Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Madam President, this week, New Mexicans of all political persuasions have been recalling the life of a legendary figure of our State, Bruce King, who served as Governor during three different decades and who taught by example that public service is an honorable calling.

Governor King died last Friday at the age of 85. He used to tell the story about a former Governor who was the graduation speaker at Bruce's high school graduation. The former Governor looked at the very small class of teenagers and said:

One of you could grow up to be governor of this state.

Bruce looked around at his other classmates and figured that the Governor had to be speaking to him. Sure enough, in the course of time, and after serving as Santa Fe County commissioner, a State legislator, and speaker of the house in New Mexico, he was, in fact, elected Governor. In fact, he served as Governor for 12 years, longer than anyone else in the history of New Mexico.

In all of those years, he never failed to make the people of New Mexico his first priority. With him at every step of the way, from their ranch in Stanley to Santa Fe and back again, was the remarkable Alice Martin King, his wife. She was a great force in her own right. She was a champion for children in our State. She died last December.

My own history with Bruce King began when I was just out of law school. I was serving then as an assistant attorney general in New Mexico and was assigned the job of being counsel to the constitutional convention which our State had in 1969. Bruce, who was then speaker of the house, was elected president of that convention. I learned a great deal about the legislative process and about New Mexico history and about our State in general as a result of the effort to work with Bruce in that capacity. His management of the process and the people involved with the constitutional convention was masterful. He was always inclusive, he was always listening, and he was always working to get the best result. In short, he was the model of a legislative manager.

Today I recall being privileged to serve as attorney general during Bruce's second term as Governor, from 1979 to 1982. We worked closely together on a number of issues. I was impressed all over again at his knowledge of New Mexico and his genuine love for its citizens. He was gregarious and kind. He never knew a stranger. He shook hands with everyone in our State. He shook every hand in our State, whether there was a voter attached to it or not. People were delighted to see Bruce coming and to hear his famous reply when asked: How are you doing, Governor? He would reply: Mighty fine--regardless of how difficult the circumstances the State and he were facing.

Our friendship extended for 40-plus years. With my fellow New Mexicans, I will miss him greatly. His sons Bill and Gary, his brothers Don and Sam, and the entire King family have lost tremendously. Every New Mexican feels this loss and joins his family in honoring his life.

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Senator Robert C. Byrd as he becomes the longest-serving Member of Congress in American history. Senator Byrd has served 56 years and 320 days. During his time in the Senate Senator Byrd has cast more than 18,500 votes, more than any Senator in history.

Senator Byrd was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1952, and he was sworn in to the U.S. Senate on Jan. 3, 1959. This was, coincidentally, the same day that Alaska became a State, and before Hawaii was admitted to the Union. He is now serving an unprecedented ninth term in the Senate.

Yet, to discuss only his longevity would do a grave disservice to the reality of what Senator Byrd has meant to the U.S. Senate and to this country. Many distinguished Members have had long careers in the Senate, but I believe it is safe to say that none have contributed more to the preservation of the history, traditions and strength of the Senate than Robert C. Byrd. His knowledge of and reverence for the Constitution has served over these many years to remind us time and again of the beauty, eloquence, and timelessness of that document, and the importance of relying upon it as the touchstone of our deliberations.

Senator Byrd has had many great legislative and oratorical achievements in his time in the Senate, but I wanted to refer briefly to just one today. His outspoken opposition to giving President George W. Bush the power to wage war against Iraq was an inspiration to those of us who shared his views, and he never forgot those who were with him on that vote. The eloquence and passion with which he expressed his views were extraordinarily powerful; his floor speeches exemplified the power of language to shape ideas. I believe that what has transpired in Iraq since those speeches has affirmed the courageous stance that he took.

In conclusion, it is an honor and a privilege to serve with Senator Byrd, and I congratulate him on this great milestone.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been rescheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, December 2, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on policy options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected]

For further information, please contact Jonathan Black at (202) 224- 6722 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate, that the hearing scheduled before Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, for Thursday, November 19, 2009, will begin at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on environmental stewardship policies related to offshore energy production.

For further information, please contact Linda Lance at (202) 224-7556 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, December 10, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the role of grid-scale energy storage in meeting our energy and climate goals.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Abigail_Campbell@ energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Alicia Jackson (202) 224- 3607, Abigail Campbell (202) 224-1219, or Kellie Donnelly (202) 224- 9360.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 17, 2009, at 10 a.m in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to explore the international aspects of global climate change.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Gina_Weinstock @energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Jonathan Black at (202) 224- 6722 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

Speaking through the Chair to the manager of the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, I would like to ask if she is aware that the President's fiscal year 2010 budget for the Bureau of Economic Analysis contained two important initiatives to measure the impact that research and development as well as energy has on the gross domestic product?

As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I would also like to point out another initiative by the Bureau in the fiscal year 2010 budget on the effect of energy consumption on the gross domestic product. I believe that such macroeconomic information will be critical as we develop a comprehensive energy policy that is currently before the Congress.

I would like to ask the manager if during conference with the House consideration can be given to help start these two initiatives so that we in Congress can begin to understand how these two important parameters affect our gross domestic product.

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

Mr. President, I wish to speak about the need for additional policies to create jobs in our country and about how energy legislation can help to accomplish that goal.

First, let me make a point I made last week on the Senate floor; that is, despite the recent positive economic news, Congress needs to take additional steps if we are going to create the jobs we need in this country. The economy has lost 7.2 million jobs during this recession--1 out of every 20 jobs in the country. In percentage terms, this is the biggest job loss since the recession in 1948 and 1949.

This chart vividly describes the jobs deficit we are seeing. The heading is: ``Not enough job creation to maintain employment at level in January 2001.'' Let me explain that a little bit. These job losses we have experienced in this recession add to the jobs deficit that has been accumulating over the last 9 years. The country needs--our economy needs--12 million new jobs in order to bring employment back to where it was at the end of the Clinton administration. Economists expect the jobs report--which comes up in 2 days, this Friday--to show even more jobs were lost in October of this year.

We should not, in my view, overlook the positive news about our economy reported last week. The gross domestic product jumped to 3.5 percent in the third quarter, a complete turnaround from the 6.4- percent decline in the first quarter of this year. It is reported that the Recovery Act has created or saved 1 million jobs--640,000 through direct spending alone. The Recovery Act is working, but Congress still needs to take additional action. We need additional policies to create jobs if we are going to prevent this recovery from being a jobless recovery, much like the previous two recoveries we had from recessions.

Let me go to another chart. This chart is entitled ``Job losses continued for months after the recessions in 1990-91 and 2001.'' What the chart shows is the change in the number of jobs during the recessions--the two recessions I have referred to, 1990-91 as one recession and 2001 as another recession. During the months after those recessions ended, the job losses continued. As you can see, the economy continued to shed jobs for 2 months after the 1990-91 recession ended, which is the green line, as you can see. After the 2001 recession, job losses continued for a staggering 18 months--not 2 months but 18 months--at that time.

This is the paradox of the recoveries from the past two recessions. The GDP began to grow, as it now has in our own period, with the results of this last quarter, but the country continued to lose jobs. When jobs finally did return, they returned very slowly.

Let me go to another chart. This chart is entitled ``Unemployment rate continued to rise after the recessions in 1990-91 and 2001.'' This chart shows what happened to the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate rose for 16 months after the 1990-91 recession ended. The unemployment rate rose for 20 months after the 2001 recession ended.

Even 5 years after the 2001 recession ended, more people were out of work than before that recession began. So Congress needs to take steps to ensure that the recovery this time is different.

The tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration were meant to stimulate job growth, but it is apparent now they failed to do so. Those tax cuts

were too blunt an instrument to do the job. They were not focused enough on creating jobs. The $4 trillion hole they dug in the Federal budget has made it harder for us to recover from the current recession. So the country needs policies that are more targeted on job creation.

Last week, I outlined four ideas Congress should consider: a jobs creation tax credit; second, a manufacturing tax credit; third, emergency bridge loans to homeowners to keep them in their homes; and fourth, additional aid to States.

It should be noted the aid to States that has already been provided has been effective at saving hundreds of thousands of teaching jobs-- 325,000 of the 640,000 jobs created or saved by the Recovery Act were jobs in education. Congress should consider providing additional aid to States to help close those budget shortfalls which are projected. The cumulative budget shortfalls are projected to total $175 billion for the States over the next 2 years.

Let me turn now to another action we should take to create jobs. To create jobs, in my view, Congress should go ahead, at the earliest possible time, to enact the American Clean Energy Leadership Act. This is legislation that was reported out of our Energy and Natural Resources Committee in June of this year, where it received bipartisan support. The vote there was 15 in favor of reporting that legislation and 8 members voted against it.

This Energy bill I am referring to is a jobs bill. The Energy bill could create 350,000 to 500,000 jobs over the next decade. It would create jobs by increasing the amount of research and development that is supported by the Department of Energy. It would create jobs by increasing the demand for renewable energy by establishing a renewable electricity standard. It would create jobs by financing the construction of nuclear powerplants through the establishment of a clean energy deployment administration. It would create jobs by promoting energy efficiency retrofits for homes and for commercial buildings. These are jobs that cannot be outsourced. It would create jobs by building new clean energy and improving energy efficiency throughout the manufacturing sector.

Reducing energy usage means reducing the cost of doing business, which will make American businesses more competitive in the global market and allow them to expand and to create jobs in the United States. This is part of what this Energy bill is all about, creating jobs and making the United States more competitive in the global economy.

The Energy bill would position our country to lead in the development of clean energy technologies, which is a rapidly growing industrial segment that I believe will be one of the most important sectors of industry in the 21st century. It will also make our economy stronger by enabling businesses to flourish in other areas of the economy.

Before elaborating on some of the provisions in that bill, let me give a concrete example of how forward-thinking energy legislation has the effect of creating jobs for middle-class Americans. In September of this year, the Department of Energy awarded Fisker Automotive a $529 million loan through a program that was created by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This last week, Fisker announced it will be reopen a previously owned General Motors plant in Delaware that has been shut down, and it will use that plant to produce a plug- in hybrid car. The new Fisker plant will employ 2,000 people and indirectly create another 3,000 jobs in the surrounding area. So not only will consumers benefit from the increased choices they will have in energy-efficient automobiles, but American workers will benefit from increased clean energy jobs. Similar good news stories can be told about new or retooled factories in Michigan, Indiana, and Tennessee as well.

The American Clean Energy Leadership Act I have been referring to would provide more loans of this kind by creating this clean energy deployment administration--or CEDA. CEDA will be an independent agency within the Department of Energy with a mission to support the financing of low-carbon energy projects. For example, CEDA could provide loans and loan guarantees or other credit enhancements to enable the construction of powerplants that produce renewable energy or factories that make wind turbines or other components. CEDA will also create financial mechanisms to allow affordable financing for energy efficiency retrofits and distributed generation in entire communities. This new agency will give special focus to high-risk, high-reward technologies that are otherwise difficult to finance.

Additional financing is critical at this time, when credit markets are still very tight and private investors are reluctant to take on even low-risk commercial projects. In the first quarter of 2009, investments in renewable energy totaled only $500 million, just one- tenth of the $5 billion invested in the same period the year before. Even when financial markets recover, banks are leery of the risk associated with new technologies. Without CEDA--which we are creating in this legislation--to fill the gap, we run the risk of these investments continuing to be made overseas, where market conditions are better for innovative clean energy technologies.

CEDA initially will be capitalized under the legislation at $10 billion in appropriated funds that can conservatively support Federal lending of approximately $100 billion.

Combined with funds from private partners, a reasonable estimate would lead to $20 billion worth of clean energy projects.

CEDA could potentially be scaled up in the future, enabling it to create even more jobs.

The energy bill would also establish a Renewable Electricity Standard, or RES, for the entire country. This policy would require electricity companies to get 15 percent of their power from renewable resources by 2021, with an exemption for small-scale utility companies. By increasing the demand for clean energy, the Renewable Electricity Standard will promote the construction of new wind farms, solar power plants, and geothermal plants. A variety of other clean technologies will also qualify, technologies such as hydro, biomass, and ocean power. Constructing these plants and manufacturing the components needed could create 100,000 to 125,000 jobs by 2025.

In addition to the Renewable Electricity Standard, the energy bill includes policies to strengthen the Nation's electricity transmission grid and increase the production of renewable energy on public lands. These policies would complement the Renewable Electricity Standard.

Improving energy efficiency is a cost-effective way to reduce the energy costs of homeowners and improve the competitiveness of American businesses. The energy bill has programs targeted both at the manufacturing sector and at residential and commercial buildings.

For residential and commercial buildings, the bill creates a grant program that states could use to fund retrofit programs for residential and commercial buildings. A home energy retrofit finance program would also be created. States could use this program to set up revolving finance funds to help homeowners pay for energy efficiency improvements. This support would be in addition to the support available through CEDA.

The residential and commercial energy efficiency programs in the energy bill could create tens of thousands of jobs. Overall, energy retrofits is potentially a large job creator. Rebuilding America estimates that retrofitting 50 million homes over the next 10 years would create 625,000 jobs that could be sustained during that period. The programs in the energy bill would accomplish part of that goal.

The bill also includes programs to increase the energy efficiency of American manufacturers. Energy Department financing will help small and large manufacturers upgrade to energy efficient production equipment and processes. Public/private partnerships will map out and develop the technologies needed by specific industries to reduce their energy intensity. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy estimates these energy efficiency programs would at a minimum create 15,000 to 20,000 jobs by 2020.

But more important than this estimate is the competitive edge American manufacturers would gain by increasing their energy efficiency. This is a

key step to revitalizing the manufacturing sector and ensuring it remains strong in the future.

Nearly everyone agrees that research and development is vital to creating jobs and to the competitiveness of the United States. The energy bill would nearly double the authorization for the Office of Science in the Energy Department, to over $8 billion in 2013. At that funding level, the Office of Science could support over 27,000 Ph.D.- level researchers across the United States. The authorization would also double for applied energy research to $6.5 billion, research focused nuclear energy, fossil fuels, and energy efficiency. Other countries in Asia are well ahead of the United States creating research, development, and deployment roadmaps for clean energy technologies. With additional resources, this research will make American industries competitive in a carbon constrained economy.

All told, using both the specific estimates that have been made for policies in the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, and a midpoint estimate for jobs resulting from the retrofit provisions of the bill, the act could create up to 500,000 jobs over the next decade if it is enacted and funded.

This is just a part of the job creation potential in the energy sector. The National Commission on Energy Policy estimates that the country will need 400,000 new jobs in the electricity sector alone. If indirect jobs are included, the number of new jobs created could total 1 to 1.5 million. Similarly, the Center for American Progress has estimated the job-growth potential if both the public and private sectors combined were to invest $150 billion per year in clean energy. That is the level of investment that the center estimates would be mobilized by a comprehensive set of policies that include both what Congress has already enacted as part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act and a full suite of policies surrounding a cap-and-trade system for regulating greenhouse gases. In that larger context, the Center for American Progress has concluded that there is the potential to increase the number of permanent jobs in the economy related to clean energy by a net amount of 1.7 million.

The energy bill is a downpayment on reaching that target, and has significant potential to create jobs in the near term. It would strengthen the competitiveness of American businesses through energy efficiency improvements and investments in research and development. And it would position the United States to be the global leader in the development of clean energy technologies. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation when it does come to the floor for consideration.

The jobs we can create as we transition to a clean energy economy are not the total answer to our job needs in the coming years. But they are an important part of the answer.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation not only for what it will do to meet our energy needs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but for what it will do to create jobs and put our economy on a growth track in future years.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, November 19, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on environmental stewardship policies related to offshore energy production.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Abigail_Campbell @energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Linda Lance at (202) 224-7556 or Abby Campbell at (202) 224-1219.

Madam President, I wish to speak about jobs and unemployment. I know we are in this period postcloture on the effort to extend unemployment benefits. Frankly, I have great difficulty understanding why we should have to be going through this kind of procedural obstacle in order to extend unemployment benefits to the many Americans who need those benefits. So I hope we can get through that. I hope we can go ahead and pass the extension of unemployment benefits. Frankly, that does not begin to address the overall employment and job needs of the country. I think we all recognize that. I wish to talk a little bit about that today.

Frankly, we need additional policies to create jobs. Even as Congress and the President focus on other critical challenges facing the country, including health care reform and climate change and energy, at the same time those issues are being discussed, we need to also prioritize job creation.

While there has been considerable debate about whether the Recovery Act is working, whether it has raised the gross domestic product, whether it is creating jobs, most economists tell us the Recovery Act has boosted the gross domestic product by 2 to 4 percentage points during the past 6 months. With two-thirds of the funds not yet spent, the Recovery Act certainly has the potential to create or save 4 million jobs, as the administration has expected it would and as all of us hope it does.

I have divided my remarks into three parts. First, I wish to describe the scale of the job-creation problem the country faces. Because of the anemic job creation we have seen in this country over the last 9 years, the economy is short by about 12 million jobs from what we actually need in order to have reasonable employment. Second, there is considerable evidence--and this is the second subject I will address-- there is considerable evidence that this recession is much worse than it was expected to be. Critics of the Recovery Act are missing this fundamental point. The Recovery Act is working, but the recession is more severe than the Recovery Act was designed to address. Accordingly, we need to do more.

Finally, I will propose four ideas to create jobs I think Congress should hold hearings on and fully debate. These are, by no means, the only good ideas, but given the size of the problem we face, Congress should consider all ideas that have a potential to create jobs.

I have two charts that illustrate the scale of the job-creation problem. Let me start by putting up this first chart. The black line on this chart shows the monthly change in the number of jobs since January of 2001. The red number, which is right here, this red area represents 100,000 jobs. That is an important number to understand. It is the break-even number. Because our population is constantly growing, we need to create about 100,000 new jobs every month just to maintain our unemployment and our employment level. That is 100,000 jobs per month just to keep unemployment from going up. Every time the black line-- this black line you see here--every time that black line is in the red area, which is most of the time in the last 9 years, we are not creating enough jobs to break even and the jobs deficit is getting larger and more Americans are out of work.

As my colleagues can see, for most of the past 9 years, the number of new jobs has been far short of where it needs to be. From 2001 to 2004, the jobs deficit grew by 5.8 million jobs. Even when job creation was above the break-even level--and that is this period where this black line is above the reddish area on the chart--even in that period, it was never high enough to dig us out of the hole we had created in the previous years.

The second chart I wish to show is labeled ``The Jobs Deficit.'' It shows the total jobs deficit that has accumulated over the past 9 years. It illustrates the cumulative effect of 9 years of slow job creation and job losses. The country had 132.5 million jobs in December of 2000. If job creation had kept pace with population growth, today we would have 143 million jobs, but it has not. Today, we are 12 million jobs short of that number. The chart shows how that has happened. Today we have only 131 million jobs. We actually have fewer jobs today than we had before President Bush took office.

The takeaway from these charts is this: The job situation for Americans is dismal. Congress needs to act quickly so new job-creation policies will overlap with and will complement the remaining Recovery Act funds that will be invested this next year. There is no danger of doing too much to create jobs, as I see it. We should learn from Japan's lost decade. Japan was plagued by weak economic growth and lackluster job creation all through the 1990s. Its lost decade, as that period is referred to, was caused by the bursting of an asset price bubble similar to what triggered the financial crisis we experienced last year. The primary lesson from Japan's lost decade is, intermittent stimulus policies are ineffective. We need to take sustained and overwhelming action to reenergize our economy.

Let me speak for a moment about the current recession and data about the current recession. In January of this year, the prospects for the economy were truly grim. The country had lost jobs in every month in 2008--over 3 million jobs in total. Over 1.6 million jobs were lost in just October, November,

and December of 2008. The financial system had suffered a massive self- inflicted wound, causing the biggest crisis since the Great Depression. The prognosis was far from clear. American families in every State were worried about their jobs, their homes, their children's futures, and economists were making dire predictions about what would happen in 2009.

So that was what was happening when we began January of this year. Yet, in January, while the Recovery Act was being designed, these predictions still substantially underestimated how bad the recession would turn out to be. The 54 economists regularly surveyed by the Wall Street Journal said, on average, gross domestic product would shrink by 3.3 percent in the first quarter of 2009. There were only 4 of those 54 economists who predicted the gross domestic product would decline by as much as 5 percent. Yet now we know the economy actually contracted by 6.4 percent in that first quarter, twice as much as the economists had projected. Over the entire year, that is a difference of $420 billion or more than half the size of the Recovery Act.

The effect on jobs and on unemployment was also underestimated. This same group of 54 economists thought job losses would average 154,000 per month in 2009. There were only 3 of those economists who thought it would be more than 300,000 per month. So far this year, the country is losing, in fact, an average of 458,000 jobs every month--3 times more than economists predicted.

In January, these same 54 economists thought the unemployment rate would be 8.2 percent in the first half of 2009. Mark Zandi, at Moody's economy.com, estimated unemployment would be less than 7.5 percent in the first quarter of 2009 and 8.5 percent in the second quarter if the Recovery Act was not enacted. The administration said, if the Recovery Act was not enacted, unemployment would be less than 8 percent in the first half of this year and would peak at 9 percent in 2010. Those were the estimates if the Recovery Act was not enacted. Yet we now know the unemployment rate was already 8.1 percent in February. It grew to 8.5 percent in March and 9.5 percent in the second quarter. Even with the Recovery Act, the unemployment rate is worse than anyone predicted it would be without the Recovery Act.

In January, the administration said that enacting the Recovery Act would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. Critics are trying to score political points based on that estimate. But as I have said, the unemployment rate was already 8.1 percent in February, when there had hardly been enough time for the ink to dry on the Recovery Act, let alone for the stimulus funds to be obligated and spent.

In short, with perfect hindsight, it is obvious this recession is much worse than economists had predicted it would be. More jobs have been lost than economists predicted. I say this not to disparage those professionals, only to point out we need to do more to create jobs because the situation is worse than almost anyone thought it would be.

The Recovery Act is working, but the problem is bigger than the Recovery Act was designed to solve. We must all recognize this. Congress and the administration need to work together to enact additional policies to create jobs. We need a combination of policies both to encourage hiring and to increase the demand for goods and services.

I want to talk briefly about four ideas that have been proposed that Congress needs to look at, and look at them hopefully sooner rather than later.

First is a job creation tax credit. Last week, the Economic Policy Institute released a new and noteworthy version of this idea, developed by John Bishop of Cornell and Timothy Bartik of the Upjohn Institute. The EPI proposes to give businesses a tax credit worth 10 to 15 percent of the cost of creating new jobs. Such a credit would help businesses choose to take the risk of expanding and hiring more workers. The authors estimate their job creation tax credit would create 2.8 million new jobs in 2010 that would not otherwise be created. In addition, 2.3 million jobs would be created in 2011 under their proposal, as they predicted, for a total of 5.1 million new jobs over a 2-year period. Their proposal is to put this job creation tax credit into place for 2 years. According to EPI, the cost to taxpayers for each job would be between $4,600 and $15,000. That is expensive, but it is well worth considering if their analysis is correct.

Critics say the job creation tax credit will not work, that only more demand for a business's products and services will cause the business to hire more employees. While there is some truth to this, it is also the case that entrepreneurs frequently start new businesses or expand existing businesses before having a steady stream of new orders. This is the fundamental idea behind innovation. In other words, businesses often create new jobs before there is a confirmed increase in demand. Moreover, a similar but more difficult-to-use tax credit was enacted in 1977 and is thought to have created 700,000 jobs by the end of 1978.

Critics also say that businesses will use tricks to game the system and fraudulently claim the tax credit. This is certainly possible. If Congress pursues this idea, we need to take care to design the credit to eliminate that problem. Already the authors of the proposal recommend that the credit be based on the increase in a business's Social Security wage base, so that a business could not fire and rehire employees in order to claim the credit.

Some of these criticisms may be valid, but there is enough promise in this idea that we need to take the time to fully explore and consider it.

The second idea I want to mention is the possibility of enacting an investment tax credit for manufacturing. Such a credit would subsidize the cost of building new factory space or purchasing new machinery. This credit could be tied to research and development that has been done in the United States in order to ensure Americans get the maximum benefit from that R&D or the credit could be more broadly designed and made available for all manufacturing investments. Manufacturing jobs are critical to the long-term health of our economy, and we need additional policies to create those jobs.

Third, we in Congress need to consider providing additional aid to States. This could be accomplished through the expansion of the Federal role or the Federal share of Medicaid, as we have done in the past. It could be done through additional education funds or other direct grants. The Recovery Act included $144 billion in aid to States and localities, but now we know the total budget shortfall of States is projected to be nearly $360 billion over the next 2 years. Thirty-nine States will face budget shortfalls in 2011. Without additional help, States will have to cut services and raise taxes, making the recession worse and slowing job creation even more. As Nobel laureate Paul Krugman has written, there is a real danger that the States will become ``50 little Herbert Hoovers'' by cutting back on spending, laying off workers, and raising taxes all at the worst possible moment. Enacting additional aid to States could have immediate benefits by curtailing plans to cut State programs. Direct aid to States would complement the new tax credits I have mentioned. It would be a fast, effective way to stabilize and increase demand for goods and services.

Finally, Congress should explore the idea of providing emergency bridge loans to families to help families stay in their homes. The government did provide bridge loans to Wall Street. American homeowners should get the same assistance. The amount of the loan would be equal to up to 2 years of mortgage payments and could be repaid over 10 or 15 years. These bridge loans would also complement the job creation tax credit and the manufacturing investment tax credit by preventing a fall-off in the demand for consumer goods and services. Senator Jack Reed and Congressman Barney Frank have proposed similar ideas to provide bridge loans to homeowners. All of these ideas should be fully discussed and considered.

Over the longer term, Congress and the administration need to consider proposals that address the structural flaws in our economy, including reforming financial regulation, fixing our unemployment compensation system, so that it assists more workers in our economy, and creating additional countercyclical economic policies that

would automatically be triggered during a recession. I hope to discuss some of these issues in the coming weeks.

The four proposals I have outlined today are ideas that could create jobs in the short and medium term. Congress should hold hearings on these and other job creation proposals. We should act quickly to address this issue. If the trend this year continues, another 15,000 jobs will be lost each day we wait. If we do nothing, unemployment is projected to climb past 10 percent next year, more families will lose their homes, our economy will grow weaker, making it more difficult for the United States to compete in the global market. Even as Congress continues working on other strategic challenges such as health care, energy, and climate change--and I support taking action in those areas--we must give renewed priority to job creation in order to strengthen the long-term competitiveness of the United States and the prosperity of the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 10, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on policy options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected]

For further information, please contact Jonathan Black at (202) 224- 6722 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

Mr. President, the Subcommittee on National Parks had previously announced a hearing to be held on Wednesday, November 4, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. In addition to the bills previously listed, the following bill will be included:

H.R. 1287, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a partnership with the Porter County Convention, Recreation and Visitor Commission regarding the use of the Dorothy Buell Memorial Visitor Center as a visitor center for the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify

by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, November 5, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1757, to provide for the prepayment of a repayment contract between the United States and the Uintah Water Conservancy District, and for other purposes; S. 1758, to provide for the allocation of costs to project power with respect to power development within the Diamond Fork System, and for other purposes; and S. 1759, to authorize certain transfers of water in the Central Valley Project, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact Tanya Trujillo at (202) 224- 5479 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Natural Resources Climate Adaptation Act. I am pleased that Senators Whitehouse, Baucus, and Tom Udall have joined me as original cosponsors.

The science is clear that climate change is happening and numerous scientific reports as well as the everyday experience of many Americans--demonstrate that the impacts have already begun to affect ecosystems across the country. This bill recognizes that quick action is needed to insure the long-term viability of ecosystems on which our communities as well as our fish and wildlife depend. It will support and enable Federal and State agencies and other interested parties to address the negative impacts of climate change on our natural resources in the most effective possible ways.

We know that healthy, functioning ecosystems are vital to human health, economic viability, and fish and wildlife populations. I believe that we are at a critical juncture in protecting our valuable natural resources. In solving the climate change problem we must ensure the well-being of our natural world if we are to have a thriving economy and a healthy environment. This is the reason I am introducing this bill.

This is not a problem that is hypothetical. Climate change impacts are irrevocably affecting our natural world and the health of our communities today, and these impacts will increase. We must act now.

We often forget that healthy ecosystems are essential to human as well as wildlife needs. They are necessary to provide us, for example, with a clean and abundant drinking water supply, clean air to breathe, and a well-functioning economy in addition to habitat for a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plant species. Not to mention a place to take our children fishing, and to enjoy the personal inspiration of the natural world.

My home State of New Mexico is a dry State and the challenges associated with climate change are already impacting our land and our water supplies. There are already many competing demands for our limited water resources which will only be heightened by the effects of climate change. Existing threats to our public lands such as wildfires and deforestation may become more prevalent. New Mexico's Bandelier National Park has recently been identified as one of the ``25 National Parks in Peril'' due to climate change related impacts and other treasures within our State may also be in jeopardy of degradation if actions are not taken to protect them.

Our landowners, ranchers, water managers, and State officials are working to evaluate and mitigate the current and expected impacts of a warming climate on our State's natural resources and water supply. For instance, in 2005 the New Mexico Climate Change Council and Advisory Group prepared a report summarizing the potential impacts of climate change in New Mexico

and the State Engineer's office prepared an additional report on the impacts of climate change on the water supply and water management strategies. These reports are being used to guide State officials in addressing these issues. In addition, New Mexico has joined other western States to form the Western Regional Climate Initiative to coordinate efforts at reducing greenhouse gases.

The legislation introduced today seeks to complement existing natural resources-related programs in New Mexico and other States across the country. This legislation supports and facilitates the development and dissemination of scientific research on climate change between Federal agencies, States, Indian tribes and interested stakeholders. This ongoing research will in turn play a significant role in guiding these entities in the management of our natural resources.

This bill also establishes several forums to encourage effective coordination and communication in creating a Federal strategy and subsequent Federal and State adaptation plans that will help natural resources adjust to a changing climate. Finally, the Act provides additional funding for existing Federal and State wildlife conservation programs to be used exclusively for adaptation-related activities.

The Natural Resources Climate Adaptation Act follows on the good work of several of my colleagues in both the House and the Senate. Chairman Rahall and Subcommittee Chairman Grijalva have developed legislation in this area, and their own adaptation bill, H.R. 2192, was incorporated into the broader cap-and-trade legislation that passed the House of Representatives earlier this year.

Senators Kerry and Boxer have adopted provisions similar to this bill in their climate legislation at the request of two leaders on the Environment and Public Works Committee: Senators Baucus and Whitehouse. The legislation I am introducing today is complementary to the work that has already been done. My cosponsors and I share the same goal of making sure natural resources adaptation is included in any climate change legislation that comes before the Senate.

Many Americans already recognize the critical need for this legislation. A coalition of over 600 diverse groups has written to Congress describing the current and potential negative impacts of climate change on our natural resources and urging us to include language in any climate bill to address those impacts. By way of example, the groups in this coalition include environmental organizations, local Rod & Gun Clubs, fisheries coalitions, scientific research groups, and religious groups.

If we fail to act to address the impacts of climate change on our American landscape, the negative effects will be felt by all of us. I am committed to working through this legislation and other means to ensure that we do what is necessary to protect our precious natural resources from one of the greatest challenges ever faced.

I would like to thank Senators Baucus, Whitehouse, and Tom Udall for their leadership on this issue and their cosponsorship of this bill. I look forward to working with them and our colleagues to pass legislation to carry out this important purpose.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Natural Resources Climate Adaptation Act. I am pleased that Senators Whitehouse, Baucus, and Tom Udall have joined me as original cosponsors.

The science is clear that climate change is happening and numerous scientific reports as well as the everyday experience of many Americans--demonstrate that the impacts have already begun to affect ecosystems across the country. This bill recognizes that quick action is needed to insure the long-term viability of ecosystems on which our communities as well as our fish and wildlife depend. It will support and enable Federal and State agencies and other interested parties to address the negative impacts of climate change on our natural resources in the most effective possible ways.

We know that healthy, functioning ecosystems are vital to human health, economic viability, and fish and wildlife populations. I believe that we are at a critical juncture in protecting our valuable natural resources. In solving the climate change problem we must ensure the well-being of our natural world if we are to have a thriving economy and a healthy environment. This is the reason I am introducing this bill.

This is not a problem that is hypothetical. Climate change impacts are irrevocably affecting our natural world and the health of our communities today, and these impacts will increase. We must act now.

We often forget that healthy ecosystems are essential to human as well as wildlife needs. They are necessary to provide us, for example, with a clean and abundant drinking water supply, clean air to breathe, and a well-functioning economy in addition to habitat for a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plant species. Not to mention a place to take our children fishing, and to enjoy the personal inspiration of the natural world.

My home State of New Mexico is a dry State and the challenges associated with climate change are already impacting our land and our water supplies. There are already many competing demands for our limited water resources which will only be heightened by the effects of climate change. Existing threats to our public lands such as wildfires and deforestation may become more prevalent. New Mexico's Bandelier National Park has recently been identified as one of the ``25 National Parks in Peril'' due to climate change related impacts and other treasures within our State may also be in jeopardy of degradation if actions are not taken to protect them.

Our landowners, ranchers, water managers, and State officials are working to evaluate and mitigate the current and expected impacts of a warming climate on our State's natural resources and water supply. For instance, in 2005 the New Mexico Climate Change Council and Advisory Group prepared a report summarizing the potential impacts of climate change in New Mexico

and the State Engineer's office prepared an additional report on the impacts of climate change on the water supply and water management strategies. These reports are being used to guide State officials in addressing these issues. In addition, New Mexico has joined other western States to form the Western Regional Climate Initiative to coordinate efforts at reducing greenhouse gases.

The legislation introduced today seeks to complement existing natural resources-related programs in New Mexico and other States across the country. This legislation supports and facilitates the development and dissemination of scientific research on climate change between Federal agencies, States, Indian tribes and interested stakeholders. This ongoing research will in turn play a significant role in guiding these entities in the management of our natural resources.

This bill also establishes several forums to encourage effective coordination and communication in creating a Federal strategy and subsequent Federal and State adaptation plans that will help natural resources adjust to a changing climate. Finally, the Act provides additional funding for existing Federal and State wildlife conservation programs to be used exclusively for adaptation-related activities.

The Natural Resources Climate Adaptation Act follows on the good work of several of my colleagues in both the House and the Senate. Chairman Rahall and Subcommittee Chairman Grijalva have developed legislation in this area, and their own adaptation bill, H.R. 2192, was incorporated into the broader cap-and-trade legislation that passed the House of Representatives earlier this year.

Senators Kerry and Boxer have adopted provisions similar to this bill in their climate legislation at the request of two leaders on the Environment and Public Works Committee: Senators Baucus and Whitehouse. The legislation I am introducing today is complementary to the work that has already been done. My cosponsors and I share the same goal of making sure natural resources adaptation is included in any climate change legislation that comes before the Senate.

Many Americans already recognize the critical need for this legislation. A coalition of over 600 diverse groups has written to Congress describing the current and potential negative impacts of climate change on our natural resources and urging us to include language in any climate bill to address those impacts. By way of example, the groups in this coalition include environmental organizations, local Rod & Gun Clubs, fisheries coalitions, scientific research groups, and religious groups.

If we fail to act to address the impacts of climate change on our American landscape, the negative effects will be felt by all of us. I am committed to working through this legislation and other means to ensure that we do what is necessary to protect our precious natural resources from one of the greatest challenges ever faced.

I would like to thank Senators Baucus, Whitehouse, and Tom Udall for their leadership on this issue and their cosponsorship of this bill. I look forward to working with them and our colleagues to pass legislation to carry out this important purpose.

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