Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to discuss my vote on the motion to invoke cloture on Senator Coburn's amendment to the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011 to repeal the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit and the tariff on ethanol imports. I will vote against cloture on this amendment because of assurances that there would be another vote on ethanol subsidies in the near future without the extraordinary procedural problems occasioned by this amendment as it was brought to the floor.

My position on corn ethanol subsidies is clear. I am a cosponsor of Senator Coburn's Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit Repeal Act. I also signed a letter last fall along with several of my colleagues opposing the current extension of the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit and the tariff on ethanol imports.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Boxer.

Commemorating Gaspee Days

Mr. President, my time in this Chamber often gives me cause to reflect on our history and on the brave patriots who went before us, many of whom risked or even gave their lives to create this great Republic. Today, I would like to talk about a group of men who, 239 years ago tonight, engaged in a daring act of defiance against the British Crown.

For many, the Boston Tea Party is one of the first events on the road to our revolution. Growing up, we were taught the story of painted-up Bostonians dumping shipments of tea into Boston Harbor, to defend the principle: ``no taxation without representation.''

Conspicuously missing from history books is the story of the brave Rhode Islanders who challenged the British Crown far more aggressively more than a year before Bostonians dumped those teabags into Boston harbor. Today, on its anniversary, I would like to take us back to an earlier milestone in America's fight for independence, to share with you the story of a British vessel, the HMS Gaspee, and to introduce you to some little-known heroes now lost in the footnotes of history.

In 1772, amidst growing tensions with American colonies, King George III stationed his revenue cutter, the HMS Gaspee, in Rhode Island. The Gaspee's task was to prevent smuggling and enforce the payment of taxes. But to Rhode Islanders, the vessel was a symbol of oppression.

The offensive presence of the Gaspee was matched by the offensive manner of its captain, LT William Dudingston. Lieutenant Dudingston was known for destroying fishing vessels and confiscating their contents, and flagging down ships only to harass, humiliate, and interrogate sailors. But on June 9, 1772, an audacious Rhode Islander, Captain Benjamin Lindsey, took a stand.

Aboard his ship, the Hannah, Captain Lindsey set sail from Newport to Providence. On his way, he was hailed by the Gaspee to stop for a search. The defiant captain ignored the command and continued on his course. Recently, Dr. Kathy Abbas, director of the Rhode Island Marine Archaeology Project, has suggested a motivating factor for Dudingston to have sought to seize the Hannah: she may have been carrying 250 pounds sterling onboard. As Dr. Abbas told the Providence Journal, that was ``an enormous sum'' in those days.

In any event, Captain Lindsey and his Hannah sought to evade the Gaspee. Gunshots were fired, and the Hannah sped north up Narragansett Bay with the Gaspee chasing behind in pursuit.

Outsized and outgunned, Captain Lindsey drew courage and confidence from his keen familiarity with Rhode Island waters. He led the Gaspee into the shallow waters off Namquid Point, where the smaller Hannah cruised over the sand banks. The heavier Gaspee ran aground, and stuck. The Gaspee was stranded in a falling tide, and it would be many hours before high tide would lift her free.

Arriving triumphantly in Providence, Captain Lindsey visited John Brown, whose family helped found Brown University. The two men rallied a group of patriots at Sabin's Tavern, in what is now the East Side of Providence. The Gaspee was despised by Rhode Islanders who had been too often bullied in their own waters by this ship, and the stranding of this once-powerful vessel presented an irresistible chance.

On that dark night, 60 men in longboats led by Captain Lindsey and Abraham Whipple moved quietly down Narragansett Bay. They encircled the Gaspee, and demanded that Lieutenant Dudingston surrender the ship.

Dudingston refused, and instead ordered his men to fire upon anyone who tried to board.

The determined Rhode Islanders took this as a cue to force their way onto the Gaspee, and they boarded her in a raging uproar of shouted oaths, gunshots, powder smoke, and clashing swords. Amidst this violent struggle Lieutenant Dudingston was shot by a musket ball. Right there in the waters of Warwick, RI, the very first blood of what was to become the American Revolution was drawn. Victory was soon in the hands of the Rhode Islanders.

Brown and Whipple took the captive Englishmen back to shore. You can go today down behind O'Rourke's Tavern in Pawtuxet Village, down Peck Lane toward the water, and see the bronze plaque commemorating the spot where the captured crew was brought ashore.

The Rhode Island patriots then returned to set the abandoned ship on fire and rid Narragansett Bay of this nuisance once and for all. As the Gaspee burned, the fire reached her powder magazine and she exploded like fireworks. The boom echoed across the bay, as the remains of the ship splashed down into the water. The Gaspee was gone: captured, burned, and blown to bits. The site of this historic victory is now named Gaspee Point.

The wounding of Lieutenant Dudingston and the capture and destruction of the Gaspee occurred 16 months before the so-called Boston Tea Party. Perhaps this bold undertaking will one day show up in our history books, alongside pictures of the blazing Gaspee lighting up Narragansett Bay. Perhaps American children will memorize the dates of June 9 and 10, 1772, and the names of Benjamin Lindsey, Abraham Whipple, and John Brown.

I do know that these events will never be forgotten in my home State. Over the years, I have often marched in the annual Gaspee Days Parade in Warwick, RI, as every year we recall the courage and zeal of these men who risked it all for the freedoms we enjoy today, and drew the first blood in what became the revolutionary conflict.

I would add, in the context of fires and disasters, we have lost one of the signature buildings of Woonsocket, RI, last night. It was called the Woonsocket Rubber Company. The building was known as the Alice Mills, named after the mother of the president of the company who built it, and it existed for--I do not know--100 years or more. It burned in a fire so great that 12 municipal fire departments had to answer it last night; fire departments all the way from Wrentham, MA, down to Warren, RI.

I want to express my sympathies of Woonsocket on this loss and my pride in the firefighters who responded from so far and wide to tend to this fire. Unfortunately, the mill could not be saved. These mills are very hard to prevent fires in once they get burning. We have lost something very precious in Rhode Island. I just wanted to note that in addition to my remarks about the Gaspee.

Let me thank very much my chairman on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I know she has important business on the Senate floor. It was very kind of her to give me those few minutes to talk about this historic day in Rhode Island and American history.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Reed in commemorating the 350th anniversary of Block Island and thank him for his leadership in this moment of recognition.

Every Rhode Islander can recall their first trip to Block Island. For most it starts with a drive down to Galilee where countless visitors have boarded the Block Island ferries--the Carol Jean, the Block Island, and the Anna C. The ride from Galilee lasts about an hour, winding out of the Pt. Judith harbor of refuge and into the open ocean. And as the mainland--with all its cares and concerns--slips away off the stern a small speck on the horizon ahead grows larger with each passing minute. Soon the great bluffs of the island come into view, followed by the friendly hustle and bustle of Old Harbor.

As the ferry pulls into dock, the full scene unfolds: the National Hotel, Ballard's Inn, the docks and moorings, and all the shops and restaurants along Water Street. As you step ashore, you can't help but feel enchanted by the scene. A mere 12 miles separate the island from the mainland of our Ocean State, but it can easily seem a world away.

Generations of young Rhode Islanders have made that trip, and most of them will continue returning, year after year, only to find with a sigh of relief that the scene is just as they left it. It is no wonder that the Nature Conservancy has named Block Island as one of the Earth's ``Last Great Places.''

Formed by a receding glacier thousands of years ago, the land was first inhabited by the Narragansett Indians, who named their home ``Island of the Little God.'' It took its modern name from Adrian Block, a Dutch explorer who charted the island in 1614. It was later settled by a group of families from Massachusetts in 1661--350 years ago this year. In the centuries since, Block Island has been occupied by British Redcoats during the War of 1812, served as home to artillery spotters in World War II, and become a favorite destination for sailors, fishermen, and families across the region.

Today the island is a mainstay of Rhode Island's tourism industry. The Southeast Lighthouse is one of the many ``must-see's'' for Ocean State tourists, right up there with historic Newport and Slater Mill. And the jobs generated by Block Island--from the ferry workers to the shop owners--are

a real help to our economy in these tough times.

Today I join with Senator Reed to commemorate 350 years of history for the people of New Shoreham. Congratulations on this historic milestone.

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

Mr. President, I am here this afternoon because, on May 12, 2011, the National Academy of Sciences released a significant report entitled ``America's Climate Choices.'' In 2007, Congress directed the academy to write this report. The researchers who contributed to the report include scientists, economists, and policymakers from world-class institutions such as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, DuPont, and MIT. The list of the States from which the committee comes is very broad: California--scientists came from-- North Carolina, Maryland, Georgia, Virginia, Michigan, Wyoming, Washington State, Tennessee, Arizona, Missouri, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, and Texas. The report was peer reviewed.

I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks the list of the committee, which is page V of the report, be printed as an exhibit.

The report was peer reviewed by academic reviewers from such universities as Stanford, the University of Texas, the University of South Carolina, Harvard, and Carnegie Mellon. Yet this significant report, requested by Congress, drafted by experts, peer reviewed by science, has fallen on deaf ears in our Nation's Capital. Why is this? Is it because the report addresses a problem we have already solved? No. Is it because the report tells us not to worry? No; it is not that either. The report, ``America's Climate Choices,'' adds to the body of climate science evidence and reflects the clear consensus of the scientific community, which is that carbon pollution is creating dangers across our planet and must be addressed if we are to avoid its most disastrous consequences.

These are the facts in the report:

Climate change is occurring. It is very likely caused by

human activities and poses significant risks for a broad

range of human and natural systems.

Are we prepared for these significant risks? No, we are not, concludes the report. I quote again:

The United States lacks an overarching national strategy to

respond to climate change.

The report warns further:

Waiting for unacceptable impacts to occur before taking

action is imprudent because the effects of greenhouse gas

emissions do not fully manifest themselves for decades and,

once manifested . . . will persist for hundreds or even

thousands of years.

Starkly, the report calls on us now to begin mobilizing for adaptation. The precise quote: ``Begin mobilizing now for adaptation.''

The report is an urgent call to action by a widespread group of our most responsible scientists, peer reviewed by our most responsible universities. Why, then, is it being ignored? I believe many of my colleagues are ignoring this report because they are hoping this problem of carbon pollution changing the atmosphere and the climate of our planet will go away. They are hoping that somehow, if we don't discuss it--indeed, if we deny it--climate change will not happen. If we ignore the laws of physics and chemistry and biology, those laws may cease to apply to us. We can repeal a lot of laws in this Senate, but we cannot repeal the laws of nature, and we are fools to ignore them.

Some even attack the underlying science; this is a strategy that is as old as industry reaction to science industry does not like. A recent book looked at the EPA efforts to protect us from secondhand smoke at a time when the tobacco industry wanted the unregulated ability to smoke and did not want people protected from secondhand smoke and pretended secondhand smoke was not dangerous. The writers conclude:

Most of the science upon which the EPA relied with respect

to secondhand smoke was independent, so attacks on the EPA

wouldn't work alone. They have to be coupled with attacks on

the science itself.

A memo from Philip Morris's communications director, Victor Han, said the following:

Without a major concentrated effort to expose the

scientific weaknesses of the EPA case, without an effort to

build considerable reasonable doubt, then virtually all other

efforts will be significantly diminished in effectiveness.

In other words, in order to create doubt, they had to attack the science directly, and they have done so, to the point where Mr. Han said the EPA is an agency that is, at least, misguided and aggressive and, at worst, corrupt and controlled by environmental terrorists.

So it is not a news story for industry to try to deny the science that shows the danger of what an industry is providing. But these attacks simply will not stand. The facts are too strong against them.

Over the last 800,000 years, Earth's atmosphere has contained CO2 levels of 170 to 300 parts per million. That is solid science. That is a fact. That is not a theory. It is not in dispute. That is the range within which humankind has lived for 8,000 centuries. By the way, it is not clear that 8,000 centuries ago mankind had yet mastered the art of controlling fire. Essentially, the entirety of human history has taken place within that bandwidth of 170 to 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

In 1863, the Irish scientist John Tyndall determined that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere trapped heat and trapped more heat as the concentration of carbon dioxide increases. That is textbook science. It has been textbook science for generations. That is not in dispute either.

Since the Industrial Revolution, our industrialized societies had burned carbon fuels in measurable amounts, usually measured as gigatons or metric tons. A gigaton, by the way, is a billion, with a B, metric tons. We now release, depending on the year, up to 7 or 8 gigatons--7 or 8 billion metric tons--each year. That is not in dispute either.

We now measure carbon concentrations going up in the Earth's atmosphere. Again, that is a measurement. This is not a theory. The present concentration exceeds 390 parts per million. Remember, for 8,000 centuries, humanity has existed in a bandwidth of 170 to 300 parts per million, and we are now at 390 parts per million--well outside the bounds we have inhabited for the last 800,000 years. That also is not in dispute. That is a fact.

``America's Climate Choices'' documents the changes in climate that have already been observed and measured in the United States. Again, not theory but documented, measured, and observed. These are also not in dispute. Over the past 50 years, our U.S. average air temperature has increased by more than two degrees Fahrenheit. Our total U.S. precipitation has increased, on average, by about 5 percent. Sea levels have risen along most of the U.S. coasts. Heavy downpours have become more frequent and more intense in the Southeastern and Western United States and the frequency of large wildfires and the length of the fire season have increased substantially in both the Western United States and in the Presiding Officer's home State of Alaska.

If we take a look at the increase in carbon concentrations in our atmosphere, they can be plotted. Today is one of the last days our pages are with us after many months, and they have been here in school in the very early mornings. They have been learning mathematics, and it wouldn't surprise me if our pages were able to take a series of points and plot a trajectory off of those points. That is not a complicated scientific endeavor. If we plot the trajectory of our carbon concentration, it puts us at 688 parts per million in the year 2095, and 1,097 parts per million in the year 2195. That is a pretty long way off, but when we think that for 800,000 years we have inhabited a planet in which the carbon concentration in the atmosphere was between 170 and 700 parts per million and in a matter of a century and a little more we will have more than doubled that concentration and another century hence another 300 points up, that is a very significant-- indeed, an epic--shift. These carbon concentrations are outside the bounds not of the last 8,000 centuries but of millions of years of this planet's history.

The National Academy of Science report warns us this way as well:

In addition to the potential impacts that we are able to

identify, there is a real possibility of impacts that have

not been anticipated.

Let me say that again:

In addition to the potential impacts that we are able to

identify, there is a real possibility of impacts that have

not been anticipated.

When we travel outside a range that has protected our species and our planet for 8,000 centuries, we create forces that are hard to anticipate and, consequently, could create dangers that are hard to anticipate.

This National Academy of Sciences report does not just stop at cataloging the effects of climate change, however. As requested by Congress and as indicated by the report's title--``America's Climate Choices''--the report lays out the choices we have moving forward, if only we will acknowledge the facts of this problem and act responsibly.

The laws of nature, of course, do not care if we are paying attention. Climate change is happening and it poses grave risks to us and it will go forward whether or not we choose to acknowledge it. As I said earlier, we can do a lot of repealing of laws in this Senate, but we don't get to repeal the laws of nature. There are real risks we are facing, but there are also many positive reasons we should address the problem of carbon pollution. Developing clean and truly renewable energy sources and working to run our American businesses more efficiently will help us retain our economic leadership in the global marketplace, and that means jobs for Americans.

Here is the report again on the potential harm to our economy if we don't invest in a clean energy future:

The European Union has already increased its reliance on

renewable energy and put a price on CO2 emissions

from major sources without detectable adverse economic

effects. China has placed low carbon and clean energy

industries at the heart of the country's strategy for

industrial growth, and is making large scale public

investments (for instance, in ``smart grid'' energy

transmission systems) to support this growth. . . . Firms

operating in the United States could find themselves

increasingly out of step with the rest of the world and

without the same robust domestic markets for climate-friendly

products. Moreover, U.S. firms in energy-intensive sectors

could be disadvantaged relative to their more energy

efficient foreign competitors if energy prices rise in coming

decades. . . .

That is no idle speculation. We are already seeing the United States fall behind in clean energy technologies. We invented the first solar cell. We now rank fifth among the countries that manufacture solar components--fifth. The United States has only 1 of the top 10 companies manufacturing solar energy components and only 1 of the top 10 companies manufacturing wind turbines.

Half of America's installed wind turbines were manufactured overseas. Portsmouth, RI, has installed two wind turbines. One was manufactured by a Danish company. The other was manufactured by an Austrian company, its components delivered to Rhode Island by a Canadian distributor. Imagine if we drove demand for domestic manufacturing of wind turbines, of solar cells and panels, of rechargeable batteries. Imagine the people we could put back to work, the factories we could reopen, the energy this growth would infuse into our economy.

The new energy economy that beckons us has been described in congressional testimony as bigger than the tech revolution that brought us our laptops and our iPads and these BlackBerries, and the Internet services that are now such an important part of our daily lives, whether we Twitter or go on eBay or shop Amazon or do Facebook. In 15 years, that Internet grew from nothing to a $1 trillion economy--a $1 trillion economy. By comparison, the global energy economy is $6 trillion. We do not, as a country, want to fall out of the race to control that new energy economy. Yet that is exactly what we are doing.

America designed much of the underlying energy technology the world is using. But other countries have set smart policies and provided financial incentives to their industries, and now they are pulling away from us in bringing those new technologies to market. A $6 trillion market, and our foreign competitors are pulling away from us in bringing our own technologies to that market. Our competitors are seizing the advantage in the development and deployment of new energy technologies, and we are letting them.

But we can still change this trajectory. We can face up to the facts of climate change, see the opportunity in that looming threat, strengthen our economy, and create jobs. The National Academy of Sciences report is just one more reminder of this historic charge to our Congress--a historic charge at which right now we are failing in our duty.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Committee on America's Climate Choices

ALBERT CARNESALE (Chair), University of California, Los

Angeles

WILLIAM CHAMEIDES (Vice-Chair), Duke University, Durham,

North Carolina

DONALD F. BOESCH, University of Maryland Center for

Environmental Science, Cambridge

MARILYN A. BROWN, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta

JONATHAN CANNON, University of Virginia, Charlottesville

THOMAS DIETZ, Michigan State University, East Lansing

GEORGE C. EADS, Charles River Associates, Washington, D.C.

ROBERT W. FRI, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.

JAMES E. GERINGER, Environmental Systems Research

Institute, Cheyenne, Wyoming

DENNIS L. HARTMANN, University of Washington, Seattle

CHARLES O. HOLLIDAY, JR., DuPont (Ret.), Nashville,

Tennessee

KATHARINE L. JACOBS,* Arizona Water Institute, Tucson

THOMAS KARL,* NOAA, Asheville, North Carolina

DIANA M. LIVERMAN, University of Arizona, Tucson, and

University of Oxford, UK

PAMELA A. MATSON, Stanford University, California

PETER H. RAVEN, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis

RICHARD SCHMALENSEE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Cambridge

PHILIP R. SHARP, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.

PEGGY M. SHEPARD, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, New

York, New York

ROBERT H. SOCOLOW, Princeton University, New Jersey

SUSAN SOLOMON, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Boulder, Colorado

BJORN STIGSON, World Business Council for Sustainable

Development, Geneva, Switzerland

THOMAS J. WILBANKS, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,

Tennessee

PETER ZANDAN, Public Strategies, Inc., Austin, Texas

Asterisks (*) denote members who resigned during the course

of the study.

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

Madam President, we are discussing the Federal budget in Washington on a nonstop basis. One point that seems very noteworthy is that instead of working to create jobs to help grow the economy out of recession, Republicans are still trying to end Medicare as we know it, as it has been relied on for generations of Americans, in order to pay for tax cuts for millionaires. This is the Wall Street Journal describing the Republicans' plan to essentially end Medicare.

The Republican plan to end Medicare would put insurance company officials between seniors and their doctors. You no longer have a claim to the individual benefit under their plan. You get a voucher that goes to the insurance company, and you are at the mercy of the insurance company. First of all, they raise drug costs for seniors from day No. 1 by repealing the repair we did to the doughnut hole. Then, of course, 10 years out, you are left at the mercy of private insurance companies.

The effect of that is that, on average, seniors will pay nearly $6,400 more out of pocket every year as a result of this Republican plan. Rhode Island has a lot of seniors. I do not know a lot who have an additional $6,359 every year to spend on health care costs that would no longer be covered.

It is worth noting that one of the first things that happens when you take the $1 that goes to Medicare and give it to private insurance companies instead is, the 2-percent or 3-percent administrative costs that Medicare takes out--which leaves you, let's say, 97 cents of the $1 to pay for health care--that jumps to between 15 percent and 25 percent, leaving you only 85 cents to 75 cents out of your $1 to pay for health care because the private system is so inefficient and eats up so much in administrative costs for salaries and for quarreling with doctors and hospitals about payment and all that.

They do not even use this to reduce the deficit in a significant way. The savings achieved by ending Medicare and raising seniors' health care costs by nearly $6,400 every year out of pocket are being used to pay for, guess what. More tax cuts for America's millionaires and billionaires. Every 33 seniors who have to pay that extra $6,400 will add up to one millionaire's $200,000 bonus tax break.

The Republican budget makes average cuts of $165 billion per year in Medicare between 2022 and 2030. That gives $131 billion in tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, big corporations, and Big Oil--$165 billion out of seniors' pockets, $131 billion to millionaires, billionaires, big corporations, and Big Oil. We think it is time for our colleagues to get serious about creating jobs to grow our economy out of this recession and abandon their attempts to ram through a clearly ideological agenda against Medicare--indeed, that ends Medicare and helps the Nation's very wealthiest at the expense of seniors and the middle class.

Let me talk for just a minute about where we are in the Tax Code with our wealthiest versus seniors and the middle class. Clearly, we agree we have to bring our finances into balance. Clearly, we have to avoid a debt-limit failure that causes a default by our country for the first time in its history. Eliminating unnecessary spending should be part of the Federal balancing equation. Indeed, through multiple appropriations bills this year, we have pared back billions of dollars in Federal spending, and we will do more, but bipartisan consensus seems to end here when we move to the revenue side of the Federal budget. Just last month, Republicans filibustered a measure that would have ended $21 billion of unnecessary tax breaks for the largest oil and gas companies in the world, companies that have been enjoying record multibillion- dollar profits and do not need continued support from the American taxpayer.

That made the Republican message clear: In balancing the budget, closing tax loopholes and repealing corporate subsidies is not on the table. The debt and the deficit, they tell us, are the most important problems facing the country. But evidently they are less important than protecting tax subsidies for Big Oil. That is what their vote proves. They will cut education, police protection, health care, job training, and environmental protection but will not touch tax subsidies for large corporations or for millionaires and billionaires.

There is a basic question underlying all this; that is, are the superrich paying a fair share? Each year, the Internal Revenue Service publishes a report that details the taxes paid by the highest earning 400 Americans. I gave a speech a few weeks ago showing from what was then the most recent data, that in 2007, these super high income earners, earning nearly one-third of a billion dollars each in just 1 year, paid a lower tax rate than an average hospital orderly pushing a cart down the halls of a hospital in Rhode Island. I showed the Helmsley Building in New York, big enough to have its own ZIP Code, because we know from IRS information gathered by ZIP Code that the wealthy, successful occupants of this building actually paid a 14.7- percent total Federal tax rate. There is the building. There is the Helmsley Building in New York. The people who live there do very well. They are very successful, which is wonderful. That is the American way. They are very well compensated. That too is the American way.

But what is different is that they actually paid a 14.7-percent total Federal tax rate, which is lower than the average New York janitor or doorman or security guard pays. If averages hold, the very successful and well-off inhabitants of this building are paying a significantly lower tax rate to the Federal Government than the doorman who works for them and the security guard who keeps an eye out for their security and the janitors who clean up the halls.

The most recent IRS report is out about the top 400, from 2008. Let's take a look at that information. The top 400 incomes in America in 2008 had an average income each in that 1 year of $270 million. That is a pretty good year when you can make more than one-quarter of a billion dollars. That is the American dream, big time. But what they actually paid in taxes, those 400, on average, was a rate of 18.2 percent. That is their total Federal tax rate, all the taxes put in. What did they actually pay--not what the nominal rate is but what did they actually pay? The IRS calculated this. This is not an estimate, this is the IRS's calculation. Although we spend a lot of time debating around here whether the top income tax rate for the wealthy should be 35 percent or 39.6 percent, that is not what they pay. The Tax Code is filled with special provisions that tend to either exclusively or disproportionately benefit the wealthy so the top 400 income earners in the country pay an average tax rate of 18.2 percent.

Who else pays an 18.2 percent tax rate in this country? If you are a single filer, you hit 18.2 percent when your salary gets to $39,350. When you are making $39,350 your Federal taxes--income and withholding, payroll taxes--combine to 18.2 percent, just like the 400 millionaires and billionaires who made actually over one-quarter of a billion dollars in the same year that this taxpayer would have made less than $40,000.

What does that equate to in terms of jobs? The Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Providence, RI, labor market says, on average, a truckdriver will earn about $40,200. At that income point, $40,200, that truckdriver is paying the same tax rate as the 400 biggest interest earners in the country. They each earned over one-quarter of a billion dollars. They paid 18.2 percent. The truckdriver earns $40,000. He would be paying 18.2 percent, maybe a little

over. If that truckdriver gets a raise or if he or she decides they are going to work a second job at night and increase their income a little bit, guess what. They would then be paying a higher tax rate than those 400 super high income earners. In fact, the highest income earners pay a rate far below what people who think their average income earners actually pay.

Of course, tax inequality extends beyond just individuals. At a time when household budgets are strained, profitable corporations are paying just about their lowest share of Federal revenues in 75 years. If you go back to 1935, you see that regular Americans and corporate America evenly split the responsibility to fund our country's obligations, to pay for America's expenses. Then, in each of these following years, the ratio between what corporations pay in revenues to the government versus what individuals pay broke through these ratio levels. By 1948, the individuals were paying twice as much in revenues to the Federal Government as corporations. By 1971, regular humans, regular Americans were paying three times as much of the revenues of the United States of America as corporations were. In 1981, it broke through 4 to 1. For every $1 an American taxpayer paid to support this country, corporations just kicked in one-quarter. In 2009, it broke through 6 to 1, meaning that the average American, the ordinary taxpayer, the individual human being puts in $6 of revenue to support this country for every $1 corporate America contributes.

When people say how overtaxed corporate America is, it is worth looking at this record of an ever-diminishing contribution by America's corporate community to our Nation's revenue. Of course, the Republican filibuster of our efforts to strip Big Oil subsidies that would have put $21 billion back into taxpayers' pockets or reduced the debt and the deficit by $21 billion is noteworthy in this light.

Even against this rapid decline in corporate tax support for American Government compared to a huge runup in what individual Americans pay, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle insist on continuing to support tax subsidies for Big Oil, while they are making the biggest profits any corporation has ever made.

We looked at the Helmsley Building a moment ago. Let's look at a different building. Let's look at a picture that our Budget Committee chairman, Kent Conrad, uses. This was taken in the Cayman Islands. It is a relatively nondescript building, not worthy of particular note, except that over 18,000 corporations claim this building as the place they are doing business out of; 18,000 corporations. Really? Do we think 18,000 corporations are doing real business out of that building?

As Chairman Conrad has pointed out, the only business going on in that building is funny business, monkey business with the U.S. Tax Code.

This is estimated to cost us as much as $100 billion every year. For every one of those $100 billion lost to the tax cheaters hiding down there in the Cayman Islands, honest, tax-paying Americans and honest tax-paying American corporations have to pay an extra $1 or more to make up the difference.

We recently voted for a continuing resolution to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, and in it I supported, and my colleagues supported, belt tightening across many agencies and programs, including even cuts in the accounts that fund Senators' offices. So we are not against cuts.

But serious people understand we cannot just cut our way back to a balanced budget. There simply is not enough to cut. Not since 1960-- more than half a century ago--have we had a balanced budget at the revenue levels as a percent of GDP that the Republican House-passed budget proposes.

When our tax system permits billionaires to pay lower tax rates than truckdrivers and allows some of the most profitable corporations in the world to pay little or no taxes at all, even if we had no budget deficits fairness and equality would demand that we address these preposterous discrepancies.

Our budget crisis, however, brings new urgency to the problem. As we continue to debate ways to close the budget gap, I hope my Republican colleagues will revisit the potential to significantly cut the deficit by addressing tax loopholes, tax gimmicks, tax subsidies, and the daily injustice to the ordinary taxpayer when the wealthiest and highest income Americans pay tax rates that are the equivalent to an ordinary truckdriver in Rhode Island, and the basic lawyer or realtor or doctor is paying rates far, far higher than the super, superrich.

I see other colleagues have come to the floor, so I will yield the floor to them and appreciate very much the attention that has been paid to these remarks.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Renewable Energy Access through Leasing Act of 2011 or the REAL Act of 2011. I'd like to thank Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Mark Udall for joining in this bipartisan effort.

Many homeowners would like to install solar panels or other renewable energy systems, but face the daunting challenge of paying the upfront cost for the technology. To purchase and install a new solar energy system, for example, can cost between $20,000 and $30,000. This is a significant and often prohibitive cost, even when more than justified by long-term savings.

A promising option to promote residential use of renewable energy is leasing. Here is how it works: A company pays to purchase and install the system and the homeowner pays a fixed monthly fee to lease the renewable energy system from the company. It is easy for the homeowner, often requires no upfront cost, and can even save them money on electricity bills. Leasing has been successfully used for everything from satellite TV dishes to car. Why not solar panels too?

One of the problems has been that renewable energy system leasing does not have a well-established financial market. Investors are reluctant to pursue these opportunities, in large part because of the uncertain lifespan of the renewable energy systems. The REAL Act would address that problem by having the Department of Energy insure the value of the lease. This would help create a secondary market for renewable energy system leases to residential customers, freeing up additional capital to invest in these programs.

The benefits of renewable energy are manifold and well-documented. Renewable energy creates jobs. From the engineers who design the systems to the technicians who install them, this industry has the potential to support thousands of new jobs.

Renewable energy promotes energy independence. Oil still accounts for approximately 40 percent of our total energy needs, and seventy percent of this oil is imported from foreign countries, many of whom, to put it mildly, are not committed to our best interests. We are sending $1 billion per day overseas to fund this addiction.

Renewable energy reduces harmful pollution. Many of our current dirty sources of energy are significant contributors to air pollution, leading to increased cases of asthma, respiratory diseases, and birth defects. Moreover, these energy sources are significant contributors to global climate change, harming our communities through sea level rise and increased extreme weather. Rapidly rising greenhouse gas concentrations are also putting severe strain on our oceans through acidification and temperature change, creating conditions not seen for millions of years. In my home state of Rhode Island, the Narragansett Bay has witnessed a 4 degree increase in average annual temperature, causing what amounts to a full ecosystem shift.

It is hard to disagree that renewable energy offers solutions to many of the problems facing our country. But there is often disagreement about the best way forward to promote renewable energy. Some are concerned about the budget impact of promoting renewable energy, some are concerned about government mandates, and some are concerned about government subsidies. While we may disagree on other means to promote renewable energy, I am hoping that we can all agree on this bipartisan proposal.

The REAL Act would not add a dime to the budget deficit. The Congressional Budget Office scored similar legislation last Congress as having no budget impact. It achieves this goal because the insurance program is paid for entirely through premiums. The bill also protects the taxpayer in the case of a default because the government has the right to collect revenues directly from the renewable energy system.

The REAL Act is not a subsidy and requires no appropriation. It relies on the value of the renewable energy system itself to provide the basis for the insurance.

The REAL Act is also not a mandate. It has no requirement to use the leasing mechanism, but merely facilitates the expansion of renewable energy leasing to homeowners.

While this bill is only one piece of the puzzle to solving our overall energy problem, I hope that it is a piece we can all agree on. Providing additional options to lease renewable energy systems is a win for our homeowners, our economy, and our environment.

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 Renewable Energy Access through Leasing Act of 2011 or the REAL Act of 2011. I'd like to thank Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Mark Udall for joining in this bipartisan effort.

Many homeowners would like to install solar panels or other renewable energy systems, but face the daunting challenge of paying the upfront cost for the technology. To purchase and install a new solar energy system, for example, can cost between $20,000 and $30,000. This is a significant and often prohibitive cost, even when more than justified by long-term savings.

A promising option to promote residential use of renewable energy is leasing. Here is how it works: A company pays to purchase and install the system and the homeowner pays a fixed monthly fee to lease the renewable energy system from the company. It is easy for the homeowner, often requires no upfront cost, and can even save them money on electricity bills. Leasing has been successfully used for everything from satellite TV dishes to car. Why not solar panels too?

One of the problems has been that renewable energy system leasing does not have a well-established financial market. Investors are reluctant to pursue these opportunities, in large part because of the uncertain lifespan of the renewable energy systems. The REAL Act would address that problem by having the Department of Energy insure the value of the lease. This would help create a secondary market for renewable energy system leases to residential customers, freeing up additional capital to invest in these programs.

The benefits of renewable energy are manifold and well-documented. Renewable energy creates jobs. From the engineers who design the systems to the technicians who install them, this industry has the potential to support thousands of new jobs.

Renewable energy promotes energy independence. Oil still accounts for approximately 40 percent of our total energy needs, and seventy percent of this oil is imported from foreign countries, many of whom, to put it mildly, are not committed to our best interests. We are sending $1 billion per day overseas to fund this addiction.

Renewable energy reduces harmful pollution. Many of our current dirty sources of energy are significant contributors to air pollution, leading to increased cases of asthma, respiratory diseases, and birth defects. Moreover, these energy sources are significant contributors to global climate change, harming our communities through sea level rise and increased extreme weather. Rapidly rising greenhouse gas concentrations are also putting severe strain on our oceans through acidification and temperature change, creating conditions not seen for millions of years. In my home state of Rhode Island, the Narragansett Bay has witnessed a 4 degree increase in average annual temperature, causing what amounts to a full ecosystem shift.

It is hard to disagree that renewable energy offers solutions to many of the problems facing our country. But there is often disagreement about the best way forward to promote renewable energy. Some are concerned about the budget impact of promoting renewable energy, some are concerned about government mandates, and some are concerned about government subsidies. While we may disagree on other means to promote renewable energy, I am hoping that we can all agree on this bipartisan proposal.

The REAL Act would not add a dime to the budget deficit. The Congressional Budget Office scored similar legislation last Congress as having no budget impact. It achieves this goal because the insurance program is paid for entirely through premiums. The bill also protects the taxpayer in the case of a default because the government has the right to collect revenues directly from the renewable energy system.

The REAL Act is not a subsidy and requires no appropriation. It relies on the value of the renewable energy system itself to provide the basis for the insurance.

The REAL Act is also not a mandate. It has no requirement to use the leasing mechanism, but merely facilitates the expansion of renewable energy leasing to homeowners.

While this bill is only one piece of the puzzle to solving our overall energy problem, I hope that it is a piece we can all agree on. Providing additional options to lease renewable energy systems is a win for our homeowners, our economy, and our environment.

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator McCaskill be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes, and following her remarks Senator Sessions be recognized to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, 50 years ago on this day, President John F. Kennedy addressed a joint session of Congress, and he presented to our Nation a bold challenge. He said:

I believe that this nation should commit itself to

achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a

man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.

It was and remains a memorable challenge. To meet it would require long-term commitment and unprecedented resources. It had great risk, and it had no simple solution. But President Kennedy put his faith in the talent and dedication and discipline of America. He believed his challenge could mobilize our country to meet this challenge and succeed. And he was right.

President Kennedy's goal to put a man on the Moon and return him safely in 10 years was clear, was direct, and was accountable. The result was a vast mobilization of public and private resources that collaborated in innovative ways to achieve that singular purpose. And we did.

I come to the floor today to call for a similar challenge to reform our health care delivery system. While the goal now is different, the urgency and the need to mobilize both public and private sectors toward a common and vital purpose is the same. Our massive budget deficit poses a real threat to our economic and national security. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff identified it the other day as the single greatest threat to our national security, our Nation's debt.

There is also common ground that the skyrocketing costs in our health care system are at the heart of our Nation's fiscal problem. I do not agree much with Congressman Paul Ryan, but we do agree on that point. He has said if we are to be honest about our debt and deficit, at its heart is a health care problem. So now is the time for our country to set out a clear challenge, as President Kennedy did, that will address our health care cost problem.

That challenge must stand on two facts: One fact is that our health care cost problem is a system-wide problem. Republican proposals to end Medicare as we know it fundamentally misdiagnose the problem. Most everybody in America knows it does not matter who our insurer is, whether we are insured by Medicare or Medicaid, the VA or TRICARE, United or Blue Cross, in the last decade, costs across all insurers have gone through the roof. Indeed, just today in the news, Secretary Gates is reported to have said--about his Defense Department budget-- everybody knows we are being eaten alive by health care. We have a system-wide health care cost problem, not a Medicare problem.

Health care expenditures are nearly 18 percent of our gross domestic product. The next least efficient country in the world spends only 12 percent of its GDP on health care. We would have to go far down the list of our competitor nations before we find a country that has as poor health outcomes as America has, even though we spend vastly more for our care. We have a system-wide health care cost problem and a system-wide health care quality problem.

The second fact is, the health care cost problem and the health care quality problem are related. We have at our disposal an array of health care reforms that will reduce the cost of health care while improving the quality of health care. These types of reforms--new models of care coordination, quality improvements in hospitals, paying for quality not quantity to our physicians, and reducing overhead costs in the system-- all have one liability; that is, they do not lend themselves easily to estimates of cost savings. Because of this, there is less attention than there should be to the great potential of these reforms. Bowles and Simpson, Domenici and Rivlin have all conceded this in our Budget Committee hearings.

The promise of these reforms is immense. The President's own Council of Economic Advisers has stated that 5 percent of GDP can be taken out of our health care system without hurting the quality of care. That is about $700 billion a year. The New England Health Care Institute said it is $850 billion a year. The Lewin Group has estimated the potential savings at $1 trillion a year, a figure echoed by former Bush Treasury Secretary O'Neill. The savings are there, and they are considerable.

The question is, How do we get at them? Well, let's first look at the affordable care act that we passed. The affordable care act's delivery system reforms provide many of the tools that we need to drive down costs and improve the quality of care.

As we were working on that bill, I had a regular meeting in my office of experts from around the country, from the business community, from the labor community, from the NGO community, who really were dialed in to the delivery system reform problem in this country.

We met regularly, we met early in the morning, and every time we asked the same question: What more can we put in this bill to make sure it has the tools to get these reforms done? By the time that bill passed, we were in agreement that everything we could want was in that bill.

It provides a tool box with five major strategies we need to deploy. The first is quality improvement, which will save the cost of medical errors, of misdiagnosis, of disjointed and uncoordinated care.

The clearest and simplest example is reducing hospital-acquired infections which affect nearly 1 in every 20 hospitalized patients in the United States. They cost us about $2.5 billion in unnecessary health costs every year.

The tens of thousands of deaths that are associated with these hospital-acquired infections are tragic. It is made all the more so by the fact that they are essentially preventable. Simple reforms, such as following a checklist of basic instructions--washing hands with soap, cleaning a patient's skin with antiseptic, placing sterile drapes over the patient--result in huge reductions in rates of infection and in costs.

So, first, quality improvement. The second strategy is prevention. The most inexpensive way to deal with disease is to prevent it in the first place. More than 90 percent of cervical cancer, for instance, is curable if the disease is detected early through Pap smears.

The third strategy is payment reform. We must pay doctors for better outcomes, not for how many tests and procedures they order. Rhode Island has a promising ``medical home'' primary care payment strategy already underway.

The fourth strategy is simplifying administrative processes to reduce overhead costs. The insurance industry in this country has developed a massive bureaucracy dedicated to delaying and denying payments to doctors and to hospitals.

So to fight back, the doctors and the hospitals have had to hire their own billing departments and expensive consultants. All of that, the entire war over payments between insurers and hospitals and doctors, adds zero health care value. It only drives up costs.

Finally, the fifth strategy is a robust, secure health information infrastructure. Health information technology was, years ago, estimated by the Rand Corporation to save $81 billion a year. Savings may very well be higher as the system builds itself out. Not only is a robust health information infrastructure a good end in itself, but those four other delivery system strategies are empowered and advanced and expanded by robust health information infrastructure.

These five delivery system reform strategies hold the promise to deliver the enormous savings we need to extract from our health care system, and to do so in the most humane way, by improving the quality of care. The debate we need to have on our health care cost problem must focus on delivery system reform, on how we can implement these delivery system reforms from the recent health care reform bill as quickly and as effectively as possible.

This is what brings me back to President Kennedy's speech on space exploration. President Kennedy did not say: I am going to see to it that America bends the curve of space exploration. Had he said that, the speech would have been consigned to oblivion, and we would likely not have put a man on the Moon on time. Instead, he made a memorable challenge with a clear objective: Put a man on the Moon, bring

him back safely, within a decade. Everybody could know whether that had been done. It was a clear and accountable purpose, and it galvanized the entire Federal bureaucracy toward that common purpose.

We can and must do the same with health care delivery system reform. We can and must have a clear challenge to strive toward.

It is not enough to talk about bending some health care cost curve. Our country has the talent and discipline to accomplish extraordinary things. We can significantly bring down costs in our health care system. I notice that the junior Senator from Minnesota has just taken the chair in the Chamber. Minnesota knows well what can be accomplished through these kinds of delivery system reforms because companies such as Mayo, Gundersen Lutheran in Wisconsin, Intermountain in Utah, and Kaiser in California are all doing this kind of work effectively already. We can significantly bring down costs in our health care system. We don't have to be last or the least efficient country in the world in providing health care to our people. We can do this while improving the quality and the experience of health care for Americans.

I will conclude by saying that tackling these issues won't be easy. But to go back to President Kennedy's speech, he said:

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other

things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

. . .

I urge my colleagues and the administration--we cannot afford to fail. Let's raise the stakes. Set a hard challenge. The future of our Nation's fiscal health certainly depends on it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are gathered here on the Senate floor to face a very stark fact; that is, that

the House Republican budget would end Medicare as we know it for future generations. The House Republican budget would increase costs for current beneficiaries right away, and the House Republican budget would do real damage to seniors across this country and in my home State of Rhode Island.

With gas prices at near-record highs and unemployment numbers still in double digits, most folks are focused on making ends meet. They deserve a budget that will improve the economic opportunity in our country, balance our budget, and maintain Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs on which so many Americans rely. The House Republican budget fails every one of these tests. It ends Medicare, it lowers taxes for most corporations and the most fortunate, who too often already pay lower tax rates than the average American, all while failing to balance the budget.

The House Budget Committee chairman has claimed that ``our budget makes no changes for those in or near retirement.'' This claim that this budget resolution will not affect Americans who are already retired is simply flatout false. The House budget reopens the Medicare Part D doughnut hole that we closed in the reform bill. That will cost nearly 17,000 Rhode Island seniors, in 2012 alone, nearly $9.5 million out of pocket.

Seniors at the DaVinci Center in Providence, The Meadows in North Smithfield, and so many other places have gone without a cost-of-living adjustment in their Social Security benefits for 2 straight years even as costs have steadily risen at the pharmacy, at the grocery store, and at the gas pump. Taking away their prescription drug assistance, charging them an additional $9.5 million hits them too hard and too soon--in 2012, literally right away.

The Republican budget also ends Medicare as we know it for future generations. Planning to retire in 11 years? No Medicare. You instead will be forced to buy private health insurance from insurance companies standing between you and your doctors instead of the reliable, affordable insurance provided by Medicare.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated this would double what retirees would pay out of pocket under the current system-- more than $6,000 extra for retirees.

The Republican attack on Medicare overlooks a basic fact--that all health care costs are skyrocketing, irrespective of who the insurer is. Recently, Defense Secretary Gates said, ``Everybody knows that we are being eaten alive by health care.'' There is a cost problem in health care, but attacking Medicare fundamentally misdiagnoses the problem. But that is another speech.

I recently held an official Senate Aging Committee hearing at the Johnston Senior Center in Rhode Island to give Rhode Islanders the chance to make their voices heard. Audrey Brett, a Middletown resident who relies on Social Security and Medicare, said this:

For all those Americans who worked, paid their taxes, added

to the betterment of the country, served in military and

civil service--we cannot let them live and die in poverty. We

owe them their final days of security and dignity.

Audrey is right. But the Republican budget gets rid of that promise of security and dignity contained in Medicare. Medicare as we know it is lost. Here is what is protected: low taxes for the superrich, who already pay lower tax rates than the average taxpaying American family--protected; low taxes for many large corporations, which for too long have been gaming the system and paying too little--protected. And remember, the Republicans just voted last week to protect Big Oil tax subsidies.

Wreck Medicare but protect those tax cuts and subsidies. Those are not America's priorities. Let's put real priorities first--Medicare and allowing our seniors to enjoy a stable and dignified retirement.

I see the majority leader on the floor. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, on May 23, 2011, due to my daughter's college graduation, I was absent for vote No. 75, a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1038, the USA PATRIOT Sunset Extension Act of 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. President, I rise to honor the service of our Nation's law enforcement officers on the occasion of National Police Week, which is taking place this year from May 15 through May 21.

Every day, in cities and towns across America, police officers put their lives on the line to protect their fellow citizens. As a State and Federal prosecutor, I was proud to work alongside so many fine law enforcement officers in Rhode Island. I saw their hard work, their dedication to protecting the public, their commitment to upholding the rule of law, and the sacrifices they made for their communities.

During National Police Week, we remember those officers who have fallen in the line of duty, and we honor their families. It is a tragedy for a single officer to be killed in the line of duty. Yet according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, there were 162 law enforcement fatalities in America last year, a jump of nearly 40 percent from the year before. In 2011, the statistics are even more upsetting: as of May 12, there have already been 69 officer fatalities, a 17-percent increase from this time a year ago.

Here in the Nation's Capital, we are marking the service and loss of our country's fallen police officers through the events of National Police Week. Yesterday more than 20,000 officers gathered in Washington, DC, to observe National Peace Officers Memorial Day. I was proud to join with Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and other members of the Senate in cosponsoring a resolution recognizing that day, and commemorating the dedication of those officers killed or injured in the line of duty.

I also wanted to highlight for my colleagues two recent events to honor this occasion in my home State.

Earlier this month, Newport hosted the 28th annual Aquidneck Island National Police Parade. Hundreds of officers from nearly every police agency in Rhode Island marched alongside more than 1,000 fellow police officers from across the Northeast and Canada.

The marchers in Newport included Robert Shaw, the father of Providence police Sergeant Steven Shaw, who was killed in the line of duty in 1994. Mr. Shaw has been an active leader of Concerns of Police Survivors, COPS, an organization that has provided so much support to the loved ones, families, and former comrades of fallen officers. I am pleased to have joined with Senator Murkowski and other Senators on both sides of the aisle in cosponsoring a resolution recognizing the work of this organization and designating May 14, 2011, as National Police Survivors Day.

Last week, another group of Rhode Island police officers embarked on a longer march. Thirteen officers from Woonsocket marched for 4\1/2\ days in the 11th annual COPSwalk to Washington, under the leadership of Sergeant Ed Cunanan. Their dedication has raised thousands of dollars to provide financial support for the families of fallen police officers.

Once again, I thank the officers across Rhode Island and our country who protect our kids, secure our communities, and bring criminals to justice. They are public servants of the highest order who have given so much of themselves for the benefit of us all. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure we do all we can to protect their safety as they fulfill their vital responsibilities.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for morning business for debate only be extended until 6 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.