Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to recognize and share with my colleagues an important milestone for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, NACWA. The association celebrates its 40th anniversary at its annual summer conference and meeting July 20 to 23 in San Francisco. This year's conference, ``Sustainable Resource Management--Lessons from Clean Water's Past and Present,'' will surely inspire new solutions and innovative ideas to improve our country's water quality and protect the health of our children and families.

Established in 1970 by a group of individuals representing 22 large municipal sewerage agencies, NACWA now represents over 300 of the Nation's publicly owned wastewater utilities. NACWA grew up alongside the landmark Clean Water Act of 1972, which has been enormously successful at reducing pollution into our Nation's waterways. The 22 founding agencies of NACWA united behind a related mission: to secure investment in municipal wastewater treatment and improve water quality. As NACWA continued to grow and diversify, they have worked to promote watershed management and the health of our ecosystems.

Today, NACWA has an active membership of publicly owned treatment agencies stretching from coast to coast. NACWA provides its members with educational resources, community building, networking opportunities, and a forum for sharing best practices and building consensus on water policy.

I am so pleased to acknowledge NACWA's long and distinguished record of environmental advocacy. Clean, safe drinking water is essential to all of us. The association has been a leader on a range of issues affecting our water supply. Over the course of my career in the Senate, I have had the pleasure of working with NACWA on important legislation including the Water Infrastructure Financing Act and the Water Resources Development Act.

In 2008, I was honored to receive NACWA's Legislative Leadership Award for my efforts on the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, of 2007. This historic legislation is of critical importance to our Nation's water quality and economy. WRDA 2007 garnered broad support on both sides of the aisle, and I am again working with my colleagues to pass a WRDA bill that will build on the important progress we made in WRDA 2007, continue investment in vital water resources projects, and create jobs rebuilding the Nation's aging water infrastructure.

I commend the members and staff of NACWA for their dedication and support for policies that advance clean water and a healthy, sustainable environment. Their efforts have certainly had a positive impact on our Nation's environmental policy and water quality. I look forward to working with NACWA to improve our Nation's water quality, ecosystems and infrastructure for years to come by supporting legislation that protects our Nation's waterways and water supply. Together, we can ensure clean water for future generations. Please join me in celebrating the 40th anniversary of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies.

Mr. President, I wish to ask my good friend, the Senator from Connecticut and the chairman of the Banking Committee, to engage in a brief discussion relating to the final Volcker rule and the role of venture capital in creating jobs and growing companies.

I strongly support the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, including a strong and effective Volcker rule, which is found in section 619 of the legislation.

I know the chairman recognizes, as we all do, the crucial and unique role that venture capital plays in spurring innovation, creating jobs and growing companies. I also know the authors of this bill do not intend the Volcker rule to cut off sources of capital for America's technology startups, particularly in this difficult economy. Section 619 explicitly exempts small business investment companies from the rule, and because these companies often provide venture capital investment, I believe the intent of the rule is not to harm venture capital investment.

Is my understanding correct?

Mr. President, on Monday evening I came to the floor and spoke from the heart about my friend Senator Robert Byrd. I wanted to take the opportunity to submit a more comprehensive statement about Senator Byrd and his legacy.

As I looked at his empty desk with flowers on it, I thought back to last summer when we lost another giant, Senator Ted Kennedy. And what distinguishes Senator Byrd, like Senator Kennedy, from others was his unbelievable, never-ending commitment to the people he represented and to this country.

It was never a question of Senator Byrd's length of service--though his was exceptional but rather his fierce sense of fighting for West Virginians. As he told the New York Times in 2005, ``I'm proud I gave hope to my people.''

Senator Byrd was, of course, the Nation's longest-serving Senator. And he was a legend, for sure. When I came to here, I learned firsthand that he always met with the incoming Senators, to give them an introduction to the rules of the road, the procedures and dignity of the Senate, and to share his reverence for the Constitution. The image that I will always have of Robert C. Byrd is him reaching inside his suit pocket and bringing out the Constitution, which along with the Bible was what he cherished most.

Senator Byrd was a giant in the Senate and a champion for America's working families. We will miss his eloquence, his sharp intellect, and his passionate oratory.

He was one of our Nation's foremost historians of the Senate. He literally wrote the book on the Senate, a four-volume history. And he was not only an expert on the rules of the Senate, he was a fierce defender of its traditions and its role in our democracy.

Senator Byrd fought to make sure every American had a chance to live the American dream because he lived the American dream.

He was born in coal country in southern West Virginia, the youngest of five children. His mother died before he was a year old, and he was raised by his aunt and uncle on a farm with no telephone, electricity or running water.

He went on to graduate first in his high school class and married his high school sweetheart, Erma, to whom he was devoted throughout their 68 years of marriage until her death in 2006. To support his wife and two daughters in the early years, he worked as a gas station attendant, a grocery store clerk and as a welder in a shipyard during World War

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Los Angeles County Highway Patrol Officer Phillip Ortiz. Officer Ortiz, a 28-year veteran of the Los Angeles County Highway Patrol, died on June 22, 2010, from being struck by a vehicle while in the line of duty. His loss should remind us all of the very serious dangers that our law enforcement personnel face every day as they do their jobs. I would like to take a few moments to recognize Officer Phillip Ortiz's life.

Officer Ortiz grew up in Santa Monica, CA, and joined the California Highway Patrol in August 1982 at the age of 21. Soon after, he successfully completed motorcycle training and in 1982 was eventually transferred to the West Los Angeles area where he remained for the rest of his career. He loved riding motorcycles both professionally and in his personal time. Officer Ortiz had a distinguished career and was very dedicated to the California Highway Patrol.

I invite all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing and honoring Officer Phillip Ortiz for his leadership and dedication to the safety of over 10 million Los Angeles County residents. He is survived by his wife and childhood sweetheart, Jessica; his parents, Irene and Claude Clauser; and his sister, Anna, to whom I send my heartfelt condolence. Officer Ortiz leaves a lasting legacy of service.

Mr. President, I am honored to recognize the career accomplishments and service of Ofelia Valdez-Yeager as she retires from her position as chief administrative liaison to the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools.

Ofelia--a native of Tayoltita, Durango, Mexico--immigrated with her family to the United States in 1958. Although she began first grade as a non-English-speaker, she completed the school year at the top of her class--realizing her parents' high expectations for the academic achievement of their 10 children, even though they themselves had been educated only at the elementary level in Mexico.

Ofelia was admitted to the University of California, Riverside--UCR-- in 1965 as one of the initial group of five Educational Opportunity Program--EOP--students. After graduating in 1969 with a bachelor's degree in Spanish and completing the requirements for an elementary teaching credential in 1971, she embarked upon a professional career that has included work as an Upward Bound tutor and counselor, high school counseling assistant, elementary school teacher, bilingual resource teacher, and consultant for several public agencies.

In 1992 Ofelia was elected to serve as the first Latina trustee on the Riverside Unified School District Board; she was later elected vice president of this same body. She expanded her commitment to public service by accepting a part-time position as administrative assistant to the mayor--focusing her expertise and energies on youth, education, and crime issues. She also served as executive assistant to the superintendent of the Riverside Unified School District.

In addition to her current responsibilities as chief administrative liaison, Ofelia also serves on boards and committees of a number of local agencies and organizations, including the United Way, Concilio Child Development Centers, Fiesta de la Familia, Mission Inn Foundation, Raincross Group, Riverside County Library Foundation, Riverside Library and Museum Taskforce, UCR Medical School Community Advisory, Riverside Community College Foundation, Hispanic Education Foundation, and the Riverside County Sheriff's Commission on Recruiting, Retention, and Diversity. As founder of the Latina Women's Health Forum, as one of three founders of the Latina Network, and as a strong influence behind the Nati Fuentes Centro de Ninos on the Eastside, she continues to exert influence on education and community priorities.

In recognition of her professional contributions and service, Ofelia has received the Hope Luminarias Award and the La Sierra University President's Community Service Citation. She has been named CHARO Minority Business Advocate of the Year and has been cited by the Riverside Press-Enterprise newspaper as one of the People Who Make a Difference.

It is my pleasure to recognize Ofelia Valdez-Yeager as she prepares to retire from the Office of the Superintendent, Riverside County Schools. I commend her for her fine service to the community.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring the memory of an extraordinary real estate investor, philanthropist, Presidential adviser, civic leader and dear friend of mine, Walter Shorenstein. Walter passed away on June 24, 2010. He was 95 years old. Walter's legendary entrepreneurship and civic involvement will benefit future generations of Americans for decades to come.

Walter Herbert Shorenstein was born into a hard-working middle class family in Glen Cove, New York on February 23, 1915. He briefly attended the University of Pennsylvania before cutting his undergraduate studies short in order to serve his country in World War II. During the war, Walter was stationed in North Africa, where he managed logistics and resources for troops in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Walter met his future wife Phyllis while serving as a major at Travis Air Force Base in California. They were married in 1945, and Walter began his real estate career upon moving to San Francisco in 1946.

Walter joined the commercial real estate firm, Milton Meyer & Company, and became its only partner in 1951. He later purchased the company and in 1960, began rapidly expanding its holdings over the next three decades. At various times, the company, which was renamed Shorenstein Co. in 1989, has owned numerous notable buildings including the Bank of America Tower in San Francisco, the John Hancock Center in Chicago, and the Washington Harbour Complex in Washington, DC. The Shorenstein Co., under the leadership of Walter's son, Douglas, currently controls roughly 30 million square feet of commercial real estate nationwide.

In addition to his exemplary business savvy, Walter was recognized for his sharp intuition and diplomacy skills, and ultimately served as an adviser to three Presidents. President Lyndon Johnson appointed him to serve as an adviser on trade negotiations. President Jimmy Carter appointed Walter to the U.S. delegation that led peace talks between Israel and Egypt in 1978, and to the Committee for the Preservation of the White House. During the Clinton administration, Walter was appointed to serve on the board of directors of the Corporation for National Service and the U.S. Commerce Department Industry Policy Advisory Committee. In 1999, President Clinton presented Walter with the Democratic National Committee's Lifetime Achievement Award for his active service and commitment to the Democratic Party.

Later in life, Walter began donating both his time and money to laudable civic efforts. In 1975, he led a group that placed 2,000 Vietnamese orphans in loving homes in the United States. In 1993, he played a pivotal role in preventing the San Francisco Giants from moving to Florida. A lifelong advocate for education, Walter contributed heavily to several prestigious educational programs and institutes. Along with his wife, he founded the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, named for his talented daughter who lost her life to cancer in 1985. Walter also funded programs at Stanford University's Asia-Pacific Research Center and the Institute of East Asian Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

Walter stood out as a driven entrepreneur who cared deeply for his community. He will be remembered by his friends and colleagues not only for his business savvy, but also for his tremendous sense of civic responsibility. His vision and hard work greatly shaped and influenced the city of San Francisco, and his civic contributions and leadership skills improved our Nation.

Walter is survived by his son Douglas; his daughter Carole Shorenstein Hays; and his six grandchildren. My thoughts are with Walter's family at this difficult time.

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

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

Mr. President, I know several colleagues have come to the floor today to note the passing of a giant among us, Robert Byrd. I want to take a moment here to speak straight from the heart about Robert Byrd and my experience working with him. As we look at his desk with the flowers there, we of course think back to not too long ago when we lost another giant, Ted Kennedy. I think what distinguishes these two from others is their unbelievable, undying commitment to the people they represented and to this country.

I think, when all is said and done, that is what it is about. It is not about how long you serve. Of course, in the case of both Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd, it was so long. Senator Byrd made history as the longest serving Senator, and that should be duly noted. But it is well beyond that. It is about this fierce sense of ``fight for your people'' that they both had.

When I came to the Senate, of course Robert C. Byrd was a legend for sure. He always met with the incoming Senators, to give them the rules of the road about procedure, about how to conduct yourself when you were in the chair, about the dignity of the Senate, and most of all about reverence for the Constitution. As many know and many saw, the image I will always have of Robert C. Byrd is of him reaching inside his suit pocket and bringing out the Constitution--which, along with the Bible, was what he cherished most. He taught us that everything we do here comes from the Founders, and he taught us to love and respect the Constitution and he did it in a way that was truly inspiring.

I can tell you, coming from the largest State in the Union, we have our share of problems. We have floods and fires and droughts, we have pests in our agricultural industry, we have problem after problem-- earthquakes, need I say that? Every single time we had one of these disasters, Senator Feinstein and I knew we had to go to our colleagues and say: Please understand, California needs the help of the U.S. Government because the damage is so massive. Of course, we all do that whenever our State has a problem, because we are the United States of America.

However, there are times when you do not have an ear that is listening. Senator Byrd, as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, opened his doors to us, opened his heart to us, opened his experience to us, and was always there for us. I so remember that, time after time.

I went to see him about our water problems. We have lots of water problems. We have cities and suburbs that need the water. We have fishermen who need the water. We have agriculture that needs the water. All the stakeholders have very difficult debates over water. Senator Feinstein and I again have teamed up on this and we have always had a willing listener in Robert C. Byrd, who understood and helped us get the stakeholders to the table to find ways to preserve, to conserve, and increase the supply in a smart way for all those stakeholders.

These things are very big to the people of California, who probably have not connected Robert Byrd to California. But in all of these cases where we were so in need, he was there for us.

I remember so well his leadership in trying to bring the troops home from Iraq. Twenty-three of us stood up and said no to that war because we thought it meant taking our eye off Osama bin Laden and what was happening in Afghanistan and turning around and going into Iraq. We worried very much

about what would happen with our troops and that it would be a very long war and there was no exit strategy.

Senator Byrd organized us and he opened his office here in the Capitol and said we need to talk about ways that we can bring this war to the end. We need to organize and we need to talk about what is happening to our troops. He cared so much. For me, to have been in his presence and to watch him work has been an amazing experience. So I rise to pay tribute to him.

He has so many wonderful family members who care so much about him. When he lost his wife, it took a huge toll on Robert Byrd, and you saw it in his face. A light went out inside. His grandchildren and children stepped up, but that hole in his heart was there. It was evident to all of us. He stayed here through thick and thin, came in--wheeled in, in a wheelchair, fading, suffering, to be in this place that he loved so much, so much; that he respected so much.

I say, and I know, there is not a Member on either side of the aisle who did not respect Robert C. Byrd for his brilliance, for his strength, for his fierce representation of his State and, by the way, for his extraordinary biography, coming up the way he did. Talk about the American dream--a child of dire poverty, close to the mines. He always fought for those miners. What a legacy he leaves.

I don't have any notes in front of me. I am speaking from the heart today. I will have a more complete statement, but I did want to make my views known today and send my condolences to the family. It is a great loss for everyone.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010. I wish to particularly thank my colleagues on the Banking Committee for working to bring this conference report to the floor.

I have said many times before that we don't have a moment to waste when it comes to Iran. We must focus like a laser beam on Iran's dangerous refusal to cease uranium enrichment in defiance of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions, because we know that Iran could not only use any weapons it acquires, but it could proliferate nuclear material and technologies to terrorist groups and rogue regimes around the world. We must act today. Iran is a threat to the security of the United States, the Middle East, and the rest of the globe.

Let me list a few of the many important provisions of this bill. First, it would specifically target companies involved in refined petroleum sales to Iran and those who are supporting Iran's domestic refining efforts. This is critical, because countless experts have told us that the way to pressure Iran is to target its oil and gas sectors. I have believed this for a long time, and I have been pushing for this bill for a long time.

According to the Government Accountability Office:

In recent years, oil export revenues have accounted for 24

percent of Iran's gross domestic product and between 50 and

76 percent of the Iranian government's revenues.

So we need to go after their revenues, because they are being used to push forward their nuclear program, which is so dangerous. We have to take away those resources, and this sanctions bill is a very good way to do that.

Second, this bill would also prohibit U.S. banks from engaging in transactions with foreign financial institutions that continue to do business with Iranian banks and Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. I think Chairman Dodd and Chairman Berman captured best what this provision means:

Cease your activities or be denied critical access to

America's financial system.

Third, the bill would also place significant penalties on Iran's human rights abusers. I don't think I have to explain why this is essential. Like many of my colleagues, I have watched human rights violations inside of Iran, including the brutal suppression of the opposition ``Green Movement'' that has sought to have its voice heard.

Fourth, I am especially pleased that the bill includes a provision requiring companies bidding on a U.S. Government procurement contract to certify that they are not engaged in sanctionable conduct. This is so important, because a recent GAO study found that the U.S. Government awarded $880 million to seven companies between fiscal years 2005 and 2009 that were also doing business in Iran's energy sector. Taxpayer dollars from hard-working Americans must never be used to purchase goods or supplies from companies who are working to develop Iran's energy sector or who are engaged in any behavior that is prohibited by sanctions.

Finally, this bill codifies in law longstanding Executive orders that prohibit American companies from doing business in Iran. American firms, including through their subsidiaries, must never be allowed to value a quick profit over the national security of America.

I know we are going to pass this conference report today, and I know it will have strong support in the Senate. But what we must do next is be vigilant in ensuring that the new sanctions created by this bill are enforced to the fullest extent possible. I asked the administration if they are ready to enforce this law should it pass, and they said absolutely.

The situation is grave. We must send a clear and resounding message to Iran that it will pay a very heavy price for its continued defiance of international law and its reckless behavior which, again, threatens the Middle East and threatens the entire world.

So I am looking forward to voting for this and making sure as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee that this sanctions act is enforced.

Thank you very much.

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

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the 2009-2010 National Basketball Association champions, the Los Angeles Lakers. In winning their 16th championship, and the 5th of this decade, the Lakers cemented their status as one of the most successful and storied franchises in the history of professional sports.

Led by a dedicated management and coaching staff and with contributions from an outstanding roster of perennial all-stars, reliable veterans and exciting young players, the Lakers began their successful defense of their 2008-2009 championship by compiling the best regular season record in the Western Conference.

During the playoffs, the Lakers stood tall against challengers to their title as they defeated the Oklahoma City Thunder, the Utah Jazz, and the Phoenix Suns en route to winning the Western Conference title.

In the NBA finals, the Lakers triumphed against their archrivals, the Boston Celtics, in a fiercely contested seven-game series that gripped basketball fans from coast to coast and the world over. True to their reputation as a team of great resolve and determination, the Lakers overcame a deficit in the last quarter of the deciding game in order to ensure that the NBA championship trophy will reside in Los Angeles for at least another year.

It is my pleasure to congratulate the members of the Lakers organization who worked tirelessly to bring the championship to Los Angeles and Southern California.

As the Los Angeles Lakers and their fans celebrate the 2009-2010 championship campaign, I congratulate them on another remarkable and memorable season and wish them continued success in future seasons.

Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for California Superior Court Judge Josephine Staton Tucker, who will be confirmed today to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Judge Tucker was recommended to the President by my colleague, Senator Feinstein, and will be a great addition to the Federal bench.

Judge Tucker has had a distinguished career. After graduating from Harvard Law School, she served as a Federal clerk for Judge Gibson of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Following her clerkship, she practiced labor and employment law at Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco and Irvine, CA, becoming a partner at the firm in 1995. In 2002, she was appointed by then-Governor Gray Davis to the Orange County Superior Court.

I congratulate Judge Tucker and her family on this important day, and wish her the best as she begins her tenure as a Federal judge.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I ask that the time in the quorum call be charged to both sides equally. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize the 150th anniversary of the Nevada City Fire Department in Nevada City, CA.

The Nevada City Fire Department was formed in June 1860 after a group of local women set up theatrical shows and a ball to raise funds to form a fire department. The fire department began with three fire companies: the Nevada Hose Company No. 1; Eureka Hose Company No. 2; and the Protection Hook and Ladder Company No. 1. In 1861, the first fire station was built to house the volunteer fire departments in downtown Nevada City and had a service area of about 1 square mile.

Over the years, the Nevada City Fire Department has evolved to meet the growing needs of Nevada City. In 1938, a new city hall and fire station were built and, in 1960, the first paid fire chief was hired. Nearly four decades later, in 1999, a new fire station was built to accommodate the department's needs. In 2000, the city hired its first paid fire fighter to staff the fire station during the day and, by 2003, three paid fire fighters were hired to man the fire station 24 hours a day.

Today, the Nevada City Fire Department has 20 employees serving over 3,000 residents with three fire engines and two fire stations. They respond to over 500 calls for service every year in their 2 square mile service area, and assist on calls from mutual aid areas including wild land fires on national forest land.

As the community celebrates the Nevada City Fire Department's sesquicentennial anniversary, I would like to congratulate and thank all of the brave men and women of the Nevada City Fire Department who have proudly served their community over the past 150 years.

Mr. President, unfortunately I was unable to make this morning's vote on the nomination of Tanya Walton Pratt to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted aye on the nomination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what he said:

The possibility truly exists for many livelihoods to cease;

livelihoods that have existed for generations and now are on

the brink of financial disaster because of poor decisions by

a supercorporate entity that has created the worst oilspill

in history off the coast of Louisiana.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Doerr said:

Going green may be the largest economic opportunity of the

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

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

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

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

The ability to develop clean power and energy efficient

technology is going to become the defining measure of a

country's economic standing, environmental health, energy

security, and national security over the next 50 years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

How much time remains on the Republican side?

I thank the Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Do we have 2 unused minutes?

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

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to Senator Kerry.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Kerry. We now turn to Senator Lieberman for 5 minutes, followed by Senator Merkley for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, before we hear from Senator Merkley, I want to note that immediately following him, Senator Bingaman will have 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Udall for his remarks.

I turn to a real leader on clean air, clean water, a real fighter for the health and safety of our children and our families, Senator Lautenberg, for 7 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, I am going to wrap it up in about 10 minutes and then go to the vote.

Before the Senator from New Jersey leaves the floor, if I may have his attention, I thank him so much. He put this whole vote in the exact right perspective. Big oil supports the Murkowski resolution. That is a fact. They have sent a letter saying they support the Murkowski resolution.

Why do you think they support the Murkowski resolution? The reason is,

this resolution would repeal, overturn, do away with the endangerment finding made by the Environmental Protection Agency that says that carbon pollution is a danger to our families, to their health.

Senator Lautenberg just said it from the heart. If ever there was a vote to find out whose side you are on, this is it. What could be clearer?

Let's put up a chart. Let's look at some of the public health organizations that are opposing the Murkowski resolution. I will only list a couple of them: The American Academy of Pediatrics--they know that carbon is a danger to our children--the Children's Environmental Health Network; the American Nurses Association; the American Lung Association; the American Public Health Association.

Whose side do you want to be on? We had a letter from 1,800 U.S. scientists, from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Do you want to be on the side of the special interests or do you want to be on the side of the children and the families and the people who gave their whole professional careers to protecting the health of our families?

This is one of those votes. This is what we call a turning-point vote in everyone's career. When we look back at this vote, our grandchildren will want to know: Where was the Senate on this important vote?

We know this resolution is opposed by America's leading public health experts. They do not want us to repeal a health finding. What is next? Somebody else will have a brilliant idea to repeal a scientific finding that nicotine causes cancer. Oh, we can debate that. What is next?

Someone else will say: Lead is no problem in paint. Let's repeal that finding. Think of all the children who would be adversely impacted with brain damage if we did that.

The choice is with Senators: Stand with big oil or stand with the children, the families, the doctors, the public health people. This is a moment in time.

There may not be bipartisan opposition on this floor. I think the vast majority of my Republican friends are going to support Senator Murkowski. But look at the outside world where we are getting support for our side.

EPA Administrators under Nixon, Ford, and Reagan oppose the Murkowski resolution. People forget, the environment used to be an issue that was bipartisan. The EPA--that has been so criticized by my Republican friends--was created by Richard Nixon, was supported by Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. What has happened? How did this happen? I think it goes back to politics and special interests and the money that flows in here.

But that is another debate for another time. Today, we have a very simple proposition before us in the Murkowski resolution: Should we repeal the health finding and the scientific finding that is the basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions?

Ronald Reagan's EPA Administrator, Richard Nixon's EPA Administrator, Ford's--Russell Train, William Ruckelshaus--very strongly opposed. They urge the Senate to reject this and any other legislation that would weaken the Clean Air Act or curtail the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to implement its provisions.

It is the Environmental Protection Agency--the EPA--not the environmental pollution agency. If somebody wants to turn it into that, they ought to come here and make that proposal. We can debate it.

There is enough pollution in the gulf to teach us a lesson today. How ironic that this is coming before us.

How about jobs? The people on the other side say supporting the Murkowski resolution is supporting jobs. That is false. The U.S. automakers oppose the Murkowski amendment. They say it will lose jobs. If these resolutions are enacted, the historic agreement creating the one national program for regulating vehicle fuel economy would collapse.

We are finally getting the U.S. auto industry on its feet. With the Murkowski resolution, if it became law, that is all over and our auto industry will falter again.

The auto workers also come out against the Murkowski resolution. They are deeply concerned that overturning this endangerment finding would unravel the historic agreement on one national standard for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions.

If you haven't been convinced on the jobs question in the auto industry, if you are not convinced on the health argument, let's look at a statement made by 33 U.S. generals and admirals. Climate change is making the world a dangerous place, threatening our security.

I don't have time to read every word, but it says the State Department, the National Intelligence Council, the CIA, all agree and are all planning for future climate-based threats. America's billion- dollar-a-day dependence on oil makes us vulnerable to unstable and unfriendly regimes.

We have a list of the people who signed onto that. I will just read a few, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this document.

Mr. President, this is a list of lieutenant generals, vice admirals, major generals, rear admirals, brigadier generals--and all of them real patriots--saying to us: We cannot become more dependent on oil, and as a result of this Murkowski resolution, that is what would happen.

How much more do we want to spend on importing foreign oil? We are up to a billion dollars a day, and it is going to people who don't care for us very much, in case you didn't notice that. We want to get off foreign oil. We want to unleash the capital in our own country. And our own businesses are telling us this--that those dollars would come in if in fact we move forward and enact legislation that makes sense. The Murkowski resolution would simply stop us in our tracks.

More than a thousand businesses have weighed in against the Murkowski resolution--a thousand businesses. The resolution would eliminate

incentives for innovations that could drive a clean energy economy. The Murkowski resolution would send the wrong signal to the American business community. That is signed by an organization representing 850 business leaders. The resolution will jeopardize and hinder progress. That is signed by Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy. Then the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, on behalf of 320 member companies, opposes the resolution from Senator Murkowski. The member companies in the leadership group provide nearly 250,000 local jobs or one out of every four private-sector jobs in Silicon Valley.

So whether you are voting on this on the basis of the health of our children, whether you care about the auto companies, whether you care about jobs and the rest of the economy and the ability of this economy to create good jobs or because you feel we need to get off our billion- dollar-a-day habit of importing oil, you have a lot of important issues to think about.

I want to close with looking at something no one wants to look at--no one can bear to look at. If anyone thought that carbon isn't a danger, look at what carbon pollution is doing on the ground in the gulf region--in the water, on the beaches, in the marshlands. Do you think that a pollutant like this, when it goes in the air, causes no problem?

There was a cartoon in today's paper that showed a cap going over the well--which we all hope is going to succeed--and out of that well is escaping some of the carbon pollution. It is going into the air and under it, it says: Now it is no problem.

My colleagues of the Senate, this is a point in time we have to make a decision. We are not experts in public health here. We chose as our career to say that we want to be on the side of the people who send us here. This is the moment. Choose sides: It is big oil and all that comes with it and all the polluters or it is protecting our families.

I urge a no vote to proceed to this resolution, and I ask that the regular order occur on the vote at this time.

I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, and that I be recognized to make some remarks after this very historic vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen.) Without objection, it is so ordered.