Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``APEC 2011: Breaking Down Barriers, Creating Economic Growth.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Assessing the Situation in Libya.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``A Tragic Anniversary: Improving Safety at Dangerous Mines One Year After Upper Big Branch'' on March 31, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 31, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March

31, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``President's FY2012 Budget Request for the U.S. Small Business Administration and the Office of Advocacy.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 10 a.m., to hold a Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Global Narcotics subcommittee hearing entitled, ``A Shared Responsibility: Counternarcotics and Citizen Security in the Americas.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery and Intergovernmental Affairs of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Exploring Drug Gangs' Ever-Evolving Tactics to Penetrate the Border and the Federal Government's Ability to Stop Them.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in Dirksen 406.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator if she will yield for a question.

I wanted to clarify that.

Because I have a pressing event after, I wanted be sure.

Mr. President, I need to tell the American people and my colleagues who have not been following this important debate on a very good bill, I am so grateful to the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, for this bill. Unfortunately, there has been an amendment that was attached to this bill on the very first day which would stop the Environmental Protection Agency forever from enforcing the Clean Air Act as it relates to carbon pollution.

This is a first of a kind. It has never been done. It is essentially a repeal of the Clean Air Act as it involves one particular pollutant, carbon, which has been found to be an endangerment to our people. The EPA did not wake up one day and say: We think carbon is dangerous. No; the scientists in both the Bush administration and Obama administration found out carbon is a dangerous pollutant, dangerous to the health of our families. So EPA, in what is I think a very solid way, has started to prepare to regulate carbon. They have done it in a way that has said they are not going after farms, they are not going after small business, they are going after the biggest polluters in the country.

Guess what. The friends of those polluters, right in this Senate Chamber, have decided--and they already did it in the House, the new Republican majority--they are going to stop EPA in its tracks. That is why I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a very good letter from the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the Trust for America's Health, the Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

They say we ``strongly oppose Congress blocking EPA's effort to implement the Clean Air Act.'' That is one of the things they say in the letter.

Then, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record--by the way, these are new letters, yesterday one of them--a letter from Business for Innovative Climate + Energy Policy.

The letter says ``Business Support for EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.'' It is a letter from Anne Kelly, who is director of this organization. She writes:

We are writing as major U.S. businesses to urge you to

oppose all amendments or other measures that would block,

delay or curtail EPA's ability to take action on the

regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

It is not business friendly. It is friendly, these terrible amendments, to the biggest polluters in America who today took out a full-page ad. I guess they can afford $20,000--maybe it is 50, I don't know what it costs--for a whole page, saying: ``Stopping EPA's job- killing greenhouse gas regulation.''

Of course, who are they? The Industrial Minerals Association, the National Mining Association, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, Petroleum Marketers Association of America, Society of Chemical Manufacturers, et cetera, et cetera.

I guess the question for us as a body is, Whom do we stand with, the biggest polluters in America or the American people, 69 percent of whom said in a bipartisan poll: ``EPA should update Clean Air Act standards with stricter air pollution limits.''

This group in this body, for whatever reason--and I respect their reasons, I just strongly disagree with them--are saying: Stop EPA, stop. Mr. President, 68 percent believe Congress should not stop EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards.

That is what these amendments do. I say show me one other thing besides we all love our mothers that would get 68 percent of the American people in a bipartisan vote.

Mr. President, 69 percent believe ``EPA scientists, not Congress, should set pollution standards.'' But we have Senators playing scientist, putting on their white coats, deciding what EPA should do, when it ought to be based on science. What is the science telling us? That it is dangerous to breathe in air pollution with lots of carbon in it.

I ask unanimous consent to have another letter printed in the Record from 1Sky, Center For Biological Diversity, Clean Air Task Force, Clean Water Action, Conservation Law Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife--I can't even take the time to read them all--Interfaith Power and Light, League of Women Voters, NRDC, Safe Climate Campaign, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Republicans for Environmental Protection--I love that one--Voices for Progress, World Wildlife Fund. I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record. It is dated March 30 of this year.

It says:

For 40 years the EPA has protected our health and for 40

years the Clean Air Act has been reducing dozens of different

pollutants--all while contributing to America's economic

prosperity.

Every single time we try to rein in pollution, special interests say: No, no, no, a thousand times no. We will stop growth. We will stop jobs. We will kill the economy. It is awful, awful, awful.

Let me give one economic fact: If you can't breathe, you can't work.

Here is a picture of a little girl suffering, struggling. I urge my colleagues who support Senator McConnell to look at this. They are not here, but maybe on TV they will. Look at this picture. Is that what we want for her future?

We have another picture of a little boy. This is what is happening in this country because of the polluters who will not clean up their mess. Here is another beautiful child. We all love children. How many speeches have we had on this floor--we love children, children are our future, we will fight for our children. Do we want their future to look like this, breathing

through a device? Come on. This is clear.

You go to any school. I defy my colleagues, try this. Go to any school in your State and say: By the way, how many of you have asthma? You will see the little hands go up. Then you say: How many of you know someone with asthma? You will see half the class raise their hands. Yet what are we doing on this beautiful bill--that Senator Landrieu, I know, wants to have cleaned up? She doesn't want these amendments on it. Regardless of how she may feel or I may feel, we both agree we should not have these amendments on it, but so be it. We have to vote these amendments down because we are responsible for these kids. All our side is saying is very simple: The Clean Air Act has worked.

If I went up to you and I said: If you know something worked perfectly well, would you mess with it? Would you change it?

No. Why would you, if it is working well?

So let's take a look at how well the Clean Air Act is working. I know how strong the belief of the Presiding Officer is on this subject. Let's take a look at this.

In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 cases of premature deaths. By 2020, that number is projected to rise to 230,000 cases of premature death. So if we stay on course and we fool around with the Clean Air Act--as my Republican friends have already done in the House and I pray to God they do not succeed--we are going to see more deaths in 2020.

In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million fewer asthma attacks. I showed you the picture of those children. Why do we want to mess with that? The Clean Air Act prevented 10,000 acute heart attacks. You read the stories: So-and-so went out on a heavy, bad air day, took a little jog, and collapsed.

I have to tell you, we have a success story to tell about what the Clean Air Act is doing. I will show a chart of what happened in Los Angeles. A lot of you go to my beautiful State. I know the chairman of the committee said she was just there, and it was a terrific visit to my State. We have a magnificent State. But there were times when you went to Los Angeles that you saw the air. That is not a good thing. When you see the air, that is a bad thing. The air was thick. People were told on many mornings: Do not go out unless you must. The air is so dangerous.

The Clean Air Act passed. Guess what. In 2010, we have had no mornings like that--none. We went from 166 days a year of health advisories in southern California to none in 2010. I have to say, if you show me any other law that has had this record of success, I will smile and be happy. We went from 166 days a year of smog advisories to none because of the Clean Air Act. I have already told you, we have saved lives, saved asthma attacks. We have done it all. Yet there are people in this Chamber who want to either postpone enforcing the Clean Air Act as it relates to carbon or want to stop it forever, which is the McConnell amendment and the worst amendment of them all, if I had to rate them.

I have a couple other charts to share with you and then I will close. The McConnell amendment, which is the worst of all amendments--none of them are good--they all interfere with the Environmental Protection Agency, which is supported, the EPA, by 69 percent of the people.

But the McConnell amendment is a disaster. It is the same as the Upton amendment, the Upton bill in the House, and the Inhofe bill in the Senate. The McConnell amendment--what does it do? It says that forever more, the EPA cannot do anything to regulate carbon pollution regardless of how dangerous it is, regardless of what the scientists tell us, regardless of what the physicians tell us, regardless of what the people tell us through the polls, regardless of what our communities tell us, what our States tell us, what our mayors tell us. Forever more, they are repealing the Clean Air Act as it relates to carbon pollution. Rather extreme. Outrageous. We have to beat it. We must beat it. It is so bad. It goes against the Supreme Court decision. By the way, there will be lawsuits up the wazoo if it ever becomes law, and it will not, I pray.

The Supreme Court said that if we find--scientists--that carbon pollution is dangerous, we have to regulate it. Guess what. The scientists found that carbon pollution is dangerous. They made an endangerment finding. The EPA is ready to act, I think in a judicious way. They are very mindful. They are not going after farms, they are not going after small businesses. That is not good enough for these special interests who took out this huge ad today standing against--it is a beautiful ad. It looks almost environmental, green. This is not green; it is dirty--dirty air. That is what this ad stands for--dirty air.

A lot of people did not want me to come back here because they knew I would come here and tell the truth about this. But I am here, and I am going to tell the truth every day in every way because I love my grandkids and I love everybody's grandkids. As far as I am concerned, that is why I am here--not to protect the rich polluters who make billions of dollars a year. They can clean up their act. We proved it. We proved it. We have said we do not want kids struggling for air, and we said we can do this right. We proved it. We not only proved we can clean up the air, we not only proved we can save lives, we not only proved we can save asthma attacks, we proved we can grow this economy.

I am going to close now and let my friend from Louisiana have the floor, but I have to close with this. There is a lot of talk about how this is bad for business. But the fact is, every time the polluters get up and say: Do not pass any more Clean Air Act amendments, it is going to be bad for jobs. We found out that cleaning up the environment actually creates jobs. Not only does it create jobs, it creates new technologies. Not only does it create new technologies, but those technologies are exported to the world. And I will have printed in the Record the number of jobs that have been created as we moved to clean up the air.

So the reason I am here--and I think it is quite a spirited discussion I am having with all of you--is because we are facing four bad amendments--four, count them, the worst being McConnell--all of which would either slow down the EPA or stop the EPA.

By the way, the McConnell amendment is so terrible that it even says EPA can no longer have anything to do with tailpipe emissions of cars, which is such an important part of the dirty air we are facing.

In closing, according to information from the Institute of Clean Air Companies--those are American companies that oppose these big polluting companies--from 1999 to 2001, the number of boilermakers in the United States increased by 6,700--a 35-percent increase--even though we said: You have to clean up the air.

The Department of Commerce shows that the U.S. environmental technology industry generated $300 billion in revenues, supported 1.7 million jobs. The air pollution control sector produced $18 billion in revenue. Small and medium-sized companies make up 99 percent of the private sector firms in this sector of the economy.

So here is what you have. You have these huge, multibillion-dollar polluters who can afford to take one-page ads, full-page ads in the Washington Post. They want to continue polluting the air, and they don't want to clean it up. And you have a whole other group of businesses that have written to us and said: Please let the EPA do its work. It saves lives, it saves our children, and it creates many jobs-- new jobs, clean jobs, good jobs.

If we go down the path of the McConnell amendment and these other amendments, we are ceding our leadership in environmental clean tech to China. That is the last thing we want to do. They are already surpassing us in solar production, and we created it.

So the bill before us is a fine bill. I hope, if we have to vote for these amendments, and they do come up as part of this agreement as we move forward, we will not pass any of them and we will allow the people to have their way. Sixty-nine percent of them say: Let the EPA do its job.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am so proud to be here with my colleagues Senator Mikulski and Kay Bailey Hutchison because of a woman who brought us all together despite any differences we might have, Geraldine Ferraro. I rise to pay tribute to Gerry.

I thank Senator Mikulski. Her remarks touched on every single point that needs to be made about our friend. Gerry was a trailblazer. We all remember the first female Vice Presidential nominee of a major party, the first in U.S. history. She cracked open that glass ceiling for women seeking higher office. It was a long time ago.

I just looked at an Associated Press photo of when Gerry arrived in San Francisco to prepare for her speech at the convention. I was there waiting for her to arrive--a much younger version of myself, I might say. I don't remember what I said or did, but this picture tells a story. We know the old saying: A picture says a thousand words. This one says a million words. I have never

seen anyone as excited as I appear to be and was in this picture. Arms open wide, body language, just incredulous that we had reached this milestone, all the while knowing what a tough, tough time it would be for Gerry, as it is for many women, whether they run for the Senate or for Governor or for Vice President. It is a tough road still, especially all these many years ago, more than 20 years.

Gerry was given a very hard time by the press. Gerry was given a very hard time by her opponent. She proved without question that women can stand up to the grilling. Women can stand up to the pressure. Women can go toe to toe with anybody. I often say women are equal. We are not better or worse. We are equal. Gerry proved it. When her campaign took a tough turn and a lot of others would have tried to contain the problem, she stood there in front of the press and said: Here I am. You ask me anything you want, and I will stay here hour after hour. They knew she meant it. She would have stayed there for days because that was Gerry. She was open-hearted. She was straight from the shoulder. She always said what was on her mind, and she did it in a way that was also very appealing because you knew this was a woman who was willing to look you in the eye and not give you any song and dance. It was what it was. And for that she will be missed as a friend, as a colleague.

It is difficult today to imagine what it was like then. Now we see our women figures here in the Senate and in the President's Cabinet and in the Republican and Democratic Parties making a run for President and Vice President. It is hard to imagine today that women were not actively engaged in the highest of offices. Frankly, that is Geraldine Ferraro's abiding legacy because, as Senator Mikulski so eloquently stated, she did not win that race--it was a tough race; it was a very tough race--but she proved a woman could do this.

When Gerry spoke about change, she felt in her heart the history- making moment. I remember her in a white suit, as if it were yesterday. In those years, TV people always said: Don't wear white. Gerry wore white.

She was magnificent. And that smile and her togetherness--at that moment in history, when not only was the whole country watching, the whole world was watching--it was an electric moment. I want to read what she said that night. She said:

By choosing a woman to run for our nation's second highest

office, you sent a powerful signal to all Americans. There

are no doors we cannot unlock. We will place no limits on

[our] achievements.

If we can do this, we can do anything.

And those words resonated not just with people who were interested in politics but with women who were in the corporate world; women who were going to law school--just a few in those years, now so many more; women who just dreamed of going into health care, not as a nurse, although some chose that--and some men do as well--but as physicians. This was something I truly believe changed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes, and then turn it over to Senator Hutchison.

Well, Mr. President, there was only one Gerry Ferraro, so I would go 5 minutes and turn it over to Senator Hutchison for as long as she would want.

After graduation from college, Gerry got a job as a second grade teacher at a public school in Queens. She applied to Fordham Law School. That is the law school my husband went to. She was accepted into the night program, despite a warning--listen to this--from an admissions officer that she might be taking a man's place. She got into law school. She was one of 2 women in a class of 179. Imagine, they said to her: You will be taking a man's place in law school. She persevered--one of just 2 women out of 179 students graduating in 1960.

Yes, she raised her family. She adored her family. There was not a second that went by without her saying to one of us, anywhere in earshot: I have to tell you about Laura, I have to tell you about John, I have to tell you about what my kids are doing.

Did my colleague want to ask a question?

As long as it will not interrupt my statement.

Yes.

I am very glad the Senator made that statement, and I appreciate it very much.

When Gerry worked as an assistant district attorney, she formed a Special Victims Bureau. She investigated rape, child and women abuse, and abuse against the elderly at a time when no one was talking about it.

She was elected to Congress. Senator Mikulski has gone into that, the work on the Economic Equity Act. I was proud to work with both Senator Mikulski and Gerry Ferraro on that and Senator Snowe and others.

I remember Senator Mikulski, Olympia Snowe, Gerry Ferraro, and myself--we worked to open the House gym to women. It was a battle. We had to resort to singing and everything else. We finally got into the House gym. We said, yes, women need to work out too. That is the way it was then. We only had 24 women in the House and Senate. Now we have 88 of us.

I will skip over her time as a broadcaster and all the things she did that Senator Mikulski talked about--her work in women's rights--but I wish to conclude with her brave spirit as she faced multiple myeloma, the bone cancer that ultimately took her life. I wish to do it in this context.

I have a good friend now, whose name is Robin, and her mother is battling the same kind of cancer Gerry was battling. As we know, Gerry was given 4 or 5 years and went on, thank God, for much longer.

This woman lives far away from her daughter Robin. When Gerry passed, she called her daughter and said: I need to see you. Will you come out and stay with me, as I battle this cancer?

Robin said: Well, what is it, mom? You are doing great.

She said: We just lost Gerry, and she was the one who kept my heart and soul together and my spirits up, and I knew she was there battling. Now that I have lost her, I don't know, I feel a hole, I am empty.

That is just the most eloquent thing I could say about Gerry. This woman never met Geraldine Ferraro in person, but Gerry had that way about her that she could reach you as if she was touching you. It is a tremendous loss, first and foremost for the family, whom she adored beyond words, and, secondly, for all the rest of us who just need someone like that out there standing up and being brave and telling it like it is and never giving up.

Mr. President, I am so honored I could be here with my colleagues, and I am proud to yield to Senator Hutchison for as much time as she needs.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my deepest condolences to the people of Japan, and to reaffirm that the United States stands ready to assist the country and its people in this time of tremendous need.

On Friday, March 11, the world watched in horror as a devastating 9.0-magnitude earthquake struck off the northeastern coast of Japan, triggering a devastating tsunami that sent a 30-foot high wall of water hurtling into coastal towns and leaving complete destruction in its wake.

As a Senator from California, which has far too often experienced the devastation of earthquakes, I was horrified by the magnitude of this event.

In a stunning development, scientists are now saying that the quake caused the island of Japan to shift by 8 feet and the Earth's axis to move by 4 inches.

In Japanese cities such as Sendai and Minami Sanriku, entire communities and countless lives vanished in an instant. In Minami Sanriku alone, 10,000 members of a population of 17,000 remain unaccounted for.

The force of the tsunami generated by the quake was so great that waves traveled across the Pacific Ocean at more than 500 miles per hour, slamming into Hawaii and cities along the California and Oregon coasts.

Today, we know that an estimated 4,277 lives have been confirmed lost--a figure that will undoubtedly rise--and that hundreds of thousands have been displaced. In this time of extraordinary grief, our thoughts and prayers go out to those who have lost loved ones and to those whose family and friends remain missing.

What we also know is that without Japan's strict building codes and well-developed early warning systems, this terrible tragedy would have been much worse.

I praise the work of all the first responders who are working around the clock in Japan. Tens of thousands of Japanese rescue workers have been joined by teams from around the world, including from the United States and China.

I know that this includes a search and rescue team from Los Angeles County.

The team, which left for Japan on Saturday, is made up of 74 rescue personnel including firefighters and paramedics as well as six teams of search dogs who are trained to look for survivors trapped in debris left by the earthquake and tsunami.

There are also approximately 600 servicemembers from Naval Air Station Lemoore in California aboard the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier, who are assisting relief efforts off the Japanese coast.

Our deepest gratitude goes out to all of those who are working tirelessly to save lives and bring comfort to communities in need.

We also know that the earthquake and tsunami have caused tremendous difficulty at a number of nuclear energy facilities within Japan.

The damage and subsequent failure of systems at these nuclear reactors are a clear warning that we must step up efforts to ensure that every precaution is taken to safeguard all of our people from a similar nuclear disaster.

Special and immediate attention should be given to those nuclear reactors that share similar conditions as the failing reactors in Japan--those located near a coastline or fault line, or those with a similar design.

We must all reexamine our assumptions about what constitutes a credible threat to those reactors and ensure we learn the lessons shown to us by the recent events in Japan.

As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over domestic nuclear regulatory activities, I will ensure that our members have full briefings on all of these issues, and I will hold a hearing on the safety of the Nation's nuclear facilities and what lessons can be learned from the dangerous situation at the failing reactors in Japan. I am also calling on the NRC to conduct a comprehensive investigation of these issues, with a focus on areas that are especially vulnerable to seismic activity like California.

I would also like to spend a few moments talking about the approximately 300,000 Japanese-Americans who call California home.

I am particularly proud that the Japanese American community in my State has quickly stepped up to assist with relief efforts in the aftermath of this horrible tragedy. This includes the Japan America Society of Southern California--a nonprofit organization founded in 1909 to build relationships between the United States and Japan. This also includes the nonprofit Japanese Cultural and Community Center of Northern California. These are just a couple of examples of how Californians are pulling together to help the thousands who have been devastated by the earthquake and tsunami.

I thank all those in California, and those across the country and the world, who have responded to this tragedy with an outpouring of support for the people of Japan.

I would also like to take just a brief moment to thank the Federal, State, and local officials in Hawaii, California and along the west coast for their quick response in warning residents of the tsunami threat and assisting those communities affected by severe waves.

Coastal areas in northern California, particularly Crescent City and Santa Cruz, were impacted by these waves, resulting in damages to port and harbor infrastructure. I am pleased that federal officials arrived in California Monday and are working with State and local officials to assess the situation.

And finally, I thank Senators Reid, McConnell, Kerry, and Lugar for drafting a resolution on the tragedy which passed the Senate Monday evening. I am proud to be a cosponsor.

The resolution expresses the Senate's deepest condolences to all of those affected by this tragedy, including the families of the victims. It also urges the U.S. Government and the international community to provide any additional assistance the Japanese government may need as it moves toward healing, rebuilding, and recovery.

Experts tell us that events of this magnitude are rare--in fact, this was the largest recorded earthquake in Japan's history.

While we hope and pray that we never see such a horrific event again, this tragedy serves as a stark reminder of nature's extraordinary power and how precious and fragile life is.

Let us also use this as an opportunity to redouble our commitment here in America to do the hard work of preparing for the unthinkable.

Just a parliamentary inquiry: Since we are going back and forth, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized after Senator Murkowski.

Mr. President, I have the floor now to respond to some of the statements of my friend from Alaska, and also to be able to enter into some colloquies about this very dangerous and radical amendment. But before I do that, without losing my right to the floor, I yield for a moment to Senator Snowe to lay down an amendment.

Mr. President, I am happy my friend has her amendment lined up so we can get to that.

I commend, first of all, the Senator from Louisiana for her measure that is before us. It is a bill I support very strongly. Therefore, to say I was disappointed to see an unrelated amendment offered is an understatement. But that is the way it is. We are going to have to vote on this. Frankly, we have had votes similar to this before. I feel comfortable and hopeful that we will defeat this amendment.

In about 5 minutes I am going to yield for a question to my friend from New Jersey, but before I do that I want to make about 5 minutes worth of remarks.

The amendment that is pending on this bill has been named by Senators McConnell and Inhofe The Energy Tax Prevention Act. Good title. The bill doesn't do one thing to lower the price of oil--not one thing. We know what we can do right now to lower the price of oil. We know we should go after the speculators who are speculating on futures. We know we have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that the President is looking at. Every time we have taken some oil out of that it has had a salutary impact on the price of gas immediately. We know we should increase our investment in alternative clean fuels. We know what we have to do. We have to work for more stability in the Middle East. Most of all, we have to get off foreign oil. We cannot be hostage to what is going on in the world. This bill does nothing about it. It has a good title but it has nothing to do with the price of oil. We know what we have to do to do something about that. I hope we will.

Let me tell you what I would name this amendment. I would not name it what it has been called, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, because it doesn't do a thing about that. I would call it the Reliance On Foreign Oil Forever Act, because part of it says we can no longer look at fuel economy through the Clean Air Act and make gains on fuel economy.

We all now have the opportunity to buy gas-efficient cars. How do you think that happened? It did not happen without some leadership here. As a matter of fact, the Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe, was very involved in that. My colleague Senator Feinstein was as well. We all worked on this--Senator Lautenberg. We said we are going to have more fuel-efficient cars. According to this, it is over and no State can step out and pass tougher fuel economy standards. It is stopping our States from acting. That is No. 1. So I call it the Reliance On Foreign Oil Forever Act because as long as we drive cars that do not do well on fuel economy, we will be stopping at the gas pump. Mark my words.

How wonderful is it for me. I drive a hybrid car. I go about 50 miles per gallon. I can wave at that gas station and say I am glad I don't have to stop here for a long time.

If you don't want to name the amendment the Reliance On Foreign Oil Forever Act, you can name it something else:

The More Air Pollution for Americans Act. The More Air Pollution for Americans Act. More air pollution. Now, we all ran for office and we all run for office. I never met one person who said: Please go back there and get me more air pollution. Not one person ever said that. What they tell me is that they know someone with asthma. They have asthma. Their kid has asthma.

So here is what happens here. This bill says, forever, the EPA can never, ever go after carbon pollution. Let me repeat that. This amendment, despite the fact that the Clean Air Act specifically says that carbon pollution is covered, says, no more. EPA cannot go after it. It is going to keep on keeping on, and there is going to be more air pollution for every American. That is what this amendment promises that they want to pass.

I have to tell you, my colleagues are playing scientist and they are playing doctor. They are deciding for us whether we should be exposed to pollution. When we hear from my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, we are going to hear what it is like to have a grandchild with terrible asthma and to worry about it 24/7.

So who are the real doctors and what are they saying? We got a letter in opposition to this terrible amendment from the American Lung Association. I guarantee you, Mr. President, even though you are an extremely persuasive person, if you went outside and just stopped people on the street and said: Well, who is really more trustworthy about your health, the American Lung Association or a Senator, I don't care what you say, they would take the American Lung Association. They oppose this.

The American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the Physicians for Social Responsibility and Trust for America's Health--they write to us.

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

``We the undersigned write to express our strong opposition to the McConnell amendment known as the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. We believe this legislation would block the Environmental Protection Agency from setting sensible safeguards to protect public health and the effects of air pollution.''

So here is where we are. This is a terrible amendment. It is going to keep us reliant on foreign oil. It is going to overturn the endangerment finding, a health finding made by scientists and doctors that says carbon pollution is dangerous. It is even going to stop us from having a greenhouse registry where we know how much carbon pollution we are producing. This is a radical amendment. I trust we will defeat it.

I yield to Senator Lautenberg, without losing my right to the floor, for a question.

Absolutely.

Well, I say to my friend, not only do I generally agree, I agree wholeheartedly.

Let me show you a picture of a couple of kids. We have a couple of pictures. I would love my friend to look at this, these beautiful children.

They say a picture is worth 1,000 words. This is worth 1 million words. This baby has to go to a mask to breathe air because the air is so foul. We have another picture of another child. I am sure my colleague has seen it. I am a grandma. I would say we are talking maybe 3 years old, maybe even younger, a child knowing how to gasp for air. Here is another beautiful child. The answer I give to my friend is-- thanking him for his passion, because this is what he has dealt with with one of his grandkids, the fear, the blood-curdling fear, as my friend has said over and over, that when he is out and playing a sport, he might have to rush to an emergency room and my friend's daughter having to know in advance where the nearest emergency room is--this amendment is an attack on our children.

Let me prove it. We have the leading health experts who have just sent us a letter telling us it is an attack on our children. I put up any Senator against these groups for a debate. When I hear from the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation, from physicians across the country, the Trust for America's Health--they say: Beat this McConnell amendment; it is dangerous--I listen. So should every American. I don't care if one is a Republican or a Democrat.

The Senator from Alaska was railing against the Environmental Protection Agency. Let's see what the American people think of the Environmental Protection Agency. There was a bipartisan poll done by a Republican pollster and a Democratic pollster. Sixty-nine percent of Americans think EPA should update the Clean Air Act standards with stricter air pollution limits. The McConnell amendment says to EPA: You may not do this. You may not update air pollution standards as it relates to carbon pollution.

We are a country that is polarized by a lot of issues. I appreciate that. I often say, I just came out of an election that was tough. But 68 percent of the people believe Congress should not stop EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards. Let me repeat: 68 percent of the American people--this poll was done February 16, very recently--believe Congress should not stop EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards. Guess what the McConnell amendment does. It stops the EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards.

Sixty-nine percent believe EPA scientists, not Congress, should set pollution standards. What does the McConnell amendment do? It says that Mitch McConnell and Jim Inhofe--my buddy, my pal, and we are friends. But on this one, we are on opposite sides. I stand with the American people on this one. Sixty-nine percent say EPA scientists, not Congress, should set pollution standards.

Why would that be? These are people from Alabama, Florida, California, New Hampshire. It doesn't matter. This is a huge number. Why do they think that? Common sense. We trust doctors and scientists to tell us what is good for us, not politicians. Period. We have Members of Congress who are doctors. But I have to say, some of them come out against the science and the doctors because they have given that up. They are politicians now. Here is the deal. We have the McConnell amendment. It is taken straight from the Upton bill in the House and the Inhofe bill in the Senate that stops EPA in its tracks from updating Clean Air Act standards, so that we have a standard for carbon pollution which is dangerous. Who tells us it is dangerous? The doctors. Who tells us it is dangerous? The scientists. Who made an endangerment finding? The Environmental Protection Agency.

Do my colleagues know who actually came up with the idea of an Environmental Protection Agency in the 1970s? Richard Nixon. Everyone knows Richard Nixon was a Republican. By the way, I have the same Senate seat he once held. In this, we are in agreement. The EPA was a brilliant idea. Why? Because if we can't breathe, we can't work. My colleagues may think they are doing something for the economy by telling the EPA to go into their rooms and forget about their jobs. But when people start getting more asthma, when there are increased premature deaths, they will think about it again.

Let me show my colleagues what happened in Los Angeles since the Clean Air Act was passed. This is an amazing graph. I hope people can see this clearly. In the 1970s, when Richard Nixon and Congress voted the Clean Air Act in--and it was voted in with a huge majority, it was overwhelming--in Los Angeles, 166 days were lost where people were told they had to stay in, sensitive people. I remember those years. You used to go to the radio to make sure it was safe to go out, if you had a kid with asthma or you had a mom who had a breathing problem. More than half the year, in those years, you couldn't go out of the house. Think about what that says about the economy, when people are trapped inside their houses. Think about what it means to their freedom of movement and think about what it means to the economy when so many people have to stay home and not go to work, not go to school.

Over the years, as the EPA starts to do its job, we start to see fewer and fewer lost days where people could actually go out. I am proud to tell my

colleagues, in 2010, in Los Angeles, which was once the smog capital of the Nation, not one day was there an advisory, not one day. What more of a success rate can we have?

Do my colleagues want to see more success? I will show you some of the benefits in another way. The Congress said to the EPA: We want to make sure there are benefits that go along with your enforcement of the Clean Air Act, so that when you go to a company that is belching smoke and you say they have to install some cleanup devices, it is working. What did we find out? In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 cases of premature death. We understand why the heart doctors and the lung doctors and the physicians and the public health doctors are telling us: Don't vote for McConnell. It will turn the clock back. We saved 160,000 lives in 2010 alone. Projected out, it is going to go way higher in the number of premature deaths averted, if we move forward with the Clean Air Act and we don't substitute politicians for doctors and scientists. Clearly, we are on the right track. In the future, we prevent even more deaths--230,000, to be exact, by 2020.

I don't care if one is a Republican or a Democrat, liberal, conservative, Independent, whatever, this has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with families. This has to do with health. That is why we see 69 percent of the people saying: Congress, butt out of this. Let the EPA do its work. That is why a defeat of the McConnell amendment means we are standing with the doctors, with the scientists and, more than anything else, we are standing with the kids. We are standing with these beautiful kids, these kids who at age 3 are having to learn how to breathe oxygen because they can't go outside because the air is dirty.

Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of this baby and his family or are we on the side of the biggest polluters in the country who are making billions of dollars? They are doing fine, and all they have to do is do a little bit more to clean up the air. We had lots of arguments over the years. Every time we had Clean Air Act amendments, people argued: Don't do it. The air is clean enough. Stop. Enough. Business can't do it.

Guess what we found out. Not only did business step up to the plate and do it, but what was created was an incredible export business, exports of clean air products, technologies, machinery, the best available technology made in America. We are talking about taking the lead on clean air and keeping it, not retreating.

We remember when the Berlin Wall came down. Everyone said: Hooray. But then they could see the air settling on the other side. Germany did the right thing, and they said: We are going to clean up the air in Eastern Europe. Because without clean air, you can't have growth.

I am happy to see my friend from Washington State. I will yield to her for a question. I want her to know how much I rely on her leadership. Maria Cantwell has been a leader from the beginning on clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, cleaning up Superfund sites. She never flinches.

Before I yield for a question, I started off my debate by telling the Senate what my friends on the other side call their amendment. They call it the Energy Tax Prevention Act. I have already told my colleagues why it should be called the more air pollution for every American act or, if they don't like that, we could call it the relying on foreign oil forever act. That is what it truly is. It stops us from cleaning up our air, which the people definitely do not support, 69 percent of the people in a bipartisan poll.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this Truth-O- Meter Politifact. That is an independent Web site that judges the truth of these claims.

They looked at this amendment. They said the claim is false, that gasoline prices would go down. So beware of things that are called good names. But when we get behind them, we see they are not good. They are dangerous. This is a red flag coming from me to everybody watching the debate. This bill would tell the EPA they can no longer do their job--EPA, one of the most popular agencies in the Nation. Sixty-nine percent of the people say: Do your job.

It would, in essence, stop us from making more fuel-efficient cars because it would say States cannot do more, and that would mean reliance on foreign oil.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Washington for a question.

I have the floor, and I plan to proceed as long as colleagues want to come and ask questions. I could go until about 5.

She was already allowed to offer it.

I will continue yielding without losing my right to the floor because there will be a question.

I do not at this point. We are taking our time. I wish to say through the Chair to my friend, this amendment is so radical, it is so far beyond any other amendment we have ever had on this subject, so I am not going to yield the floor until I have given people a chance on my side to ask questions about it. I intend to hold the floor at this point. I cannot give you a time when I will stop. I am also very willing to have a vote on this at a time we can mutually agree to. But at this point, I will not be able to yield the floor.

I yield to my friend for a question or a series of questions--as many as she might have.

I will answer and then yield for further questioning. The Senator is making the case so clearly. The one area we know we can make progress on in terms of getting off foreign oil is cars that get better fuel economy. My friend worked so diligently on the Commerce Committee, along with Senator Snowe, Senator Feinstein, and others. We all worked. But my friend took a tremendous lead on it.

In this particular amendment, which is named something that has nothing to do with reducing or preventing gas taxes or something--it has nothing to do with that. If this passes--and I hope it will not pass--but if it were to be signed into law, it essentially takes the EPA completely out of the picture, in terms of fuel economy, which means that all the progress we have made in getting more fuel economy, cleaning up the air, will be gone.

This little child, shown in this picture, gasping for air, as it is, is going to be gasping for more air. Children are particularly vulnerable.

So the Senator is right on so many fronts. If we were to pass this, we would turn around from all our progress we just made. We would stop the States from being able to do more on their own. We would lose the competition in the world for the most fuel-efficient vehicles, which is so critical--everybody looks to us--and consumers, as my friend points out, would miss out on, frankly, thousands of dollars a year in savings.

I hope I have answered my friend's question.

Obviously, I cannot speak for my colleagues. I cannot. But I have to look at what would happen if this were to become law. EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, signed into law by Richard Nixon, a Republican, overwhelmingly--and, by the way, the Clean Air Act amendments were signed into law by George Herbert Walker Bush--they would say to the EPA: You are out. You no longer have the ability to do your job, which is laid out in the Clean Air Act. This particular amendment changes the Clean Air Act and says--I say to my friend--to the EPA: You no longer can look at carbon pollution. You cannot look at any pollution at all that relates to the climate change issue. In doing so, they are in a frontal assault against the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Trust for America's Health.

But I say to my friend, even more than that, they are going against the American people. I wished to share this poll with the Senator.

In February, 1 month ago--truly 1 month ago--there was a bipartisan poll. A Republican pollster and a Democratic pollster teamed up, and they asked the people what they thought about these very issues. Sixty- nine percent of the American people--this is not people in Washington State or California; this is all over the country--think EPA should update the Clean Air Act standards with stricter air pollution limits.

The McConnell amendment stops them, stops them from updating the Clean Air Act standards. As a matter of fact, it repeals the ability of the EPA to ever address carbon pollution, which, by the way, is a clear endangerment to the people. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record EPA's Endangerment Finding.

I say to my good friend and colleague from Washington State, in EPA's summary of the endangerment our people would face, they talk about the worsening of ground-level ozone pollution if the EPA is not allowed to enforce the law, which is what McConnell offers us today.

They say:

Exposure to ground-level ozone has been linked to

respiratory health problems ranging from decreased lung

function--

We know kids, even today, with all the progress we have made--kids who are born in areas that are close to freeways, I say to my friend, close to railroads, close to ports--have a reduced lung function. At birth, they have a lesser lung function. What are we doing? How dare people come and hurt the American people. That is what this is. This is about hurting the American people, hurting America's families, stopping the Environmental Protection Agency from cleaning up the air, cleaning up pollution.

Here is this poll: 69 percent say EPA scientists--not Congress-- should set pollution standards. Yet this amendment says: EPA, get out of the picture. We do not want you. We want to do this, the politicians. Well, the people do not want this. That is why I hope we will reject this terrible amendment that endangers the people.

I continue to yield for a further question.

Could the Senator repeat that, please?

Well, my friend is so right. If this is an economic argument, bring it on to us. We know the numbers. The Senator has laid them out. We know tens of thousands of firms are moving forward because we have these laws on the books. The clean air technologies and the clean water technologies and the safe drinking water technologies are wanted by the whole world.

I have to say to my friends who are pushing this--I wish to tell them something they do not seem to either understand or maybe they do not want to hear, but I am going to say it--the whole world is going green, no matter where you look. Walmart is going green. I have had my differences with them on their policies on workers.

Walmart is going green. And why? Because, as my friend said, it saves money. The whole world is going green. What does it mean? It means everyone wants to save money. Everyone is looking for better energy opportunities that are clean. And everybody wants clean energy. If we back away from that, we are saying to China: Go for it. You will get the whole market, and we will still be pumping for oil.

By the way, I have a message on that front: Oil companies have 57 million acres of land and offshore tracts they already have a permit to drill in. My friends on the other side, in another debate, keep saying: Let's drill, drill. Why don't they drill where they already have the leases and it is already approved? So that is not at debate here.

What is at debate here is why would we, as my friend asked me, turn away from policies that result in clean technologies that the entire world wants--clean technologies that support more than 100,000 businesses and tens of thousands of more jobs? Why would we do that? My answer is, to me, it would be a self-inflicted wound on our country, when this is an opportunity.

I think my friend from Washington knows John Doerr who is a venture capitalist. He has told us for years now that if we invest in clean energy, if we incentivize clean energy, the venture capitalists will come off the sidelines with more billions than they ever gave to high tech and biotech combined. So why would anyone support this amendment which would turn the clock back on fuel economy, as my friend said, on clean energy technology, and turn the clock back on our little kids who are struggling as it is with asthma?

I yield for another question.

Well, of course my friend from Washington is right on target when she points out that--first of all, the EPA is being very cautious in the way it moves on this. They are only going after the biggest, dirtiest polluters. I think most of the people I talk to out there say--my mother always said, Clean up your room. If you are belching all of this smoke into the air, you have to take some responsibility for it, especially when you are making billions and billions and billions of dollars of profit.

No one has come to me and said big oil is suffering because they were under the Clean Air Act all of these years. But it is true. There is no pressing matter before us. They are using the problems in Libya and the tragedy in Japan.

The Upton bill, as in this McConnell amendment, says--Upton: A bill that would halt the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases would help stop rising gas prices. That is what he says, that this amendment before us will help stop rising gas prices. The nonpartisan PolitiFact, which is an independent Web site, looked at this. When they came to the end of looking at Mr. Upton's claim that this would reduce gas prices-- and this is the same bill as the Upton bill--they say, We find this claim false.

I feel comfortable in this debate because I am on the side of the truth. I am on the side of the American people who are telling us: Stop, Congress. Don't tell EPA to stop enforcing the law. That is wrong. So I feel good about that. We are on the side of these children whom we are protecting. We are on the side of consumers. We are on the side of progress. We are on the side of business. We are on the side of exports. We want America to be the leader.

My friend from Washington is an innovator. My friend knows what it is to go to the capital markets and say, I have a great idea, and she knows what government can do to encourage this type of investment. Government can't do everything, but we can set the stage. One of the ways we set the stage for a great multibillion-dollar economy to take off is by having a Clean Air Act that saves our children from these terrible air-gasping days, but also creates technology that cleans up our air.

My friend is so right. The false claim that this amendment is going to lower gas prices has been debunked right now. That claim has been debunked by people who have no axe to grind.

I appreciate my friend coming here and engaging this. Does she have any further questions?

The Senator from Washington poses an important question, and that is: Why are we seeing this kind of amendment on a small business bill? It is ridiculous. It makes the American people lose faith in us, frankly. This is a bill about small business innovation. This isn't a bill that is about telling EPA they can no longer do their job in protecting the American people. This is ridiculous.

We already know from reports how many lives have been saved. We have it here, and I want my friend to see this. In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 cases of premature deaths. That is a fact. By 2020, that number is projected to grow to 230,000. So excuse me. If this amendment were to pass and stop EPA from cleaning up the air, people will die.

If this is what you want to do, don't hang it on a small business bill. Why don't you have a press conference and say, You know what, we don't think this is worth it: 160,000 deaths; win a few, lose a few, you know. They don't care at all. But we care, and that is why we are talking about this.

I yield again to my friend.

This is what they would turn away from: preventing 160,000 premature deaths--that is documented--in 2010 alone.

There have clearly been a lot of moves on the part of special interests in this country--the biggest polluters--to try to get their way, and they try every which way to try to get their way. If they were to present the case to the Senator from Washington or to me that what they want is good for the American people, that is great. Make the case. Who could ever make the case that stopping the EPA from enforcing the Clean Air Act is good for the people? They can't. So what do they do? My friend is right to recall these other attempts. They couch it as: Oh, it is going to lower the price of gas, or it is good for business, or it is good for jobs. The truth is, it is devastating for all of those things.

My friend from Washington has been a leader on consumer protection. Oh, my goodness, we remember the fights when we had the Enrons of the world destroying people by raising the price of electricity behind closed doors, and the conspiracy to do that. Remember those battles we were in? These battles keep coming back at us. Does my colleague know-- my friend is asking me questions, but I would ask her one rhetorically. This amendment is so radical, it goes after fuel economy standards, and it says, No more. EPA, you are out of that. You can't deal with it ever again, even though we know fuel economy, when we get it done right, takes those toxins out of the air, plus we get better fuel mileage, and that will get us off of foreign oil. It takes that away. Chalk one up in the Middle East for oil barons. That is good for them. It is not good for America, but yes, chalk that up for them.

We already know what happens to kids. Let's show this picture because it shows the look on this child's face. This is what happens to our kids when the air is dirty.

The fact is, if we take EPA out of the business of cleaning up carbon pollution and all the co-contaminants that go into the air with it, such as mercury and others I could list, people are going to be sick. But here is beyond the pale what they do: In addition to those things, they even stop in this amendment the Carbon Registry, so that, America, you might as well cover your eyes, cover your ears, and cover your mouth, because you will not speak evil, you will not hear evil, you will not see evil. You will not see, you will not hear, and you cannot speak about the carbon pollution in the air.

That is what is going on here. So my friend is right to connect this to a whole line of faulty reasoning that the American people have been asked to swallow.

But I have news for you. They are smart. Madam President, 69 percent think EPA should update the Clean Air Act standards with stricter air pollution limits; 68 percent believe Congress should not stop EPA from enforcing the Clean Air Act; and 69 percent believe EPA scientists, not Congress, should set pollution standards.

So this vote we will have tonight--I hope we will have it tonight--is about whether Congress should play doctor and scientist and decide what is best for the people or allow that to be done by the physicians, by the scientists, and by an agency that is extremely popular in this country.

It is not popular right here, right now, I will tell you that, because the polluters don't want anything to do with it. But we don't represent polluters, we represent everyone--everyone. And a vast majority want us to say no to this McConnell amendment.

So I yield to my friend, if she has a final comment or question.

Before my friend leaves, I thank her so much, and I am going to leave the floor so my Republican friends have time to speak on this issue. America will hear a lot of different stories from a lot of different people. But, remember, this is pretty simple. This amendment stops the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job.

I thank my friend and tell her that we can't afford this amendment. This amendment will hurt America. It will hurt it in every way. It will hurt the health of Americans, it will hurt jobs in this country, it will hurt consumers, and I am proud to stand with her.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wanted to know, from a parliamentary standpoint, what time remains on the Republican side and when the Democrats' time begins.

Madam President, it is my understanding the Republicans have finished their time. I ask unanimous consent we start our hour at this point.

Madam President, I listened very carefully to my Republican colleagues who have come to the floor blaming the Democrats and the President for everything you can imagine, including the high price of gasoline and deficits as far as the eye can see.

I wish to say to Senator Manchin, I am going to make some very brief remarks about H.R. 1 and then yield to you for 5 minutes.

I respect the right of any colleague to say whatever he or she wants on the floor. But I also wish to tell the American people who may be following this debate, that in truth, in the last many years, 40 years, the only party to balance the budget was the Democrats. Bill Clinton, in his Presidency, not only took a deficit brought about by Republican Presidents, not only did he balance the budget with us, but we created surpluses. Guess what. Twenty-three million jobs.

Compare that to George W. Bush. He created huge deficits, handed President Obama a tremendous debt and deficits--I will get the exact numbers--and created 1 million jobs, compared to 23 million jobs.

I appreciate the lectures from my Republican friends, but look at any measure: job creation, budget balancing, stock market. Check it out, America. These are facts that are in the history books. So please do not lecture us about how to balance the budget. We know how to do it. The way you do it is cut waste, cut fraud, cut abuse, make sure everything you spend is essentially justifiable by the results, by the benefits, and invest in our people so if they lose a job, we invest in worker training, invest in our people, invest in science and technology, invest in health research, invest in our children.

If you follow that method, we will not only balance the budget, we will create jobs. We know their approach, H.R. 1, which they support, would devastate this economy, barely doing anything about the deficit. Most amazingly, they do not think billionaires should pay even a little bit higher tax rate than people who are earning $150,000--billionaires, multimillionaires. It does not make any sense.

So with that as an opening, I am very pleased to yield to the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Manchin, for 5 minutes.

We have a number of people coming for 30 minutes.

Madam President, could the Chair tell me what the order is?

How much time do I control?

Madam President, my intention is to yield to Senator Udall. He and Senator Merkley will engage in a colloquy.

I wish to open before yielding by saying that Senator Reid has laid out the devastating consequences of H.R. 1, which the Republicans have put forward as their plan to cut the budget. It is a jobs killer. It is a killer for the middle class. They said they would have a vote on it. Now they don't want to vote on it. We are going to have a vote on it. It is important for the American people to understand the various plans to cut the deficit.

One of the things in H.R. 1, of many, is a huge cut to the Environmental Protection Agency. There are two points I wish to make in that regard. In 1970, the Clean Air Act was passed. The vote in the Senate was 73 to 0. The vote in the House was 374 to 1. Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act. H.R. 1 destroys the Clean Air Act by giving the largest cut of any agency to the Environmental Protection Agency. If that is not enough, it prohibits the EPA from enforcing pollution laws. In 1977 there were the Clean Air Act amendments signed by Jimmy Carter. There wasn't even a rollcall vote it was so popular. In 1990, George Herbert Walker Bush signed the Clean Air Act amendments. Two out of the three Presidents were Republicans. This passed 89 to 10 in the Senate and 401 to 25 in the House.

The Clean Air Act and the EPA are strongly supported by the American people. The only place we have a lack of support is in the Congress by our Republican friends, primarily.

The American Lung Association says 69 percent think the EPA should update the Clean Air Act with stricter air pollution limits; 68 percent believe Congress should not stop the EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards, which is what H.R. 1 does; and 69 percent believe EPA scientists, not Congress, should set pollution standards.

Our friends on the other side, through H.R. 1, are acting as if they have all the brilliance in the world, all the scientific credentials in the world. They don't.

I ask unanimous consent that we continue with our time until Senator Kerry comes to the Chamber to talk on his particular subject.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I say to the Senators, if I could take back my time. I want to thank both Senators. We have only 10 minutes remaining, and we have three more speakers. So I thank you very much.

Before I yield to Senator Cardin--I thought it could be for 5; now I am told there are two more speakers; it will be about 3 minutes--let me put two charts up here in the Chamber and then yield to him for 3 minutes.

Look at this picture, I say to my colleague from Maryland. These are the most difficult times on these children when the air is dirty. This is a beautiful child. She cannot breathe, and she has asthma. The reason we passed the Clean Air Act is because of kids like her, and others who are gasping for air, literally.

The other thing I want to show you is this chart. This is an incredible chart that shows the significant drop in smog-related health advisories in southern California, the most polluted area, since we have put the Clean Air Act into place in the 1970s. Look at this. We have gone from 166 days where there were warnings for people to stay indoors to zero days in 2010. The Republicans, in H.R. 1, devastate the EPA's budget, plus they tell them they cannot enforce the Clean Air Act.

Let me say this: If my Republican friends want to repeal the Clean Air Act, just bring it on, and we will have a debate here. Do not do it through the guise of deficit reduction.

Now I see I have three colleagues in the Chamber for the remaining time. I ask unanimous consent that we have until 20 after before we turn it over to Senator Kerry, and that I am going to yield 3 minutes to the following: Senators Cardin, Lautenberg, and Whitehouse.

Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI(2) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, Senator Isakson and I ask unanimous consent that the Rules of Procedure of the Select Committee on Ethics, which were adopted February 23, 1978, and revised November 1999, be printed in the Record for the 112th Congress. The committee procedural rules for the 112th Congress are identical to the procedural rules adopted by the committee for the 111th Congress.

Mr. President, Senator Mikulski has asked that I control the time for our side, so I will stay on the Senate floor. What time does that time expire?

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, I am here today to speak out along with my colleagues for the women and children in our Nation who would be gravely harmed by the House budget, H.R. 1. I hope we get the chance to vote on that House budget because I think the American people need to look at what is going on with my Republican friends who are in charge of the House of Representatives.

We all know we need to reduce the deficit, but we also know the right way to do it. We did it with President Bill Clinton. We did it with a mix of revenue-raisers and smart cuts, plus investments that paid dividends. We did it in such a way that we actually had a surplus at the end of the day, and 23 million new jobs.

When George W. Bush took over, the surplus was gone and the job creation was gone. Compared to 23 million new jobs, under President George W. Bush there were 1 million jobs created, and he left us with soaring deficits and the deepest recession since the Great Depression. That is the story. It has a beginning, a middle, and we are about to write the end.

I will be honest. I will stand with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are willing to fight for the people of this country and the middle class of this country.

According to leading experts, the budget bill, H.R. 1, would destroy 700,000 jobs, hurt our families, and, to me--this is my personal opinion--it looks as though they have a political vendetta against women, children, and a healthy environment on which they rely because they need to breathe clean air and drink clean water. All of this is on the chopping block in the House.

Let's look at the title X family planning program. It is zeroed out. It is zeroed out in H.R. 1, the House Republican budget. What does title X do? Title X provides contraceptive services for 4.7 million women nationwide, almost 5 million women nationwide. It helps prevent almost 1 million unintended pregnancies. Now, here are my friends on the other side joining with us. We are all saying let's make sure we cut down on the number of abortions. What is one proven way to do it? Contraception. They would prevent almost 1 million people from getting that kind of service.

Planned Parenthood operates 800 health care centers nationwide. I know my colleagues are very aware of health centers. They provide 720,000 breast exams nationwide, 730,000 pap tests. What does this mean? Hundreds of thousands of women just in California, and millions nationwide, go to Planned Parenthood to make sure they don't have breast cancer, they don't have cervical cancer, they don't have an STD, they don't have AIDS. And if, God forbid, it turns out they have any of these things, they can get treated. Without this, they are in deep trouble. Everyone in America knows early detection is where it is at. So if I said the impact of the Republican budget would mean more abortions, more breast cancer, more cervical cancer, more STDs,

more AIDS left untreated, that is not hyperbole. It is not an understatement. That is a fact.

I wish to talk about Nicole Sandoval from Pasadena, CA. She wrote to me and said: Please support Planned Parenthood because--by the way, our colleagues eliminate Planned Parenthood getting $1 of Federal funding. What are they implying? That the funds are used for abortion services. That is an outright lie. Since the 1970s, the Hyde amendment has said not one penny of Federal funds may be used for providing abortions, so they know that is an untruth. Yet they let it hang out there. The money Planned Parenthood gets is for just what I said: cancer prevention, sexually transmitted disease prevention, and contraception.

So what does Nicole say? She was 23 years old. She had no insurance. Planned Parenthood was there for her and caught her cervical cancer early enough to save her life. So I stand with Nicole Sandoval.

I am here to stand with Leah Garrard from Torrance. She wrote to me about a horrific incident in which a member of her family was raped. This young woman went to Planned Parenthood. She didn't know where else to go. She wrote and said: Planned Parenthood directed her family member to a local hospital, got in touch with the local sexual assault nurse examiner, and contacted her family to come and take care of her. Had her family member not gone to Planned Parenthood, she truly, she wrote, would not have survived that experience. I stand with Leah and her family and with Planned Parenthood.

Zero out Planned Parenthood? Where are we going? We are certainly not going forward. We are going backward. I remember the years when George Herbert Walker Bush was on the board of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is a bipartisan operation. If you walk in the door, they don't ask whether you are a Democrat, Republican, registered voter, or who you are. You get taken care of, and the community is healthier.

Now, in the remaining time I wish to talk about the attack on the environment in which women and children have to live. The attack on the Environmental Protection Agency is the biggest cut of any agency in the Federal Government by our Republican friends over in the House.

Seventy percent of the American people say the Environmental Protection Agency should do its job. Sixty-nine percent think the EPA should update EPA Clean Air Act standards with stricter air pollution limits. Sixty-eight percent believe Congress should not stop EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards.

Sixty-nine percent believe that EPA scientists--not Congress--should set pollution standards. Look at this. In this tough time, when the country is divided, almost 70 percent of our people say leave EPA alone. But, no, our Republican friends whack that agency by one-third-- billions of dollars--and not only that, instruct that agency with riders telling them they can't enforce air pollution standards for soot. We know what happens when you are exposed to soot. We are looking at other exposures as well--small particulate matter which gets into our lungs and is lodged in our lungs.

They say we can't look at cement manufacturing and go after the mercury that comes out of those stacks--the mercury and arsenic. Do we think the American people want dirtier air? Is that what the election was about? I just came out of a tough election. I have to tell you that not one person ever came up to me and said: Please, I want more soot. I need more smog. It is missing out of my life. Oh my God, when my kids drink water, I want them to get contaminated.

Forget it. That is not what the election was about. It was about jobs, jobs, jobs. OK. Let's look at a photo of a child who pays the price when the air is dirty. Children's exposure to air pollution worsens asthma attacks and causes lost days at school, emergency room visits, and for older people, it causes heart attacks, stroke, cancer, and premature death. According to the American Lung Association--and we have another picture--asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases in children. It affects 7 million children. Here is a photo of another beautiful baby. I am showing you this as a grandma. I am going to take another 2 minutes and then turn it over to Senator Shaheen.

Look at this picture, this face. Look at those eyes. I wish to say to our friends in the House, what are you doing? You are throwing women and children under the bus. You are throwing the middle class under the bus. I, for one, am going to tell the truth. During my campaign, people would say: What are you going to do to win? How are you going to win? I said: I have a secret plan. I am going to tell the truth. I am going to just lay it out there.

Look, the truth is, EPA released a new report that was asked for by Congress. Congress demanded to know the benefit of the clean air law. They said that, in 2010 alone, 160,000 cases of premature deaths were avoided. Can you believe that? They want to turn all this back. The American Lung Association says H.R. 1 is toxic to the public health. They say it would result in millions of Americans, including kids, seniors, and people with chronic disease, such as asthma, being forced to breathe air that is unhealthy. It can cause asthma, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and shorten lives.

A Republican President set up the EPA--a Republican President-- Richard Nixon. What are you doing over there? I already said that George Herbert Walker Bush was on the board of Planned Parenthood. Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act. They don't either seem to have a sense of history or they have moved so far away from some of the proud traditions of their party that they have lost total touch.

In closing, we have to stop this war against women and against children. We are going to have to stop this war against the environment. We are going to come forward with deficit reduction that will equal what they do, but we will do it in a way that doesn't hurt job creation and doesn't hurt our kids, our families, and the environment we all depend upon.

It is my honor to yield to Senator Shaheen for 5 minutes.

I thank my colleague from New Hampshire. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Kay Hagan.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Hagan for her remarks. She is one of the leaders in the Senate in finding solutions to the deficit that do not kill jobs and do deficit reduction in the right way. I thank her.

She made the point that when we attack kids and pregnant women, at the end of the day it is morally reprehensible, but in addition to that it costs money. That point was made beautifully.

It is an honor to yield 10 minutes to a great colleague, Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington State.

Mr. President, after consulting with my friends, Senator Collins and Senator Sessions, I give Senator Lautenberg until 6 minutes after the hour and then add 6 minutes to the time of the Republicans.

Madam President, I am so pleased the Senate has passed H.R. 662, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011. This legislation provides a clean extension of Federal surface transportation programs through the end of the fiscal year.

H.R. 662 was passed by the House of Representatives yesterday by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 421-4. This legislation had previously been approved by voice vote in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Under this extension, States will receive $23.1 billion for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. This equates to over 800,000 jobs nationwide that would be created or saved.

As chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I am working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol to move forward on a transportation authorization that will put people to work, bring our Nation's highways, bridges, and transit systems up to a state of good repair, and reduce congestion and its impacts on commerce and communities.

The committee is planning to markup a new authorization by spring. However, this extension is necessary in order to give Congress time to enact this authorization.

I have letters from several organizations who urged Congress to pass H.R. 662. These letters were signed by AAA; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO; American Bus Association; American Highway Users Alliance; American Motorcyclist Association; Americans for Transportation Mobility, which includes 12 organizations; American Trucking Associations; Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association; and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

This broad and diverse coalition composed of businesses, workers, and users of the highways, recognized the need to enact this legislation today.

Investments in transportation infrastructure are an important part of the solution to the serious economic challenges we are facing. This is especially true in the construction industry, which has been hit hard by the economic downturn. According to January data released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the construction industry has an unemployment rate of over 22 percent.

Not only will this extension of SAFETEA-LU save jobs in the short term, an extension through the end of the fiscal year will provide the opportunity for Congress to enact a new surface transportation bill.

I am so pleased that my colleagues did the right thing and approved this legislation that will save hundreds of thousands of jobs, improve our nation's infrastructure, and provide a solid foundation for economic recovery.

I ask unanimous consent that several letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, will the Chair cut me off at 1 minute?

Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch so much. I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Feinstein, for this critical amendment.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my dear friend and colleague, Senator Feinstein.

The amendment would strike the first-to-file provision in the patent reform bill.

I was pleased to work with my colleague, Dr. Coburn, in support of his amendment to allow the patent office to keep its user fees, which was accepted into the managers' amendment that passed yesterday.

To me, that was one of the most important reforms we could enact in this legislation--giving the PTO the resources it needs to serve the public.

I support efforts to improve our patent system. And there are some good things in this bill, including efforts to help small businesses navigate the PTO.

But I strongly disagree with changing the core principle of our patent system--awarding a patent to the true inventor--for the sake of perceived administrative ease.

Unlike other countries, our patent system is rooted in our Constitution. We are the only country in the world whose Constitution specifically mentions ``inventor.''

Article I, section 8 states ``The Congress shall have the power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.''

Our system recognizes the complete process of invention--from conception to completion.

The United States is still the heart of innovation in the world, and its patent system is its soul.

Despite our rich history, the bill before us today seeks to erase over 200 years of invention and achievement, and replace it with a weaker system.

Let's talk about those changes.

Section 2 of the bill awards a patent to the first person to file, regardless of whether that person was the true inventor--the one who first conceived and developed the invention to completion.

That goes directly against the express language of the Constitution, which awards patents to the inventor, not the fastest to the PTO.

Section 2 of the bill also provides a weaker grace period than current law. This is a big change that will have a significant economic effect on startups, entrepreneurs and individual inventors.

I believe it is a change that we cannot afford, especially in these tough economic times when we need our small businesses to create new jobs.

Current law allows an inventor to obtain a patent if an application is filed within a year of a public use, sale or publication of information about the invention.

That year is called the grace period, during which an inventor's right to apply is protected from disclosures or applications by others related to his invention.

The grace period is important because it allows smaller entities, like startups or individual inventors, time to set up their businesses, seek funding, offer their inventions for sale or license, and prepare a thorough patent application.

Put another way, the grace period is an integral part of the formation of a small business.

The grace period has been a part of our patent system since 1839, and it was implemented to encourage inventors to engage in commercial activity, such as demonstrations and sales negotiations, without fear of being beaten to the patent office by someone with more resources.

The new grace period in the bill, however, would no longer cover important commercial activities such as sales or licensing negotiations.

The new provision also contains vague, undefined terms that will inject more uncertainty into the system at a time when inventors and investors need more certainty.

Proponents of first-to-file will argue that there have been studies or reports that show that a first-to-file system does not harm small entities. For example, they often mention the report of the National Academies of Science that reached that conclusion.

However, those studies and reports only analyzed the rare cases where two parties claimed to be the first inventor.

Do you know how rare those cases are? Last year, there were 52 cases out of over 450,000 applications filed--.01 percent of all applications ended up in a contest.

I do not think we should change over 170 years of protection for small entities based on cases that happen with the frequency of a hole in one in golf--1 out of 12,500, or .01 percent.

Listen to the conclusion of a report analyzing the business effects of Canada's switch to a first-to-file system:

The divergence between small entities and large

corporations in patenting after the Reforms supports the idea

that a switch to a first-to-file system will result in

relatively less inventive activity being carried out by

independent inventors as well as small businesses, and more

being channeled through large corporations instead.

In closing, I believe there are things we can do to improve our patent system.

But I also believe that the foundation of our Constitution-based system--a patent is awarded to the inventor--has worked well for over 220 years, and we should not change that core.

It has produced inventors such as Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, and George Washington Carver.

We should not change the core of our system, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the Feinstein amendment.

Mr. President, I will conclude in this way. The Feinstein amendment is necessary. It is necessary because the first

person to invent should get the protection from the Patent Office. We believe that if this amendment does not pass, it goes against the express language of the Constitution which awards patents to the inventor, not the fastest one to run down to the Patent Office. Senator Feinstein has explained why this is a matter of fairness and is better for consumers. I am hopeful that the amendment passes.

I thank the Chair.

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

Thank you very much. Senator Reid has told me I have 30 minutes, so I will start that at this time.

We are in a very difficult time right now because we are getting out of the deepest recession since the Great Depression. If we go back and look at the headlines when our President was inaugurated, we see the pace of job loss and we see what happened to credit and we see what happened to the auto industry and we see what happened to the stock market--we eventually lost about 50 percent from its highs. We are now in a situation where we have this economic recovery starting, but the jobs are not coming as fast as we want.

We don't want to do anything which threatens that economic recovery, which threatens our families and threatens the middle class. This is not the time to hurt the middle class. What we see in Wisconsin is the middle class finally saying to the Governor there: Look, be fair to us. We are willing to give up pay, we are willing to pay more for our benefits, but don't destroy our ability to have a say in our lives.

So as this economic recovery plays out, we have to deal with deficits that have come about because of this terrible recession, fewer revenues coming in to the Federal Government, more people calling on programs to help them with unemployment insurance and food stamps and things they need to stay alive. We have to deal with our deficit, there is no question about that. We have to do it like grownups. We

have to do it with common sense. We don't want to take a meat ax to this recovery and wind up losing jobs, jobs, jobs.

This last election was all about jobs. I was out there, so I can tell you. My Republican opponent, every day, said: Senator Boxer, where are the jobs? Where are the jobs? That was a legitimate question. I answered it this way: It is taking too long to get these jobs back where they should be, but I am going to fight every day for jobs. When I see a proposal that will threaten jobs, I am going to talk about it.

I am going to get to the Republican proposal for the rest of this year, the 2011 budget proposal, which experts such as Mark Zandi, a Republican expert who advised Republican candidates--he advised John McCain. He said, as well as Goldman Sachs, that if you pass the Republican budget plan, you endanger 700,000 jobs. So what do we do? We have to cut spending, yes. We have to do it wisely. We have to sit together and discuss it, not say: My way or the highway; here is the bill, don't talk to me.

I think it is important, as we hear the majority leader address his comments to the Democratic side, to address some comments to the Republican side. When George Bush was elected President, President Bill Clinton handed him a $236 billion budget surplus. I am proud to say I served at that time, and I voted for the Democratic budget, the Clinton budget. What did it accomplish? Quite a bit. Not only a balanced budget but a surplus. There were those on the other side calling for an amendment to the Constitution for a balanced budget. We said: We don't need an amendment; we just need to balance the budget in a wise way, and we did it. We cut out unnecessary spending, but we invested where it created jobs. Guess what. We said to the upper income people of $1 million or more: You have to pay your fair share. They were willing and able to do it, and we created not only surpluses in the Federal Government but 23 million new jobs.

Let me say that again. We created a surplus--not only a balanced budget surplus but 23 million new jobs. Now the Republicans take over, and when George Bush leaves office, he created 1 million jobs in 8 years, compared to 23 million. Guess what. He left us a $1.3 trillion deficit. I say to my friends here, he left the wars off budget, so it was even way higher than that. He didn't put the two wars on the budget.

President Obama, last year, created more jobs than George Bush did. President Obama created, in 2010, 1.1 million new jobs. So the new jobs under President Obama in 2010 equal the net jobs of George Bush after 8 years. President Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit from George Bush, who created that from a surplus. It is important we follow this. George Bush created 1 million jobs net compared to 23 million jobs under Bill Clinton, and President Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression--700,000 jobs a month lost, panic on Wall Street, you name it, the auto industry going out. We would have been the only leader in the industrialized world not to have an auto industry.

It is fair to say things have stabilized. The auto industry had the best year in a long time. The money we loaned to the banks has been paid back. But we have more to do. The deficit is up to $1.6 trillion now because the wars are now on the budget, because we still haven't made up for the revenues we lost, and the jobs are coming back too slowly.

This is where we stand. We have to pass a budget for the remainder of this year, and Democrats are saying let's do it wisely. We will cut, cut, cut, and we have a list of cuts we can go over. We cut $40 billion from the President's 2011 budget. The Republicans cut $100 billion from the President's budget. So, surely, between the 40 we cut and the $100 billion they cut, we can meet and solve this problem. I would like us to do it right now--sit down in good faith and get it done and scratch any of the cuts that hurt our children, scratch the cuts that hurt our women's health, scratch the cuts that are essentially political--I will go into those later--and come up with the cuts that don't threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Here is the deal. There is still talk and fear about a government shutdown. Every time we think we have passed the point, there comes another article. Today in the Washington Post there is this article. I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

It says this on the front page: ``With shutdown looming, GOP freshmen are wild cards.'' When you ask the Republican Members of the House where this is going, they say they don't know. The government could shut down; we don't know. Later, I will go into what happened the last time the government shut down. I will not do that at this moment.

I talked to Senator Casey, my good colleague and a great leader in the Senate, about an anomaly in the law that protects Members of Congress from getting their pay shut down in the case of a government shutdown, when the vast majority of Federal workers will not get paid. He and I agree there is something wrong with this system. It is not fair. If we fail to keep this government operating, which is our basic responsibility, to keep the checks flowing to Social Security recipients, to veterans with disabilities, to make sure we don't harm the private sector contractors and workers--if we don't do that, we don't deserve to get our pay.

We put together a bill that says, in the case of a government shutdown, Members of Congress and the President must be treated the same way as other Federal employees--and, by the way, not get back our pay retroactively. It touched a chord with several colleagues. We have the bill written, and we have sent it to the Republican side and the Democratic side. My understanding is, it has passed the Democratic side via hotline, and the Republicans are looking at it now. The cosponsors are Senators Boxer, Casey, Manchin, Tester, Nelson of Nebraska, Bennet, Warner, Wyden, Coons, Harkin, Hagan, Menendez, Stabenow, Merkley, and Rockefeller.

We feel we have the support of the people. We are hopeful we will avert a government shutdown because it is bad for our country, bad for our families, bad for our States, and there is no need to have one. But if we do have one, we don't want to have Members of Congress go home, get their pay, and not even have to pay a price or sacrifice or anything else while other families are sacrificing. We hope our Republican friends will agree with us and, if they do, we are going to send it over tonight. We are not asking unanimous consent now, but we will at 4 o'clock. If they can go forward, we will send this over to Speaker Boehner in the hopes it will breeze through the House.

In case of a government shutdown, which we hope will be averted, we hope we are treated the same as Federal employees and that we are not getting our paychecks when others are not.

With that, I will yield the floor to Senator Casey for as long as he would like.

Madam President, how much time remains?

I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for working hard on this piece of legislation. It is very simple.

No budget, no pay. That is it. We cannot have no function of government more important than passing a budget and keeping us going. The people have a right to expect that we will do our work.

Social Security checks, if there is a shutdown, may not arrive on time. Veterans may not receive the benefits they have earned. Passports may not be issued. Superfund sites will not be cleaned up, and those are dangerous. Oil wells should be inspected. We see what happens when we do not do the functions of government; we pay, our people pay. Export licenses must be granted. Troops must be paid. Failing to keep the government open because of politics or because no one wants to listen to the other side and meet in the middle is a failure. All we are saying is treat Members of Congress and the President the same as other Federal employees. And no retroactive, back pay either.

The bigger issue is the one I touched on; that is, what is the right way to approach this deficit problem. Clearly, we have to do it responsibly. Clearly, the American people want us to reduce this deficit. I want to reduce it. I have to say very proudly, not only did we reduce it under Bill Clinton but we had surpluses. This is the only time we ever had a surplus--a Democratic administration. OK? That is it. I do not need lectures from the other side of the aisle. Show me a time when they balanced the budget. They do not have one to show me.

They can show me the record under George W. Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush: deficits, deficits, deficits, deficits. And under George Bush, job losses. Over the entire 8 years, there were 1 million net new jobs compared to 23 million under Bill Clinton. What a record.

Let's do this the way we know it should be done, which is a balanced approach. Cut spending where it is wasteful, where it is useless, where it is dumb to spend money. Spend it where it makes sense--on our kids.

The things my colleagues in the House did without one Democratic vote are shocking. The experts tell us we could lose between 700,000 and 1 million jobs--between 700,000 and 1 million jobs--if we go with their package. They need to sit and talk with us. Let's reason together.

They cut $100 billion off the President's budget. We have already cut $40 billion. Let's meet in the middle. But let's not threaten as many as 1 million jobs.

Moody's estimates their budget would destroy 700,000 jobs. Goldman Sachs says their plan would cut economic growth by as much as 2 percent by the end of the year. It is inconceivable, after they ran around in this last election saying: Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs?-- that is all I heard. And it was a good point. But it is inconceivable they would turn their backs on jobs and now focus on the deficit as if that is the only issue we have to worry about.

Again, when President Obama took office, the economy was heading off a cliff. I will never forget the Republican Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, looking straight in my eyes--and that was hard because he is 7 feet tall and I am a little under 5 feet; he is not 7 feet tall, but to me he looks like 7 feet tall--and saying: Senator, capitalism is on the brink of collapse. We may see the collapse of capitalism.

I remember back to the debates when one of my Republican colleagues suggested nationalizing the banks. President Obama said: No, we are not going there. We are going to have to figure out a way. Yes, we did lend them money and it was an awful vote and I hated every minute of it. The banks paid back every penny.

The auto industry--oh, my colleagues said, we cannot help the auto industry. Oh, yes, we did. We did not want to be the only Western Power that did not have an automobile industry. It is important to our national defense. We stabilized the auto industry, we have stabilized the financial industry, we approved tax cuts for the middle class, and we made investments in infrastructure.

Yes, it is true, George Bush took a big surplus and turned it into a $1.3 trillion deficit. The deficit now is $1.6 trillion as we struggle out of this economic mire and put the wars on the budget.

By the way, ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq over 10 years could get us $1.1 trillion. I have not heard any of my Republican friends go there at all with that. We need to do that. They are just looking at one small part of the budget.

I have to tell you from my heart what I think they did over there. They cut $100 billion off the President's budget. We cut $41 billion off the President's budget. This is what they did: I believe they used deficit reduction as an excuse to carry out political vendettas against the Environmental Protection Agency. They not only took a meat axe to that budget, but they ordered the EPA--they said they cannot protect families from pollution from cement plants. They cannot do that. That means our people will be exposed to mercury. They said they cannot enforce the Clean Air Act when it comes to carbon pollution. Imagine, they do not dare just come here and say: Let's repeal the Clean Air Act. They go around the back door using the budget as a political vendetta tool.

They said: Let's stop our improvements in food safety. I have to say, not one person in my home State ever came up to me--I do not care if they are Republican, Independent, or Democrat--and said: Senator, the two things I want when you get back is to give me dirty air and give me poisoned food. I need more contamination in my food.

I cannot believe this. We just did a great bill, and they slashed the money for food safety. Tell me how that makes America stronger. Tell me, when we know how many people die of illness from contaminated food.

They did a political vendetta against family planning, which is going to lead to more abortions if it goes through. It is not going to go through because we are not going to let them stop ensuring that American women in this day and age--they are not going to tell my people in California they cannot have access to contraception. Yet they cut every penny from Planned Parenthood in a clear, I believe, unconstitutional political vendetta.

Madam President, 5 million men and women get the services of Planned Parenthood. They get tested for STDs, AIDS, cancer screenings--all of that. And a lot of women use Planned Parenthood clinics as their first line of health care. This is 2011. We are not going back to the dark days when women died because they did not have health care. We cannot. We cannot do it.

Drop the political vendettas. Come to the table and let's find the cuts that make sense. Put a little more faith in your Democratic colleagues since we are the only ones who balanced the budget and created a surplus and 23 million jobs. I do not need to hear lectures about that. They can talk all they want. The last balanced budget was under Bill Clinton. The last surplus was under Bill Clinton. The last great economic growth was under Bill Clinton.

Our President gets it. That is why he tackles this deficit over a period of time and gets it down to $600 billion by 2015. Maybe we can do more. I am ready to do more, and we will do more if we have an economic recovery. We will not if we lose another 1 million jobs and have another 1 million people getting help from us rather than having jobs and keeping their homes.

What other vendettas? This one, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Somebody said that 4 hours of the war in Afghanistan would be equal to the cut they made to public broadcasting--4 hours of the war in Afghanistan. America should be proud of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We go toe to toe with the BBC. Great Britain funds 100 percent of the BBC. We fund 15 percent of public broadcasting. But now they want to zero it out. A vendetta against Elmo.

They have a vendetta against health reform. The President is right. In our bill we say the States can do another plan. Let's push that up to 2014. Do not go back to the days when 62 percent of all bankruptcies were linked to a health care crisis.

Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam President, they have a vendetta against clean energy. I guess they want to keep dependence on foreign oil. I do not and my people do not. We do not enjoy $5-a-gallon gas, which is where it is heading maybe because of the unrest in the Middle East. We need alternatives--clean cars, cars that go 50, 60 miles a gallon or do not need any gas at all. Oh, they cut that.

They cut Head Start. Our little kids will not have Head Start. What are they doing? It makes no sense. Every dollar we put into early childhood education saves $10. What are they doing? And Pell grants.

There are so many other ways to proceed. Do you know, if we just looked at the tax loopholes given to corporations who ship jobs overseas, it is over $140 billion over 10 years? Let's take a look at that. Let's take a look at the billionaires. Why do we have to ask little kids to give up a slot in Head Start and get that Head Start they need? Why do we have to ask our teenagers to give up on going to college? That is what their budget does for no reason at all.

Let's avert a government shutdown by coming together. I am willing to move in their direction. They have to be willing to move to mine. Again, they cut $100 billion off the President's budget. We cut $40 billion. Let's meet in the middle.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds, and then I will yield to my friend.

Madam President, in conclusion, let's meet in the middle. Let's put this 2011 budget issue behind us quickly. Let's move on to long-term deficit reduction and job creation. If we fail, let's not get paid for our work here.

This afternoon I will be back to ask unanimous consent: No budget, no pay.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I think the managers are aware that I am going to make a unanimous consent request shortly on a bill that deals with Members' pay in the event of a government shutdown. I have been told we are waiting to see--there is apparently one objection on the Republican side. If we can clear it, then this will be passed. If not, then I will be back later to make the same request.

I say to my friend from Vermont and my friend from Iowa that I support the managers' package. It is terrific. One of the things in there is a Coburn-Boxer amendment that would keep the patent fees in the Patent Office. I am so glad the chairman sees it that way because we have such a tremendous backlog.

I will be happy to yield to my friend.

That is a good idea. The reason I have done it this way is because I am trying to say that we in the Senate and in the House have an obligation to keep the government running, and we should be treated just like other Federal employees. That is the simplicity of this legislation. We cannot force a Member to give money to charity.

Again, that is treating us differently than other Federal employees. That would be a tax writeoff.

It is a tax writeoff to give to charity. All I am saying is that is certainly another option if my friend wanted to change it.

I just think it is simple. We just want to be treated the same as other Federal employees, and that is how I have structured it.

I spoke about this issue this morning. I wrote this bill with the support of Casey, Manchin, Tester, Nelson of Nebraska, Bennet, Warner, Wyden, Coons, Harkin, Hagan, Menendez, Stabenow, Merkley, and Rockefeller. There is a growing consensus that we want to avoid a shutdown at any cost. I am hoping we will avoid it. There could come a moment where it is forced upon us. There are lots of stories--who will get the blame for this, that, and the other. To me, that is not important. What is important to me is that we sacrifice--we in the Senate and in the House as well.

I am hopeful that if we get this done and send this over to Speaker Boehner that he will get it through his body over there, and we can get this done and send it to the President. It impacts the President too. We say the President cannot get paid either because the deal is we have to work with the President to come up with a compromise.

Senator Leahy has a good suggestion. Some people might like that option better. I believe this should be kept very simple; that in the case of a government shutdown we are treated the same way as other Federal employees. The reason we have to do this is Members of Congress and the President are paid by separate statute rather than by the annual appropriations process. We have to pass a separate statute on this issue. It is a very simple bill.

Again, I hope we never have to come to this, where we have any type of a shutdown. Maybe this bill will make some colleagues who believe they will be protected from sacrifice realize it is painful. It is painful for a lot of people. Certainly, it would be painful if somebody on Social Security or disability cannot get their payment. It is painful if veterans who are on disability do not get their check. It is certainly painful if a citizen is planning a trip and cannot get a passport. It is painful if Superfund sites cannot be cleaned up. It is painful if there is, God forbid, an oil well explosion because we did not have people there to inspect the oil well.

For our business people who are government contractors it is painful if they do not get paid. Export licenses must be granted, and our troops should be paid. So there is no reason why we should shut down this government, and I am very hopeful we will have unanimous consent to do it.

I have a parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair: Is it true that we no longer have secret objections here; that a person has to identify themselves if they are objecting?

So would I be correct if I said that if someone objects, we would know who that individual is so we can speak with that individual? You said there are provisions. Could you be more specific about that?

Certainly.

I know this issue, yes.

We did check this with legal counsel, and they told us that the legislation, as drafted, does not increase or diminish the annual salary of the President. It withholds pay during a shutdown or failure to raise the debt ceiling.

There are definitely standing questions, and we are told that only the President would be able to challenge this legislation in a court of law.

Well, I will repeat what I said. This legislation--

This legislation, as drafted, does not increase or decrease the salary. If you withhold it, and if the President felt that was a violation, he himself would have to challenge it.

Because we are not changing--diminishing--his salary.

It is only in the case of an extraordinary event--a government shutdown.

The Senator may oppose it.

I will repeat. We don't diminish, we withhold it during a period of a government shutdown or a failure to raise the debt ceiling. There is a reason we do it. It is very rare we have a government shutdown, but, in my view, and in the view of the cosponsors, this is a major function of our body and of the President--to avert a government shutdown. We don't think it is fair to treat some people differently than others. If other Federal employees are going to get their pay cut and your Social Security recipients don't get their checks, we think the Congress and the President ought to have a bite taken out of their pay as well.

No, we do not.

We are not changing a penny of the President's pay. What we are saying is, in the event of a government shutdown, he will be treated the same way other Federal employees are treated and be treated in the same way we are treated. He can determine if he wants to challenge this in a court of law.

We hope we don't ever face this. So we are not in any way changing his salary. We hope never to have to use this.

No, I am not. I will reiterate again what I said, which is this: We do not increase or decrease the President's pay.

Can I finish? I let you talk. Now I think I have a turn. I don't have a legal degree, my friend has. It is common sense. It seems to me it is a question of fairness. Those of us who are responsible for keeping this government open--

Then I will finish this thought.

We are responsible to keep this government open. If we fail to do that, we ought to be punished.

I am going to make a unanimous consent request at this time, and I understand there is an objection.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I have just been told a Republican colleague objects to this. I don't understand why. I don't think it is a constitutional objection. I don't know the reason.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to make my request.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I want say I object to the Vitter-Toomey bill. I am not going to pay China before I pay people.

I ask unanimous consent that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from--

I ask unanimous consent to speak to make a unanimous consent request.

I want an answer, please, to my question: Can people object to a unanimous consent request without saying who they are, No. 1? And No. 2, what is the parliamentary procedure here?

So it is the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, who objects to the bill we have that would say we don't get paid in the case of a shutdown; is that correct? Senator Coburn is objecting to that?

Thank you.