Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Prostate Cancer Detection Research and Education Act. This important legislation addresses the urgent need for the development of new technologies to detect and diagnose prostate cancer, and for the education of our fathers, brothers, and sons about the dangers of this deadly disease.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men, and is the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in men, with 240,000 new cases and 28,000 prostate cancer related deaths predicted in 2012.

Unfortunately, current screening techniques for prostate cancer result in some false-negative reassurances and false-positive alarms. In addition, the prostate is one of the last organs in a human body where biopsies are performed blindly, which can miss cancer even when multiple samples are taken.

Prostate Cancer Detection Research and Education Act brings together a Advisory Council of experts to evaluate the current science and outline a path forward to the ultimate goal--developing a reliable test or tests that can detect prostate cancer and diagnose how severe the cancer is.

The Prostate Cancer Detection Research and Education Act will mirror the investment the Federal government made in advanced imaging technologies, which led to life-saving breakthroughs in detection, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. This bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to use the plan developed by the Advisory Council to coordinate and intensify federal research to develop and validate an accurate test for prostate cancer.

The Prostate Cancer Detection Research and Education Act would also create a national campaign conducted through HHS to increase awareness about the need for prostate cancer screening, and the development of better screening techniques. Since African American men are 56 percent more likely to develop prostate cancer compared with Caucasian men and nearly 2.5 times as likely to die from the disease, this campaign will work with the Offices of Minority Health at HHS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to ensure that this effort will reach the men most at risk from this disease.

Government investment in coordinating research and education could be key to diagnosing prostate cancer earlier and more accurately. We need to strengthen our efforts to bring the tools doctors use to fight this disease into the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort, and cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2456.

Mr. President, Senator Johanns has an amendment which would stop the EPA from ever using any kind of airplanes--including manned small planes, which is all they do use--to check on serious pollution spills.

I wish to say this is about life and death. I hope the Senate will support the Boxer amendment and vote no on the Johanns amendment because the Boxer amendment says the EPA can only use these overflights if it has to do it to protect the health and safety and if it has been approved by the State.

This pollution could cause serious illness, and they want to make sure they can track the plume. We have heard of cryptosporidium, E. coli, and giardia. That is what we are talking about--terrible bacteria that sometimes comes from animals.

In 1993, at least 50 people died from the bacteria cryptosporidium in Milwaukee, and it came from animal waste. The EPA has never used a drone, and they don't plan to, but don't stop them from using small aerial oversight.

Mr. President, may I be recognzied?

Mr. President, this amendment is very serious. It is about life and death. It is true that on occasion EPA will use small manned aircraft to inspect a bacteria spill.

Let me recall for you: Wisconsin, 1993, at least 50 people lost their lives from the bacteria cryptosporidium from animal waste. When you are following a plume, the way to do it is from the air. It is much more expensive in many cases to do ground inspection. EPA estimates that on- the-ground inspection may cost $10,000, but it could cost $2,500 to survey the same area by air.

This is life and death. We are talking about E. coli. We are talking about giardia and cryptosporidium. We are talking about the health and safety of the American people that is compromised from these kinds of animal waste.

Mr. President, today our families receive in the mail just once a year a report about the safety of the water their kids drink every single day. The Toomey amendment repeals that important right to know. There are 70 regulated dangerous contaminants in our water. For example: arsenic, benzene, vinyl chloride, asbestos, cadmium, mercury, radium, and uranium. Some of these dangerous toxins are deemed unsafe at any level. Yet under Toomey you would no longer receive that information.

Senator Toomey says go to the Web site. One thousand water districts have no Web site. And right now, under the current right-to-know law, the Governor can say he waives this requirement for the small rural districts.

Please vote no. Our people have a right to know what their kids are drinking.

Madam President, before Senator Rockefeller leaves, I wish to take 30 seconds to say something. I believe that when the next historians write the book about leadership, courage, and integrity in the Senate, this speech will be featured in that book. I am so proud of the Senator from West Virginia.

How much time remains between the two sides?

The Chair just said there is 39 minutes for the Republicans and 36 for us.

Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Madam President, I yield myself 1 minute, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following--an editorial written by the very type of companies my friend Senator Barrasso mentioned who have said they are just fine with the EPA's new air quality regulations. Do you know why? Half of the coal-fired utilities have already made these adjustments. They are clean. And if it is up to Senator Barrasso, the other dirty plants will keep on spewing forth the most toxic and dangerous pollutants.

The other is a new poll taken in March of this year which shows that 78 percent of likely voters have asked us to get out of the way and let the EPA do its job in controlling industrial and power-sector mercury and toxic air pollution.

I won't yield because Senator Cardin is waiting. I yield to Senator Cardin 6 minutes, and then I will yield to the Senator on his time.

Madam President, I think when the Senator talks about balance, he ought to recognize that one-half of the coal-fired utilities have already made these adjustments, they have reported to us, with very little impact to electricity rates.

I yield 5 minutes to Senator Sanders.

I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Senator Carper.

Madam President, how much time remains?

I would take 6 minutes and retain the balance.

Madam President, we are faced with a resolution today to essentially repeal something that has been 20 years in the making and is about to go into effect. It would stop the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, from implementing the first-ever national mercury and air toxics standards for powerplants.

A little bit later I will talk about what mercury does to people. Let me assure you, it is not good. I will also talk about the other toxics that are emitted from these dirty plants. They are not good either. When I mention them, just the names will scare us because they are names such as arsenic and formaldehyde--not good. They are going into our lungs. The mercury is getting into fish. People are getting sick. That is why this is such a dangerous moment if we were to pass this and stop the EPA from doing this.

We know that for every $3 we invest--every $1 to $3--we are going to get back $9 in health benefits. If we do the math and we follow the math, it is clear this is cost-effective and critically important.

Ask a parent who has a child who is rushed to the emergency room with asthma whether they want this done. Ask a coal-fired utility that has made these improvements already--half of them have--and they will tell us there has been hardly any impact on electricity prices, and they are happy with them.

If this resolution were to pass and the policy behind it were to pass, it means that instead of rewarding those coal-fired utilities that are doing the right thing, we are rewarding those that haven't done the right thing and continue to spew forth these toxins.

What is at stake? I ask rhetorically of people who may be listening to this: Whom do we trust more, Senators and politicians or physicians and nurses? I think we should trust these numbers from the professionals who have looked at this issue. If this resolution were to pass and EPA is blocked from implementing this new clean air standard, we will see up to 11,000 additional premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks, 130,000 cases of childhood asthma, 6,300 cases of acute bronchitis among children, 5,700 emergency room visits, and 540,000 days of missed work. Again, the rule provides $3 to $9 in benefits for every $1 that is invested.

We are going to hear other arguments from the opponents of the Environmental Protection Agency, but the people of America are smart. They were asked just 2 months ago if they want us to interfere with the Environmental Protection Agency as they clean up the air, clean up the mercury, clean up the toxic soot, and 78 percent said: Stay out of it, politicians, and let the Environmental Protection Agency do its job.

We should thank the coal companies that have already cleaned up their act and not reward those that have delayed cleaning up their act.

Again, we will hear all kinds of horror stories. Ask the utilities that have made these improvements. We have a list of them somewhere.

We will also hear there will be lost jobs from this rule. We know there will be 46,000 short-term construction jobs as these plants become clean and 8,000 long-term jobs.

Now look at the utilities that oppose the Inhofe CRA. They include Austin Energy, Avista Corporation, Calpine Corporation, Constellation Energy, Exelon, National Grid, NextEra Energy, NYPA, Public Service Enterprise Group, and Seattle City Light. Some of these have coal-fired powerplants. They say: What are we doing? Let's keep moving toward clean energy.

I asked if we trust politicians or do we trust those who, I believe, are unquestionably character witnesses in this debate. Let's look at some of them that oppose what Senator Inhofe is trying to do today. The Catholic Health Association of the United States, Evangelical Environmental Network, Franciscan Action Network, General Baptist Convention, General Conference of American Rabbis, National Council of Churches, United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries, United Methodist Church, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. They oppose what my friends on the other side are leading us to today, a repeal of clean air rules.

Whom do we trust, the politicians or some of these groups that strongly oppose this resolution--the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Respiratory Care, the American Heart Association, the Lung Association, the Nurses Association, the Public Health Association, the March of Dimes, the Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Trust for America's Health.

I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes, and then I will yield and retain the balance.

Here is the chart I wished to show on utility prices. We have heard doom and gloom. Here are the facts. There was hardly any fluctuation in utility rates when half the coal-fired plants made these improvements.

Do not fall for scare tactics because we know upgrading a utility is something that has to be done. It is built into the long-term plans of these utilities.

What poisonous emissions does this clean air rule address? I talked about it before. In the balance of my time I will go through it again, but I am going to just name these toxins: mercury and lead, arsenic, selenium, cadmium, chromium, benzene, formaldehyde, acid gases, and toxic soot. All we need do is listen to what I said and we know we don't want to breathe them in and we don't want to have fish that contain too much mercury because it damages the nervous system in children and harms the brains of infants. We know how dangerous it is for pregnant women and children to eat this type of fish.

Last night, we had Senator Whitehouse here from Rhode Island, and he was eloquent on the point. He had a picture, which was actually a Norman Rockwell painting--it wasn't a real painting, it was a wonderful poster. He said: Here is a perfect American scene of a grandpa taking a grandson fishing. He said that today, in his State, they can't eat the fish. Maybe they can once a month eat one fish, and in some of their lakes, they can't even eat any.

This is wrong. This is pollution blowing from other places into the Northeast. Let's defeat this resolution. It is bad for the people of this country.

I yield the floor and retain the balance of my time.

Am I correct that there is 4 minutes remaining on my side?

I yield 1 of those minutes to Senator Pryor.

Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma said I asked: Whom do we trust more, politicians or bureaucrats? No; that is not what I said. I said: Whom do we trust more, politicians or groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Respiratory Care, the American Heart Association, the Lung Association, the nurses, the March of Dimes, et cetera. I believe that when it comes to the trust of the public, these groups have one concern and that concern is the health of our people. That is why we have to defeat this resolution and allow the Environmental Protection Agency, after 20 years, to finally promulgate a rule that

will go after the worst toxins that are coming out of coal-fired plants.

I will go through a few of these. Mercury is a heavy metal that can damage the nervous system in children and harm the brain of infants, causing slower mental development and lower intelligence. Why do we want to take a stand against the children and their brain development? Mercury can accumulate in the food chain. We know this. What happens is people--especially pregnant women and children--can't eat fish because of the high content of mercury.

Then there is lead. These are the things we are talking about getting out of the air. Lead can damage the nervous system of children and harm the brains of infants, causing slower mental development and lower intelligence.

There is no known safe level of lead in the blood of children. This is indisputable fact. It can harm the kidneys and cause high blood pressure, damage reproduction, cause muscle and joint pain, nerve disorders. Why would anyone--why would anyone stand on this floor and say it is OK to allow these toxins to be polluting our environment? Arsenic is a heavy metal that causes cancer, damages the nervous system, kidneys, and liver. Powerplants account for 62 percent of all the arsenic pollution we are fighting against. Why would anyone who cares about the people they represent vote for this resolution and stop the EPA from cleaning up our air?

Vote no. There is no reason to risk the health of the American people by voting for the utility CRA resolution. If the resolution passes and if that resolution were to become the policy of this country, thousands--hundreds of thousands of Americans every year would be harmed. This is not rhetoric, this is fact. Scientists have told us this. The health groups have told us this.

I urge a strong ``no'' vote.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate this evening on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 37 be in order, even though the motion to proceed will not be made until Wednesday's session.

Mr. President, I am going to make a unanimous consent request that Senator Carper open this debate--and I give thanks to Senator Inhofe for allowing that--for 8 minutes, and then Senator Inhofe will use 15 minutes at his discretion. Then we will go to Senator Shaheen for up to 10 minutes. Then we go back to Senator Inhofe for another 15 minutes from his side, and then our side will be Senator Lautenberg for 10, Senator Merkley for 10, and Senator Whitehouse for 10.

Why not give us an exact time. I think it is important. So we are saying instead of 15 minutes of time--I would just say some of my people--can the Senator from Oklahoma take the first segment for 15 minutes--because I know Senator Shaheen is going to be waiting to speak--and then we will give you 20 minutes after that?

So 18 minutes.

OK. Then we will go to Senator Shaheen for 10 and back to Senator Inhofe for 18 minutes.

All right. Then the others will have 10 minutes apiece after that.

Mr. President, I would like to take 3 minutes now, then yield up to 15 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey. I would then ask my friend, the Senator from Rhode Island--who is in the chair--to take up to 15 minutes, if he would like, and I will sit in the chair.

Mr. President, I just wish to say to my colleague Senator Inhofe before he leaves, that under this President we have seen more domestic energy production than we have seen probably in decades and decades--more domestic energy production and less reliance on imported oil than we have seen in decades and decades. So let's not attack President Obama for not working to ensure that we have the

domestic capacity here at home to produce energy, because we are producing it from all sources.

The other point I wish to make is that my friends on the other side are ignoring the facts. The facts are that for every $1 to $3 that will be invested in clean utilities, we get back $9 in benefits. The Presiding Officer has spoken on this quite often, and the fact is there are many benefits to doing this.

The other point I wish to make--which is very important--is that one- half of our coal-fired powerplants have already made these important technology upgrades. That is wonderful news. Why would we reward companies that haven't done what these others have done, that are continuing to spew forth the most dangerous chemicals? The list of them goes on and on. But we are talking about mercury, we are talking about arsenic, lead, and formaldehyde. I will get into that, but if we allow this congressional resolution to pass, why would we be rewarding the most recalcitrant utilities that are not cleaning up when the technology is clearly there?

There is a cost-benefit ratio. Our kids will breathe better. Later on tonight, I will spell out how many deaths will be avoided, how many asthma attacks will be avoided. We hear a little coughing in the Chamber today. That is the sound, unfortunately, we hear in classrooms all over this country. If we go into a classroom and we ask how many kids have asthma, one-third of the kids will raise their hand. If we say: How many of you know someone with asthma or have asthma yourself, half the kids will raise their hand.

So this isn't benign. What my colleague is doing is essentially pushing forward a resolution that would stop the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job that we asked them to do 20 long years ago when we passed the Clean Air Act amendments.

It is my privilege to yield up to 15 minutes to Senator Lautenberg, followed by the Presiding Officer, Senator Whitehouse.

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

I wish to thank the Presiding Officer very much for taking the Chair again and for his beautiful statement. I thought the Senator definitely debated the issue and took apart the argument that my Republican friends made against a rule that is widely supported by the American people. The Senator cited some of the amazing organizations. I will do that again tomorrow in the debate.

Just for the sake of the folks who are still working here tonight, I don't plan to go much more than 5 minutes. It has been a very long day for everyone who works here and I respect that.

It is not only these amazing groups that are with us that want us to defeat this very dangerous resolution--my colleague named some of them--the American Nurses are among those who understand what health care is about. They see people struggling to find a breath when they come in with these attacks. Also, religious organizations recognize we are only as good as the weakest among us. As Senator Lautenberg pointed out so eloquently, it is our kids who get the real impact of this many times as well as adults.

What I wish to do in closing out the debate tonight--and we will have another hour of debate tomorrow--is just run through a few charts that tell the tale. The first one is: What does this resolution do? Because I know people may be following us and saying: What exactly do Senator Inhofe and his colleagues want to do? They want to repeal the rule that is about to go into place and block the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing the first-ever national mercury and air toxics standards for powerplants. These powerplants are giving off these poisons, and these poisons are going into the air.

In the case of mercury, we wind up poisoning fish, which was such a great part of my colleague Senator Whitehouse's presentation. So poisons are being spewed into the air from these powerplants.

In 1990, by a vote of 89 to 10 and in the House 401 to 25, we passed the Clean Air Act. Those were the amendments. It was signed by George Herbert Walker Bush. More than 20 years later, we have a court order because we didn't do what we were supposed to do. Now President Obama is doing the right thing to protect the people by moving forward with this first-ever national standard. We have to defeat this push to stop the Obama administration from doing what we wanted done since 1990 and what we wanted the then-EPA to do and it has taken this much time to get it done. Just as we are on the brink of getting this protective rule, which is so cost-efficient--for every $1 to $3, we save $9--they want to turn it around.

What is at stake? There are 4,200 to 11,000 additional premature deaths. So when people say what we do doesn't matter, I say look at this. If this rule is repealed, more people will die prematurely. We will have 4,700 heart attacks, 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms, 6,300 cases of acute bronchitis, 5,700 emergency room visits and hospital admissions, 540,000 days of missed work due to respiratory illness. Again, it is $3 to $9 in benefits for every $1 invested in the powerplants, one-half of which have already done the right thing. Half the coal powerplants have done this already. So we are talking about ensuring that the rest of them do the same.

Many companies have addressed their mercury and air toxic emissions. We should thank the coal companies that have already cleaned up their act, not reward those that have delayed in installing the pollution- control equipment. Anyone on the other side who says there is no pollution-control equipment that is available and this can't be done and it is going to result in increased electric utility rates should listen to the facts. They should talk to the people who already installed these important mechanisms. They created jobs doing it, and as far as electricity prices, there was no impact.

I talked about the jobs that are provided. When we clean up these utilities, there will be 8,000 long-term jobs and 46,000 short-term jobs. It is actually a jobs bill when we clean up to current standards.

What poisonous emissions does the clean air rule address? I think this is basically where I am going to end it. I am going to mention these things, and they sound scary because they are. Mercury and lead, this is what we are asking them to clean up, and my colleagues say, no, keep on polluting. Mercury and lead damages the nervous system of children and harms the brains of infants. Arsenic sound scary? It is. It causes cancer and damages the nervous system, kidneys, and the liver. My Republican friends say: Oh, it is OK. Who cares? We should all care. How about selenium? It harms the reproductive system of wildlife. Other heavy metals such as cadmium and chromium cause cancer and harm vital organs. Benzene causes cancer and

damages immune and reproductive systems. How about this one, formaldehyde. It sounds scary. It is scary. It is a carcinogen, and that means it causes cancer--no question about that. Acid gases sound scary? They are scary. They damage the heart, the lungs, and the nervous system. Imagine breathing in acid gases and what that does to our pulmonary system. Toxic soot pollution causes respiratory illness, including asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, heart attacks, and premature death.

Tomorrow I will go into these in greater detail. It is just a rhetorical question, but why would anyone in their right mind stand in the way of cleaning up these poisons. They say it costs too much. No, it doesn't because the companies that already did it say it is working. For every $1 we invest, we save $3 to $9. So it doesn't cost too much. Is it just about doing business as usual? That is fine if all we are doing is something that is benign. This is not benign.

My colleague Senator Inhofe attacked the President and said our President is stymieing domestic energy production when we have the opposite truth. We have seen a tremendous increase in domestic energy production under this President, more than we have seen for decades. So don't blame this President and say he is trying to stymie domestic energy production. He has embraced an all-of-the-above strategy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a paper entitled ``Develop and Secure America's Energy Supplies.''

It shows how U.S. crude oil production is way up under President Obama. It is way up. Over the last 2 years domestic oil and natural gas production has increased. In 2010, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003 and total U.S. natural gas production has reached its highest level in more than 30 years. How can my colleagues stand and say this President doesn't like the coal companies and is trying to push them out of business so we will have less energy production? Wrong. What he is trying to do and we are trying to do--those of us who are going to oppose the Inhofe resolution--is say we want to see coal continue, but we don't want it to spew forth--mercury, arsenic, selenium, other heavy metals, benzene, formaldehyde, acid gases, and toxic soot. It is pretty straightforward. Clean it up.

When I was a kid, my mother said: Clean your room. She said: You made a mess so clean it. I see some of the pages are smiling because their mothers say the same to them. What I found as I matured over the years is that we need to come back to some of those basics. Clean up your mess. They are making a mess. But it is not the benign mess that is in some of the bedrooms of our kids, with toys, papers, and clothes scattered around; it is dangerous toxins, and it has to be cleaned up.

Tomorrow is an important vote. I hope tonight people will think about this debate because a lot of the things we do here maybe don't have such a direct impact on people's lives. This has a direct impact. What we breathe and the fish we eat are all related to what is going to happen tomorrow. I hope we will vote no on the Inhofe resolution and allow the EPA to do its work which 75 percent of the American people support. They want clean air, they want clean water, and we want to make sure they get it without interference. Let's vote down the Inhofe resolution and move forward with clean air. I think we will all be proud tomorrow if we can defeat that resolution.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3314 introduced earlier today.

Mr. President, I further ask that the bill be read three times, and the Senate proceed to a voice vote on passage of the measure.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

I further ask that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 496, S. Res. 497, S. Res. 498, and S. Res. 499.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the resolutions be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I stand today to congratulate the 2011 2012 National Hockey League champions, the Los Angeles Kings. This past season the Kings demonstrated remarkable skill, teamwork, and determination in capturing the franchise's first Stanley Cup.

Thanks to an outstanding roster of seasoned veterans and promising young players, the Kings hoisted the Stanley Cup for the first time in the 45-year history of the franchise. On their historic run, the Kings became the first No. 8 seed to win the NHL championship. On their way to the finals, the Kings knocked off the first seed Vancouver Canucks, the No. 2 seed St. Louis Blues, and the No. 3 seed Phoenix Coyotes before capturing the Western Conference title. Despite their low seed, the Kings were dominant in each of their series, taking a 3-to-0 lead in each and never facing an elimination game.

The Kings continued their dominance in the finals against the New Jersey Devils by once again taking a three-games-to-none lead in the series. The Devils were able to stay alive in games 4 and 5 to force the series to go to six games. However, in game six the Kings once again showed their prowess winning by a score of 6 to 1 and cementing their first championship.

Throughout the season, the Kings were a model of hard work, dedication, and consistency. It is my pleasure to congratulate all members of the Kings organization who worked tirelessly to bring this hard fought victory to Los Angeles. As the Los Angeles Kings and their fans celebrate their first Stanley Cup victory, I commend them on a truly remarkable and memorable season and wish them more success in future seasons.

S. Res. 498

(Designating June 20, 2012, as ``American Eagle Day'', and celebrating the recovery and restoration of the bald eagle, the national symbol of

the United States)

Whereas on June 20, 1782, the bald eagle was officially

designated as the national emblem of the United States by the

founding fathers in the Congress of the Confederation;

Whereas the bald eagle is the central image of the Great

Seal of the United States;

Whereas the image of the bald eagle is displayed in the

official seal of many branches and departments of the Federal

Government, including--

(1) the Office of the President;

(2) the Office of the Vice President;

(3) Congress;

(4) the Supreme Court;

(5) the Department of the Treasury;

(6) the Department of Defense;

(7) the Department of Justice;

(8) the Department of State;

(9) the Department of Commerce;

(10) the Department of Homeland Security;

(11) the Department of Veterans Affairs;

(12) the Department of Labor;

(13) the Department of Health and Human Services;

(14) the Department of Energy;

(15) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;

(16) the Central Intelligence Agency; and

(17) the Postal Service;

Whereas the bald eagle is an inspiring symbol of--

(1) the spirit of freedom; and

(2) the sovereignty of the United States;

Whereas since the founding of the Nation, the image,

meaning, and symbolism of the bald eagle have played a

significant role in the art, music, history, commerce,

literature, architecture, and culture of the United States;

Whereas the bald eagle is prominently featured on the

stamps, currency, and coinage of the United States;

Whereas the habitat of bald eagles exists only in North

America;

Whereas by 1963, the population of bald eagles that nested

in the lower 48 States had declined to approximately 417

nesting pairs;

Whereas due to the dramatic decline in the population of

bald eagles in the lower 48 States, the Secretary of the

Interior listed the bald eagle as an endangered species on

the list of endangered species published under section

4(c)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.

1533(c)(1));

Whereas caring and concerned individuals from the Federal,

State, and private sectors banded together to save, and help

ensure the recovery and protection of, bald eagles;

Whereas on July 20, 1969, the first manned lunar landing

occurred in the Apollo 11 Lunar Excursion Module, which was

named ``Eagle'';

Whereas the ``Eagle'' played an integral role in achieving

the goal of the United States of landing a man on the Moon

and returning that man safely to Earth;

Whereas in 1995, as a result of the efforts of those caring

and concerned individuals, the Secretary of the Interior

listed the bald eagle as a threatened species on the list of

threatened species published under section 4(c)(1) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(1));

Whereas by 2007, the population of bald eagles that nested

in the lower 48 States had increased to approximately 10,000

nesting pairs, an increase of approximately 2,500 percent

from the preceding 40 years;

Whereas in 2007, the population of bald eagles that nested

in the State of Alaska was approximately 50,000 to 70,000;

Whereas on June 28, 2007, the Secretary of the Interior

removed the bald eagle from the list of threatened species

published under section 4(c)(1) of the Endangered Species Act

of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(1));

Whereas bald eagles remain protected in accordance with--

(1) the Act entitled ``An Act for the protection of the

bald eagle'', approved June 8, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.)

(commonly known as the ``Bald Eagle Protection Act of

1940''); and

(2) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.);

Whereas on January 15, 2008, the Secretary of the Treasury

issued 3 limited edition bald eagle commemorative coins under

the American Bald Eagle Recovery and National Emblem

Commemorative Coin Act (Public Law 108 486; 118 Stat. 3934);

Whereas the sale of the limited edition bald eagle

commemorative coins issued by the Secretary of the Treasury

has raised approximately $7,800,000 for the nonprofit

American Eagle Foundation of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee to

support efforts to protect the bald eagle;

Whereas if not for the vigilant conservation efforts of

concerned Americans and the enactment of conservation laws

(including regulations), the bald eagle would face

extinction;

Whereas the American Eagle Foundation has brought

substantial public attention to the cause of the protection

and care of the bald eagle nationally;

Whereas November 4, 2010, marked the 25th anniversary of

the American Eagle Foundation;

Whereas facilities around the United States, such as the

Southeastern Raptor Center at Auburn University in the State

of Alabama, rehabilitate injured eagles for release into the

wild;

Whereas the dramatic recovery of the population of bald

eagles--

(1) is an endangered species success story; and

(2) an inspirational example for other wildlife and natural

resource conservation efforts around the world;

Whereas the initial recovery of the population of bald

eagles was accomplished by the concerted efforts of numerous

government agencies, corporations, organizations, and

individuals; and

Whereas the continuation of recovery, management, and

public awareness programs for bald eagles will be necessary

to ensure--

(1) the continued progress of the recovery of bald eagles;

and

(2) that the population and habitat of bald eagles will

remain healthy and secure for future generations: Now,

therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) designates June 20, 2012, as ``American Eagle Day'';

(2) applauds the issuance of bald eagle commemorative coins

by the Secretary of the Treasury as a means by which to

generate critical funds for the protection of bald eagles;

and

(3) encourages--

(A) educational entities, organizations, businesses,

conservation groups, and government agencies with a shared

interest in conserving endangered species to collaborate and

develop educational tools for use in the public schools of

the United States; and

(B) the people of the United States to observe American

Eagle Day with appropriate ceremonies and other activities.

S. Res. 499

(Recognizing the tenth anniversary of the National Institute of

Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering)

Whereas the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and

Bioengineering Establishment Act (Public Law 106 580; 114

Stat. 3088) was signed into law on December 29, 2000;

Whereas the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and

Bioengineering (referred to in this preamble as the

``Institute'') awarded its first research grants in April

2002;

Whereas the purpose of the Institute, a component of the

National Institutes of Health, is to conduct and support

research, training, dissemination of health information, and

other programs relating to biomedical imaging, biomedical

engineering, and associated technologies and modalities with

biomedical applications;

Whereas the Institute was established to--

(1) accelerate the development of new technologies with

clinical and research applications;

(2) improve coordination and efficiency at the National

Institutes of Health and throughout the Federal Government;

(3) lay the foundation for a new medical information age;

(4) promote economic development; and

(5) provide a structure for training current and future

researchers based on the most recent innovative discoveries;

Whereas the Institute and the biomedical imaging and

bioengineering research communities encourage the integration

of the physical and life sciences to advance human health by

improving quality of life and reducing the burden of disease

through research and discoveries;

Whereas, since its establishment, the Institute has

supported research to develop scientific advances in

biotechnology, imaging, and biomedical engineering, and to

advance the application of biomedical technology to improve

detection, treatment, and prevention of disease by assembling

diverse teams of scientists and engineers to pursue

innovative medical therapies and technologies to better meet

the health care needs of patients; and

Whereas the Institute has helped to support scientific

breakthroughs in areas such as regenerative medicine, cancer

treatments, and nanotechnology, which are helping health care

providers to better target care and meet the individual

health care needs of patients: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) commends the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging

and Bioengineering for its leadership in research and its

role in advancing technologies that improve patient health;

(2) recognizes the remarkable impact that biomedical

research supported by the National Institute of Biomedical

Imaging and Bioengineering has had on patients; and

(3) recognizes the importance of maintaining a strong

commitment to pursuing the next generation of life-saving

treatments and technologies for patients.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 20; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the majority leader be recognized; and that following the remarks of the leaders, the Republican leader be recognized to make a motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 37; further, that the time until 11:30 a.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first 15 minutes and the majority controlling the second 15 minutes; and finally, that at 11:30 a.m., the Senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the motion to proceed; that if the motion to proceed is agreed to, all other provisions of the previous order with respect to S.J. Res. 37 remain in effect, and that if the motion to proceed is not agreed to, the Senate resume consideration of S. 3240 and the votes in relation to the amendments remaining in order.

Mr. President, there will be several rollcall votes beginning at approximately 11:30 a.m. tomorrow. The first vote will be on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 37, a resolution of disapproval regarding the EPA's mercury and air toxics standards. The additional votes will be on amendments to the farm bill in order to complete action on the bill.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield at this point for a question?

First, I want to thank the Senator so much--so much--for taking to the floor today and explaining to everyone within the sound of his voice that we face a very important vote, because we have a colleague on the other side of the aisle who wants to say to the Environmental Protection Agency: Stop your work and allow polluters to continue to poison this atmosphere and those of us who live in it. You are talking about mercury. There is arsenic, there is lead, there is formaldehyde. We have to say to the utilities: Clean up your act. We are giving them enough time to do it.

I want to ask my friend a question, and then I will yield altogether to him. The question is, is my friend aware that the cost-benefit ratio of this rule that Senator Inhofe wants to now repeal is 9 to 1? In other words, for every $1 that we put in to make sure this pollution goes away or is controlled, there is $9 of benefits in health? Is my colleague aware of that?

Right.

That is right.

Madam President, what is the speaker situation? Do I have some time now to respond to the Republican leader?

OK. I would ask if I could have 2 minutes just to respond to my friend.

Madam President, I ask that I be allowed to speak on the Democratic side's time for up to 5 minutes.

Madam President, I thank the Republican leader.

It just stuns me when the Republican leader comes to the floor and has his ``blame Obama'' moment every day that he can. I thought this one was over the top. It is as if President Obama came in and everything was great and suddenly things are not going well.

Excuse me, I was here. I know. I remember when we had surpluses under Bill Clinton and the Democrats, and the Republicans turned it into deficits as far as the eye could see.

I cannot forget that because I remember a time when there was discussion about whether we were even going to have U.S. Treasurys anymore because we were not going to have debt anymore when Bill Clinton was President, and the Democrats set us on that right course. We had a balance between investments in our people and fair taxes so that the top 1 percent paid a fair share, and everybody did well.

Madam President, 23 million new jobs were created with Bill Clinton. Then George W. comes in. Two wars go on the credit card, tax breaks to the wealthiest few--the millionaires and billionaires--on the credit card, and suddenly we have a crisis: No regulation of these sophisticated securities.

My friend in the chair, the Acting President pro tempore, knows well what happened: no oversight, derivatives, new kinds of securities, taking a beautiful home ownership ethic we had in this country and gambling on it. What happened? The worst crisis since the Great Depression.

Who comes into office? President Obama takes the oath. The unbelievable crisis he inherited and the unbelievable debt he inherited and the unbelievable budget deficit he inherited was just unbelievable. An auto industry was going to be gone.

My friend Senator McConnell has a right to his opinion, and I respect it so much except he avoids telling the facts about how we got where we are. The American people do not suffer from amnesia. They understand this. They saw this President, this young President come in, faced with jobs bleeding 800,000 a month. Yes, he turned it around. Yes, he did, in fact, promote a rescue of the auto industry. We would have been the only great economy that did not have one if it was not for his courage. Yes, a couple of courageous votes on the Republican side joining with Democrats--that was a good moment. Yes, as Mitt Romney said: Oh yeah, they could have gone busto, bankrupt. We did not feel that way here. The President did not feel that way.

So all of this Obama bashing on the floor of the Senate is going to continue because Senator McConnell is a very straightforward person, and he said--and I quote not the exact words, the sentiment, close to the exact words: Defeating President Obama is the highest priority of the Republicans. We are seeing that play out on this floor. I pledged that I would come here when I could to straighten out the record.

So let's be clear. This President took over in the worst of times since the Great Depression. There have been millions of jobs created-- not enough. I will say this: If this economy sputters, this economic recovery we are in sputters, and has a hard time because of the depth of the crisis originally--the fact that the housing crisis still continues, the fact that there are problems in the global marketplace in Europe, and all of these factors--I want to say this: I want the person in the Oval Office to be a person who understands what is happening, and that is President Obama, who relates to working people, who relates to the middle class, who is not building an elevator for his cars in San Diego. That is how I feel.

Every time there is an attack on this President, I am going to come down here and tell the truth to the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to 27 servicemembers from California or based in California who have died while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom since March 1, 2012. This brings to 351 the number of servicemembers either from California or based in California who have been killed while serving our country in Afghanistan. This represents 18 percent of all U.S. deaths in Afghanistan.

Cpl Conner T. Lowry, 24, of Chicago, IL, died March 1 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Corporal Lowry was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

SPC Edward J. Acosta, 21, of Hesperia, CA, died March 5 in La Jolla, CA, of injuries sustained December 3, 2011, when his vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device in Wardak province, Afghanistan. Specialist Acosta was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 5th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, TX.

CPT Francis D. Imlay, 31, of Vacaville, CA, died March 28 from injuries received in an accident involving an F 15 aircraft near a base in Southwest Asia. Captain Imlay was assigned to the 391st Fighter Squadron, Mountain Home Air Force Base, ID.

Cpl Michael J. Palacio, 23, of Lake Elsinore, CA, died March 29 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Corporal Palacio was assigned to Headquarters Battalion, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan.

Cpl Roberto Cazarez, 24, of Harbor City, CA, died March 30 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Corporal Cazarez was assigned to the 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Cpl Alex Martinez, 21, of Elgin, IL, died April 5 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Corporal Martinez was assigned to the 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

CN Trevor J. Stanley, 22, of Virginia Beach, VA, died April 7 while deployed to Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti. Constructionman Stanley, a Seabee, was assigned to Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 3, homeported in Port Hueneme, CA.

LCpl Ramon T. Kaipat, 22, of Tacoma, WA, died April 11 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Kaipat was assigned to 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

CW2 Nicholas S. Johnson, 27, of San Diego, CA, died April 19 in Helmand province, Afghanistan, when his Black Hawk (UH 60) crashed. Chief Warrant Officer Johnson was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 25th Aviation Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, Wheeler Army Airfield, HI.

SSgt Joseph H. Fankhauser, 30, of Mason, TX, died April 22 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Fankhauser was assigned to 7th Engineer Support Battalion, 1st Marine Logistics Group, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton,

Mr. President, I thank Senator Mikulski so much not only for yielding to me but for her extraordinary leadership in the Senate on so many issues of fairness and justice for women, for families, for children, and for our seniors. It is really a legendary record that she has amassed, and this is just one more example.

I also thank President Obama for his leadership in calling attention to this important legislation, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

If you were to stop someone on the street and in the simplest terms say: Do you think it is right to pay people differently for the same job? Do you think that is right--they have the same experience, the same education, the same qualifications--people would say: No, that is not right. Yet that is what has been happening to America's women, even though we have, since the 1960s, a very important law in place that is supposed to guarantee fair pay to everyone, including women. But women earn 77 cents for every $1 earned by a man. When you drill down to those numbers, you find out in a vast number of cases they are doing the same work as the man, making less.

Of course, Lilly Ledbetter made a very important point about this and became quite famous with a Supreme Court case where she had been doing the same things as her male counterparts--working in a tire factory, being a manager, being skilled, being strong, and yet underpaid. When she discovered it, trying to seek justice, she was unable to do so. The Senate stepped to the plate, and with Democrats moving forward, we passed the Lilly Ledbetter law, which does take care of the statute of limitations. It allows you to take as long as you have to to get to court to make your case. For Lilly, it was too late, and she never was able to recover what she deserved.

So now what Senator Mikulski has done with the Paycheck Fairness Act is to say we are going to go the next step. We are going to make sure that women have justice in the workplace, that women have rights.

Why is this important to families--not just to women but to families? It is because over a lifetime of discrimination that so many women face, it is not like here where you are a Senator, you are a Senator, you are a Senator, woman or man, out there it is different. When you are discriminated against over a lifetime and are only getting 77 cents--and some, by the way, only make 56 cents or 62 cents on the dollar--the average wage loss over a working lifetime is over $400,000. If you take a look at what our families could do with $400,000--educate a child, make sure people get the best of medical care, make sure the family has enough so they can all take a break together and have a decent vacation or buy a better car--this is an issue that not only involves women but our families and our economy because, guess what, if that $400,000 during a lifetime was with the family rather than the corporate CEO, who is making millions,

you would see the economy stimulated because middle-class families spend those dollars.

They do not hoard those dollars. So I am going to close by giving a couple of real-life examples. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I am going to tell you some real stories.

A woman from California had an identical advanced degree as her husband. They both landed exact jobs but in different parts of the company--different worksites. The husband was offered $5,000 more in starting salary. They were shocked. The same resume. The same qualifications.

Then there was the health care worker in Long Island who discovered she had been earning $10 an hour less than her male colleagues. When she brought it up to her superiors, she was reprimanded for even asking about the rationale behind the wage gap.

Senator Mikulski's bill says a person cannot be reprimanded or punished because they are trying to find out if they are being paid fairly. That is why we have to pass this law. Anyone voting against it is taking a stand against women, is taking a stand against fairness, is taking a stand against justice, is taking a stand against our families.

Then there was a female employee for a major corporation in Florida who was told when she was hired that to disclose her salary to other workers was grounds for dismissal. Since then she realized her male counterparts made more than she did. But she did not have any written proof.

Another, a female employee at that company was told because her husband picked her up from work in a nice car that she did not need to get a salary increase. One woman retired after 15 years as an award- winning CEO of a public agency. Her male replacement, who had little experience, was hired at a higher salary.

After having a child, a California woman was fired from her job at a nonprofit. Her replacement, a man with less experience, was given 30 percent more in starting salary. We have example after example after example.

How the Republican side of the aisle could filibuster this bill is beyond my imagination. I do not know what they are thinking. They will give an excuse. They will come up with some excuse. They will say: Oh, it will hurt jobs. It will hurt this and that. It is all made up. It is all made up.

In this great Nation, when we move toward equality, we all prosper together. I urge an ``aye'' vote. I thank Senator Mikulski for this moment to be able to support this important bill.

I yield the floor.