Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the San Juan Islands National Conservation Area Act.

The San Juan Islands in northwest Washington host some of the most beautiful, serene spots in the world. The San Juans are made up of 172 islands with over 300 miles of shoreline, some little more than rocks, others home to towns, farms, and forests. The coastlines are a mix of sandy and rocky beaches, shallow and deep harbors, and placid and reef- studded bays. And between the many islands run channels of water that support many of Washington's most important marine species, including abundant salmon runs and our majestic regional icon, the orca whale.

Included in the San Juan Islands are nearly 1,000 acres of land owned by the Federal Government, spread out over 60 separate locations and managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, BLM. These parcels, which range from pine forests to lighthouses, provide recreational, ecological, historical, cultural, and scientific benefits to island residents and around 70,000 tourists that visit each year.

Despite their value, no long-term comprehensive management plan exists for these Federal parcels, threatening continued preservation and public access to these sites. Many of these areas are fragile, increasing the challenge of accommodating increasing numbers of visitors.

In addition, San Juan Island residents have seen the possibility of public lands they treasure being transferred to private ownership. In 2005, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources made a unilateral decision to divest itself of all its properties in San Juan County, including Mitchell Hill, a popular and scenic hiking trail on San Juan Island. While these lands were actively pursued by a private, out-of-state, real-estate developer, I was proud to work with the San Juan Island community to help secure Federal funding to keep these lands in the public domain.

Unfortunately, the Bureau of Land Management lands in the San Juan Islands are not permanently protected or preserved in public ownership. Last July, Congressman Larsen, the Bureau of Land Management, and I visited with residents and businesses that have been working for years to permanently protect these special places.

The legislation I introduce today is a direct result of our efforts and represents a consensus between the San Juan Island community, Congressman Larsen, and the Department of the Interior. If enacted, the San Juan Islands National Conservation Area Act will designate all 1,000 acres of BLM lands in the San Juans as a National Conservation Area, ensuring that these natural treasures remain protected, accessible to the public, and better managed to accommodate visitor use.

National Conservation Area designated lands are considered some of the most important Bureau of Land Management properties and are therefore a higher priority for management funding than non-designated lands they manage. Specifically, National Conservation Area status would ensure the San Juan Island properties are appropriately managed to protect their unique qualities and not grouped in with other BLM lands where activities such as mining, oil and gas exploration, off road vehicle use, and grazing are allowed. Importantly, my legislation requires that the management plan drafting process allows for local input into how these properties are to be managed for the long-term.

A National Conservation Area designation will also foster a stronger working relationship with other agency partners such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and provide increased opportunities for sharing resources.

I am looking forward to working to advance this legislation through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and through the full Senate. Through our efforts we will work to ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy these special parts of the San Juan Islands.

I would also like to thank my colleague Senator Murray for agreeing to cosponsor this legislation, and Congressman Larsen for his leadership and introducing companion legislation today in the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the San Juan Islands National Conservation Area Act.

The San Juan Islands in northwest Washington host some of the most beautiful, serene spots in the world. The San Juans are made up of 172 islands with over 300 miles of shoreline, some little more than rocks, others home to towns, farms, and forests. The coastlines are a mix of sandy and rocky beaches, shallow and deep harbors, and placid and reef- studded bays. And between the many islands run channels of water that support many of Washington's most important marine species, including abundant salmon runs and our majestic regional icon, the orca whale.

Included in the San Juan Islands are nearly 1,000 acres of land owned by the Federal Government, spread out over 60 separate locations and managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, BLM. These parcels, which range from pine forests to lighthouses, provide recreational, ecological, historical, cultural, and scientific benefits to island residents and around 70,000 tourists that visit each year.

Despite their value, no long-term comprehensive management plan exists for these Federal parcels, threatening continued preservation and public access to these sites. Many of these areas are fragile, increasing the challenge of accommodating increasing numbers of visitors.

In addition, San Juan Island residents have seen the possibility of public lands they treasure being transferred to private ownership. In 2005, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources made a unilateral decision to divest itself of all its properties in San Juan County, including Mitchell Hill, a popular and scenic hiking trail on San Juan Island. While these lands were actively pursued by a private, out-of-state, real-estate developer, I was proud to work with the San Juan Island community to help secure Federal funding to keep these lands in the public domain.

Unfortunately, the Bureau of Land Management lands in the San Juan Islands are not permanently protected or preserved in public ownership. Last July, Congressman Larsen, the Bureau of Land Management, and I visited with residents and businesses that have been working for years to permanently protect these special places.

The legislation I introduce today is a direct result of our efforts and represents a consensus between the San Juan Island community, Congressman Larsen, and the Department of the Interior. If enacted, the San Juan Islands National Conservation Area Act will designate all 1,000 acres of BLM lands in the San Juans as a National Conservation Area, ensuring that these natural treasures remain protected, accessible to the public, and better managed to accommodate visitor use.

National Conservation Area designated lands are considered some of the most important Bureau of Land Management properties and are therefore a higher priority for management funding than non-designated lands they manage. Specifically, National Conservation Area status would ensure the San Juan Island properties are appropriately managed to protect their unique qualities and not grouped in with other BLM lands where activities such as mining, oil and gas exploration, off road vehicle use, and grazing are allowed. Importantly, my legislation requires that the management plan drafting process allows for local input into how these properties are to be managed for the long-term.

A National Conservation Area designation will also foster a stronger working relationship with other agency partners such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and provide increased opportunities for sharing resources.

I am looking forward to working to advance this legislation through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and through the full Senate. Through our efforts we will work to ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy these special parts of the San Juan Islands.

I would also like to thank my colleague Senator Murray for agreeing to cosponsor this legislation, and Congressman Larsen for his leadership and introducing companion legislation today in the House of Representatives.

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

Madam President, I call up Cantwell amendment No. 595.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, simply my amendment restores section 18 of the language that was passed out of the Senate. Basically it implements the Senate language.

I come to the floor today with much respect for my colleague Chairman Leahy, who has worked on this legislation for many years, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have tried to work on this important legislation and move it forward. I am sure it has been challenging. I mean no offense to my colleagues about this legislation. It simply is my perspective about where we need to go as a country and how we get there.

I am excited that we live in an information age. In fact, one of the things that I count very fortunate in my life is that this is the age we live in. I often think if I lived in the agrarian age, maybe I would be farming. That is also of great interest, given the State of Washington's interests in agriculture. Maybe I would live in the industrial age when new factories were being built. That would be interesting. But I love the fact that whether you are talking about agriculture, whether you are talking about automotive, whether you are talking about health care, whether you are talking about software, whether you are talking about communications, whether you are talking about space travel, whether you are talking about aviation, we live in an information age where innovation is created every single day. In fact, we are transforming our lives at a much more rapid pace than any other generation because of all that transformation.

I love the fact that the United States has been an innovative leader. I love the fact that the State of Washington has been an innovative leader. If there is one thing I pride myself on, it is representing a State that has continued to pioneer new technology and innovations. So when I look at this patent bill, I look at whether we are going to help the process of making innovation happen at a faster rate or more products and services to help us in all of those industries I just mentioned or whether we are going to gum up the wheels of the patent process. So, yes, I joined my colleagues who have been out here on the Senate floor, such as Senator Feinstein and others who debated this issue of changing our patent system to the ``first to file,'' which will disadvantage inventors because ``first to file'' will lead to big companies and organizations getting the ability to have patents and to slow down innovation.

If you look at what Canada and Europe have done, I don't think anybody in the world market today says: Oh, my gosh, let's change to the Canadian system because they have created incredible innovation or let's look to Europe because their ``first to file'' has created such innovation.

In fact, when Canada switched to this ``first to file'' system, that actually slowed down the number of patents filed. So I have that concern about this legislation.

But we have had that discussion here on the Senate floor. I know my colleague is going to come to the floor and talk about fee diversion, which reflects the fact that the Patent Office actually

collects money on patents. That is a very viable way to make the Patent Office effective and efficient because it can take the money it collects from these patents and use it to help speed up the process of verifying these patents and awarding them. But the Senate chose good action on this issue, and good measure, and simply said that the money collected by the Patent Office should stay in the Patent Office budget.

But that is not what the House has done. The House has allowed that money to be diverted into other areas of appropriations, and the consequence will be that this patent reform bill will basically be taking the economic engine away from the Patent Office and spreading it out across government. So the reform that we would seek in patents, to make it a more expeditious process, is also going to get down.

I could spend my time here today talking about those two things and my concerns about them, but that is not even why I am here this morning. I am here to talk about how this legislation has a rifleshot earmark in it for a specific industry, to try to curtail the validation of a patent by a particular company. That is right, it is an earmark rifleshot to try to say that banks no longer have to pay a royalty to a particular company that has been awarded a patent and that has been upheld in court decisions to continue to be paid that royalty.

That is why I am here this morning. You would say she is objecting to that earmark, she is objecting to that personal approach to that particular industry giveaway in this bill. Actually, I am concerned about that, but what I am concerned about is, given the way they have drafted this language to benefit the big banks of America and screw a little innovator, this is basically drafted so broadly that I am worried that other technology companies are going to get swept up in the definition and their patents are also going to be thrown out as invalid. That is right. Every State in the United States could have a company that, under this language, could now have someone determine that their patent is no longer viable even though the Patent Office has awarded them a patent. Companies that have revenue streams from royalties that are operating their companies could now have their bank financing, everything pulled out from under them because they no longer have royalty streams. Businesses could lay off people, businesses could shut down, all because we put in broad language in the House version that exacerbates a problem that was in the Senate version to begin with.

Now I could say this is all a process and legislation follows a process, but I object to this process. I object to this language that benefits the big banks but was never debated in the committee of jurisdiction, the Judiciary Committee. It was not debated. It was not voted on. It was not discussed there. It was put into the managers' amendment which was brought to the Senate floor with little or no debate because people wanted to hurry and get the managers' amendment adopted.

Now, I objected to that process in driving this language because I was concerned about it. I sought colloquy at that point in time and was not able to get one from any of my colleagues, and I so opposed this legislation. Well, now this legislation has been made even worse in the House of Representatives by saying that this language, which would nullify patents--that is right. The Senate would be participating in nullifying patents that the Patent Office has already given to companies, and it can now go on for 8 years--8 years is what the language says when it comes back from the House of Representatives.

All I am asking my colleagues to do today is go back to the Senate language they passed. Go back to the Senate language that at least says this earmark they are giving to the big banks so they can invalidate a patent by a company because they don't like the fact they have to pay a royalty on check imaging processing to them--I am sorry you don't like to pay the royalty. But when somebody innovates and makes the technology, they have the right to charge a royalty. You have been paying that royalty. I am sorry, big banks, if you don't like paying that royalty anymore. You are making a lot of money. Trying to come to the Senate with an earmark rifle shot to X out that competition because you don't want to pay for that technology--that is not the way the Senate should be operating.

The fact that the language is so broad that it will encompass other technologies is what has me concerned. If all my colleagues want to vote for this special favor for the big banks, go ahead. The fact that my colleagues are going to basically pull us in to having other companies covered under this is a big concern.

The section I am concerned about is business method patents, and the term ``covered business method patent'' means patents or claims or method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations. What does ``or other operations'' mean? How many companies in America will have their patents challenged because we don't know what ``or other operations'' means? How many? How many inventors will have their technology basically found null and void by the court process or the Patent Office process because of this confusing language?

I am here to ask my colleagues to do a simple thing: revert to the Senate language. It is not a perfect solution. If I had my way, I would strip the language altogether. If I had my way, I would have much more clarity and predictability to patent lawyers and the Patent Office so the next 3 or 4 years will not be spent in chaos between this change in the patent business method language and the whole process that is going to go on. Instead, we would be moving forward with predictability and certainty.

I ask my colleagues to just help this process. Help this process move forward by going back to the Senate language. I know my colleagues probably want to hurry and get this process done, but I guarantee this language with the Senate version could easily go back to the House of Representatives and be passed. What I ask my colleagues to think about is how many companies are also going to get caught in this process by the desire of some to help the big banks get out from under something the courts have already said they don't deserve to get out of.

I hope we can bring closure to this issue, and I hope we can move forward on something that gives Americans the idea that people in Washington, DC, are standing up for the little guy. We are standing up for inventors. We are standing up for those kinds of entrepreneurs, and we are not spending our time putting earmark rifle shot language into legislation to try to assuage large entities that are well on their way to taking care of themselves.

I hope if my colleagues have any questions on this language as it relates to their individual States, they would contact our office and we would be happy to share information with them.

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

Madam President, I encourage my colleagues to support the Cantwell amendment. The Cantwell amendment is the reinstatement of section 18 language as it passed the Senate. So casting a vote for the Cantwell amendment will be consistent with language previously supported by each Member.

The reason we are trying to reinstate the Senate language is because the House language broadens a loophole that will allow for more confusion over patents that have already been issued. It will allow for the cancellation of patents already issued by the Patent Office, throwing into disarray and legal battling many companies that already believe they have a legitimate patent.

The House language, by adding the word ``other,'' broadens the definition of section 18 and extends it for 8 years, so this chaos and disarray that is supposedly targeted at a single earmark for the banking industry to try to get out of paying royalties is now so broadened that many other technology companies will be affected.

I urge my colleagues to support the Cantwell amendment and reinstate the language that was previously agreed to.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, rising in opposition, this is not a patent reform bill, this is a big corporation patent giveaway that tramples on the rights of small inventors. It changes ``first to invent'' to ``first to file,'' which means if you are a big corporation and have lots of resources, you will get there and get the patent.

Secondly, it doesn't keep the money where it belongs. It belongs in the Patent Office. Yet, instead of having reforms that will help us expedite patents, it is giving away the money that is needed to make this kind of innovation work.

Third, the bill is full of special giveaways to particular industry corporations, as we have just witnessed with votes on the floor.

Fourth, by taking away the business patent method language, you will make it more complicated and have years and years of lawsuits on patents that have already been issued. If this is job creation, I have news for my colleagues; in an innovation economy, it is siding with corporate interests against the little guy. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his stalwart attention to energy markets and to the concern that many west coast residents have over high energy costs. Senator Wyden has long been a vocal critic of what's happened in some electricity markets, and trying to figure out what has happened with the oil markets and why the west coast pays higher gas prices than any place in the country. We still wanted to know why. People say we were an isolated market, and that is why we were paying the highest gas prices. Then Hurricane Katrina hit and our prices still went up, even though we were supposedly an isolated market.

So Senator Wyden has long been a person coming to the Senate, fighting for the consumer, saying we should not be gouged by higher prices on energy.

Energy is the lifeblood of any economy. We know what manipulation looks like in the Northwest because we saw it with Enron. When our electricity markets were manipulated, everybody said it was the environmentalists not allowing us to construct new generating facilities. Well, when we finally exposed the audiotapes, we realized that it was just pure market manipulation. In fact, what we found out is that people were taking the futures market and basically making plays in the futures market while they also had the ability to affect the physical supply market and spot prices for electricity. So by combining those schemes with different things such as ``Get Shorty'' and ``Fat Boy'' and all of these names they came up with, Enron was able to convince utilities and various customers that the supply was tight and that they were going to have to pay more for electricity in the future and consequently they ought to keep paying these high prices. Well, thanks to a lot of hard work by a lot of individuals and ultimately the Department

of Justice, the Enron schemes were called for what they were--just out- and-out market manipulation.

My colleague, Senator Wyden and I, screamed loudly about that situation and said we wished the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would have acted a lot sooner on that issue, and if they would have acted sooner, we would have saved a lot of jobs in the Northwest. We would have saved a lot of industries. A lot of people lost their jobs, their retirement, their homes over those high electricity prices.

Thank God the result was such that we were able to pass new legislation in 2005, making it a Federal crime for anybody to manipulate natural gas or oil markets. I should say FERC has used that authority over the last several years to recoup millions of dollars from violations by industry officials who continued to perpetrate the same kind of scheme of going into the futures market and holding positions in the futures market and then taking physical supply and being able to affect the physical supply and demand.

So this is something that is amazing to us from the west coast. I know my colleagues, including Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, Senator Murray, and I have all been on the same page. Senator Merkley has been a loud voice on this issue. We have been through this nightmare. That is why I have to say first and foremost that we find it appalling that someone would propose H.R. 1, or the Ryan budget, that would take away policing ability from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on the type of activity that would allow them to properly regulate these markets.

We saw what happened. What we are so appalled about is it seems as though it is now happening again in the oil markets. In fact, we see today on the front page of the New York Times ``U.S. Suit Sees Manipulation of Oil Trades.'' So the commodities commission is finally saying now: Yes, we are looking at this case. And it should be no surprise what they actually see because it is the same shenanigans that happened in electricity, the same shenanigans that happened in natural gas, and, yes, the same shenanigans are happening in the oil markets.

That is the commodity agency that says in this case there was a close relationship between the physical oil price and the price of the financial futures which moved in parallel. So basically what happened is that in the oil futures market, these individual companies and traders took large positions. In fact, their positions were so big--and that is what Senator Wyden has just described. If this agency would come in and set position limits, people wouldn't be able to come in and move the market in such a significant way. But at the same time, it is alleged that these companies actually had millions of barrels of physical crude oil and they actually had no commercial use for the oil. So here we have people buying the physical supply--again, to manipulate and help tie it into the futures market--when they don't have any commercial need for it. That is why it is so important to have the CFTC do its job and to interpret who are legitimate hedgers, such as airlines, farmers, people who actually need the physical supply, juxtaposed to these large institutions that are just coming in and moving the market.

So what is amazing is that at one point in time, what they had as far as physical supply--for somebody who didn't even have a commercial use, at least according to this New York Times article--was two-thirds of the excess barrels available at Cushing. So here is somebody who had the physical supply and was controlling two-thirds of marginal oil supply and then controlling the futures market. So they were basically making money on the upside and they were making money on the downside. That is what the CFTC is alleging in its case. I think it is one of the first cases in which a small group of traders are being charged in the potential role of manipulation of gas prices.

I don't have to tell the Presiding Officer how critically important this is. I have been home recently and paid $4 a gallon for gasoline. Many people are starting what is soon going to be the summer driving season, and they are outraged at the price of gasoline. It is hurting our economy. People who have to commute to work every day, people whose businesses depend on reasonable fuel costs are getting gouged with these prices, and we have Federal regulators who need to be more aggressive at investigating these cases.

I will say I am very happy the Obama administration and the Department of Justice appointed a task force. That is exactly what we need. We need every Federal agency that has oversight of these markets, whether it is the physical market with the FTC or the CFTC and the commodities market, to work together with the Department of Justice to make sure these schemes are not continued to be perpetrated on the American public.

Our economy is too important to have this kind of activity continue to wreak the kind of havoc it has on our system. When we think about it, it is not as if we don't know what the scheme is. We have seen it time and time again with these other energy markets. So the question is whether we are going to be aggressive and make sure the CFTC has the tools it needs, which means not cutting its funding as the Ryan budget or H.R. 1 wants to do, and that it actually takes seriously its role and responsibility and starts setting position limits, starts the day- to-day activity, because the value Senator Wyden and I are down here talking about, instead of this case that now is going to be investigated--how many days, months, and years did we live with the potential of higher fuel costs?

If this case is correct, how many days did we live with the higher cost, and how long will the investigation take, versus if the CFTC was actually implementing the law and the rules we gave them and enforcing position limits? It would be policing the market on a day-to-day basis and preventing consumers from paying one dime or one penny more than they needed to pay for high fuel costs.

It used to be that these oil markets were for legitimate hedgers.

My colleague and I represent a very robust agricultural community. We grow lots of different products in the Northwest, probably over 200 different agricultural products. We depend on the commodities markets to hedge for the future. But that market was created, after the Dust Bowl devastated so many farmers, to give them a chance to legitimately hedge. Now, all of a sudden, it has been captured by these large financial institution players. It used to be that those who really needed to hedge, such as farmers and airlines, controlled 70 percent of the market. Now they are only 30 percent of the market. Seventy percent of the market is these large players, just as was described in this article--people who are out there basically using their financial weight to move the market in a direction that then they can sell on the futures market and benefit from it. It is outrageous. It is outrageous that our economy has to put up with this, that individuals have to put up with this.

I know my colleague from Oregon and I are going to be out here, and we are going to be loud and consistent until we have the rules and regulations in place to make sure these markets are properly policed. We don't have to wait another day. We don't have to wait 1 more day. The commodities commission could be doing this job. They don't need another legislative bill from us. They don't need another vote from anybody on the commission. They can use their emergency authority. They can implement these rules today and help consumers save on high fuel prices.

So I hope my colleagues will help us in this effort to bring up the issues and make sure the American public understands what is going on so we can bring the pressure to bear on getting proper regulation in place.

I thank the Chair.

Yes.

Well, when we are paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, we are affecting and impacting everybody who moves a product for business or anybody who commutes to work for any kind of distance. I know my colleague has probably heard, as I have, from a lot of small businesses that when fuel costs become the second largest expense, it is hard for them to continue to do business.

So my colleague is right. The CFTC could basically address this by just implementing the authority we gave them under the financial regulatory reform legislation we passed. That is all they have to do. Now, I would say to them that they already have the emergency authority. They have so many tools at their disposal.

I am glad they are investigating this case. I think this case is illuminating of the type of scheme that might include the details which are so familiar to my colleague and me of prior schemes and how people work them. But I would say that an investigation of these schemes is only going to go so far in helping the American consumer. If they take another 6 to 8 months to investigate these schemes, a lot of people are going to lose their jobs. So why not implement the rules they have right now, put them in place so we can protect consumers, and certainly don't pass legislation here in the Senate or in the House that is going to take away the ability to stop the kinds of activities that drive up higher gas prices by manipulation.

We want enforcement, we want it now, we want protection of consumers, and we will continue to be vocal about this issue. I thank my colleague from Oregon for joining me today to talk about this issue.

Madam President, I join my colleagues to come to the floor this afternoon and talk about tomorrow's votes on two different resolutions and to say that I am proud to join my female Senate Democratic colleagues in this effort and to speak out about this important issue.

To me the American people have sent us a clear message. They want us to focus on job creation, promoting innovation and putting Americans back to work. But instead tomorrow we will be on the Senate floor trying to defend access to health care for women. We will vote tomorrow on whether to defund Planned Parenthood, an agency that serves hundreds of thousands of people in my State on important exams such as breast examination and helping to prevent infections and various things.

And just a few weeks ago I talked about one of our constituents, a 22-year-old woman from Seattle, who was diagnosed with an abnormal growth on her cervix at Planned Parenthood and was able to receive life-saving treatment. She was uninsured, and without Planned Parenthood, she would not have been able to get that kind of treatment and certainly her health would have been in major danger in the future. I tell her story to emphasize the importance of Planned Parenthood on prevention and that they are centers of prevention for many, many women who have no other access to health care.

And so we cannot jeopardize the access to that preventive health care at a time when it is so important for us to reduce long-term costs. In fact, even in the investment area, every dollar invested in family planning and publicly funded family planning clinics saves about $4 in Medicaid-related costs alone. So prevention of health care is good for us in saving dollars and it is certainly good for our individual constituents who have a lack of access to health care.

That is why I am so disappointed and the situation that we are having now where our colleagues are saying to us, you can get a budget deal, but you have to defund women's health care access to do so. The avoidance of a government shutdown has also brought on, I think, a challenge on the backs of women in the District of Columbia because it included a provision denying DC leaders the option of using locally raised funds to provide abortion services to low-income women.

For those who argue against big government this is a contradiction because this is a real imposition on the ability of elected officials in the District of Columbia to decide what to do with their locally raised funds. I know because I am in the Hart Building, what the Mayor and others on the council had to say about this. This is an imposition on the health services of low-income women in the District of Columbia and certainly has gone almost unnoticed in the eleventh hour. And I think sets a precedent for a dangerous slippery slope with what we are telling local governments to do.

But it is time for us to focus on our budget, living within our means, and getting back to work, but certainly not to try to do all of that on the backs of women. And it is not time to shut down access to women's health care. Republicans in the house have decided to wage war and to say women should be a bargaining chip.

Well, I think the American people have sent us a clear message. They want us to get back to work and they support Planned Parenthood and the efforts of Planned Parenthood on preventive health care and health care delivery services. A recent CNN poll showed that 65 percent of Americans polled support continued funding of Planned Parenthood.

And I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to say that these funds are used and helped in funding organizations that may be involved in doing full reproductive choice services. But I ask them to think about that issue and that logic. Where will they stop? It is Planned Parenthood today, but are they going to stop every institution in America from receiving Federal dollars?

It is illegal for Planned Parenthood to use Federal dollars for the full reproductive choice including abortion. It is illegal. You cannot use those funds. And yet the other side would like to say that this is an issue where they would like to stop Planned Parenthood today and then they will try to stop other organizations in the future.

It is time to say no to this tomorrow and to say no on trying to pull back from the full health care funding bill at a time when we need to implement the reforms to keep costs down and to increase access for those who currently don't have access to health care and come back to the system with much more expensive health care needs in the future.

So I am very disappointed that at the eleventh hour of a budget debate that is about living within our means, about how we take the limited recovery we have had and move it forward economically, that instead we are saying we cannot move forward on a budget in a recovery until we take everything that we can away from women and access to women's health care.

We will fight this tomorrow and I am proud to be here with my colleagues to say we will be the last line of defense for women in America who are going about their busy lives right now, taking their kids to school, trying to juggle many things at home and work and they are every day as the budget people within their own homes trying to figure out how to live within their means and the national budget debate has broken to this point? We can only have a budget agreement if you defund women's full access to health care. That is wrong and we will be here tomorrow to fight this battle and speak up for women.

I just want to point out to my colleague, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, that I remember in 1993, in the ``year of the woman,'' when so many women got elected to Congress, it was the first time in the House of Representatives we had a woman on every single committee.

And the end result of that is we had an increase in funding for women's health research. So much of the research had been up to this point focused on men. Why? Because there wasn't anybody on the committee to speak up about how women had uniquely different health care needs and deserved to have a bigger share of funding for health care needs of women than were currently being funded.

That is what you get when you get representation and the women Senators will be here tomorrow to fight, to say that women deserve to have access to health care through Planned Parenthood and title X and, please, for those working moms who are out there juggling dealing with children and

childcare, dealing with their jobs, dealing with pay equity at work, dealing with all of these other issues that women are struggling with, that they don't have to be a pawn in the debate on the budget. That there are people who believe just like the majority of Americans do that we should move forward with this kind of preventive health care for women in America.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues to talk about tomorrow's votes on two different amendments and to say that I am proud to join my female Senate Democratic colleagues in this effort and to speak out about this important issue.

To me the American people have sent us a clear message. They want us to focus on job creation, promoting innovation, and putting Americans back to work. But instead tomorrow we will be on the Senate floor trying to defend access to health care for women. We will vote tomorrow on whether to defund Planned Parenthood, an agency that serves hundreds of thousands of people in my State on important exams such as breast examinations and helping to prevent infections and various things.

Just a few weeks ago I talked about one of my constituents, a 22- year-old woman from Seattle who was diagnosed with an abnormal growth on her cervix at Planned Parenthood and received lifesaving treatment. She was uninsured, and without Planned Parenthood she would not have been able to get that kind of treatment. Certainly, her health would have been in major danger in the future.

I tell that story to emphasize the importance of Planned Parenthood on prevention and that they are centers of prevention for many women who have no other access to health care. We cannot jeopardize the access to that preventative health care at a time when it is so important for us to reduce long-term costs.

In fact, even in the investment area, every dollar invested in family planning and publicly funded family planning clinics saves about 4.2 in Medicaid-related costs alone. So preventive health care is good for us in saving dollars, and it is certainly good for our individual constituents who have a lack of access to health care. That is why I am so disappointed in the situation we have now, where colleagues are saying to us: You can get a budget deal, but you have to defund women's health care access to do so.

The avoidance of a government shutdown has also brought on a challenge on the backs of women in the District of Columbia because it included a provision denying DC leaders the option of using locally raised funds to provide abortion services to low-income women. For those who argue against big government, this is a contradiction because this is a real imposition on the ability of elected officials in the District of Columbia to decide what to do with their locally raised funds. I know, because I am in the Hart Building, what the mayor and others on the council had to say about this. This is an imposition on the health services of low-income women in the District of Columbia and certainly has gone almost unnoticed in the eleventh hour and sets a precedent for a dangerous slippery slope with what we are telling local governments to do.

It is time for us to focus on our budget, living within our means, and getting back to work, but certainly not to try to do all of that on the backs of women. It is not time to shut down access to women's health care.

Republicans in the House have decided to wage war and to say women should be a bargaining chip. The American people have sent us a clear message. They want us to get back to work, and they support Planned Parenthood and efforts of Planned Parenthood on preventive health care and health care delivery services.

A recent CNN poll showed that 65 percent of Americans polled support continued funding of Planned Parenthood. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to say that these funds are used in funding organizations that may be involved in doing full reproductive choice services. But I ask them to think about that issue and that logic. Where will they stop? It is Planned Parenthood today, but are they going to stop every institution in America from receiving Federal dollars? It is illegal for Planned

Parenthood to use Federal dollars for full reproductive choices, including abortion. It is illegal. They cannot use those funds. Yet the other side would like to say that this is an issue where they would like to stop Planned Parenthood today, and then they will try to stop other organizations in the future. It is time to say no to this amendment tomorrow and to say no on trying to pull back from the full health care funding bill at a time when we need to implement the reforms to keep costs down and to increase access for those who currently don't have access to health care and return to the system with much more expensive health care needs in the future.

I am disappointed that at the eleventh hour of a budget debate that is about living within our means, about how we take the limited recovery we have had and move it forward economically, instead we are saying that we can't move forward on a budget and a recovery until we take everything that we can away from women's access to health care.

We will fight this tomorrow. I am proud to be here with my colleagues to say we will be the last line of defense for women in America who are going about their busy lives right now, taking their kids to school, trying to juggle many things at home and work. They are every day, as the budget people within their own homes, trying to figure out how to live within their means. The national budget debate has broken on this point: We can only have a budget agreement if we defund women's full access to health care. That is wrong.

We will be here tomorrow to fight this battle and speak up for women.

I wish to point out to my colleague from New York that I remember in 1993, in the year of the woman, when so many women got elected to Congress, it was the first time in the House of Representatives we had a woman on every single committee. The end result of that is we had an increase in funding for women's health research. So much of the research had been up until that point focused on men. Why? Because there wasn't anybody on the committee to speak up about how women had uniquely different health care needs and deserved to have a bigger share of funding for health care needs than were currently being funded. That is what we get when we get representation.

Women Senators will be here tomorrow to fight to say that women deserve to have access to health care through Planned Parenthood and title X. Please, for those working moms who are out there juggling, dealing with children and childcare, dealing with their jobs, dealing with pay equity at work, dealing with all of these other issues that women are struggling with--that they don't have to be a pawn in the debate on the budget, that there are people who believe, just like the majority of Americans do, that we should move forward with this kind of preventive health care for women in America.

I see my colleague from New York who has been a staunch supporter of Planned Parenthood and women's health care choices, and I thank her for that leadership.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to end the use of Great Apes in invasive research and urge my Senate colleagues to support the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act.

The Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act would prohibit invasive research on all Great Apes, including gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees--who are the primary Great Apes used in research today. The bill would also require the immediate retirement of 500 federally-owned chimpanzees to great ape sanctuaries.

Today about 1,000 chimpanzees--half of them federally owned--languish at great taxpayer expense in eight research laboratories across the Nation.

These chimpanzees are being held or used for invasive biomedical research, research that may cause death, bodily injury, pain, distress, fear, and trauma. Invasive research practices include techniques such as injecting a chimpanzee with a drug that would be detrimental to its health, infecting a chimp with a disease, cutting a chimp or removing body parts, and isolation or social deprivation.

The vast majority of these animals--between 80 and 90 percent--aren't actually being used in research, but instead are warehoused, simply wasting away in these facilities. For example, approximately half of the government-owned chimpanzees are being held in a facility in New Mexico where no research is being conducted.

Some chimpanzees have been in labs for more than 50 years, confined in steel cages for most of their lives and enduring sometimes painful and distressing experimental procedures.

The fact that the vast majority of federally-owned chimpanzees are not being used in active research, but instead are warehoused in labs at the taxpayer expense, underlines the futility of their continued confinement.

For a single chimpanzee, lifetime care in a research facility can cost over $1 million, compared with $340,000 for superior care in a sanctuary. Ending invasive research will mean a savings of more than $25 million per year for the American people.

Chimpanzees are poor research models for human illness, and they have been of limited use in the study of human disease. Despite how similar they are to us, significant differences in their immunology and disease progression make them ineffective models for human diseases like HIV, cancer, and heart disease research.

For example, research published in the Journal of Medical Primatology in 2009, on hepatitis C indicates that use of chimpanzees has produced poor results. And the National Center for Research Resources under the National Institutes of Health has prohibited breeding of government- owned chimpanzees for research. In effect, NIH has already decided that the chimpanzee is not an essential animal model for human medical research.

Significant genetic and physiological differences between great apes and humans also make chimpanzees a poor research model for human diseases. We have spent millions of dollars over several decades on chimpanzee-based HIV and Hepatitis C research with no resulting vaccines for those diseases. Chimpanzees largely failed as a model for HIV because the virus does not cause illness in chimpanzees as it does to humans.

These are very social, highly intelligent animals--with the ability, for example, to learn American Sign Language. Their intelligence and ability to experience emotions so similar to humans underscores how chimpanzees suffer intensely under laboratory conditions.

Their psychological suffering in laboratories produces human-like symptoms of stress, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder after decades of living in isolation in small cages.

Given their social nature and capacity for suffering and boredom due to lack of stimulation, the 500 privately-owned chimpanzees and 500 federally-owned chimpanzees being held in research laboratories would be better off in sanctuaries. And by doing so we would save more than $25 million taxpayer dollars each year. This is because the cost of caring for a chimpanzee in a sanctuary is a fraction of the cost of their housing and maintenance in a laboratory. And many in the scientific community believe this money could be allocated to more effective research.

In my home State of Washington, I am proud that we have Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest. Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest provides sustainable sanctuary for seven chimpanzees retired in 2008 from decades in research facilities.

The United States is currently behind the rest of the world in outlawing this sad practice.

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have all banned or severely limited experiments on great apes. And several other countries and the European Union are considering similar bans as well.

We are the only country--besides Gabon in West Africa--that is still holding or using chimpanzees for invasive research. It's past time for the United States to catch up with the rest of the world by ending this antiquated use of this endangered species.

We are lagging behind in action, but the desire to end invasive research on Great Apes has been present for more than a decade. In 1997, the National Research Council concluded that there should be a moratorium on further chimpanzee breeding. And the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has already announced an end to funding for the breeding of federally-owned chimpanzees for research, but this should be codified.

Government needs to take action to make invasive research on chimpanzees illegal.

That is why today I am introducing the bipartisan Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act, along with my colleagues Senators Susan Collins, Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman.

The Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act is a commonsense policy reform to protect our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom from physical and psychological harm, and help reduce government spending and our federal deficit.

Specifically, this bill will phase out the use of chimpanzees in invasive research over a three-year period, require permanent retirement to suitable sanctuaries for the 500 federally-owned chimpanzees currently being warehoused in research laboratories, and codifies the current administrative moratorium on government-funded breeding of chimpanzees.

We have been delaying this action for too long. It is time to get this done and end this type of harmful research and end this wasteful government spending.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to end the use of Great Apes in invasive research and urge my Senate colleagues to support the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act.

The Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act would prohibit invasive research on all Great Apes, including gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees--who are the primary Great Apes used in research today. The bill would also require the immediate retirement of 500 federally-owned chimpanzees to great ape sanctuaries.

Today about 1,000 chimpanzees--half of them federally owned--languish at great taxpayer expense in eight research laboratories across the Nation.

These chimpanzees are being held or used for invasive biomedical research, research that may cause death, bodily injury, pain, distress, fear, and trauma. Invasive research practices include techniques such as injecting a chimpanzee with a drug that would be detrimental to its health, infecting a chimp with a disease, cutting a chimp or removing body parts, and isolation or social deprivation.

The vast majority of these animals--between 80 and 90 percent--aren't actually being used in research, but instead are warehoused, simply wasting away in these facilities. For example, approximately half of the government-owned chimpanzees are being held in a facility in New Mexico where no research is being conducted.

Some chimpanzees have been in labs for more than 50 years, confined in steel cages for most of their lives and enduring sometimes painful and distressing experimental procedures.

The fact that the vast majority of federally-owned chimpanzees are not being used in active research, but instead are warehoused in labs at the taxpayer expense, underlines the futility of their continued confinement.

For a single chimpanzee, lifetime care in a research facility can cost over $1 million, compared with $340,000 for superior care in a sanctuary. Ending invasive research will mean a savings of more than $25 million per year for the American people.

Chimpanzees are poor research models for human illness, and they have been of limited use in the study of human disease. Despite how similar they are to us, significant differences in their immunology and disease progression make them ineffective models for human diseases like HIV, cancer, and heart disease research.

For example, research published in the Journal of Medical Primatology in 2009, on hepatitis C indicates that use of chimpanzees has produced poor results. And the National Center for Research Resources under the National Institutes of Health has prohibited breeding of government- owned chimpanzees for research. In effect, NIH has already decided that the chimpanzee is not an essential animal model for human medical research.

Significant genetic and physiological differences between great apes and humans also make chimpanzees a poor research model for human diseases. We have spent millions of dollars over several decades on chimpanzee-based HIV and Hepatitis C research with no resulting vaccines for those diseases. Chimpanzees largely failed as a model for HIV because the virus does not cause illness in chimpanzees as it does to humans.

These are very social, highly intelligent animals--with the ability, for example, to learn American Sign Language. Their intelligence and ability to experience emotions so similar to humans underscores how chimpanzees suffer intensely under laboratory conditions.

Their psychological suffering in laboratories produces human-like symptoms of stress, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder after decades of living in isolation in small cages.

Given their social nature and capacity for suffering and boredom due to lack of stimulation, the 500 privately-owned chimpanzees and 500 federally-owned chimpanzees being held in research laboratories would be better off in sanctuaries. And by doing so we would save more than $25 million taxpayer dollars each year. This is because the cost of caring for a chimpanzee in a sanctuary is a fraction of the cost of their housing and maintenance in a laboratory. And many in the scientific community believe this money could be allocated to more effective research.

In my home State of Washington, I am proud that we have Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest. Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest provides sustainable sanctuary for seven chimpanzees retired in 2008 from decades in research facilities.

The United States is currently behind the rest of the world in outlawing this sad practice.

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have all banned or severely limited experiments on great apes. And several other countries and the European Union are considering similar bans as well.

We are the only country--besides Gabon in West Africa--that is still holding or using chimpanzees for invasive research. It's past time for the United States to catch up with the rest of the world by ending this antiquated use of this endangered species.

We are lagging behind in action, but the desire to end invasive research on Great Apes has been present for more than a decade. In 1997, the National Research Council concluded that there should be a moratorium on further chimpanzee breeding. And the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has already announced an end to funding for the breeding of federally-owned chimpanzees for research, but this should be codified.

Government needs to take action to make invasive research on chimpanzees illegal.

That is why today I am introducing the bipartisan Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act, along with my colleagues Senators Susan Collins, Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman.

The Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act is a commonsense policy reform to protect our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom from physical and psychological harm, and help reduce government spending and our federal deficit.

Specifically, this bill will phase out the use of chimpanzees in invasive research over a three-year period, require permanent retirement to suitable sanctuaries for the 500 federally-owned chimpanzees currently being warehoused in research laboratories, and codifies the current administrative moratorium on government-funded breeding of chimpanzees.

We have been delaying this action for too long. It is time to get this done and end this type of harmful research and end this wasteful government spending.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can do better and I hope we will.

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

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

Madam President, I rise today to honor the life, achievements, and legacy of Geraldine Anne Ferraro, who paved the way for aspiring women leaders and politicians across the Nation and the world to reach the highest positions of power.

Geraldine dedicated her life to defending women's and children's rights and helping the less fortunate, whether in public service, as an attorney, as a Congresswoman, or as Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Her career was a turning point for women in politics, and an inspiration for women everywhere.

In the early 1950s, when women were not expected to attend college, Geraldine was already breaking through the ``glass ceiling.'' The daughter of Italian immigrants, she worked her way through college and in 1956 became the first woman in her family to receive a college degree. In 1960, she graduated with honors from law school, where she was one of only 2 women in her graduating class of 179 students. She became a strong advocate for abused women and for the poor while serving as assistant district attorney for Queens County, NY, where she headed a new bureau that prosecuted sex crimes, child abuse, and domestic violence.

Her passion to change America for the better took her all the way to the U.S. Congress, where she fought for equal pay, pensions, and retirement plans for women. She was also a leader on environmental issues. In 1984, she led passage of a Superfund renewal bill and called for improvements in the handling of environmental site cleanups.

Geraldine will be remembered not only as a pioneer for women's and children's rights but for human rights around the world. As the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Geraldine supported the Commission's decision to condemn anti-Semitism as a human rights violation. And in 1995, she led the U.S. delegation in the historic Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing.

But what Geraldine will forever be remembered for is that she made possible what was previously unthinkable, that a woman could be a candidate for Vice President of the United States. When former Vice President and Presidential candidate Walter Mondale selected Geraldine Ferraro to be his running mate in 1984, she became the only Italian American to be a major-party national nominee as well as the first woman.

In 1984, Geraldine fought a tough race, venturing into unchartered territory and blazing a trail. Even though Geraldine lost that race, she went where no woman had ever been before, teaching us that ``when women run, women win.''

A tireless champion for women in the political arena, Geraldine helped women politicians gain a stronger voice and run for public office. It is because of Geraldine that women today, including myself, can go even farther than before. Generations of female politicians will forever stand on her shoulders.

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

Mr. President, I yield back all remaining time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senators Vitter, Carper, Cochran, Inouye, Landrieu, and Murray to introduce the American Shipping Reinvestment Act of 2011. This legislation will build on work Congress started in 2004 to strengthen the U.S. merchant marine, create needed jobs in U.S. ship building, and stimulate economic activity in our maritime sector.

Since our Nation's founding, the maritime sector has been integral to U.S. national security and economic security. American companies own and operate both U.S. flag ships and a significant number of vessels under international registries. The U.S. flag fleets of these companies generally are built in the United States and are manned with U.S. seafarers. These U.S. flag fleets support not only the shipbuilding industrial base in this country and the pool of qualified seafarers, but they also create the shipping assets that are needed for military sealift in time of war or national emergency.

Most people understand commercial shipping and understand that we maintain a fleet of ships for military purposes. What may not be as well known is that the international ships of some American-owned companies are part of what is called the effective U.S.-controlled fleet, EUSC fleet. The EUSC is the fleet of merchant vessels registered in certain foreign nations that are available for requisition, use, or charter by the U.S. Government in the event of war or national emergency.

For example, U.S. flag commercial vessels and their American crews transported the majority of the cargo, more than 25 million measurement tons of cargo, in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom during the period of 2002-2008.

What people also may not know is that the EUSC fleet has been in decline for the past quarter century, largely because of U.S. tax policy. Following enactment of certain 1986 tax law changes, there was a precipitous decline in American-owned international shipping assets. To remain competitive, many American-owned shipping companies either became foreign companies or simply divested themselves of their foreign assets.

A 2002 study commissioned by the Department of Defense and performed by professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the EUSC fleet dropped by 38 percent in terms of numbers of ships and nearly 55 percent in terms of deadweight tonnage between 1986 and 2000. Perhaps more importantly, these declines have been largely experienced in militarily-useful

vessel types. For example, the results of a 2002 DOD study found that if the EUSC fleet continues its present decline, DOD's ability to support U.S. military tanker requirements will diminish over time.

Fortunately, Congress recognized this problem in 2004 and addressed it by enacting the tonnage tax regime as part of the American Jobs Creation Act. Our legislation today builds on that policy by correcting an oversight in the 2004 act that has continued to stymie the ability of U.S. shipbuilding companies to invest in new ships in the United States.

We have very strong economic and national security reasons to support U.S. owned shipowning companies and to maintain a vibrant maritime industry in this country. We also have to continue to support needed changes in our tax code so that we provide operators of U.S. flag vessels in international trade the opportunity to be competitive with their tax-advantaged foreign competitors.

Notwithstanding the significant competitive disadvantages between 1986 and 2004 for American companies operating international ships, there continues to be several U.S. owned shipping companies with foreign operations, and our legislation is directed at helping them sustain and grow their U.S. flag fleets and to maintain their EUSC fleets. This bill will help these companies make needed investment in the U.S. economy, and create jobs in a way that also will enhance national security.

Specifically, the American Shipping Reinvestment Act of 2011 would repeal an outdated section of the Internal Revenue Code and allow U.S. shipping companies with foreign income earned prior to 1986 to reinvest it into the U.S. for the purpose of growing their U.S. flag operations.

Congress first included foreign shipping income in Subpart F in 1975, which meant that all shipping income was taxable at the full U.S. corporate tax rate no matter whether it was invested abroad or in the United States. However, a temporary rule, applicable to foreign shipping income earned from 1975 to 1986, continued to allow for deferral in cases where this income was reinvested in qualifying shipping activities. Section 955 of the Internal Revenue Code provided that this income would be included in gross income, i.e., taxed, immediately under Subpart F in the event of any net decrease in qualified shipping investments.

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 restored for shipping income the normal tax rule under which non-Subpart F income of foreign subsidiaries is not taxed by the United States until it is repatriated, generally as a dividend. In restoring the potential for deferral for certain shipping income, Congress in 2004 returned the treatment of shipping income to where it was prior to 1975.

Unfortunately, Congress did not address the rules under IRC Section 955 that apply to income earned between 1975 and 1986, thus creating a situation that this income is permanently stranded offshore. Our bill would repeal IRC Section 955 and will allow these stranded assets to be reinvested in the United States under the favorable tax terms that were in effect for other companies and industries in 2004. Specifically, the legislation provides a one-time opportunity for American-owned shipping companies to bring foreign source income back into the United States at a discounted tax rate for the purpose of expanding and growing our domestic maritime industry. Without the commonsense change in our legislation, these old, stranded assets will never return to the United States and never be subject to U.S. taxation.

The bill is guaranteed to create jobs for American workers with the funds being brought back into the U.S. economy--on the ships, in the shipyards building the ships, and in supporting businesses. The bill contains a provision that would recapture any tax benefits if a shipping company reduces its full-time U.S. employment levels.

This bill also would enhance U.S. national security interests by supporting shipyards that are vital to our defense industrial base, by enabling new U.S. flag tanker capacity to transport our Nation's energy products, and by providing DOD with critical assets--manpower and ships--necessary to help sustain military sealift.

The bill is strongly supported by maritime labor, shipyards, and ship owners and operators and can provide a boost to the U.S. maritime industry at a time when the U.S. is struggling to find its economic footing. The jobs created by this legislation are well-paying, long- term jobs in a crucial sector of our Nation's economy. I urge my colleagues to join me and my other original cosponsors in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senators Vitter, Carper, Cochran, Inouye, Landrieu, and Murray to introduce the American Shipping Reinvestment Act of 2011. This legislation will build on work Congress started in 2004 to strengthen the U.S. merchant marine, create needed jobs in U.S. ship building, and stimulate economic activity in our maritime sector.

Since our Nation's founding, the maritime sector has been integral to U.S. national security and economic security. American companies own and operate both U.S. flag ships and a significant number of vessels under international registries. The U.S. flag fleets of these companies generally are built in the United States and are manned with U.S. seafarers. These U.S. flag fleets support not only the shipbuilding industrial base in this country and the pool of qualified seafarers, but they also create the shipping assets that are needed for military sealift in time of war or national emergency.

Most people understand commercial shipping and understand that we maintain a fleet of ships for military purposes. What may not be as well known is that the international ships of some American-owned companies are part of what is called the effective U.S.-controlled fleet, EUSC fleet. The EUSC is the fleet of merchant vessels registered in certain foreign nations that are available for requisition, use, or charter by the U.S. Government in the event of war or national emergency.

For example, U.S. flag commercial vessels and their American crews transported the majority of the cargo, more than 25 million measurement tons of cargo, in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom during the period of 2002-2008.

What people also may not know is that the EUSC fleet has been in decline for the past quarter century, largely because of U.S. tax policy. Following enactment of certain 1986 tax law changes, there was a precipitous decline in American-owned international shipping assets. To remain competitive, many American-owned shipping companies either became foreign companies or simply divested themselves of their foreign assets.

A 2002 study commissioned by the Department of Defense and performed by professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the EUSC fleet dropped by 38 percent in terms of numbers of ships and nearly 55 percent in terms of deadweight tonnage between 1986 and 2000. Perhaps more importantly, these declines have been largely experienced in militarily-useful

vessel types. For example, the results of a 2002 DOD study found that if the EUSC fleet continues its present decline, DOD's ability to support U.S. military tanker requirements will diminish over time.

Fortunately, Congress recognized this problem in 2004 and addressed it by enacting the tonnage tax regime as part of the American Jobs Creation Act. Our legislation today builds on that policy by correcting an oversight in the 2004 act that has continued to stymie the ability of U.S. shipbuilding companies to invest in new ships in the United States.

We have very strong economic and national security reasons to support U.S. owned shipowning companies and to maintain a vibrant maritime industry in this country. We also have to continue to support needed changes in our tax code so that we provide operators of U.S. flag vessels in international trade the opportunity to be competitive with their tax-advantaged foreign competitors.

Notwithstanding the significant competitive disadvantages between 1986 and 2004 for American companies operating international ships, there continues to be several U.S. owned shipping companies with foreign operations, and our legislation is directed at helping them sustain and grow their U.S. flag fleets and to maintain their EUSC fleets. This bill will help these companies make needed investment in the U.S. economy, and create jobs in a way that also will enhance national security.

Specifically, the American Shipping Reinvestment Act of 2011 would repeal an outdated section of the Internal Revenue Code and allow U.S. shipping companies with foreign income earned prior to 1986 to reinvest it into the U.S. for the purpose of growing their U.S. flag operations.

Congress first included foreign shipping income in Subpart F in 1975, which meant that all shipping income was taxable at the full U.S. corporate tax rate no matter whether it was invested abroad or in the United States. However, a temporary rule, applicable to foreign shipping income earned from 1975 to 1986, continued to allow for deferral in cases where this income was reinvested in qualifying shipping activities. Section 955 of the Internal Revenue Code provided that this income would be included in gross income, i.e., taxed, immediately under Subpart F in the event of any net decrease in qualified shipping investments.

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 restored for shipping income the normal tax rule under which non-Subpart F income of foreign subsidiaries is not taxed by the United States until it is repatriated, generally as a dividend. In restoring the potential for deferral for certain shipping income, Congress in 2004 returned the treatment of shipping income to where it was prior to 1975.

Unfortunately, Congress did not address the rules under IRC Section 955 that apply to income earned between 1975 and 1986, thus creating a situation that this income is permanently stranded offshore. Our bill would repeal IRC Section 955 and will allow these stranded assets to be reinvested in the United States under the favorable tax terms that were in effect for other companies and industries in 2004. Specifically, the legislation provides a one-time opportunity for American-owned shipping companies to bring foreign source income back into the United States at a discounted tax rate for the purpose of expanding and growing our domestic maritime industry. Without the commonsense change in our legislation, these old, stranded assets will never return to the United States and never be subject to U.S. taxation.

The bill is guaranteed to create jobs for American workers with the funds being brought back into the U.S. economy--on the ships, in the shipyards building the ships, and in supporting businesses. The bill contains a provision that would recapture any tax benefits if a shipping company reduces its full-time U.S. employment levels.

This bill also would enhance U.S. national security interests by supporting shipyards that are vital to our defense industrial base, by enabling new U.S. flag tanker capacity to transport our Nation's energy products, and by providing DOD with critical assets--manpower and ships--necessary to help sustain military sealift.

The bill is strongly supported by maritime labor, shipyards, and ship owners and operators and can provide a boost to the U.S. maritime industry at a time when the U.S. is struggling to find its economic footing. The jobs created by this legislation are well-paying, long- term jobs in a crucial sector of our Nation's economy. I urge my colleagues to join me and my other original cosponsors in supporting this bill.

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

Thank you, Madam President.

I thank my colleague from California, who is the chair of the committee, for working so hard on this important amendment to try to articulate and help colleagues understand what is the basis of it.

I too was surprised to learn that the McConnell-Inhofe amendment would overturn what has been the hard-won future gains in fuel economy we passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis just a few years ago. I don't get it, EPA's clean car standards through 2016 will save so much gasoline that car buyers will actually save as much as $3,000 over the life of the car. That is because of the hard work we have done in the Senate on a bipartisan basis.

I know our colleagues from both sides of the aisle worked to get that last agreement that we did in 2008, and while we are doing this, we will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil. So I was surprised to hear that this legislation--the McConnell-Inhofe amendment--would overturn all that progress we have made in the last couple decades on having cleaner air and more opportunities for fuel efficiency.

When I look at this, I look at our domestic automakers in Detroit who are making much more progress based on this new generation of technology. Our domestic automakers are getting back to profitability based on a new generation of vehicles offering much better fuel economy. So they are actually--because we have said you have to have more fuel-efficient cars--they are actually now winning in the marketplace with consumers because of those offerings. I know the Department of Energy, for the first time, has said we have reduced our dependence on foreign oil because of these fuel economy improvements.

So I say to my colleague from California, it was not because of ``drill, baby, drill'' that we got fuel efficiency and got off foreign oil. It was because we had fuel efficiency in automobiles that we were able to reduce our dependence.

So I ask my friend from California why we would want to go backward on that if we have made progress and better cars out of Detroit, if they have become cheaper for consumers over the life of the car. If we have made advancements in reducing our dependence on fossil fuel, why would we want Americans to pay more at the pump and have cars that do not go as far per gallon of gas as they do today? So I do not understand what kind of scheme this is, to keep the oil companies in business? Why would we want to go back on that level of fuel efficiency and override that by this amendment?

Am I correct in understanding that?

I am amazed because my predecessor, a Republican from Washington, was fighting for fuel efficiency standards in the 1990s. So I do not know why we would be here in 2011 with a radical proposal to basically erase the ability for fuel efficiency standards.

But I have a question about public health too because I think my colleague from California has articulated something that is greater than any economic issue; that is, health and clean air and healthier children because of that. I do not understand why we would want to go back on the Clean Air Act as it relates to adverse health outcomes.

Why would you want to have more problems with asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, visits to the emergency room, hospitalization, premature deaths, all these things? EPA just came out with a comprehensive cost-benefit study on the Clean Air Act, and their findings were stark. They said the Clean Air Act will save our society $2 trillion through 2020. That is amazing.

So when I look at that, and we are going to say to polluters do not have to pay or adhere to the law, we are going to cause ourselves more costs in the future with health care. Yes, some polluters need to pay more, but as members of Congress we need to think of what's good for America, not just special interests. And the Clean Air Act

creates $30 for every $1 investing in reducing pollution.

I ask my colleague from California, what is it that Senators McConnell and Inhofe think they know about this that is different than what the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Trust for America's Health--what is it they know that those organizations do not know? Because those organizations are saying we have a serious health problem, and let's make sure it is addressed through the Clean Air Act. Are they just ignoring this issue?

I thank my colleague because my next question deals with technology. One thing I appreciate about working with the Senator from California is that we certainly share an interest in innovation and the innovation economy and making sure we do not do things to damage it, since so much job creation has happened from the technology sectors and from our improvements.

So I was surprised to think about this amendment from the perspective of that it would kill a wide range of jobs in America, including many that can't be outsourced. If we basically say we are going to allow people to continue to pollute and not adhere to the Clean Air Act, all those technologies that are about to get us off those pollutants and diversifying our energy sources would no longer be incented. The Senator and I probably would say we need to do a lot more to incent those and stop incenting those that cause so much harmful pollution.

But the United States is the largest producer and consumer of environmental technology, goods, and services. The environmental technology industry has approximately 119,000 firms and generates $300 billion in revenues and $43.8 billion in exports.

That is just the environmental technology industry. So that is 119,000 firms, $300 billion in revenue, and $43 billion in exports. So it is a very vibrant part of our economy that is based on that we want to do something about toxic pollutants. If all of a sudden you pass a bill in the Senate saying we do not want to do anything about these toxic pollutants, even though the Clean Air Act says we should, and the Supreme Court said, yes, EPA you should, then all of a sudden we are basically saying: OK. How far are we willing to go in saying we do not need to deal with toxins and pollutants?

To me, the foreign markets in developing countries that are already getting an edge on some of the clean energy technologies would worry me that they would continue to make advancements even more with these technologies.

I do not understand why people would think this radical measure would somehow help us, when the foreign technology market would continue to grow, and we would lose market share.

But foreign markets, particularly those of developing countries offer the most opportunity for U.S. companies.

The U.S. share of foreign environmental technology markets has continued to grow from 5.7 percent in 1997 to 9.8 percent in 2007, giving the U.S. environmental technology industry a positive trade surplus for the past decade.

I ask my friend from California, doesn't it make more sense to think about the future jobs we are trying to attract--because they are so much bigger--than thinking about this in the sense of 20th century jobs? That is almost what we are advocating: Let's go back to saying, if you are a pollutant, it is OK because somehow you are creating jobs.

I ask my colleague, isn't the market opportunity more in these technology jobs and environmental technology jobs?

I thank my colleague from California.

I am also interested in the Senator's opinion about this as it relates to gas prices because people are--I think House Republicans, anyway, and maybe even the minority leader, feel that if we pass this amendment, somehow gas prices are going to come down. Well clearly they don't believe this radical measure will actually pass because then they would have to worry about misleading their constituents.

We all know this: It seems about every summer we have these debates about the impact of gas prices. But this measure is so radical. When I think about even if EPA continued to act on their fulfillment of the Supreme Court decision that they must act in regulating pollutants--and rules on oil refineries won't even go into effect until December of 2011 and the final rules aren't even due until July 2011. So we are talking about rules that don't go into effect until 2013, 2014, 2015.

I ask my colleague from California, how would that have an impact? We don't even know what they are going to be. We have to wait until July, hopefully, to hear from EPA about that. So, somehow, that is going to affect gas prices today?

I think what we know to be true is that getting off of oil and having more fuel-efficient cars has reduced our dependence, saved consumers money, and allowed them to have a choice in the marketplace. We ought to continue in that direction, not this direction. But does the Senator think those rules going into effect are somehow having an effect today? Aren't we talking about people who have already written about this as false rhetoric in the debate, that it is not accurate and that this will impact the price at the pump tomorrow?

I do, if the Senator from California would indulge me on this. Because I see our colleagues on the floor, and as a member of the Small Business Committee I am as frustrated as they are that this important legislation that would help small businesses in America grow is being now held hostage by this amendment.

I look at this issue, the broader issue of discussion, as some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said, as a major policy issue. Well, if it is a major policy issue and it is a major policy change, why should we try to hang it in an amendment onto the small business bill? Is that making some industry happy? Is that why they are doing it? Because if this is, as they are saying, a major policy issue, then let's have a major policy discussion. I know my colleague and I support legislation that would instigate a major policy discussion here. Some of that legislation has gotten bipartisan support. I think some of our colleagues on

the other side of the aisle have been saying we should address climate. Well, if that is the case, let's have that broad debate. Is that the understanding of my colleague, that some Republicans wish to address it and are saying now that we need to address it and not leave it all to EPA? If that is the case, then let's have that debate, but let's not have a rifle shot amendment that basically guts the law as it is being implemented. Let's have a discussion about what would be a more flexible approach to implementation of the requirements to regulate pollutants.

I have one last question for my colleague. I think these attempts that try to carve out pollutants and give them exemptions are never good policy, because there is so much at stake for the American people who believe our job is to protect them with clean air and clean water and to make sure that polluters are regulated. But it reminds me of that 2003 energy bill that was kind of done behind closed doors when the whole MTBE debate--you know, the additive to fuel--came up. I remember one newspaper ended up dubbing the bill the ``hooters and polluters and corporate looters'' bill or something like that, because it ended up trying to carve out for the manufacturers of that product that they would be exempted. It was a bipartisan effort on the Senate floor. My colleagues from the Northeast, from New Hampshire, I believe, and there may have been the Senators from Maine, all said, Wait a minute. We are not going to exempt MTBE from this legislation as a way to get an energy policy for the future.

I ask my colleague from California if she remembers that and other attempts to try to do this without the public fully understanding what is at stake for clean air and clean water, and if she remembers that failure because of doing this. It left the public vulnerable. Are there other instances of that debate she could recall for us? Because I think it is very similar.

I thank the chair of the EPW Committee, a great legislator, for protecting the interests of consumers on this issue. I serve with the Senator on the Commerce Committee, and I see her fight for consumers every day. Her passengers' bill of rights for the airlines on the FAA bill is another perfect example of how she is thinking about how all legislation impacts individuals and their rights, and this is about the right to clean air and clean water and to make sure we are not going to cut EPA out of the regulation of pollutants business. I don't know why we would do that. That is their day job. They are supposed to regulate pollutants. The Supreme Court says they are supposed to regulate pollutants.

So I thank my colleague for waging this battle against this amendment that, as she has outlined, has these radical notions in it. But I guess I go back and say: We can try to keep hanging on to the past and saying the past is going to take us somewhere, but that usually doesn't work.

My colleague from California understands probably more than any other because of the efficiency gains her State, California, has made in creating jobs and in getting more out of our current energy supply. The initiative that was just run in California, I think that was about going back to the past, too, wasn't it? That was the initiative where people said: Do we want to go backward or forward? The people spoke in California, and they said let's move forward.

So I would conclude by thanking my colleague and asking her just one last time, from an economic perspective, if America can afford this amendment. How can we afford this amendment if it is going to cost us that much in health care costs; if it is going to cause the loss of the advancements we have seen in the automobile industry? I would think Detroit alone, if we pass this amendment, would stop and say: Wait a minute. Do we even have to comply with the mile-per-gallon already on the

books because it seems as if Congress is saying they are out of the business.

So I would just say to my colleague from California, how can we afford this amendment? They would like to try to claim that as the only high ground of their debate, that somehow they are protecting jobs. But they are not protecting jobs. They are basically trying to take 18th-, 19th-, and 20th-century jobs and somehow saying they do not have to comply with the Clean Air Act. So I, again, ask my colleague whether we can afford that kind of amendment and just thank her for her leadership and tremendous support.

We all come here for different reasons, and we are all motivated by different reasons, but I know the Senator from California is motivated by doing what is right for the consumer and consumer interests. So I thank her for standing up for that voice that may not be heard today on this important issue.

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

Madam President, am I correct there is a vote at 12:30?

The time is equally divided on the Feinstein amendment?

Madam President, I rise to support the Feinstein amendment and to ask my colleagues, who I know have been working diligently on the legislation for several years now, to respect the very tough balance that has been sought in this legislation as this legislation came out of the Judiciary Committee.

I know we adopted a managers' amendment yesterday, and I know that managers' amendment now is catching a lot of people off guard because there are far more changes than people realized in that managers' amendment that I think upsets that apple cart of balance that was struck in the Judiciary Committee.

So I am urging my colleagues to support the Feinstein amendment and expressing my concern for the underlying bill that is something that, at this point in time, I cannot support.

I do not come to that decision lightly nor because of the fact that I have many high-tech companies in the State of Washington that might say we need patent reform and that this is good innovation. But large high- tech companies are not the only ones that know something about innovation. In fact, most of the people who have helped build those organizations were once the small inventors themselves of key technology.

What is at stake is unbalancing the apple cart as exists today to innovation--not just innovation in general but innovation in an information age. The meal ticket for all of us is going to be the invention and creation of new products and services. So that is the great time and age we live in.

But if in this legislation we all of a sudden upset that apple cart, where we are tilting the playing field in support of large corporations that have already made their mark and made their markets and made their success and have slowed down on the rate and progress of innovation within their companies and do a lot to acquire technology from smaller inventors--and now, all of a sudden in this underlying bill, particularly in the area of damages, make sure the big corporations can win in any kind of legal dispute against the technology holder or creator because they are able to outlast them in a legal battle because they are more well financed, more well heeled, with the ability to draw out this battle--because of that change in the underlying bill, we leave the small guy without many resources.

The only thing the small inventor has is their intellectual property and a fair day in court. If now we take that away from them, I guarantee you, they will have less success. Then, when you have less success of having 5,000 flowers bloom, we have a problem.

This is not about what five or six or seven large corporations can create. This is about what thousands and thousands of innovators are going to create in the future and whether they are going to be incented or disincented to do that.

The Feinstein amendment tries to protect the current process, to protect what are the rights of those inventors today under current law. I am sure my colleagues will say: Well, that is not the way the rest of the world does it. I would say to my colleagues: I am not sure the way the rest of the world does it is the mark we are trying to hit. What we are trying to preserve is the entrepreneurial spirit that has been created in the United States. I am not saying that is not based on just raw creativity of individuals--it is--but it is also based on financial incentive and the incentive those individuals have that their intellectual property can be protected.

But if this is going to be a game about the big boys coming to Washington and squashing the small inventors, count me out. This has to be a level playing field. I get it is tempting to want to, in the last minute, stick into the managers' amendment language you could not get out of committee. But if we want to get this legislation through this process, then we have to take into consideration the rights of the inventors along with the rights of those larger companies that are trying to acquire or integrate or be part of the manufacturing on a larger scale of that inventor's technology.

So I say to my colleagues, the Feinstein amendment, in keeping the rights of the inventors where they are, gives them at least a modicum of holding on to that. I think the underlying bill has changed so much in the managers' amendment that we are going down a road that is going to make it very difficult for us to finally get a piece of legislation. We have to respect the rights of the small individuals, and we can't have carve-outs for specific jurisdictions such as Wall Street who think they can have their cake and eat it too.

This has to be about how we move forward on a smoother patent process. We need to take into consideration that we have gotten to this great place in our country because we have had a balance and an empowerment of these technologies. We should not all of a sudden in one fell swoop take that away on the Senate floor and basically undermine what is the creative opportunity for the U.S. economy, which is an invention. We want thousands and thousands of inventors--not just inventors who work for big corporations--thousands of inventors who have their rights.

So I support the Feinstein amendment.

I thank the President, and I yield the floor.