Floor Statements

Mr. President, throughout the week I have pointed out that our Nation faces a day of reckoning on entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, and I have expressed my disappointment about the White House's failure to lead on reforms that would save these programs at an opportune moment like our own.

The best time to solve the kind of fiscal crisis we face is when the two parties share power in Washington. Everyone knows we either address these problems together or they won't be addressed at all. Everyone knows the President has to take the lead. That is why Presidents from both parties have done just that during periods of divided government in the past. That is why many of us are calling on this President to do the same for the good of the country now.

But when it comes to job creation, the President isn't just failing to lead; in many cases, he is actually blocking the way. Nowhere is this more evident than in the area of energy exploration.

Americans looking at the price of gas at the pump these days are justifiably upset. What they may not realize is that some in the administration are actively working to prevent us from increasing our own oil production here at home. So this morning, with gas prices on the rise, I would like to step back for a minute and quickly review what the administration is doing to inhibit energy production right here at home. Taken together, it would be a pretty long list, including delays and suspensions and revocations and outright cancellations of lease permits, which translates into higher prices and fewer American jobs. So I will just list a few of the highlights.

The administration started by canceling oil and gas leases for domestic exploration. Immediately after taking office, the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, canceled 77 oil and gas leases in the State of Utah. One year later, the administration suspended 61 more leases, this time in Montana. Shortly after canceling the Utah leases, Secretary Salazar extended the public comment period to renew offshore drilling by another 6 months, dragging out an already lengthy process even further.

Then, immediately after the gulf oilspill began last April, the administration imposed a 6-month moratorium on offshore drilling in the gulf even as it canceled energy exploration that was set to take place thousands of miles away from the spill in the gulf up in the Arctic. Two Federal courts on three separate occasions have declared the moratorium in the gulf unjust. The administration has ignored them. It has kept the ban in place despite these rulings, forcing the drillers who have been affected by it to relocate their rigs--and the thousands of good-paying jobs they supported--to other parts of the world.

So if one is wondering where the jobs are, a good place to start is the administration's efforts to block American energy exploration. Senator Murkowski points out that U.S. oil reserves at just three sources in Alaska--just three sources in Alaska--could replace crude oil imports from the Persian Gulf for nearly 65 years. Three sources in Alaska, currently shut down, could replace crude oil imports from the Persian Gulf for 65 years. Yet all three are off limits due to decisions made by or continued by this administration.

Behind all these actions is a complete disconnect. At a time when gas prices are climbing higher and higher, pinching pocketbooks and threatening an economic recovery, Democrats in Washington would rather ignore the fact that Americans will remain dependent on fossil fuel for decades to come. But we shouldn't be surprised by it. Two months before the President was elected, the man he ended up choosing as his Energy Secretary told a reporter how he would go about reducing America's dependence on oil. He said: ``Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.'' And if that was the strategy, Secretary Chu seems to be getting his wish. And the administration is doing just about everything it can to keep them there.

Now is the time to be asking what we can do to increase domestic energy production, not proposing ways to squeeze American families even more. That is why all of these actions by the administration, along with the tax hike on energy production some have proposed that will only be passed on to consumers in the form of even higher gas prices, are the very last thing Americans need right now. We should be looking for ways to lighten the burden on American families, not saddling them with a minivan tax.

There is a better approach. Rather than squeezing the public and killing jobs with artificially higher prices, we should be looking for ways to increase domestic production even as we promote alternative sources of energy for the future. An all-of-the-above approach to energy production--and the jobs that come with it--of the kind Republicans have been advocating for years would capitalize on the abundant resources we already have right here at home while at the same time looking for alternative sources of energy and new technologies that will free us from dependence on fossil fuels down the road.

This is a responsible approach. It protects existing jobs and creates new jobs at a time when Americans need them. It would reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil. It honors the concerns Americans have right now about the rising price of gas, and it respects the reality that most of the cars in this country will run on gas for many years to come. But higher prices at the pump and fewer American jobs is the wrong answer.

Mr. President, sadly, we lost David Broder yesterday. A lot has been said in the last 24 hours about that distinguished journalist. I wish to add just a brief word of my own.

I will not pretend to have known him well, although we did talk from time to time over the years. I admired him greatly. One could not help but admire him, and a few things truly stand out. First of all, in a city that is full of people in a rush to make an impression, David was the guy who took the time to get it right, day in and day out, without bombast or pretense.

He wasn't looking to make an impression as much as he was trying to do his job and to do it well. The notoriety, of course, took care of itself. He was a workhorse first and foremost--a reporter who seemed to enjoy the work more than any attention he got for it.

Everyone who ever worked with him seems to have a story about watching him knocking on doors while he was in his late seventies or earnestly listening to a Midwest voter out in the cold. It all points to a sort of sturdiness of purpose and to the old virtues of patience, fairness and hard work and a sense that other people's opinions were at least as valuable as his own.

Add to that a deep curiosity and thoughtfulness and a childlike appreciation for the mechanics of democracy, and we have a pretty good model for what political reporting is all about.

I hesitate to say he was conservative in temperament, if not in his politics, but that is what came through.

It became commonplace to say David Broder was the dean of American political reporters. But I think it is worth understanding what people meant by that. It doesn't mean he was the most exciting guy in the room--he wasn't. It doesn't mean he had the most scoops--I am not sure he did. I think what it means, aside from the sheer length of his career, was that more than most people, his life came to take the shape of the profession he chose in life. It became sort of an extension of himself.

That is what seemed to give him so much joy and satisfaction in his work, along with the respect and admiration and maybe even a little bit of envy of so many others.

Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, young or old, we could use a few more David Broders.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I congratulate our new Senator from Kansas for his inspiring first speech to his colleagues and suggest that it seems we have a new Senator from Kansas in the tradition of Bob Dole and Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, and I congratulate our new colleague on a fine and inspirational first speech.

Madam President, later today Senators will have an opportunity to take a position on government spending. At a time when Washington is borrowing about $4 billion a day, Democratic leaders want to cut about $4.5 billion in government spending for the rest of this fiscal year and call it a day. In other words, they want to take what amounts to a day-and-a-

half long holiday from their out-of-control spending and then return to the status quo for the rest of the year.

Let me add that paying lipservice to the threat caused by the deficit is not a substitute for responsible leadership and that the job- destroying tax hikes on small businesses and American families are not the answer to out-of-control Washington spending. At a time when increasing gas prices are already threatening our economic recovery, a minivan tax that some on the other side have proposed will not solve our Nation's fiscal crisis. But I will tell you what it will do. It will destroy jobs and impose a real burden on families every time they fill up at the pump--at a time when people are looking for relief instead.

Democrats' steadfast refusal to cut another dime from the bloated Washington budget has left them no choice, it seems, but to propose raising taxes on American families and small businesses so they can continue spending at unsustainable levels. Republicans, on the other hand, have made a serious proposal to rein in wasteful spending. To me, at least, the choice before us is pretty clear.

As we approach today's vote, it is worth noting that even if we were to pass the biggest spending cuts that have been proposed so far in this debate, it would not even put a dent in the fiscal problems we face as a result of the growth in entitlement spending. Think about it. Democrats have been waging war this week over a proposal to cut $4.7 billion. Meanwhile, the amount of money we have promised to spend on programs such as Social Security and Medicare--money we do not have--is about $52 trillion.

This week's debate is just a dress rehearsal for the big stuff, and so far Democrats are showing they are just not up to it. They either lack the stomach or the courage, and the President, as members of his own party point out, is nowhere to be found on this issue. I have talked about this leadership vacuum repeatedly this week on the entitlements and how their unchecked growth threatens to bury all of us in red ink before we know it. We can argue about whether to cut $5 billion or $60 billion in day-to-day expenses all we want, but the fact is, even if we hit the bigger number, we are still staring at a catastrophe. And the President appears to be totally uninterested-- uninterested--in leading us to a bipartisan solution the way Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton did the last time we faced a crisis of this magnitude.

When it comes to another crisis, the jobs crisis, the President is not just failing to lead, he is flatout barring the door with a mountain of stifling new regulations and calculated inaction on outstanding free-trade agreements with Colombia and Panama.

This morning, the U.S. Trade Representative is set to testify before the Finance Committee to voice the administration's support of a trade agreement with South Korea. While we support the administration's position on South Korea, the lack of leadership on these two other countries which signed free-trade agreements with us more than 3 years ago is completely disheartening. The reason for inaction is stunning. Union bosses do not want to see them passed. For some reason, they seem to think that expanding the market for U.S. goods into Colombia and Panama somehow hurts them, which is absurd, absolutely absurd. The administration has previously expressed tepid support for these deals, an acknowledgment that expanding markets for U.S. goods can only help U.S. workers and that the picture in Colombia is better than the labor bosses would have us believe, but they have failed to follow through.

The irony of union opposition to these trade deals is that an expanded U.S. presence in Latin America can only help the workers there by exporting U.S. business standards and practices, and, of course, more exports for U.S. firms means more jobs for U.S. workers in the United States.

In the last few weeks, company after company has come before Congress to testify how important accessing Latin American markets is for their future and to create jobs right in America. According to the chamber of commerce, failing to pass these trade agreements, along with the trade agreement with South Korea, could cost us 380,000 U.S. jobs.

While we dither on these agreements, Colombia has moved on. Having been stiff-armed by the United States, it is finding other trade partners. Naturally, Colombia has turned to other countries and, worse, still is warming relations with Hugo Chavez in neighboring Venezuela. Last week, Colombia President Juan Manuel Santos was quoted referring to Chavez as his ``new best friend''--a man who just last year accused Santos of plotting to assassinate him.

At a time when nearly 14 million Americans are looking for work, the President should be listening to those of us who come to him with ways to create jobs. And this is one of them. The administration has no excuse for failing to act on these trade agreements. It is in the interest of our country to approve them. It would create jobs at home at a time when we desperately need them. I am confident Congress could pass these on a bipartisan basis today.

I urge the administration to act today, and not just on South Korea but on Colombia and Panama. I, for one, am prepared to do everything in my power to pass these agreements, all of them together, this year.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and legacy of an upstanding hero of the Commonwealth, the late Mr. James Arthur ``Onion'' Eastham. A native of Somerset, KY, Mr. Eastham passed away peacefully on December 28, 2010. He was 87 years old.

Born in Pulaski County, KY, James not only served both his community and country selflessly, but touched the lives of all who had the pleasure of meeting him. His courageous and patriotic spirit led him to join the U.S. Marines Corps where he served as a staff sergeant and crew chief aboard a B-25 bomber, and in the Asiatic-Pacific Theater where he was awarded two Bronze Stars for duty at and during the Luzon and southern Philippine campaigns. He was also presented with the impressive award of the Philippine Liberation Ribbon with a Bronze Star for his bravery during combat with the enemy.

After the war, James continued to serve his community as a regional salesman for Morton Salt Company, as a longstanding member of the Kiwanis Club and the Somerset Masonic Lodge No. 111, and as a member of the First Baptist Church where he taught Sunday school and served as a chair of a building committee for the church's new sanctuary. It was no surprise that James's conscientious and excellent character earned him a spot on the Somerset City Council for 18 years, where he played active roles in helping to establish the Somerset Community College and finding a location for what is now the Lake Cumberland Regional Hospital. It is evident that both his family and the people of his close-knit community respected and valued James's tireless dedication and steadfast leadership, as he will always be fondly remembered as a man who stood firm in his beliefs.

I could surely continue to praise the works and accomplishments of this brave and humble man, but I will simply ask that my colleagues join me in remembering a true gentleman who poured his heart into serving, protecting, and strengthening his family, his country, and the Commonwealth. My thoughts go out to his beloved wife, Virginia; his three children, Jimmy, Wayne, and Lisa; his sister Edna; his grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and many other beloved friends and family members.

The Commonwealth Journal recently published an article about a contribution that was made in James's name to the Reid S. Jones Fund, a fund named in honor of his dear friend that helps veterans make educational advancements. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I am going to proceed on my leader time.

Madam President, first let me commend my friend and colleague from Louisiana on his observations about the need to increase domestic production. I think he certainly agrees with me we will be talking about this a lot more in the coming months as the price of gas at the pump continues to rise, and I thank him for his insight.

Sometime this week, Senators will have an opportunity to take a position on government spending on two bills the majority leader has predicted will fail. One is a serious effort to rein in wasteful Washington spending that has gotten completely and totally out of control. The other, by our Democratic friends, is a proposal so unserious that even its supporters have been forced to exaggerate its impacts--something they have been called out on by the press repeatedly. That proposal comes on the heels of an equally unserious proposal by the White House last week to cut $6 billion from Federal spending for the entire year at a time when Washington is averaging about $4 billion in deficit spending every day. Let me say that again. We are running a $4 billion deficit every single day this year. Apparently Democratic leaders in Congress thought even that was too much to cut, because the bill they are proposing this week shaves it down to only about $4.7 billion. So you had the administration last week saying they would go along with $6.5 billion, and the proposal the Democrats in the Senate are going to lay before the Senate this week only reduces spending $4.7 billion. That is about what we are engaged in spending, deficit spending, every single day. We are averaging about $4 billion a day in debt this year and Democrats want to cut $4.7 billion and call it a day. That is their idea of getting serious.

Washington will add more to the debt this week than they want to cut for the entire year, and that is the farthest their leaders say they are willing to go. Anything more, they say, is Draconian. I will tell you what is Draconian. Draconian is what will happen if Democrats don't get real about our Nation's fiscal crisis.

Yesterday, the independent Congressional Budget Office issued a report that gave us a pretty good sense of the recklessness of Washington spending these days. Last month alone, the Federal Government spent $223 billion more than it had--last month alone--the highest monthly deficit ever and the 29th straight month Washington has been in the red.

Here is the Democrats' proposal: Let's cut $4.7 billion and call it a day; $4.7 billion, even less than the President called for last week. Even that was ridiculed because of the preposterous claim that it met us halfway. It is time our friends on the other side stop trying to see what they can get away with and actually summon the courage to get our fiscal house in order, because here is the hard truth: Even the biggest cuts under discussion this week are puny compared to the fiscal problems we face in the area of entitlements. It is a pitched battle around here over $4.7 billion when we have a $14 trillion debt and more than $50 trillion in entitlement promises that Washington cannot keep.

If Democrats cannot bring themselves to cut $4.6 billion, how are we going to get a handle on the big stuff? This is just a dress rehearsal. Democrats are going to have to do a lot better than this if we stand a chance of getting our Nation's fiscal house in order.

Frankly, it is embarrassing. The American people deserve better. It is time for Democrats in Washington to face facts and, as I said yesterday, it is time for the President to get off the sidelines and lead because, with each passing day, it becomes clear that Democrats in Congress cannot bring themselves on their own to get serious about the problems we face. They don't even want to admit these problems exist.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as we reengage in the ongoing debate over government spending this week, it is worth noting that some on the other side appear to have already decided to fold up their tents.

Last week, Republicans showed we could change the status quo in Washington by cutting government spending. It was a small step but a step in the right direction. Some of us were hopeful momentum was finally building for the bipartisan consensus that would enable us to cut even more government red ink this week.

The assistant majority leader seems to have had enough. Yesterday, he said cutting $6 billion pushes the limits of what is needed to live within our means. This is ludicrous, Mr. President. So far this fiscal year Washington has spent nearly $650 billion more than it has taken in--this year. That is a little more than $4 billion a day that Washington is spending over and above what it has to spend.

Senator Durbin thinks Democrats in Congress have pushed the limits of responsibility by agreeing to cut $6 billion more this year. Imagine if every American had the same approach to their credit card bills. Imagine calling up your credit card company and asking first if you could just freeze your out-of-control spending habits in place. Then when they say no, imagine telling them you don't want to cut down your monthly spending because you prefer living outside your means.

That is the logic of our friends on the other side. Now, according to this logic, they would rather draw a line in the sand than agree to cut another dime in spending at a time when Washington is spending about $4 billion more every single day than it is taking in.

Republicans have been hopeful that we could make progress and reach a bipartisan solution on this issue. It is my hope that the assistant majority leader was speaking for himself and not for his entire conference.

This, of course, is the debate that most people in Washington will continue to be focused on this week, and it is an important debate. But focusing on day-to-day expenses threatens to obscure an even larger threat. Here I am talking about, of course, entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Anyone who has looked at these programs closely knows they are becoming unaffordable, that doing nothing risks not only the future of these programs themselves but our Nation's future as well. Anyone who looks at history also knows the best time to address a crisis such as this is a time such as right now, when two parties share power in Washington. This is the time.

I have made the case for action publicly and in private conversations with the White House. As Republican leader, I put this issue front and center my first day on the job. Four years ago, I came to the floor and said the demographic changes taking place in America made it incumbent upon us as a body to reform Social Security. Two years later, when the American people put a Democrat in the White House, I renewed my call to action. I said Republicans stood ready to work with the President on entitlement reform. I repeated that call again 4 months ago

when voters decided to put Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives.

Throughout this time, I have held out hope that our friends on the other side would rise to the occasion, if not when Republicans controlled the White House, at least when they did.

I was encouraged further when President Obama said repeatedly in 2009 that his administration would seek to work with us on serious entitlement reform that preserves the safety net for our seniors, for people with disabilities, and which also puts it on a firmer, stable footing for generations to come.

The President has acknowledged the seriousness of the problem. He has noted himself that costs are escalating, even as the population is getting older, creating a perfect storm for a fiscal crisis that dwarfs even today's budget crisis, as urgent as it is.

If both parties agree on all this, I thought, then there is no reason we cannot do this for the good of the country. The urgency for action has only intensified in recent months, as we have seen an uproar in a number of State capitals.

Every State is different, but the problems in every one of them can be summed up pretty easily. Lawmakers from New Jersey to California and just about everywhere in between made promises they could not keep. But the promises lawmakers in Washington have made put the States to shame. If you add up the unfunded liabilities in all 50 States, you get, by one estimate, about $3 trillion total. Add up Washington's promises on Social Security and Medicare alone, and it is over $50 trillion--$50 trillion that we promised to the American people that we do not know how we are going to pay for.

Something must be done, and now is the time to do it. Republicans are ready and willing. Where is the President? Suddenly, at the moment when we can actually do something about this, he is silent. As one columnist in the Washington Post put it: ``For a man who won office talking about change we can believe in, [the President] can be a strangely passive president.''

On the greatest fiscal challenge of the day, he appears, at least so far, to have taken a pass. This is obviously deeply disappointing to me personally, given my repeated raising of this issue. But more importantly, it should be deeply disappointing to every American who had reason to hope we could tackle these issues in a moment of divided government. It should be disappointing to all those who believe this President when he pledged to shake up the status quo in Washington.

Past Presidents had the foresight to seize the moment, to reach across party lines, and solve an earlier funding problem with Social Security, in the case of President Reagan, and welfare reform in the case of President Clinton.

It is not a question of whether it is possible but a question of whether the President has the courage to step up to the challenges we face. In this case, one cannot help but wonder if the President, who came into office promising change, has been changed by the office instead.

I hope I am wrong about all this, but all the signs point toward inaction on the part of the White House and, in my view, this would be a tragic failure of leadership.

Mr. President, earlier this week, Republicans showed we can change the status quo in Washington.

The American people have made their position quite clear: Reverse the reckless spending and out-of-control expansion of government that Democrats have presided over during the past 2 years; stop growing government so Americans can grow the economy and the jobs that come along with that. Republicans made a small first step in that direction.

Democrats have taken a different approach to these concerns. They have sat on the sidelines hoping the public's concerns would pass or hoping that if they made enough of a stink over small cuts, they would seem bigger than they are. In other words, the Democrats' whole approach is to see what they can get away with rather than to actually do something about the debt and jobs crises Americans want us to address.

The White House proposal yesterday is equally unserious.

House Republicans have proposed a plan that would reduce spending by $61 billion in this year's budget. Earlier this week, we voted on a 2- week piece of that bill that reduces spending by $4 billion.

The White House proposal, as outlined by the President's economic adviser yesterday, is to cut another $6 billion and call it a day. Even more outrageous, they say the proposal meets us halfway. I won't get into their tortured justification. Suffice it to say that Politico says it requires Americans to ``suspend disbelief.'' The Washington Post was equally unmoved by the White House logic. They said Democrats are disingenuous in suggesting they have worked hard to reduce spending, and they agree that calling the latest proposal an effort to meet us halfway is nonsense. That is the Washington Post. They agree that calling this latest proposal an effort to meet us halfway nonsense.

So amid all the fanfare yesterday, what the White House is proposing is little more than one more proposal to maintain the status quo--to give the appearance of action where there is none. The latest proposal is unacceptable and it is indefensible.

The American people are tired of hearing the same old talking points from our Democratic friends. They want action. In fact, they demand action. They want us to cut spending to help create a better environment for job creation. It is time for Washington Democrats to get serious.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Reserving the right to object, and for the short term I am going to object today, we received this 350-page amendment at 11:45. We need a chance over the weekend to take a look at what our friends have offered. It could well be by Monday we will conclude this proposal the majority leader has laid out as the best way to go forward. We will continue to talk about that over the weekend. But for today I object.

For the same reason, I object.

Mr. President, for 2 years now Washington Democrats have taken fiscal recklessness to new

heights. They have spent trillions of dollars we do not have on things we do not need and cannot afford. The amount of red ink Democrats plan to rack up this year alone would exceed all the debt run up by the Federal Government from its inception through 1984.

This recklessness is the reason we have seen a national uprising against their policies. Americans have demanded we reverse this recklessness and restore balance. Democrats have resisted at every turn.

To conceal the extent of their spending plans, they did not even pass a budget last year. After a nationwide repudiation of their policies in November, they proposed a massive spending bill loaded with new spending that amounted to a slap in the face to the voters.

Following the outrage that provoked, they tried to get a spending freeze past the public. They said: How about we just lock in place the out-of-control spending levels we set last year?

To them, this entire debate is not about how to respond to the American people. It is about seeing what they can get away with.

Well, Republicans have taken a different approach. Responding to our constituents, we have insisted the status quo simply will not cut it anymore. We have insisted on actually shrinking the size of government. And yesterday we delivered, by forcing the first actual cut in government spending in recent memory.

While it was just a small first step, yesterday we showed it is actually possible to change the status quo in Washington. Not bad.

What about the White House? The White House responded to all of this by announcing they want to have a meeting. We are happy to go to the meeting, but putting a meeting on the schedule does not change the fact that neither the White House nor a single Democrat in Congress has proposed a plan that would allow the government to remain open and that would respond to the voters by reining in spending.

All we get is talk. The President made an audacious assertion yesterday after the 2-week CR was passed. He said he wants his advisers to come up with a plan that ``makes sure we are living within our means.'' Live within our means?

Let me remind you, Mr. President, that the President's budget has us amassing a national debt of more than $20 trillion within the next 5 years--amassing a national debt of over $20 trillion within the next 5 years. We are projected to spend this year $1.6 trillion this year more than we are taking in. That is a $1.6 trillion deficit this year.

Does this mean we can expect the President's Budget Director to present us with a piece of paper that outlines $1.6 trillion in cuts for the current fiscal year? If so, that is great news.

If the President's measure of success, as he said, is a plan that makes sure we actually live within our means, the way most people do, count on me showing up early for this meeting. Unfortunately, I suspect the President is once again just saying something he thinks people want to hear.

The fact is, if Democrats had a plan of their own that would cut one dollar in spending, I think we would have seen it by now. But we have not. Democrats have abdicated all responsibility for their own recklessness over the last 2 years. They have left us to do something about it.

We made a step in the right direction yesterday after months of resistance on their part. Now we look forward to their plan. It is time for Democrats to present a serious plan of their own that addresses this crisis. It is time for Democrats to take the concerns of the American people seriously.

Mr. President, my friend and colleague from Kentucky, Senator Paul, and I would like at this time to address the Senate about a bill we are introducing.

Coal is an enormously vital sector of Kentucky's economy. More than 200,000 jobs in my State depend on it, including the jobs of approximately 18,000 coal miners. Coal is tremendously important to our country as well. One-half of the country's electricity comes from coal. Yet, as we are faced with a weakened economy and high unemployment, an overreaching Environmental Protection Agency in Washington is blocking new jobs for Kentuckians and Americans by waging a literal war on coal.

To mine for coal, coal operators must receive what are called 404 permits. Those come from the EPA in order to operate. One such mine in southern West Virginia followed all of the proper procedures and got the green light from EPA to proceed with operations back in 2007.

But now, 3\1/2\ years later, in an unprecedented reversal, the EPA has retroactively ``reinterpreted'' its authority, withdrawn the permit it issued, and shut down the mine. The EPA's reinterpretation cost 280 Americans their jobs.

The EPA also announced that 79 of the 404 permit applications still being considered would be subject to ``enhanced environmental review''--``enhanced environmental review''--effectively putting them in limbo along with the jobs and economic activity they could create. Some of those permits are for jobs in Kentucky.

The EPA's action simply defies logic. Not only are they changing the rules in the middle of the game, they are retroactively changing the rules to shut down mines they already approved. No mine, regardless of whether it has been operating for years in full compliance of every rule and regulation, can be assured that Uncle Sam will not come along and shut them down.

Thousands of Kentuckians who work in coal mining or have jobs dependent on mining are literally in jeopardy. Other industries are at risk also. Farmers, developers, the transportation industry, and others also need permits from the EPA to continue to operate. They, too, could see these permits revoked.

The EPA has turned the permitting process into a backdoor means of shutting down coal mines by sitting on permits indefinitely, thus removing any regulatory certainty. What they are doing is outside the scope of their authority and the law and represents a fundamental departure from the permitting process as originally envisioned by Congress.

That is why I rise today to introduce, along with my good friends, Senator Rand Paul and Senator James Inhofe, the Mining Jobs Protection Act in the Senate.

This bill will tell the EPA to ``use it or lose it'' when deciding whether to invoke its veto authority of a 404 permit within a reasonable timeframe, giving permit applicants the certainty they need to do business.

The bill would ensure that all 404 permits move forward to be either approved or rejected, so applicants are not left in limbo, unsure how to act.

The bill also ensures that EPA cannot use its veto retroactively.

While being fair to permit applicants, the bill still preserves the EPA's full veto authority to protect human health and the environment.

Here is how the legislation would work. Once the EPA receives the 404 permit, it will have 30 days to determine if it is considering using its veto authority. If the Agency is considering doing so, it must publish that fact in the Federal Register, cite any potential concerns, and detail what must be done to address those concerns within the initial 30 days. The EPA then has an additional 30 days, for a total of 2 months, to invoke its veto authority. If the Agency does not use its veto authority within 60 days, the permit automatically moves forward and EPA's veto authority expires. All permits that have already been applied for would go through this process, ensuring every permit gets a fair shake.

Any permits vetoed prior to the passage of the bill would be reconsidered by the Army Corps of Engineers. It was important to me that this legislation address every 404 permit, not just one or a few.

This is a fair process that allows the EPA to act as vigorously as necessary to protect the environment and those of us living in it while also giving permit applications the certainty of knowing within a reasonable timeframe whether to proceed with mining operations and knowing that once they have the green light, it is not going to be subsequently revoked. More important, this legislation will allow my State and others to protect the coal and related industry jobs we already have and grow new ones in the future.

I wish to thank my colleague from Kentucky and Senator Inhofe for standing alongside me on this matter that is so important to our States but also to the country as a whole. This is not just a Kentucky issue. We think our bill strikes a fair balance toward conserving the best of America's natural beauty while also building toward a brighter future.

The EPA's mission is important but so is job creation. Particularly when unemployment is higher than all of us would like, both sides of the equation must be considered. So I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make the Mining Jobs Protection Act a law.

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

Mr. President, my friend and colleague from Kentucky, Senator Paul, and I would like at this time to address the Senate about a bill we are introducing.

Coal is an enormously vital sector of Kentucky's economy. More than 200,000 jobs in my State depend on it, including the jobs of approximately 18,000 coal miners. Coal is tremendously important to our country as well. One-half of the country's electricity comes from coal. Yet, as we are faced with a weakened economy and high unemployment, an overreaching Environmental Protection Agency in Washington is blocking new jobs for Kentuckians and Americans by waging a literal war on coal.

To mine for coal, coal operators must receive what are called 404 permits. Those come from the EPA in order to operate. One such mine in southern West Virginia followed all of the proper procedures and got the green light from EPA to proceed with operations back in 2007.

But now, 3\1/2\ years later, in an unprecedented reversal, the EPA has retroactively ``reinterpreted'' its authority, withdrawn the permit it issued, and shut down the mine. The EPA's reinterpretation cost 280 Americans their jobs.

The EPA also announced that 79 of the 404 permit applications still being considered would be subject to ``enhanced environmental review''--``enhanced environmental review''--effectively putting them in limbo along with the jobs and economic activity they could create. Some of those permits are for jobs in Kentucky.

The EPA's action simply defies logic. Not only are they changing the rules in the middle of the game, they are retroactively changing the rules to shut down mines they already approved. No mine, regardless of whether it has been operating for years in full compliance of every rule and regulation, can be assured that Uncle Sam will not come along and shut them down.

Thousands of Kentuckians who work in coal mining or have jobs dependent on mining are literally in jeopardy. Other industries are at risk also. Farmers, developers, the transportation industry, and others also need permits from the EPA to continue to operate. They, too, could see these permits revoked.

The EPA has turned the permitting process into a backdoor means of shutting down coal mines by sitting on permits indefinitely, thus removing any regulatory certainty. What they are doing is outside the scope of their authority and the law and represents a fundamental departure from the permitting process as originally envisioned by Congress.

That is why I rise today to introduce, along with my good friends, Senator Rand Paul and Senator James Inhofe, the Mining Jobs Protection Act in the Senate.

This bill will tell the EPA to ``use it or lose it'' when deciding whether to invoke its veto authority of a 404 permit within a reasonable timeframe, giving permit applicants the certainty they need to do business.

The bill would ensure that all 404 permits move forward to be either approved or rejected, so applicants are not left in limbo, unsure how to act.

The bill also ensures that EPA cannot use its veto retroactively.

While being fair to permit applicants, the bill still preserves the EPA's full veto authority to protect human health and the environment.

Here is how the legislation would work. Once the EPA receives the 404 permit, it will have 30 days to determine if it is considering using its veto authority. If the Agency is considering doing so, it must publish that fact in the Federal Register, cite any potential concerns, and detail what must be done to address those concerns within the initial 30 days. The EPA then has an additional 30 days, for a total of 2 months, to invoke its veto authority. If the Agency does not use its veto authority within 60 days, the permit automatically moves forward and EPA's veto authority expires. All permits that have already been applied for would go through this process, ensuring every permit gets a fair shake.

Any permits vetoed prior to the passage of the bill would be reconsidered by the Army Corps of Engineers. It was important to me that this legislation address every 404 permit, not just one or a few.

This is a fair process that allows the EPA to act as vigorously as necessary to protect the environment and those of us living in it while also giving permit applications the certainty of knowing within a reasonable timeframe whether to proceed with mining operations and knowing that once they have the green light, it is not going to be subsequently revoked. More important, this legislation will allow my State and others to protect the coal and related industry jobs we already have and grow new ones in the future.

I wish to thank my colleague from Kentucky and Senator Inhofe for standing alongside me on this matter that is so important to our States but also to the country as a whole. This is not just a Kentucky issue. We think our bill strikes a fair balance toward conserving the best of America's natural beauty while also building toward a brighter future.

The EPA's mission is important but so is job creation. Particularly when unemployment is higher than all of us would like, both sides of the equation must be considered. So I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make the Mining Jobs Protection Act a law.

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