConnell-Inhofe amendment says: Wait a minute. Congress did not approve that. We do not want to do that yet. We do not want EPA regulating CO2 all over the country unless we direct them to do so--unless we, the elected representatives, decide it ought to be done. This important decision should not be made by five out of the nine members of the Supreme Court with lifetime appointments, totally unaccountable to the American people, or tens of thousands of governmental employees--public servants, bureaucrats--in the Environmental Protection Agency. They do not get to do it either.

It is our responsibility. If we are going to impose a massive regulatory burden on every American in this Nation, this Congress ought to decide when and how and under what circumstances it should be done. We have people in this Congress and in this government who act like Congress has no control over it. They think: The Supreme Court rules, and EPA issues its regulations.

Well, why do you not do something about it? They say: Oh, that just happens. We do not have any responsibility. It is not our responsibility. Do not blame me. You do not like it. Well, it was not my fault. I did not pass the Clean Air Act over 40 years ago. I was not on the Supreme Court. I am not an EPA bureaucrat.

But we are the United States Congress, and we are accountable to the American people. It is a question of constitutionalism. It is a question of separation of powers. This a question of responsibility. If we were to decide that the emission of CO2 is a significant danger to our environment and it ought to be regulated, let's vote to say so.

At this point in time, we are not able financially and there is not enough scientific evidence or justification for going forward with the regulation of CO2. And I am constrained to believe massive regulation is not the appropriate thing to do today--but that is a decision Congress ought to make.

We ought to be held accountable for the decisions we make. That is the way our country was set up to conduct issues of importance. I have to tell you, this is a big issue that is before the Senate. We should have tremendous debate, weeks of debate, because federal regulation of these kinds of emissions could result in hundreds of billions of dollars in cost--or even trillions of dollars in cost, if we set about to regulate all CO2 in America. It just is.

I do not see how it can be disputed. Unfortunately, we act like we are washing our hands of it. The Supreme Court did not make a policy decision that this was the right thing to do. That is not their role. In fact, they will deny that is what they did. They would say: All we did was take a statute passed long ago, before global warming was even considered an issue to be confronted by the Congress, and decided that the statute Congress passed then allows EPA to regulate CO2 now. And because of five justices, an unelected group of American employees are setting about to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. We do not need to do that.

The American people should not allow this to happen. They should demand that their Congress be responsible for what it does when it imposes such a monumental cost on the economy and the American people. That is our responsibility. The McConnell-Inhofe Amendment before the Senate today faces up to that squarely. It says we are not going to allow this circuitous route of interpretation of statutes to result in one of the most massive governmental intrusions in American life to occur. It ought to be a matter of intense public debate and national discussion before such a thing happens.

I salute my colleagues for offering their amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. President, we have heard a lot of rhetoric on the floor of the Chamber today defending why air pollution is just fine, explaining why dismantling air pollution regulations is really in the interest of our economy and our families. Indeed, my colleague from South Dakota has listed a little shop of horrors--that the status quo creates economic uncertainty, that the air pollution regulations increase the risk rate of capital, that they destroy jobs, that they even hurt the elderly, that they are an abuse of power, unauthorized by Congress. I am wondering what else is left on the list of reasons to defend the dismantling of air pollution regulations that protect the American people, that are popular in the eyes of American citizens because they want to live in a world where they can enjoy breathing the air throughout our Nation.

Let's start by recognizing that the truth about the McConnell amendment is that it increases our dependence on foreign oil. We have heard something about it driving up the cost of oil. Is that right? Well, no, it is not. Repealing the endangerment finding and taking away EPA's part of the regulation of mileage standards is estimated to increase our consumption of oil by 455 million barrels.

Gas prices are about $3.50 a gallon right now. So the McConnell- Inhofe amendment represents a $68 billion expenditure on additional oil. It means importing $68 billion more of oil. It means exporting $68 billion in additional American dollars overseas to strengthen the economies in the Middle East, Nigeria, or Venezuela. That energy tax-- the McConnell-Inhofe tax--is one that goes out of our country and hurts us in the worst way. It goes directly to oil companies--out of the pockets of working families, to some of the most profitable corporations in the history of human civilization. Gasoline prices are set by the law of supply and demand. If you increase demand for oil, you also drive up the price. So, if anything, the McConnell-Inhofe amendment doesn't decrease the cost of gasoline; it increases the cost of gasoline.

Politifact.com took on this issue because Members of Congress backing this amendment were arguing that it keeps gas prices from increasing. Politifact.com--that independent evaluator of claims made on the floor of the Senate, House, and other places--ranks that claim as false.

I can tell you that it is in our interest as a nation to decrease our dependence on oil, not to increase it. We need to decrease that dependence because it is important for our national security. We need to decrease that dependence because millions of dollars that are sent overseas often end up in the hands of those who don't share our national interests. We need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil because when those dollars leave our economy, they leave our family's finances. They don't end up in the retail stores or circulate here in America. Indeed, our purchase of foreign oil accounts for about 50 percent of our foreign trade shortfall.

At a time when both parties should be working together to put America's interests first on energy, the McConnell-Inhofe amendment increases our addiction to oil--foreign oil--and creates a supply impulse that raises the price of oil. Isn't that context completely misguided?

Perhaps the real issue is public health. This McConnell attack on the Clean Air Act asks Congress to vote in lockstep against the scientific judgment of EPA's scientists and to tell the agency charged with protecting the public health and the health of our children to ignore dangerous carbon pollution.

In 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, and 86,000 emergency room visits because clean air isn't just pleasant, it is, in fact, healthy. It is great for the American quality of life to be healthy. You know, that is amazing progress that has been made over the last 20 years under the bipartisan Clean Air Act of 1990.

Instead, this amendment would yield to those short-term impulses that have come up on all sorts of aspects of the Clean Air Act. Each time the agency has moved to say that this is a concern, there are those who say: No, no, in the short-term, that might cost me to adjust and we might have to do things slightly differently. Ten years later, everybody says: You know, it is good that we thought about mercury in the air, it is good that we took on lead in the air, and so on and so forth. Taking a longer term view, we need to stay together and resist these short-term impulses to take and dismantle the Clean Air Act.

The American Lung Association has specifically said the McConnell amendment is ``a reckless and irresponsible attempt to once again put special interests ahead of public health. The American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America have urged that we resist the temptation to dismantle the Clean Air Act, which the McConnell-Inhofe amendment does. There is a very simple reason for that: Each of these amendments would have EPA put aside the practice of using science to set commonsense standards to protect public health. Instead, these amendments would have the science world put their head in the sand about these problems.

Indeed, I am not just concerned about the McConnell amendment; I am concerned about all of the amendments we are considering today that are designed to deflect, delay, and dismantle the protection of clean air. The Baucus amendment would take away EPA's ability to use the best science to continue to modify and tailor the standards they are setting for carbon pollution and their ability to make sure major polluters are all covered. The Stabenow and Rockefeller amendments would put a 2-year delay on pollution standards. It is tempting to think that a 2-year delay might be an acceptable middle ground, but a 2-year delay in protecting public health is 2 years too long.

Let me be very clear about this debate. The McConnell amendment and other associated amendments we will consider are wrong because we should not increase our reliance for energy on the most unstable regions of the world. We should not ship American dollars overseas for energy. We should not tolerate more pollution in our air and water. We should not decrease our ability to build on America's foundation of ingenuity and its inventiveness and respond to air pollution challenges and make those environmental decisions in clear partnership with a stronger economy.

I think that all of our constituents across this country, as they think, as parents, about the future of their children, know clean air is the right course. But our children probably understand better than we do another key aspect of this, because this conversation today is largely about carbon pollution.

We need to wrestle with the fact that carbon pollution has a very substantial impact on the temperature across this planet. Before the Industrial Revolution, we had a carbon dioxide level of about 270 parts per million. The basic scientific consensus is that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere needs to be kept somewhere below 350 parts per million. I would be pleased to report to you today that before we get to that point of 350, we are going to be able to make the adjustments necessary so that we don't end up in a situation where we are creating long-term adverse consequences for our planet. Indeed, we crossed that 350 boundary long ago. We are at 390 now, headed for 400. Ten to 15 years ago, it was going up one part per million per year; now it is going up two parts per million. So the curve is getting steeper, the pace is getting steeper. We are seeing this reverberating from coral reefs, to Arctic tundra; we are seeing it in ice sheets, in glaciers; and we are seeing it in insect populations that are thriving and decimating the forests of the Northwest, where I come from, that weren't there a few years ago. We are seeing it in all kinds of patterns across this planet.

When I visit university campuses, as students talk about the issues nearest to their hearts, the top issue is that we must address this threat to our planet. This conversation goes to the heart of it. My generation isn't as up to speed as our college students are about this, but the planet cannot wait for them to graduate, pursue their careers, run for office, and arrive here on the floor of the Senate. So it is our responsibility as Americans who are concerned about our dependence on energy, as Americans who are concerned about keeping our dollars in our economy and creating jobs, and as Americans who are concerned about the sustainability of our practices, to say no to McConnell-Inhofe and no to the other amendments being brought forward to delay or destroy or dismantle the Clean Air Act.

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

Mr. President, we are going to be voting this afternoon on a number of EPA amendments, one of which is mine, which calls for a short 2-year waiting period but does not shut down in any way the EPA, particularly on CAFE standards.

So I have two messages: One is that I hope but doubt--but nevertheless hope--people will vote for my amendment. As of last December, I would have gotten every Republican vote, but when they broke away from the omnibus reconciliation agreement those votes all went out the window. I think they will all vote for the McConnell amendment, which I think is a mistake. So let me explain.

First of all, I am very opposed to the McConnell amendment. I think it is foolish. It overreaches. It is briefly satisfying and devastating on a long-term basis. A case in point: It undermines the ability-- because it obliterates the EPA--to set CAFE standards. Too few people in this body understand that 31 percent of all carbon emissions come out of the rear end of trucks and cars and other vehicles and that the right and the power and the science to set CAFE standards is an incredibly--incredibly--important mission of the EPA.

Under the McConnell amendment, that, along with everything else EPA does, is out the window on a permanent basis. It is goodbye EPA forever. That strikes me as not a mature approach to legislation.

I understand the frustration. We have that in West Virginia. The EPA does not understand necessarily the nuances of economic situations, that there is a more exacting way to present legislation. So I call for a 2-year timeout period, but I do not abolish EPA. I just say for a period of 2 years they should not do regulations on power stations, manufacturing plants, or oil refineries. That strikes me as not being fatal; it strikes me as something that could become law.

The most important point I can say about the McConnell amendment--I just pray this sinks in; it will not, but I pray that it will--there is not one chance in 10 trillion that the McConnell amendment will become law. It will not happen. He shuts the EPA down permanently, in all respects, forever. It will never happen. I doubt it will pass the Senate. It will certainly not pass at any other level where it counts.

So why do they do that? They do that because it does not solve the problem; it makes a point. It makes people feel good because they are mad, but, in fact, it does great destruction to our future. It does not solve a problem, and I am here to solve problems.

What I think we do need is a timeout just to stop the imposition of EPA regulations that do not allow for development of clean technologies--and that would hurt the economy at a very critical point in our still slowly moving recovery--but to do it in a way that keeps us all focused and working on a long-term energy policy.

Yes, we have had problems with the EPA in West Virginia, but the answer is not to get rid of the agency forever. It is just incomprehensible to me that mature people could actually be for that, vote for that, espouse that, but they have.

As of last December, when we were doing the Omnibus appropriations bill, every Republican had agreed more or less to vote for my bill-- just a 2-year timeout which should not affect CAFE standards. Then all of a sudden nine Republicans defected. The election had already been held. The House was about to go into Republican hands. Once they defected, then everything crashed down. All of the votes I would have gotten from the Republican Party are now gone. I doubt I will get any votes from the Republican Party and not many from my own party, which I regret but I understand.

I believe in clean coal. People say ``coal.'' I much like it better if they say ``clean coal'' because if it is just coal the way it is in the ground, we are not going anywhere, and natural gas will overtake coal, put them out of business. I have said this to the coal operators quite frequently. They do not believe me, but I think it is true.

It has happened in North Carolina in 12 powerplants. It is happening in Ohio. It is happening in lots of places. I have nothing against natural gas. We have a lot of natural gas. Natural gas, however, has one-half of the carbon that coal does. It has one-half. They call themselves a clean fuel, and in relation to coal in the ground, they are, but 50 percent is a long way from what we are already doing in West Virginia, which is taking 90 percent of the carbon out of coal as it comes out of the ground.

It goes to a powerplant, where there is Dow Chemical Company on the one hand, and American Electric Power on the other, and they have already--and I have been to see their plants, and I have seen their results, and I went with Secretary Chu--they are taking 90 percent of the carbon out of coal. That is not bad. You can call that clean coal.

We have a gigantic energy problem. We need everything we can get. I was even prepared to be for nuclear, which is about 20 percent of our current power structure. I am not sure where I am right now. I have to think more deeply about that. I am worried because our powerplants are old, also, as the Japanese ones are.

So all I can say is, I am for keeping our eye on the ball. I am not for making us sort of feel good on a very temporary basis. Everybody gets mad at the EPA. It is just sort of like an opening day in American baseball. You just do it and people cheer. But if you do it the way it is done in this amendment, by abolishing the agency, that is a long season, and it is a bad win-lose record.

So I hope my amendment will get sufficient votes. I am not sure. I do not think it will because I think the folks on the other side of the aisle have completely deserted it because they feel a great solidarity, want to show their power, and along comes an elimination bill. I just could not be for that. Morally I could not be for that.

I am strongly for West Virginia coal miners. I just came back last night from the first anniversary of the 29 coal miners who died. It was not an anniversary; it was a memorial. It is a powerful, powerful life being a coal miner. It is unknown to most people what it is like, what the dangers are, but they do it and they are strong. But what they produce could be cleaned up. The technology is there. That is what my amendment would do: give a 2-year timeout to let us work the technology, try to be convincing to Wall Street, and then we could be on our way to have not only natural gas but every single alternative energy that you and I could possibly think of--perhaps minus ethanol, but that is a different story--and we would be on our way.

In any event, it is a clear choice. Clean coal has to play a role in meeting our energy needs. It is abundant. It can be clean. The technology is there. More is on the way. So I hope people will vote for my amendment, and I hope very strongly they will vote against the McConnell amendment.

In the final analysis, I guess if they do not, and they vote for the McConnell amendment, they are going to lose anyway because it is never going to get anywhere. It is a guaranteed loser in the legislative process. I think mine could be helpful.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Madam President, my plan would put EPA on hold for 2 years and no more, but not on hold from many of its other duties, for example, CAFE standards.

Many of our colleagues do not realize--and certainly the ones who are going to support the McConnell amendment do not realize--that 31 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in this country come from the backs of trucks and cars. I do not stop them from going ahead and doing that. But I want breathing space so we can take 2 years--yes, there is a lot of frustration in my State about EPA and permits, and I understand that very well. But I want to take 2 years so we can think as a body and actually come up with an energy policy. I am ready for that.

I am not the same person I was 2 or 3 years ago on this subject. But we need that time. I ask my colleagues respectfully to support my amendment. It stops at the end of 2 years, which continues the use of CAFE standards, allowing EPA to set those standards. I ask my colleagues to vote against the McConnell amendment, which I think is truly a stunning aberration.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, we find ourselves in dangerous territory. While Republicans and Democrats continue to point fingers and hold fiery press conferences, a government shutdown is quickly approaching. The blame game is like quicksand: it has the ability to drag down not only the Senate and the House but the entire economy and our country. No matter how one looks at it, a shutdown would be reckless and irresponsible.

We can get this short-term budget problem resolved if all parties would turn off the rhetoric and stop the campaigning. A few extreme partisans stand in the way of progress, blocking a good-faith effort of many others seeking common ground. I ask them to take to heart what it says in the book of Isaiah: Come now, let us reason together.

We need to overcome this budget impasse and live up to the oath we took and to the people we represent. Larger challenges await our attention. It is not in our best interest to see the government shut down. I don't think it is in the best interest of the Nation to continue on this deficit-spending cycle we have been on. We owe it to the American people and the world that is watching us to show American leadership on both our short-term and long-term fiscal challenges.

I would like to see us turn our effort to the blueprint provided by the debt commission. I commend the bipartisan group of Senators who have begun to turn part of this plan into legislation.

We must find ways to reduce spending, address entitlement programs, and reform the Tax Code. Now, with all the momentum and opportunity built up over the last few months, is the time to lead. We must make the serious decisions to get our Nation out of the red so we can be competitive in the future. Again, I say let's turn off the rhetoric and be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

In Washington, the blame game has become par for the course. It has become politics as usual. In fact, it is one thing that people in my State are sick and tired of and one of the reasons why they have lost confidence in the Congress and in our government. Besides that, how in the world does holding press conferences and pointing fingers at others help resolve anything? Besides that, it is not true because the truth is that we are in this fiscal situation we are in today because of decisions all of us have made over the last decades. In fact, I saw yesterday in the paper where Speaker Boehner was talking to some of his caucus about getting ready for the shutdown, and there were ovations over there. There are no ovations over here for a government shutdown. We do not want to see it. I am not only talking about Democrats. I don't know of any Republicans in the Senate who want to see a shutdown. In fact, from my standpoint, one of the tests I use when I look at politicians is, the louder they are and the more often they have press conferences to blame other people, that probably means the more they are to blame for the problems we have today.

I certainly hope that as the elections roll around next year, the American people will remember many of the politicians' attempts in Washington to avoid responsibility for this terrible fiscal crisis.

One thing we need to keep in mind is that what we are talking about this week in terms of shutting down the government--and I hope that doesn't happen--is really only important for the next 6 months. We are only talking about for the rest of this fiscal year. The real battle, the more meaningful discussion and debate and fight, even, that we need to have is over long-term fiscal policies. The next 6 months--I don't want to say that is not important, because it is--is a time for us to demonstrate to the American people, to the markets, and to the world that we can come up with political solutions to the very challenging problems we face.

I am also concerned in this fragile economy that if we do shut down the government, that might be something that would shake this economy and actually, possibly, stop it in its tracks. I hope it will not reverse it, but I do have a concern about an abrupt cutoff of government spending, what that might do to the economy.

Our fiscal challenges that the debt commission focused on and many of us have focused on are beyond politics. They are bigger than politics. They are more important than the next election. In fact, they are more important than our own personal political fortunes. This fiscal situation we are in is not about the next election; it is about the next generation.

If we look back at the time that we call the Battle of Britain, one of the things Winston Churchill said that always stuck with me is, ``Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.'' He was talking about those brave men who flew the airplanes over Great Britain to protect the skies and the British people and to win the war, to stop Nazi Germany from invading and defeating the British Empire.

The ``so few'' we have today are Tom Coburn, Dick Durbin, Mark Warner, Saxby Chambliss, Mike Crapo, and Kent Conrad. Those few have been

meeting for weeks, even months, to try to come up with a comprehensive budget agreement based on the blueprint of the debt commission. These six Senators are not politicians; they are statesmen. They are trying to do what is right for the country. They are trying to do what is in the country's best interest, not their own. I guarantee my colleagues, each one of the six will face tremendous criticism from their own parties and from other quarters about what they are trying to accomplish. To me, that is courage, leadership; that is what being a Senator is all about.

I know right now there are six of them meeting. I know that at some point, once they come out and once they are ready to announce what they want to do, many others will join that effort. But we need to cheer them on and encourage them to finish the hard task they have begun.

I am reminded, when I think about those six sitting in the Capitol and in various rooms around the Capitol, of that phrase in the Declaration of Independence right before our Founding Fathers signed that great document where they say: ``We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.'' This is our time to put it all on the line. We need to put our political lives on the line, our political fortunes on the line, and our honor. We need to honor the commitment we have made to this country when all 100 of us stood up--in fact, when all 535 of us stood up--and took the oath of office that we were going to do what was right for the country.

I mentioned the Book of Isaiah a few moments ago. I am reminded that many times in the Old Testament, whether in the prophets or Proverbs, we are always encouraged to do right, to do justice, to show mercy. We want to really be upright and true. That is what they call us to do and what they want us to do.

I am also reminded that in the New Testament, when Jesus is talking to the political and religious leadership of his day, he says: Are you so blind?

Are we so blind that we cannot see the forest for the trees, that we can't understand how important it is for this country to get our debt and deficit where it needs to be? Are we so blind that we are not able to see that we need to put everything on the table, that this is a time for great leadership and shared sacrifice, and we all have to give up something to get this done?

It is our time to lead. This may be the greatest challenge of our generation, of any of us who are serving either in the House or Senate right now. This may be our one moment in history for greatness. I sincerely hope we rise to the challenge because I believe the future of the Republic depends on it.

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

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the McConnell amendment. I listened to my distinguished colleague from Wyoming, and I enjoy working with him, but this is one subject on which we fundamentally disagree.

This isn't about energy production; this is about clean air. This amendment is a blatant attack on the Clean Air Act, and, from my perspective in New Jersey, any attack on the Clean Air Act is an attack on New Jersey.

Primarily because of dirty, old, out-of-State coal plants, every county in New Jersey is noncompliant with the Clean Air Act--not by what we do but what other States do. One of those coal powerplants is the aging Portland Generating Station, located just across the Delaware River. This plant emitted 30,000 tons of sulfur dioxide in 2009. That is almost three times the amount of all seven of New Jersey's coal plants combined. So we have cleaned up our act. Others need to do it for the collective air we breathe as Americans. Its pollutants waft across the Delaware River into numerous New Jersey counties, causing and exacerbating a whole host of respiratory illnesses, from asthma to heart disease. If not for the Clean Air Act, my State or any other State similarly situated would not have been able to petition the Federal Government to stop the pollution this Pennsylvania plant spews into New Jersey's air.

Just last week, New Jerseyans received some good news. Under the authority of the Clean Air Act, the Federal Government proposed a rule that would grant my State's petition. If finalized in coming months, the rule would lead to an over 80 percent reduction in the Portland coal plant's sickening sulfur dioxide emissions. If not for the Clean Air Act, my State would not have this victory within its grasp. It wouldn't have the opportunity to protect its citizens. We simply cannot gut the one piece of Federal legislation that protects the air we breathe.

Imagine having to tell your children they cannot go outside to play because the wind is not blowing quite the right way, because the air they will breathe will damage their lungs. The McCloskeys from Delran, NJ, don't have to imagine that scenario; they know it. Let me tell you about Erin McCloskey. On poor air quality days in the summer, their daughter Erin could not even make it to the family car, much less go outside and play, without starting to wheeze. Family activity began to revolve around trips to the doctor, treatments, and stays at the hospital. It was a severe economic hardship on the family not just because of costs but also because all of these trips made it difficult for Erin's mother Natalie to hold down a job.

The McCloskeys are not alone. Four-year-old Christian Aquino, from Camden, NJ, suffers from severe asthma. He takes six different medications a day to control asthma attacks, but still his mother, Iris Valerio, lives with the constant fear that an attack is around the corner. On bad air days, they avoid going outside, and when on the highway in traffic, the windows are kept closed.

Fourteen-year-old Samaad Bethea, of Elizabeth, NJ, also suffers from severe asthma. He has been on daily steroid medication to control his asthma for 3 years. If he skips a day, his lungs start to falter and he can't catch his breath. His mother Sharon realized that pollution in their old neighborhood was triggering attacks and had an opportunity to move the family. Since that move, Samaad has been doing much better, but he still requires daily steroid medication.

These children are part of a sobering national reality, a New Jersey reality. Their days revolve around inhalers, steroids, and constant anxiety over when air pollution will trigger another severe asthma attack.

According to the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, each year over 10,000 New Jerseyans are hospitalized due to asthma attacks triggered by air quality problems. Thousands of sick days are taken each day in New Jersey by either asthmatics or parents of asthmatics, with huge consequences for the New Jersey economy. Asthma attacks triggered by air pollution cause scores of premature deaths in my State each year.

Erin McCloskey, Christian Aquino, and Samaad Bethea bring these statistics to life. While the causes of their asthma are many, air pollution is a common trigger. The Clean Air Act directly impacts their health, their quality of life, and even the ability of their parents to get or keep a job. For them and for thousands of children like them, weakening the Clean Air Act will mean more days sequestered in their homes and more emergency room visits.

The McConnell amendment--the one I call the dirty air amendment--is the first of many amendments we can expect to see that are aimed at preventing the Federal Government from regulating polluters under the Clean Air Act.

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

Low-income and minority Americans will also be disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change. Let's be clear. The scientific consensus is overwhelming. Climate change will increasingly create more frequent and more extreme storms, more violent and sustained heat waves, meaning more costly and dangerous floods and droughts. Hotter summer days will mean more ozone formation and more bad air quality days. In this way, climate change directly endangers all of us, our children, and our children's children. But changes in weather patterns and increasingly extreme weather events also result in indirect effects. The security of our food supply will be at risk due to more frequent heat stress. The security of water supplies will be at risk due to droughts.

For all of these reasons, scientists agree that climate pollution endangers public health and welfare. That is well understood, and we can curtail these risks by regulating climate pollution. But, no, big polluters want to kick the can down the road. They want to pretend they aren't polluting. Big polluters want to pretend these risks aren't real. They want the McConnell amendment to pass so they can continue business as usual.

This is not about energy because if the New Jersey coal-fired plants ultimately reduced their emissions by 80 percent, it is a question of an investment. They are still producing energy. There are 9.3 million people in the State. They are producing energy, but the reality is that they are doing it in a cleaner way. That is what this issue is about.

We must not allow polluters to set our priorities. How many children in New Jersey or in other parts of the country face the reality of dirty air? How many children are we willing to have deathly ill in order to allow polluters to continue to spew toxins into the air we collectively breathe? Doing so risks not only our health and that of future generations, it risks the promise of a green economy built on clean energy jobs, energy-efficiency innovations, and reduced waste and pollution.

I urge my colleagues to stop the effort to gut the Clean Air Act and to defeat this amendment. Let's make sure we bequeath to future generations the ability to have air that, ultimately, we can collectively breathe, that doesn't sicken our families and undermine our collective health.

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

Mr. Presdient, I urge rejection of all of the amendments offered today that would gut the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to enforce our Clean Air Act.

It has been proven time and time again that we can have both a clean environment and grow our economy. In fact without a clean environment, it is more difficult for us to grow the economy. Without the Clean Air Act we would be spending trillions of dollars more on health care costs and lost work days. Over its 40 years the Clean Air Act has been one of the world's most successful environmental and health protection laws reducing exposure to pollutants such as lead, ozone, sulfur dioxide, smog-forming gases, and mercury and other heavy metals and toxics.

Thanks to the Clean Air Act millions of lives have been saved by preventing premature deaths, heart attacks, cancer, asthma, and other life-threatening illnesses. But even after 40 years of action, pollution in many areas of the country still violates basic health standards, putting tens of millions of Americans' lives at risk.

In Vermont, while we don't have any coal-fired powerplants, we are still the victims of their pollution as it travels by wind across our borders into the Green Mountain State. Throughout the Nation, hundreds of thousands of Americans suffer every year from illnesses linked to emissions from powerplants, refineries and other large sources of air pollution and greenhouse gases.

Yet there are some powerful special interests and some Members of this body who would like to strip the EPA of its authorities to enforce the Clean Air Act because they reject the notion that greenhouse gases are air pollutants and harmful to public health, or they believe that we just cannot afford clean air. Methane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons and other compounds are the ingredients of a pollutant cocktail forced on many millions of Americans.

The Supreme Court has determined that the Clean Air Act is ``unambiguous'' and that greenhouse gases, such as those I just mentioned, are ``without a doubt'' air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. As such, EPA is required to regulate these emissions since they endanger public health. The Supreme Court has given the EPA little choice, and the science is clear they must act.

The McConnell amendment would have politics, not science, decide which pollutants are hazardous and which pollutants should be regulated. If politics had been allowed to trump the compelling scientific evidence, we may have never phased lead out of gasoline, or reduced ozone-depleting chemicals, or tackled acid rain. Over the years powerful special interests have sought to block EPA's actions on all of these issues, arguing that the science was weak and the costs unjustified. Once again they are crying wolf and trotting out the same discredited arguments to fight greenhouse gas regulations today.

In enforcing the Clean Air Act, EPA is doing the job that Congress mandated decades ago. These amendments that attack the Clean Air Act would force the EPA to turn a blind eye toward polluters, the same polluters that are spending millions of dollars to lobby against the Clean Air Act.

I urge every Senator to talk to the parents and grandparents of children in their home States who suffer from asthma. Take the time to hear about the trips they have had to take to the emergency room and about the countless hospital stays because of the air they breathe, something so many of us take for granted. These attacks on the Clean Air Act would also lead to more heart attacks, more strokes, more cancer, and shorter lives.

I arrived in the Senate just 5 years after the Clean Air Act of 1970 was introduced and unanimously passed by the Senate. I have supported efforts to reduce life-threatening pollutants, such as lead and mercury. And I will support efforts to reduce hazardous greenhouse gases, just as a majority of Americans do.

The truth is that the McConnell amendment and the other EPA amendments we will vote on today would hurt public health, cost consumers more, stifle the invention of new pollution prevention technologies which grow the U.S. economy and jobs, and further slow our transition to renewable energy sources. Since passage of the Clean Air Act, the benefits have proved to be 42 times greater than the estimated costs of cleaning our air. Our GDP has tripled since the Clean Air Act was passed.

In Vermont we are fortunate to have two of the preeminent innovation companies in the world, IBM and GE. These corporations and others like them rely on regulatory certainty when deciding what investments to make in research, technology, and expansion into new markets. These attempts to strip EPA of its authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions would send the wrong market signals to our innovators.

Myths are myths and facts are facts, and the fact is that pollution standards are by law both achievable and affordable.

They encourage energy efficiency, which reduces energy demand, reduces fuel consumption, drives down our dependency on fossil fuels and foreign oil, reduces operating costs, and lowers energy prices. In fact the most prevalent compliance response to EPA's carbon regulations will be using current and newly developed technologies to increase a plant's energy efficiency.

The McConnell amendment would render meaningless the progress that we have already made to invent new products that consume less fuel, pollute less, and create American jobs--jobs that cannot be sent overseas. The McConnell amendment would penalize those pioneering facilities that have already taken steps to clean up industry, and reward those who have seen these new standards coming for years, but have chosen to do nothing to protect the public. Instead they now pressure Congress to let them off the hook and to pass the long term health costs along to the public.

The evidence in favor of embracing a cleaner future is clear. We have an opportunity to encourage our innovative companies to be global leaders in new clean energy technologies that will create jobs here in America. We must stop supporting the dirty, outdated and inefficient technologies of the past.

By eliminating EPA's ability to impose scientific, health-based limits on carbon pollution from the Nation's largest polluters, the McConnell amendment and the other amendments that attack the EPA would only end up taking a hefty toll in Americans'

health and costing consumers more by increasing oil consumption and forcing them to pay higher fuel costs.

We need to support efforts for clean air and to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Lives are at stake. In 2010, in just 1 year, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 cases of premature death. By 2020, that number is projected to rise to 230,000.

The air we breathe is the heritage of the American people, not the property of the big polluters.

The people of this great country deserve better, and they want clean air as well for their children and grandchildren. That is why I urge defeat of these amendments to gut enforcement of the Clean Air Act. Stand up for a future with clean energy and economic growth that depends on a clean environment. Take a stand for the American innovation that will create more American jobs and technology to protect the public's health and the environment. And help more Americans live longer lives.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak against the radical McConnell-Inhofe amendment and in opposition to the efforts to overturn the Supreme Court. We should not be gutting the Clean Air Act and public health and environmental protections that are important to every American.

These anti-environmental, anti-public health, anti-economic riders, I believe, do not belong on a small business bill. When we boil it down, what is at stake is pretty straightforward. It is about the common good versus the special interests. The facts speak for themselves. According to some comprehensive reports, the Clean Air Act will save our economy $2 trillion through the year 2020. And even more importantly, the Clean Air Act will cumulatively save 4.2 million lives by 2020.

Those are striking numbers, and that is why it is so important that we protect the Clean Air Act and turn down these radical amendments that would effectively overturn it.

Congress has stopped other radical attempts to overturn laws that are about protecting our environment and protecting the safety of American people. I remember the debate on MTBE, in 2003, on the Senate floor. MTBE was a highly toxic fuel additive, and very small amounts of it could severely contaminate water supplies. Yet MTBE manufacturers who were on the hook for billions of dollars of cleanup wanted a free pass. They wanted immunity. They came to the Senate hoping to get that. Yet a bipartisan group of Senators stood up to that proposal, and the proposal to let MTBE manufacturers off the hook was turned down.

There have been other attempts to overturn the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Superfund Cleanup Act. Sometimes they get only as far as draft bills or a committee hearing. Sometimes we have votes on them. But these issues all have one thing in common--it is about the greater good versus special interests. Time and time again, Congress has wisely come down on the correct side of the issue and has rejected these proposals by special interests.

The environmental protections that we have continue in force today because we have consistently stood up to fight for them. Passing an anti-EPA amendment would hurt our economy. That certainly is the case with the McConnell-Inhofe amendment. It would overturn hard-won gains from the 2007 Energy bill that put CAFE standards in place to improve fuel economy standards for American consumers. These standards were passed with bipartisan support and save consumers as much as $3,000 over the life of a car through higher fuel efficiency. The proposed McConnell-Inhofe legislation seeks to overturn these advancements.

It is these fuel economy standards, which passed with bipartisan support in 2007, that are helping us to wean ourselves from dependence on foreign oil--not more domestic drilling. We could drill in every pristine, untouched corner of the United States--and sometimes it seems like the backers of those interests would like us to do just that--but in response to these calls, I would suggest you look at a recent letter Senator Bingaman and I received from the Energy Information Administration.

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

In 2007, the Energy Information Administration was predicting that our foreign dependency was going to continue to increase in the coming decades. I should note that after the 2005 Energy bill, I heard some of my colleagues on the other side say that that EIA forecast was the great predictor and that it was going to help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But the truth is, the subsequent EIA analysis made after we passed the 2007 Energy bill says just two policies in that landmark bill--the increase in CAFE standards and the renewable fuel standards--are responsible for a downward revision of projected U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

So the things that have made us less dependent on foreign oil are the very things people are trying to gut from important legislation that is already on the books. It is not the case that additional drilling, drilling, drilling and saying to the EPA: ``Ignore the Supreme Court on the Clean Air Act,'' is going to help us. Reducing demand is going to reduce prices at the pump. Look at the example of the U.K., which produces almost all of its own oil from the North Sea. They still got hammered in 2008 when oil prices peaked at $147 a barrel because there is a world market price for oil. So to refute the notion that we should skirt our environmental responsibilities and drill, drill, drill to protect ourselves from high oil prices, we need to look no further than the U.K. example.

I don't understand why the minority leader wants us to increase our Nation's reliance on foreign oil. I think we should be getting off foreign oil and not allowing polluters to addict another generation to that product. I think we should be getting off foreign oil, rather than have future U.S. generations compete with the Chinese for every last remaining supply of ever more expensive oil.

I agree it would be better if Congress acted to address our need to diversify our Nation's energy sources. I am anxious to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to develop legislation that would use the power of the free market to do that and protect consumers at the same time. I am certain there is a bipartisan solution we can all agree to. But we can do this and solve our carbon pollution problem by working together, not by burying our heads in the sand and saying we can ignore the Supreme Court's edict to enforce the Clean Air Act.

There is a way to reduce carbon pollution and transition to a 21st century economy and we can and should work together to achieve these goals. It does not have to be about picking winners and losers, and we can protect consumers in the process. I want to work with my colleagues on a framework that embodies these principles. But, until then, I urge my colleagues to vote against these amendments that will undermine our Clean Air Act; that will actually increase our dependence on foreign oil, force consumers to buy more gasoline, and make our air dirtier.

We can do better and I hope we will.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer, the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, be the next Democratic speaker and that she have up to 10 minutes.

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