Floor Statements

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

Madam President, I feel compelled to say a word on the heels of our colleague from Alabama, whom I salute as he heads off into the setting Sun. I wish him well and to have a good break.

When I was in the Navy during the Vietnam war, when we weren't flying a lot of missions off the coast of Cambodia and Vietnam, we flew into a lot of other countries, including Japan. I have always had an interest in Japan in terms of the way they provide health care. One thing that intrigues me about that is that they spend half as much money for health care as we do. They spend 8 percent of gross domestic product. We spend 16 percent of gross domestic product. They get better outcomes--everything from longer life expectancy to lower rates of infant mortality--and they cover everybody. They cover everybody. It is not socialized medicine. They have a private health care delivery system and private health insurance companies as well as we do, but they get a better result for about half the money we do, and we have to compete with them.

It is not a fair competition. We have our businesses that are competing directly with the Japanese and, frankly, with other countries as well. But when they are spending half as much money for health care, and we are trying to compete our businesses against theirs, it is not a fair fight. It is like having one arm tied behind our back.

For years, Presidents, Members of Congress--Democrat and Republican-- have talked about this challenge--the fact we spend so much more money for health care than the rest of the world, and we don't get better results and, in a lot of cases, we get worse results and we don't cover everybody. We have a lot of people uncovered. That is not smart.

For years, for decades, nobody took it on. They tried during the Clinton administration but gave up during that course. They didn't have the kind of bipartisan support that is needed. Frankly, we didn't have the bipartisan support I would like to have had on health care reform when we took it up during the earlier part of this current administration.

A lot of people have focused on the individual mandate as being constitutional or unconstitutional. I am not a lawyer. I don't pretend to be an expert on that stuff. I studied a little economics when I was a Navy ROTC midshipman at Ohio State. When I got out of the Navy and moved to Delaware to get an MBA under the GI bill, I studied some more economics and all, but I don't pretend to be a lawyer. But I do know this: Health insurance companies have said to all of us--Democrats, Republicans, Presidents, now and in the past--look, if you expect us to provide health insurance for folks with preexisting conditions, you have to make sure the pool of people we have to cover includes not just people who have preexisting conditions--not just people who are sick or have illnesses or conditions that are expensive to treat--you have to make sure we have a pool of people to insure that includes some healthy people.

The way some countries deal with this is they mandate for everybody to have coverage. We didn't want to do that. We didn't want to mandate that everybody have coverage, but we wanted to incentivize people, including healthier people--including healthier young people the ages of my sons who are in their early twenties--to make sure at least some of those young men and women end up in that pool, so healthy people end up in that pool.

So part of the request from the health insurance industry, in return for doing away with preexisting conditions and basically screening out sick people, saying they are not going to provide coverage for them, was to make sure a lot of healthier people ended up being in that health insurance pool.

The way we decided to do it in the health care bill, in the law rather than just mandate people get coverage, was to incentivize them. If they choose not to, that is their business. If they happen to be poor, we will help them pay down their cost for health care. But if they are not poor, and they have the financial means, we would like for them to get coverage. We are not going to mandate it, but the first year we have the means to be able to have coverage and they choose not to, there will be a fine or a penalty of some kind--maybe a couple hundred bucks, and that will increase not to $1,000 or $2,000, but it will go up several hundred dollars in order to encourage people to get the coverage.

At the end of the day, some people will say: I am paying $600-- whatever it ends up being. Maybe instead of paying this fee I should just go ahead and get some health insurance coverage. The idea is to provide some plans that are reasonably affordable so folks can take advantage of them.

So that is the issue of the mandate. The Supreme Court will decide whether under the commerce clause of the Constitution that just as we compel people to pay into Social Security, it can be a similar kind of compunction to say we would like people to get covered for health care, but in this case not to mandate it, as we do with Social Security. So we will see how it works out in the Supreme Court.

They heard arguments this week, and I am sure the arguments will continue on the air waves, at townhall meetings, and on television for months to come and maybe beyond that. Who knows. But the heart and soul of the health care reform legislation has less to do with mandates for me than it does with how to get better health care outcomes for less money. For me, that is it--better health care outcomes for less money.

We don't have to look at Japan and other countries to figure that out. All we have to do is look at places such as Minnesota's Mayo Clinic, in Ohio the Cleveland Clinic, Pennsylvania's health care delivery system, which is called Geisinger, Utah's Intermountain Healthcare, and California's Kaiser Permanente. What do they have in common? They get better health care outcomes for tens of millions of people for less money than most other health care delivery systems in this country. Better results for less money.

How do they do it? Well, they have figured out what works, and they do more of that. They figured out what doesn't work to get better health care outcomes for less money, and they do less of that. They have moved away from what we call a fee-for-service approach to health care.

People get sick, they go see a doctor, they go see a nurse. They have visits and get shots or they get lab tests done or get x-rays or MRIs. We treat people when they get sick. For years, that is the way we have done health care in this country, including Medicare and Medicaid. Much smarter ideas have come out of Cleveland's clinic, and they have a huge health care clinic in northern Ohio, the Mayo Clinic, Geisinger in Pennsylvania, Intermountain in Utah, and Kaiser Permanente mostly in California.

Here is what they do. They do not just incentivize health care providers--doctors, nurses, and hospitals--to work on people when they are sick. Their incentive works entirely different. What they do in those places is focus on how to keep people healthy, not just how to incentivize the doctors, hospitals, and nurses to keep people healthy, but how do we incentivize the patient, the person whose health is at stake, how do we incentivize them to take personal responsibility for their own health care.

In my mind that is the heart and soul of the health care reform right there. Among the smart things that work are large purchasing pools. We have an 8-million-person pool for us that we are part of. Members of Congress, our staffs, all Federal employees, Federal retirees, and our dependents are part of a huge purchasing pool called the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. It is approximately 8 million people.

We don't have 8 million Federal employees, but we have 8 million people when we add in retirees and dependents and so forth. We are part of this big health care purchasing pool. We get lower prices.

It is not free. We pay about 28 percent of the cost of our premiums as Federal employees and servants, if you will, to people in our respective States, and our employers, the taxpayers, pay the other 72 percent or so.

But what we are going to do is provide the opportunity for individuals, for families, for businesses--small and midsize businesses--all over the country, in less than 24 months, to be able to join a similar kind of purchasing pool. We are going to start them, and every State--New Hampshire, Delaware, Alabama, and every other State-- will have the opportunity to have their own large purchasing pool to be able to take advantage of lower administrative costs.

The administrative costs for our Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan is $3 out of every $100 of the cost of the premium. So $3 out of every $100 of premium costs goes for administration. In most plans for individuals, for families and small businesses, it is more like 20 or 30 percent. So 3 percent for our large purchasing pool, and we will have those available, in fact, in every State.

The other thing we have going for us in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan is we use private health insurance plans. We are not using socialized medicine or stuff like that. The private health insurance plans in the country can sign up and say they want to be able to offer their plans to the folks who are Federal employees with dependents, to Federal retirees, and so we can choose among them. So there is a lot of competition between those health insurance companies, and we get the benefit from that competition. It drives down cost. Competition helps drive down cost and improves the range of opportunities.

The other thing I like about the law is that, for the most part, insurance can't be sold across State lines. But we make an exception. I will use Delaware as an example. We are boundaried on the west by Maryland, to the north by Pennsylvania, and to the east by New Jersey. When we establish our own health insurance pool in 2014, we will have about 900,000 people. So we will have a huge health insurance pool, but we are sure not going to have 8 million people.

But what we will have under the law is the opportunity to create an interstate compact between Maryland or Delaware or Delaware and Pennsylvania or Delaware and New Jersey or maybe all of the above and have a multistate purchasing pool or exchange. The great thing about this approach is we, No. 1, will have a bigger pool, which will drive down administrative costs and increase the competition.

The health care that would be available in Delaware plans could be offered in Maryland, could be offered in Pennsylvania or offered in New Jersey. So we would have a larger purchasing pool, more competition, and a better deal for the consumer. I think that is another part of the heart and soul.

So two things, and I will close on this and then turn to what I came to the floor to talk about. But I was inspired by my friend from Alabama. In terms of the key reforms in the health care legislation, No. 1, move away from fee-for-service--just paying for treating people when they are sick. Migrate away from that. We still need to treat people when they are sick, but migrate to a system like we have at Mayo, Cleveland Clinic, Geisinger, Intermountain Health, and Kaiser Permanente where they focus on how we keep people well. Focus on prevention and wellness and focus on treating people in a coordinated fashion as a team, not as individual providers. Very smart.

The other key element is this idea of creating these large purchasing pools and trying to incentivize people to be part of the health care delivery system by taking better care of themselves. So those are the two keys.

Madam President, I want to switch gears and talk a little about gas prices. Madam President, I don't know what kind of vehicle you drive most of your miles in while in New Hampshire. The vehicle I drive most of my miles in, and have been driving in Delaware for 11 years now, is a Town and Country Chrysler minivan. When I stepped down as Governor in 2001, my old Chevrolet Corsica was about 12 or 13 years old, and my wife said: Don't you think it is about time to get something new? So I took my oldest son Christopher, who was about 12 at the time, and I said: Let's go out and shop for a new car. I thought it would be a man thing, a dad and son thing.

So we went out and drove Porsches, we drove Ferraris, and we bought a 2001 Chrysler Town and Country minivan, which he laments to this day. Anyway, fast-forward 11 years, and we had a meeting yesterday morning, as you know, with the CEO of Chrysler-Fiat, and I mentioned at the meeting that we bought this vehicle when I stepped down as Governor, and 11 years later--later this week--the odometer will reflect the numbers 300,000 and counting. It will have over 300,000 miles. We are going to go over 300,000 miles. So it was built to last. What a great car, built in this country, a terrific vehicle. But when I stopped and got gas last weekend, we paid about $3.81, and the prices continue to go up--mostly up, sometimes down, and then back up again.

What I would like to do is talk a little about high gas prices and how it puts pressure on all budgets, including the budget of my own family. We drive that vehicle a whole lot and, hopefully, will drive it a few more miles before it is ready do sit more in the driveway and take a rest.

I want to begin by acknowledging that I go home just about every night and talk to people literally almost every day, morning or evening, in Delaware. I will cover the State this weekend and for the next week or two during our recess, so I hear a lot directly from the folks I am privileged to represent about their concerns about gas prices at the pump and the kind of pressure it puts on the budgets within their own families.

I understand gas prices are at their peak. Actually, they have been higher than this. I think they were a little over 4 bucks during part of the Bush administration, but this is as high as they have been for some time. It puts a strain on American families and American businesses, and it threatens to impede or slow down our economic recovery, which is actually moving at a pretty good pace. Unfortunately, the solution is not as simple as some would suggest. If it were, we would not be having this discussion every year or two around the same time.

I am asked sometimes: Why don't we just drill more in this country? Some assume high gas prices at the pump must mean we have slowed down or stopped drilling at home.

Many are surprised by the answer, and the answer is we are drilling more in America. In fact, I believe--correct me if I am wrong--but we are drilling more in this country than we have for at least the last 8 years. Because we are drilling more, the United States is now a net oil exporter, not a net oil importer. This country, which for years we said we are the Saudi Arabia of coal, is now on its way to becoming the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. As we have opened for drilling additional acres onshore, offshore, off Alaska, and the gulf, we are in a position to become a net oil exporter.

The Obama administration has made available millions of acres for oil and gas exploration in the last year or two, approving more than 400 drilling permits since the new safety standards were put in place. These safety standards, we may recall, were implemented to make sure we didn't have a repeat oilspill disaster such as the BP oilspill that occurred almost 2 years ago today.

We have been joined on the floor by Senator Nelson of Florida, who remembers all too well the oil that washed up in places such as Pensacola, where I did basic training on my way to becoming a naval flight officer. But since we got that straightened out and put in place tighter restrictions for drilling safeguards, 400 or so new drilling permits just since then have been put in place with stronger safety standards.

As a result, we have a record number of oil rigs operating right now, more working oil and gas rigs than the rest of the world combined. Let me say that

again. With the changes that have been made, the increases in permitting in a year or two, we now have a record number of oil rigs operating right now, more working oil and gas rigs than the rest of the world combined--combined. Yet of the millions of acres our government has allowed for oil and gas development, only 25 percent of those acres are being used for production.

We have a chart that demonstrates that rather graphically. If you will, think of all this as the millions of acres that are available for oil and gas development in this country. Of all these in the orange, we have the percentage that are producing acres, that actually have permits and the oil and gas companies could be drilling; 25 percent of these are producing acres and 75 percent of these are nonproducing acres. It is not because people are drilling and coming up with dry holes; it is because, in many cases, they are not drilling.

Keep that picture in mind. You know the old saying, a picture is worth a thousand words. This is worth at least 500, maybe even more than that.

I would be happy to yield.

Just in the gulf?

Eight million.

Really.

I thank the Senator for that.

It certainly would. I thank the Senator for sharing that point with us.

So here we are, more drilling in America, onshore and offshore. We are no longer a net oil importer. We have 75 million acres that are leased and have yet to be tapped, and a lot of those are down in the gulf, as Senator Nelson suggests. Yet American consumers are still paying more at the pump.

All the while, the five largest oil companies, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell Group did pretty well. They made about $137 billion last year. To top it off, these companies received billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to drill for oil and gas, even as they are making very healthy--I think recordbreaking-- profits.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but let me stop. I wish to be clear on this point. I don't think any of us should begrudge the oil and gas companies their success. They have a fair amount at risk when they drill for oil or gas, and it is not a business without risk. But this is also a business with enormous payoffs and enormous rewards for assuming those risks.

But I do question giving away billions of taxpayer dollars in drilling subsidies at a time when we are running record Federal deficits to established and successful industries that I don't think need a whole lot of financial incentive to drill more in this country. If they can make 100 or 110 bucks a barrel or so, that is pretty good incentive, at least in my mind.

Why? Because at the end of this day, it is not the solution. We can't drill our way out of the situation we are in.

I am told that, today, America consumes some 19.5 million barrels every day. The primary reason that amount is so high is because Americans have very little choice at the pump; and until recently, we had very little choice in the automotive showrooms. That has changed rather dramatically in 5 years, and it is going to change a whole lot more. But we can choose between oil and oil most of the time when we pull into a gas station to fill up. Basically, every American driver's dollars are a foregone conclusion to the oil industry.

What do we need to do about this? How about some choice. Maybe we can give Americans a choice. In the chart we have, we have solar. Some of the new vehicles that are being made actually have solar panels on their roofs.

Here we have wind. We are harnessing a lot of wind around the country. Hopefully, before long we will harness it off the east coast, maybe from North Carolina up to Maine, to provide electricity. It will help provide the juice they need for these hybrid electric vehicles that are being made more and more. We have nuclear. We have a lot of nuclear in the mid-Atlantic and the Northeast that can provide electricity, if you will, the juice, for these hybrid electric vehicles.

Here, we have companies such as DuPont in our State working with BP to actually create--not corn ethanol but ethanol, cellulosic ethanol out of corn stovers. What is a corn stover? That is the cornstalk, that is the corncob, that is the leaf of the corn--and create a fuel called biobutanol that we will hear more about in the years to come that has better energy density than corn ethanol. It mixes better with gasoline than corn ethanol. It actually travels through pipelines. Corn ethanol doesn't do that. It is like all the things corn ethanol is not.

That is the kind of stuff we ought to be doing. We need to be incentivizing--not only being involved in the R&D of that stuff but also encouraging its being used, and I think market forces will take it from there, whether the choice is natural gas, converting large diesel vehicles into using natural gas, electricity from clean energy or biofuels or nuclear.

For the first time in 30 years, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has just approved the construction of two nuclear powerplants. We went 30 years without building a new nuclear powerplant. Two are underway right now down in Georgia. They use a new design called the AP 1000, also just approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The new design is one that literally shuts down a nuclear plant. If we have a hurricane or if we have an earthquake or if we have a tsunami, basically it shuts itself down. We don't have to worry about the problems they had in Fukushima, where they lost communication, where they lost the pumping system, where all this and that happened, everything that could go wrong went wrong. These systems under the AP 1000 basically shut down by themselves. It is a much smarter approach, and it is the way the two new powerplants in Georgia are going to be built. That is part of the solution as well.

But we need investments in new fuels and investments in new vehicles and new infrastructure to use these new American-made alternative fuels. We already have vehicles that can run on biofuels and natural gas and electricity. We had the folks from the U.S. Navy in the other day, including some people from down in Florida, and they are flying Navy airplanes, Air Force airplanes, using a 50 50 mixture of jet fuel and biofuel and with no degradation in performance. We need to make those vehicles--whether they are aircraft or cars, trucks, and vans-- make those vehicles and the fuels for those vehicles more available to the American people, in this case our Armed Forces. We need a choice. We need a greater choice than what we have had, and the bill offered by Senator Menendez actually starts to give us that choice.

I am getting close to the end, so let me just say that instead of giving billions of dollars to oil companies to continue what they are already doing, why don't we put some Federal dollars in to work to allow real choices at the pump? It turns out that some of the folks who are doing some cutting-edge work in this turn out to be some of these oil companies. Some of the best biofuels work is being done by, I think, outfits like BP and Shell. Rather than incentivize them just to drill more, why don't we incentivize them to come up with alternative and biofuels and other kinds of renewable forms of energy? They shouldn't be cut out of that. They are energy companies. They are not just oil and gas companies. Let's incentivize them to create energy.

I wish to go back a couple years. I wish to go back to 2002. I am told that from 2002 to 2010, Chevron spent something like roughly $4.5 billion globally;

from 2002 to 2010 they did it on research and development for renewables and alternatives including geothermal, biofuels, advanced batteries, wind and solar, as well as on energy-efficient measures. That is about $4.4 billion.

In 2010 alone, ExxonMobil invested about $67 million in research and development in oil alternatives, mainly in algae research. That same year, BP spent $284 million. ConocoPhillips spent something like $34 million on research and development and demonstrations in alternative fuels.

Again, the idea is these oil companies are doing R&D. Why don't we incentivize them to do R&D for renewable fuel, not oil and gas. Oil and gas, at $100 a barrel, $90 a barrel, they don't need a whole lot in terms of incentives to drill. Let's incentivize them to do the renewable fuels.

I wish to be mindful of our time and be mindful of my colleague waiting. Let's close by saying let's put Federal dollars into choices at the pump that are developed in America. I will say that again.

We are taking money from the Treasury. We are using that money to incentivize the creation of more energy--in some cases more fuel. Rather than just incentivizing creation of traditional fuel that comes out of the ground, the oil, why don't we incentivize some of those same oil companies and a bunch of folks that aren't oil companies to create renewable fuels, the kind I just mentioned, that will be produced in America, that will help us lower our costs and create jobs while they are doing it?

If we want an apple today, when is the best time to plant a tree? The best time to plant a tree is probably 10 years ago, perhaps 6 years ago, if we nurture and care for that tree. That is what we are dealing with today. We need to start investing today for the choices in lower utility costs at the pump tomorrow.

As to building of the Keystone Pipeline, which is supported by some, opposed by others--the southern part of that is actually underway. The rest is going to be going through an approval process and should be worked out within the next year--is not going to solve the price at the pump today. What we need is what we call an all-of-the-above approach-- an all-of-the-above approach--which includes nuclear, includes offshore wind, onshore wind, includes biofuels, solar, natural gas in big diesel vehicles that we transform to take natural gas--all of the above.

That is what we need to do. We need to nurture new investments for alternative fuels so we can see the economic gains sooner rather than later. I think Senator Menendez's legislation does that. That is why I am calling on my colleagues to support that kind of approach, whether it is this particular approach or something similar to that.

That pretty much wraps up what I want to say. I want to thank my friend from Florida for being a voice of reason on this subject. This is a guy who is good on just using some common sense.

My dad was a naval chief petty officer for 30-some years. He used to say to my sister and me: Just use some common sense. We must not have had much as kids because he sure said it a lot. But I think the commonsense approach is an all-of-the-above approach. We need to do all of the above, and we need to incentivize the oil companies and a lot of other folks not just to drill for oil but actually to make sure there are good alternatives to that.

With that I yield to my friend and colleague and bid you adieu.

I thank the Chair.

Or simple.

If my friend would yield to me for one more minute, a lot of people go out this time of year and they buy new cars, trucks, and vans. Traditionally the spring is when people shop for vehicles. Go back a couple of years, to 2007. In 2007 we sold 16 million cars, trucks, and vans in this country. In 2009, as we had fallen into the great recession, car sales and truck sales fell to 9 million units; from 16 million to 9 million in less than 24 months.

That has changed now. We are on our way. The CEO of Chrysler was here yesterday and said they are on their way to record profits. They paid back the rest of the money we invested in them as taxpayers. But people are starting to buy vehicles again. The average life of vehicles people own in this country is 11 years, like my Chrysler Town and Country minivan. But this is the time people will start to trade in vehicles or buy something more energy efficient.

Unlike 5 years ago, people can go into a Ford, Chrysler, GM dealership, and foreign labels as well, and buy vehicles that get 30, 35, 40 miles per gallon and more. And finally, the availability of credit has come back. I say to people who have that ability, thinking about trading and trading up, this is a great time to do it--great vehicles, great quality and much better efficiency, and that is part of the solution as well.

Amen.

Mr. President, I wish to follow my colleague from Alabama and speak for just a few minutes about our friend and colleague, Senator Mikulski, who celebrates her milestone through her public service to the people of Maryland.

I asked my staff to go to the Web page for Senator Mikulski, her Senate office, and I came across one paragraph which I wish to read to my colleagues, if I may. It says:

Barbara Mikulski has never forgotten her roots. Throughout

her career she has returned each night to her home State of

Baltimore, Maryland. From community activist to U.S. Senator,

she has never changed her view that all politics is indeed

local and that her job is to serve the people in their day-

to-day needs as well as prepare this country for the future.

Sometimes people have come to Congress over the years and they come understanding clearly that our job is to serve. Over time, somehow they lose that thought a little bit and it is less clear who is to be served and who is to be the servant. She has never forgotten who the servant is. She knows she came as a servant, and she will leave someday as a servant--hopefully, not anytime soon.

If we ask most people around here what are maybe one or two words that best describe Barbara Mikulski, I think a lot of people would say she is a fighter. Let me just say, if someone is

an advocate for a particular cause, she is the person one wants in the foxhole with them. There is no better advocate, and there is no better or more able opponent on an issue. It is a lot better to have her on your side than it is to have her against you.

I take the train home at night. I go through Baltimore on my way to Wilmington, DE. Along the route, we go by a place called Aberdeen. Sometimes the train stops there; sometimes it does not. We have seen Aberdeen Proving Grounds literally consolidated from around the country. Much of the important research activity the Army does is at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. The person more than anybody else who has made that possible is Barbara Mikulski. It is a vast facility, with tens of thousands of employees who I think are mostly civilian and a campus of over 100,000 acres that does great work, helping to provide for our defense against all kinds of attack, foreign and domestic. She is a great person to have on your side in leading that fight.

One of the other things I love about Barbara is her devotion to first responders. There is a big national fire school in a town called Gaithersburg, MD. She has helped make that place possible to not only train folks who are first responders for the people of Maryland, but they train as well first responders for virtually every State in every corner of this Nation. People will go to bed tonight knowing that if there is a fire or a problem or an incident in their community, it will be responded to, and they can thank Barbara Mikulski for helping to ensure the folks trained there are ready to do that.

As much as anybody I know, she is a person who values service. AmeriCorps is an organization that encourages young people--really people of all ages--to volunteer and to serve. Volunteers are the ages of our pages and a whole lot older and the ages of guys like me. We all have an obligation to serve and to bring that spirit of service, whether or not we are in public life.

I was struck by the fact that she often opened the store as a kid, beginning a lot of her days as her dad opened the family grocery store, early in the morning in east Baltimore. I was born in West Virginia in a town called Beckley. I lived there for about the first 6 years or so of my life, but I would go back many summers, and I had the opportunity to work there for a supermarket, a mom-and-pop supermarket, with my own grandfather who opened the store almost 6 days a week, and I had the opportunity to see him and his work and what he brought to that store every day as the butcher. I think I know more about serving by working my summers in that store than anything else I have ever done. I suspect one of the reasons Barbara has adopted and retained the spirit of a servant is because of her childhood and growing up and seeing her own family, her own dad, in that particular store.

I mentioned my grandfather in West Virginia. His wife, my grandmother, suffered from Alzheimer's disease. My grandmother's mother suffered from Alzheimer's disease. My own mother suffered from Alzheimer's disease. I don't think there is anybody in this body who has done more to lead the fight to ensure that this scourge of our society--and the scourge of people all over the world--is reined in and overcome. When that day comes, people will stand and say: I did something about this. Nobody in this body I think can take more credit for conquering Alzheimer's disease and dementia than Barbara Mikulski.

Finally, when people think of Barbara, they think of a fighter, an advocate for voluntarism, and some of the other things I talked about. I don't know that many people think of her as an athlete, but I will say that she is very a big advocate for leveling the playing field. She wants to make sure people not just in athletic endeavors have a level playing field in which to compete, but she wants to make sure young people coming from the most impoverished backgrounds have an opportunity and have a real shot at life to get a decent education as a child, the chance to go to college and to increase their potential to not just earn money and support their families but to live productive lives. Those are just some of the things I think about when I think of Barbara Mikulski.

I will close by saying she had been in the House I think for 6 years when I arrived in 1982, 1983, and for all the time we served there together, she was always very encouraging of me, very supportive of me as her Delmarva buddy, as we shared the Delmarva Peninsula. Even to this day we work together to make sure we have a strong, vibrant poultry industry on the Delmarva Peninsula. I like to say we are still Delmarva buddies as we look out for the mutual concerns of our respective States.

With that having been said, let me yield back my time. I see Senator Cantwell is ready to speak. My guess is, she is going to say some more things about Barbara. But those are some things I am glad I had a chance to say.

Madam President, before I say anything, I would like to extend a heartfelt thanks to Senator Boxer, Senator Inhofe and to members of our staff and your staff for their hard work. This is good stuff. Thank you.

I wish to take 1 minute or so to talk about an amendment I have filed to this legislation with Senator Kirk and Senator Warner, to whom I offer my sincere thanks as well as a whole lot of organizations around the country which supported this legislation.

Under current law a small number of States around the country now enjoy the flexibility to implement tolls on interstate highways. Under the amendment we filed, some additional States could choose to apply for that same flexibility. States would only use the toll revenues--a type of user fee--to pay for additional transportation investments along those roads that are actually being tolled.

In Delaware and a handful of other States, interstate toll revenue is an important part of the State's transportation budget. Senators Kirk, Warner, and I believe other States should have the same option available to them. However, in an effort to move this critical transportation legislation forward, Senator Hutchison and I have both agreed not to offer our competing amendments to the bill.

That being said, I filed this amendment, in part, because Congress needs to face the facts when it comes to transportation funding and declining gas tax revenues. If we are using less gas due to more energy-efficient vehicles, the cost of roads, highways, bridges, and transit continues to go up and we need to continue to pay for them. We cannot just keep borrowing money from around the world to do that. If we want to pass another Transportation bill when this legislation we are debating expires in 2 years, we must address structural flaws in the highway trust fund that are making long-term investments nearly impossible.

Our respective amendments are at odds with one another, but I hope they represent the beginning of an honest and important conversation about our Nation's long-term transportation needs and how we pay for them in a fiscally responsible way.

With that, I am pleased to yield the floor to whoever seeks recognition.

Amendment No. 1816

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

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak in favor of moving ahead for progress in the 21st century, something that most Americans--almost all Americans--have to be in favor of, and if a lot of them knew about this legislation, I think they would be in favor of it too.

It has been 862 days since SAFETEA-LU expired--862 days. That legislation was written in 2003, passed this body and signed into law in 2005. We have extended that legislation, SAFETEA-LU, eight times since it expired in 2009, brought it back from the dead eight times.

John Chambers, who is the CEO of a big technology company called CISCO, likes to say that the key to global economic competitiveness is having the best workforce and the best infrastructure in the world. He has said that is where the jobs will go in the 21st century--best workforce, best infrastructure, you will get the jobs. We must continue to modernize--in the spirit of those words--modernize and maintain our infrastructure if it is to remain the best.

I wish to start today by congratulating Senators Boxer and Inhofe for pulling together--and their staffs and subcommittee staffs as well--I wish to start by congratulating them for pulling together a bipartisan Transportation bill that begins to address America's infrastructure needs. This comes on the heels of our passing earlier this week a conference report, a compromise on the FAA reauthorization to bring the air traffic control system of our country into the 21st century and to also begin rebuilding and improving our airports as well. This is a pretty good one-two punch in the period of 1 week.

This legislation before us today makes key reforms to our Federal transportation policy that will help make the best use of our taxpayers' dollars. The legislation sets clear national goals for transportation investment. We do not just throw money at these problems; we actually strive to achieve a number of specific goals. And this bill asks State transportation departments to do their part to achieve those national goals. It accomplishes this by implementing new performance measures that will help to hold States accountable for the outcomes of the investments we are prepared to make. This will ensure that we are building the most effective multimodal transportation network we can by putting our dollars to the most productive use.

Passing this legislation is critically important to America's economic health at home and our competitiveness abroad. We have heard that here today, and we will hear it for the next several days. This legislation, if adopted and signed into law, will create or save several millions of jobs, in a day when we need every job we can save or create, in States such as New Mexico, States such as Delaware, and 48 other States as well.

In my State of Delaware, for example, we are planning significant new transportation investments. We already have a bunch of them underway, but new ones will contribute to our State's productivity. Some of those will help to relieve the congestion along important corridors such as I-95. We have already done some good work in putting in highway-speed E-ZPass on I-95 through the toll plaza to expedite and move the flow of traffic. We are now working on a big intersection where I-95 intersects with State Route 1, a major north-south highway. That has been a big bottleneck for years. We have some good work going on with that. We want to be able to finish that. Other improvements will allow shippers to move freight more quickly and reliably down roads such as Route 301, which comes up through Maryland and the Delmarva Peninsula into Delaware on its way to I-95.

Each of my colleagues could no doubt talk about similar efforts in their State. Each of these projects is part of our national transportation system. Taken together, the system is greater than the sum of its parts. Having a world-class transportation system has helped to make America what it is today. This bill will ensure that we have a transportation system that allows America to return to prosperity and to grow that prosperity.

I am looking forward to debating this bill on the Senate floor. I appreciate the time to get started on that here today. As a Senator and as a recovering Governor, I know that everything I can do I can do better, and as good as this legislation is I think there is always room for improvement.

I have never introduced a perfect bill. My friend who is presiding over the Senate may have, but I am not sure. As good as this legislation is, there is room for improvement.

I plan to bring forward a couple amendments that I think will improve

the bill. We talked about a few in the markup in the full committee. For example, I believe we need to do more on the issue of traffic congestion. I go back and forth on the train about every day and night, and in the morning I see traffic lined up for miles, trying to get from north to south and parallel to the Northeast corridor of Amtrak, as we zip along. This city is recognized as maybe the most congested city in America.

In 2010 I am told that drivers in the United States in the more urban and suburban areas wasted some 1.9 billion gallons of fuel due to traffic congestion. That is almost 2 billion gallons of fuel. Congestion is a major challenge in larger U.S. cities and increasingly even in smaller cities and towns too.

The burden and the cost of traffic congestion is felt by both travelers and freight shippers, diminishing our quality of life and costing us money. According to the Texas Transportation Institute--they come up with this study that is announced every year--the average commuter across the country spent 34 hours sitting in traffic--not moving at 40, 30, 20, or 10 miles an hour but sitting in traffic. That is up from 14 hours in 1982. This burden lowers productivity and results in wasted fuel and cost Americans more than $100 billion in 2010, or nearly $750 wasted for every commuter. Traffic congestion is also increasingly hurting the reliability of the transportation system, which is particularly important to freight shippers, where the value each minute can be as much as $5. It is about $300 an hour. As America's economy continues to recover, we must make sure that traffic is not a drag on job growth. According to that same Texas Transportation Institute, by 2015--3 years from now--the cost of gridlock will rise from $101 billion to something like $133 billion.

That is the bad news. There is good news too. Fortunately, we have new tools to address congestion. For example, better management of accidents, improved timing of traffic signals, real-time traveler information, and managed toll lanes--and I will talk more about that next week--all provide low-cost congestion benefits. These are just a few of the strategies that have been helping passengers and freight shippers to better anticipate, avoid, and manage the impact of congestion. They are smart and are being successfully used on a smaller scale. They are ideas we want to replicate in cities and counties and States across the country. I will offer an amendment that would, in the States with the worst congestion, target funding for these cost- effective congestion-relief strategies. My amendment will help to give Americans some of their time and money back. It will help shippers grow their businesses too. I hope my colleagues will support it.

Second, I believe that anything worth having is worth paying for. If we will not raise user fees at the Federal level, we should at least stop prohibiting States from doing so if that makes sense. I will offer an amendment to give States more flexibility to use tolls and user fees on their roadways. An increasing number of States are looking at tolls and user fees as a source of funding, and the Federal Government should not stand in their way.

We have used tolls as a source of revenue in Delaware for years, and it has helped us to maintain and improve the critical I-95 corridor and to provide a north-south corridor that stretches from the northern part of the State past Dover, past Dover Air Force Base and the central part of Dover.

Toll revenue is also often a critical part of forming public-private partnerships, which I know many of my colleagues support. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.

In closing, Congress needs to act on transportation legislation. The rest of the country is counting on us. The infrastructure of our country gets graded on an annual basis by, among others, the engineers of our Nation. They look at transportation more broadly than just highways and bridges. And it is not just railroads, bridges, and ports, they look at all of it. Last year, the grade they gave us was a D. That is not as in ``delightful,'' and that is not as in ``distinguished''-- that is maybe more in the area of ``derelict.'' We can do a whole lot better.

We have taken action this week with respect to our air traffic control systems. We have taken a step toward beginning to rebuild and improve our airports. The legislation will let us, in the next 24 months, make our roads, highways, and bridges safer, less congested, and something we can treasure as a real asset.

Lastly--and I have said this before and it bears repeating--the major job of government--not the only but a major job of government--is to provide a nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation. It is not the only job of government, but it is a big job of government. A big part of creating that environment for job creation and preservation is a road, highway, and bridge infrastructure that we can all be proud of in the 21st century. This legislation will help us go in that direction. It is important to follow on the heels of this legislation and not just waste 2 years but build on it to do smarter things in the years to come.

That having been said, while the chairman is here, I thank her for her leadership. People say: Why can't Congress get anything done? I think the way Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe have worked together on this legislation, with the staffs, is a great model for the rest of us. We thank them for their leadership.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the Presiding Officer, my colleague from Delaware, has heard me say more than a few times that when I meet people who have been married a long time, I like to ask them: What is the secret to being married 50 or 60 or 70 years or more? I get some funny answers. I also get some very poignant answers. Sometimes I get very instructive answers. One of the best answers I have ever heard--in fact, I have heard it more than a few times over the years--is the key to a long marriage, a successful marriage is the two Cs--not Coons and Carper, not Coons and Carney, not Coons and Castle but communicate and compromise.

The folks from Delaware who elect us--and people from the other 49 States--are wondering: why don't we do the two Cs more here? Because those two qualities--communicating and compromising--are actually not only needed for a successful marriage but also for democracy to succeed.

Today, as we prepare to vote on the conference report--a compromise-- it is a product of a whole lot of communication from people all over the country: from businesses, from air traffic controllers, from labor unions, from people who use airlines, to folks who are involved in sometimes direct or indirect ways with this legislation, but they have been communicating with us what they think we should do.

As we work to bring our air traffic control system into the 21st century and as we seek to fund the modernization of our airports and our airways, we have had to raise some money. I was privileged to serve on the Commerce Committee for a while with our chairman Senator Rockefeller, and forever we were trying to work out a compromise between the airlines and the general aviation community on how do we pay for this tab so we do not run the deficit up even more. I take my hat off to the chairman and the others who worked on this with the key stakeholders to say: They are going to raise some revenues, they are actually going to pay some additional tax moneys to come up with the money we need to provide for better airports and, frankly, better air traffic control systems--safer air traffic control systems, more efficient air traffic control systems. Better results? Maybe not for less money but better results for a little bit more money. But it has been an ongoing communication for several years and an ongoing dialog that has actually led us today to a very good compromise.

We are often told in these jobs we talk with consultants who talk to us about messaging and how do we message or talk about certain things? One of the things they tell us is never use the word ``infrastructure.'' Do not use it. Don't tell your constituents we are working on infrastructure. They do not know what you mean. Instead, we should talk about roads, highways, and bridges. We should talk about railroads. We should talk about canals or ports. We should talk about water or wastewater treatment systems. We

should talk in our State about the dune system that protects our coastal beaches. We should talk about dredging a channel in a place such as the Delaware Bay or the Delaware River in an environmentally safe way. We should talk about levees. We should talk about the deployment of broadband across our country. That is all infrastructure.

Do you know what else is infrastructure? Our airports, the airways, the air traffic control system that is used to dispatch planes and make sure they go where they are supposed to go and land where they are supposed to land and fly safely throughout the day and throughout the night.

In the State of Delaware, I say to the chairman--as our Presiding Officer knows--we have three counties. The largest county in Delaware is called Sussex County. It is the third largest county in America. The county seat of Sussex County is a place called Georgetown. Just on the outskirts of Georgetown--a town of several thousand people--we have an airport, an air park as we call it. There is an effort to try to expand the length of one of the runways. One of the runways is about 3,000 feet. The other is about 5,000 feet. The county, which sort of manages the air park in Georgetown, would like to expand the longest runway from 5,000 to 5,500 feet or 6,000 feet.

Why? Because by doing that, we provide a nurturing environment by improving that infrastructure--in this case, the length of the runway-- and the navigational system, the lighting system that is associated with the airport. We make it an easier place, a safer place to fly in and out of, and we increase the likelihood it is going to be used.

By whom? It is going to be used by, among other things, not just 737 aircraft but 757s. There is a company there called PATS that works on airplanes, some very expensive executive jets, 737s and cargo planes and passenger planes. They help make sure they have larger fuel tanks so they can fly further safer. In some cases, they work on the insides of these very exclusive executive jets and tony them up and make some money doing that, and they fly all over the country, all over the world. That takes place right in Sussex County, DE, at the Georgetown Air Park.

They need to increase the length of the runways. This legislation will help make that possible over about a two-stage period over the next maybe 18 months or so. They need, at Georgetown, to be able to take out some hindrances to the safe travel of airplanes, including maybe trees in some parts of the runway--the approach or the takeoff, departure side of the runway. They need to be able to put in some better navigational systems, better lighting to make sure the big planes can get in and out safely. If more work can be done by PATS, they can hire more people.

There is a guy from West Virginia whom the chairman knows well. We are both from West Virginia. I am a native West Virginian, and he has lived there and governed there and served as their Senator for a lot longer than I lived there as a kid. But there is a guy there named John Chambers, whom Senator Rockefeller knows well, whose parents are, I think, still there. I think they taught maybe college, so I do not know if they taught at West Virginia Wesleyan when the Senator was their president. But John Chambers' parents, I think, both have been teachers, maybe professors.

John Chambers runs Cisco. He started Cisco, a big technology company. John Chambers is fond of saying the jobs in the 21st century are going to go to the States or the nations that do two things well: No. 1, create a world-class productive workforce. People can come to work, do a job, and do it in an efficient way using technology. The second thing he says is, the jobs of the 21st century will go to places where the infrastructure is world class.

With this legislation, we are going to make sure the Nation that started all this aviation with the Wright Brothers and actually got us not off on the right foot but off on the right wing all those years ago, that we are going to be in a position to reclaim that mantle and to again show the rest of the world how to do it right: to strengthen our infrastructure, bring our infrastructure into the 21st century, be able to fly planes safer out of airports that are better configured, better constructed, more wisely invested in communications, in navigational systems, in the right length and width of our runways, and to make sure the folks who are controlling our aircraft are doing a better job, using all the tools in the toolbox.

I had a chance to fly as a naval flight officer for about 23 years--5 years in a hot war and another 18 years in a cold war, until the end of the Cold War with the Soviets--and I have flown in and out of a lot of airports, naval bases, and other military bases with my crews on Active Duty and Reserve Duty, and I spent a little bit of time, as the chairman did, as Governor of my State and as the commander and chief of the Delaware National Guard. So these are issues I have actually thought about a whole lot, as somebody who has been in airplanes, a whole lot of airplanes, over the years.

I feel better about the men and women who are flying airplanes in uniform, in flight suits going forward. I feel better with this investment in this legislation about the folks who will be flying in commercial airlines, whether they are from the United States or some other country because of this legislation, this compromise, and I feel better about people flying in what I call those ``teeny-weenies,'' whether they happen to be little Pipers or Cherokees or whatever or whether they happen to be some of these real exclusive executive jets we see zipping around West Virginia and Delaware and other places.

So it will be a safer way to travel, and it is going to be an investment that is going to help create jobs, including in Georgetown, DE, including in West Virginia.

To everybody who has been a big part of bringing us to this point, to our friends over in the House who were able to communicate and compromise with us, to the chairman of the committee, and to our ranking Republican on the committee who is not on the floor right now, I take my hat off to you for getting us to this day. This is a good day. This is a happy day for us in this body. I think this is a happy day for the United States of America. We have shown we can actually get something done that has a good and positive impact on our States and on our Nation.

With that, I yield the floor. I do not know if there is anybody else who seeks recognition. If not, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator withhold?

Mr. President, there is not the absence of a quorum, but I appreciate my colleague mentioning that. I said to him earlier today, maybe yesterday, Senator Franken is a joy to have around here. Some of us know he brings a real special touch for trying to infuse some civility into this place again. He came up a year or two ago with the idea of a secret Santa exchange. We actually did it this year. I was not going to mention it tonight. My secret Santa turned out to be the Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, the colleague of the Presiding Officer. She gave me a most wonderful handmade gift that she and her staff created.

Delaware is the only State that doesn't have a national park. What they did is they created, on a sheet of paper like this--only it was a firm sheet of paper, not a regular sheet of paper, but they literally-- this was the State of Delaware and they created a national park so we have a pop-up national park with a bus going around and our pictures riding along in the bus. I don't care what else I get for Christmas, that is going to be the best Christmas present for this year. I don't see how anybody tops that.

But that provides not only some civility but also some levity in a place that could use both, so I thank the Senator for all his contributions, but especially that one.

On something more serious. What I want to do is talk about the regulation EPA has been working on for a while. It is called the boiler MACT. The idea is maximum achievable technology here. If you go back in time, go back to about 1990--in 1970, in this country, Congress passed and the President signed--Richard Nixon actually signed--the Clean Air Act of 1970, a Republican President who had a Republican head of EPA. That was able to be implemented at the time we had the Cuyahoga River up in Cleveland, OH, that actually was on fire. There were lots of terrible things happening in our environment in this country.

Better things started to happen, not just cleaner water, wastewater treatment, and cleaner air, but it led in 1990 to the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. One of the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 was in that legislation the Congress directed EPA to finalize regulations to reduce what are called air toxics from boilers by the year 2000. So the Clean Air Act was adopted in 1970. In 1990, 20 years later, the Clean Air Act Amendments were adopted, and in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Congress said: EPA, we want you to finalize regulations to reduce air toxics from boilers by the year 2000, 10 years.

The year 2000 came and went without any action. The Bush administration, George W. Bush administration, finalized a rule. I think it was in the year 2004. But they excluded many industrial boilers from having to comply. As it turned out, there are a lot of boilers in this country. I was stunned to find out there are about a half million boilers in this country. A lot of them are fairly small-- schools or churches or smaller buildings, hospitals. But a bunch of them are pretty good size.

In any event, the Bush administration in the year 2004 came up with a rule, proposed a rule, but they excluded many industrial boilers from having to comply. In fact, the rule may not have been just proposed, it might actually have been finalized.

But, as a result, the regulation was vacated in 2007, 3 years later, by the Circuit Court of Appeals right here in the District of Columbia. So, 2004, EPA

finally gets around to finalizing the rule that they were called to do some 14 years earlier by the Congress. And 3 years later the DC Circuit Court of Appeals knocks it down and vacates that ruling on boilers.

It was not until June of 2010--and that is a full 10 years after the congressional deadline for action--it was not until 2010 that the EPA issued a proposal for boiler air toxic rules that addressed all the major emitters.

As with most air pollution regulation these days, EPA was under court order to finalize the rule by a set date. The court had said to EPA: We want you to finalize the rule by a set date. That date was the beginning of this year, January of 2011.

During the public comment period, the EPA received thousands of comments and new information from, among others, industry. In fact, they received so much in the way of comments and new information, in December of 2010--that was a month before the date set under the court order to finalize the rule--a month before that date was to occur, EPA asked the courts, a month before the January 2011 deadline, to extend the deadline for promulgating the final air toxic standards to April of next year, to April of 2012.

The courts said: No, don't think so. They said: EPA, you have had enough time to finish. They allowed EPA only until January 21 of this year to go ahead and actually promulgate these regulations.

Even though EPA didn't have a lot of time to process the comments, EPA was able to finalize a rule in February of this year that yielded the same benefits--I think this is pretty interesting--a rule that realized the same benefits in terms of reducing toxic emissions, mercury and arsenic, lead, that kind of thing--the same level of reductions in those emissions as in the June 2010 proposal that they made, but they cut in half the cost of compliance. That is pretty impressive, isn't it? They cut in half the cost of compliance, got the same amount of reductions in emissions of these air toxic substances for half the cost. However, EPA did not stop there. Wanting to address industry's concerns, the EPA opened public comment yet again to consider a reproposal of their regulations.

I know some people think EPA has been guilty of a rush to judgment in this regard. I think if you go through the chronology objectively, this is not a rush to judgment. I hope, if nothing else, to convey tonight that the EPA has moved deliberately, some say way too slowly, in order to address this. There are others who think way too fast, still too fast.

Anyway, last month the EPA proposed the boiler MACT regulation to try to address stakeholder concerns and I think they have done a workman- like job, a good job. In this new proposal, of the 1\1/2\ million boilers in the United States, less than 1 percent would be affected-- less than 1 percent would be affected by these emission limits.

I have a chart to show what it looks like. This is a good way to actually think of this.

The pie represents the 1.5 million boilers in the United States. Some are very small, and some are large industrial boilers. Less than 1 percent need the technology to meet the emission limits prescribed by EPA. That is the red tiny slice here. About another 13 percent of the 1.5 million boilers in the United States would need to follow best practice standards in ensuring that the emissions from those boilers are in order. And the rest--1.3 million boilers or a vast majority of boilers, a little over 85 percent--are not affected by the rules.

Not everybody likes the fact that less than 1 percent of the boilers are affected by these rules, and some of our friends in the environmental community understand that we have been very unhappy with how slowly this whole thing has proceeded.

The last thing I want to mention here--maybe two more things--in terms of moving from this point forward, how long would these less than 1 percent have to comply with the regs that have finally been promulgated? I am told the sources would have up to 4 years to comply. The EPA is still taking public comment and hopes to finalize this regulation by late spring.

The bottom line is that we have delayed long enough. Only 1 percent of our largest sources will need to clean up. The EPA has certainly tried to address many problems--maybe not all the problems but most problems--and they are still taking public comments. I am not sure we need to delay this boiler MACT any further.

There are a lot of people who sneeze during the course of their lives, as I have just done here on the floor. That was just a coincidence, but a lot of people in this country suffer because of the quality of our air. We have made great improvements in cleaning up the quality of our air. We still have too many people who suffer from asthma and other respiratory diseases. The kinds of problems and emissions we are talking about here deal less with asthma and respiratory diseases; we are talking about substances that can kill people. In the case of the substances we are talking about here, they have the ability to kill more than 8,000 people a year.

We don't have many large towns in Delaware. In Wilmington, we have about 75,000 people. In Dover--the central part of our State--we have about 30,000 people. And if you take 8,000 people, that is about as many people as live in any of the--well, Newark, where we have the University of Delaware, has about 30,000 people. But other than that, we don't have a lot of large towns. For us, 8,000 people could be the fourth or fifth largest town in my State. That is a lot of people. At the end of the day, even if these rules are fully implemented, we are not going to save all of those 8,000 people, but a lot of those lives will be saved in the coming years, and we need to do that.

We need to let this process go forward and do our dead level best-- the EPA has tried to be responsive to concerns that have been raised-- to provide for a cleaner environment and not to dampen our economic recovery.

The last word I would add is that I think the idea that we have to choose one over the other is a false choice. We don't have to do that. We can have a cleaner environment and we can have jobs. If you look at the growth of our Nation's economy since 1970, when the Clean Air Act was adopted, or 1990 when the Clean Air Act amendments were adopted, we have seen dramatic growth in our budget. We have seen growth in our economy, and we have seen the quality of air become a lot cleaner over that period of time. So one does not preclude the other.

While some serious concerns have been raised about the earlier proposals by the EPA, a lot of those concerns have been addressed. I think we need to get on with it.

With that, Mr. President, I think we are going to wrap it up here around 7:30, which is in another 10 minutes or so. I am looking around, and I don't see anybody else waiting to speak, so I will note the absence of a quorum and bid you good night.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 8:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Mr. William ``Bill'' Vanderwende and Mr. David ``Dave'' Baker for their leadership, vision and commitment to Delaware's agriculture

community through their roles as Chairman and Vice-Chairman, respectively, of the Delaware Nutrient Management Commission. Both have dedicated their lives to Delaware and its farming communities, benefitting and protecting the farming industry and the thousands of farmers and citizens who rely on our state's priceless natural resources.

As the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the 19-member Delaware Nutrient Management Commission since its inception in 1999, Bill and Dave have led the Commission through years of development--made up of innovation, labor and compromise--that resulted in Delaware's premier Nutrient Management Program--one that serves as a model for other States. Moreover, Bill and Dave helped guide Delaware through U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approval of the State's controlled animal feeding operation regulations, helping to preserve our State's rich agricultural resources, while protecting farmers and their livelihood for generations to come. When I was Governor of the State of Delaware, I worked closely with both Bill and Dave on the development of the Delaware Nutrient Management Program and know well their passion and loyalty to doing what is right for the First State's agricultural community, as well as for our environment and our neighbors' environments.

The Delaware Nutrient Management Program was established in June 1999 as a result of the Delaware Nutrient Management Law. The mission of the Delaware Nutrient Management Program is to manage those activities involving the generation and application of nutrients in order to help maintain and improve the quality of Delaware's ground and surface waters and to help meet or exceed federally mandated water quality standards, in the interest of the overall public welfare. The responsibilities of the Delaware Nutrient Management Commission include: considering the establishment of critical areas for voluntary and regulatory programs; establishing Best Management Practices to reduce nutrients in the environment; developing educational and awareness programs; considering incentive programs to redistribute excess nutrients; establishing the elements and general direction of the State Nutrient Management Program; and, developing nutrient management regulations.

In 2001, under the team's leadership, the Delaware Nutrient Management Commission outlined a Memorandum of Understanding with the Delaware Department of Agriculture, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, and the chief executives of all poultry companies operating in Delaware--an agreement that was the first of its kind. This unique partnership between the agriculture and environmental sectors in Delaware has helped contribute to the progress Delaware has achieved in nutrient management. Currently, the First State leads the nation in nutrient management planning participation. Ninety-nine percent of all farmers who are required to have a nutrient management plan do, indeed, have one.

The Delaware Nutrient Management Commission's strong working relationships with the Delaware Department of Agriculture, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Delaware's Congressional delegation, and with Delaware's Governor and the State's General Assembly has contributed to the implementation of on-the-ground solutions for nutrient management that encourage environmental stewardship and have positive benefits to agriculture and its farmers.

A native of Harrington, DE, Bill Vanderwende is a man of family, faith and farming and serves as a proud, life-long member of Delaware's farming tradition. For over 40 years, Bill and Ellen--his wife of almost 60 years--along with their 4 children, 10 grandchildren and several employees, have run a dairy, grain and vegetable farming operation in Bridgeville with 700 head of dairy and 3,000 crop acres. Bill has represented Delaware's dairy industry for decades.

Bill's leadership in the agricultural community stretches beyond the Nutrient Management Commission. Bill has been a distinguished member of the Sussex County Conservation District Board of Supervisors for 20 years, serving as chairman since 1992. In addition, Bill served as a member of the Governor's Advisory Council on Agriculture, a member of the Governor's Advisory Council on Soil and Water, and as Vice-Chairman of Delaware Aglands Preservation Foundation Board of Trustees. Bill and the Vanderwende family have also received numerous awards recognizing their positive impact and influence on Delaware's farming tradition, including Bill's honor as the recipient of the 2009 Secretary's Award for Distinguished Service to Agriculture given by the Delaware Department of Agriculture and the Vanderwendes' 1993 Farm Bureau award for the Farm Family of the Year.

Over the years, Dave Baker has made a remarkable contribution to Delaware's agricultural community through his work, leadership and thoughtful attention to detail. His commitment to Delaware's and our nation's farmlands, as well as his commitment to his family and community is unmistakable. Since moving to Middletown, DE in 1952, Dave Baker has remained close to his roots. Today, just outside of his hometown, Dave lives with his wife Barbara. Together, they have a son Erik and two grandchildren. There, Dave is the President of Baker Farms, a 3,000-acre grain farm. He also founded Delaware Egg Farm--now Puglisi Egg Farms Delaware--Delaware's largest egg producing operation.

In addition to his role of Vice-Chairman of the Delaware Nutrient Management Commission, Dave is Chairman of the Commission's Planning and Personnel subcommittees. Moreover, Dave's agricultural acumen and outstanding leadership in the field of agriculture has been recognized in Delaware and well beyond our borders. Most recently, he received the 2010 Secretary's Award for Distinguished Service to Agriculture given by the Delaware Department of Agriculture. During my term as Governor, Dave was the Chairman of the Nutrient Management Advisory Committee, the organization responsible for drafting Delaware's ground breaking nutrient management statute. He is also a past president of the Delaware Council of Farm Organizations. Nationally, he has served on the American Egg Board and the Poultry Advisory Committee for the Farm Bureau, and regionally, he is a past chair of the Egg Clearinghouse and the Northeast United Egg Producers.

Delaware is fortunate to have such an outstanding team led by Bill Vanderwende and Dave Baker to carry on a legacy of farming values that shape, honor and preserve our State's treasured agricultural heritage. Bill and Dave's leadership on the Nutrient Management Commission reaches those not just in our agricultural community, not just in our State, but the millions of Americans who are impacted by Delaware's decisions on nutrient management. The continued leadership of these two men will keep our farming industry prosperous, while protecting our natural resources for generations to come. It is with a genuine sense of honor and pride that I rise today to extend the heartfelt congratulations and thanks of our entire Congressional delegation to our friends and outstanding Delaware residents, Bill Vanderwende and Dave Baker.

Mr. President, I am delighted to stand before you on this Delaware Day, 2011. This is the anniversary of the day when, on December 7, 1787, Delaware became the first State to ratify the Constitution. For 1 week, Delaware was the entire United States of America. We opened up things in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, eventually New Mexico. For the most part, it has turned out well, especially the New Mexico part. We are happy to be here to celebrate this day with all our colleagues.

Later today, Senator Coons and I will return to regale our colleagues with more about what we started all those years ago and how it has turned out.

I wish to fast forward, if I could, though, to 2008. As the Presiding Officer will recall, during the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis on Wall Street, one question which Congress repeatedly asked itself was: What can we do to prevent future harm from reaching Main Street? What can we do to prevent future harm from reaching Main Street?

This theme continued as we considered and ultimately passed in 2010 comprehensive financial regulatory reform regulation, which fortunately the majority of us, including myself, supported, the legislation now known as the Dodd-Frank law.

While none of us were able to agree on each of the elements of the Dodd-Frank law, and while some of my colleagues did not support it in the end, most us could agree we needed to do more to help protect American families and businesses from bad actors.

As a result, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created. For the first time in history, one agency would be charged with overseeing consumer protection for Main Street Americans within the financial industry.

In July of this year, 5 months ago, Richard Cordray was nominated to be Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Richard Cordray served for many years as the president pro tem of the Delaware State Senate before retiring roughly 10 years ago--a man now probably in his mid-70s. I was shocked to hear he had been nominated to head this new agency. It turns out it is another Richard Cordray. This Richard Cordray had been the attorney general of Ohio for a number of years. He was well regarded. He helped protect consumers, investors, retirees, and business owners to ensure that Americans on Main Street got a fair deal. At the time of his nomination, he was leading the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's enforcement efforts. Mr. Cordray, former AG, is someone who has been intimately involved in getting the new bureau stood up and running and who brings key expertise to the table.

When we first passed the law, I suggested to the President, to Secretary Geithner, and others--I said I think there are three models they could choose from to pick someone to nominate to head this new bureau. No. 1, they could pick an academician; No. 2, they could pick somebody who has been a regulator or, in this case, attorney, an Attorney General; and the third, I said they might want to try to find somebody in the private sector who has run a significant financial service company but had a great, impeccable record, that of a ``white hat'' for consumer protection, for looking out for consumers, somebody who believes one can do well and do good at the same time. I thought those were the models. The administration looked at people in all three categories, including the latter one and ultimately decided, within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, they had Mr. Cordray. He had a good track record, and he was the person the President wanted to nominate. I think he has made a very good choice.

I talked to a number of my colleagues who sat in on hearings where he testified on his nomination and for the most part got good reviews from Republicans and Democrats here.

As my colleagues and I debate this nomination and ask ourselves is he qualified to do the job, I think the answer is yes. My colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee agreed, and 37 attorneys general from across the country, both Republican and Democratic, agreed.

However, today's debate has not been about whether Mr. Cordray is qualified to do this job; instead, the debate has focused on the structure of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In May of this year, 44 of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle sent a letter to the President saying they would block any nominee until structural changes are made in the new agency. This is before the President ever nominated Mr. Cordray. My colleagues want to see changes made such as replacing the Director with a board structure and subjecting the Bureau to the appropriations process. My colleagues, 44 colleagues in any event, pointed out that these structural changes would model the Bureau after already-existing agencies, while some of my other colleagues have also made the point that there are already existing agencies not subject to the appropriations process, such as the FDIC and the Federal Reserve.

What we have is a disagreement, one where colleagues on both sides of the aisle have what I believe are legitimate points. The Consumer Bureau was created in Dodd-Frank through a series of compromises. Rarely is any compromise perfect. The Presiding Officer and I have been involved in enough compromises over the years to know if, in the end, neither side is fully satisfied with the compromise, maybe we struck a pretty good balance, and I think that is the case here.

But the point of the Bureau is to put the consumer first, and I will be the first to admit that there is no such thing as a perfect law. I assume my colleagues who are here and back in their offices and at committee hearings would agree with that. If there are aspects to Dodd- Frank that can be tweaked and approved, we ought to do that. But at the end of the day, we must put financial protection of consumers above our disagreements and our personal preferences.

The longer we continue to constrain the Bureau by denying it a leader and only discussing the structural changes that some Members would like to see made, the greater the disservice to consumers across America. The Bureau's authority was created so that it would not just be limited to banks since those institutions are already regulated, as

are credit unions and bank-holding companies. The Bureau's authority is supposed to extend to nonbanks as well, nonbanks which provide a form of financial service, such as payday lenders and debt collectors.

Prior to Dodd-Frank, nonbank entities were subject to little, if any, Federal supervision. Yet their reach and use across our country is widespread. As a result, many unscrupulous actors were able to exploit loopholes and harm American consumers. That is not to say all payday lenders or all debt collectors are unscrupulous actors. They are not. They are not all out there to exploit the loopholes. But too many of them do, and they do so without the kind of supervision they should receive.

However, without a Director in place, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau does not have the authority to supervise these very entities. This drastically undermines the very spirit in which the Bureau was created. It is not just the consumers who are harmed but our small community institutions as well. These community institutions want to see a level playing field where they can compete and where everyone plays by the rules. Consumers and businesses need certainty, and they need predictability. I hear that almost every day, especially from businesses. Without certainty, without predictability in a whole wide range of areas, we will continue to see our economic recovery hindered.

I think I have shared with the Presiding Officer a story that is germane today to this discussion, and it goes back to 7 or 8 years ago when I was working on clean air legislation to try to reduce the emission of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, mercury, carbon dioxide, issues that we debate from time to time in the Committee on Environment and Public Works where we serve.

I remember one day we had seven or eight utility CEOs in from across the country to discuss the merits of different legislative proposals. Finally, one crusty old CEO of a utility down south said to me: Look, here is what you should do. You should figure out what the rules are going to be, use some common sense, give us a reasonable amount of time to comply with them, and get out of the way. That is what he said. I thought those were words of great wisdom, and not just for clean air legislation but also today.

We cannot afford to drag this disagreement out in perpetuity. We must empower this Bureau to look out for Main Street as was envisioned with the creation of the Bureau. We may have to look at the idea of a commission-based structure, and I would love to sit down with my colleagues from the other side of the aisle and discuss that option if the former General Cordray's nomination continues to be blocked later this week.

Right now we have the ability to move forward and to stand by our words and by the spirit of the law. We need to look out for every American with a mortgage, credit card, and those looking to send their kids to college. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting Mr. Cordray's nomination. It is the right thing to do, and it is our opportunity to show the American consumers that we are putting them first, ahead of partisan politics, by governing as we were meant to do in the first place.

I see Senator Webb of Virginia has joined us on the Senate floor. I will close, before turning it over to him, on a little brighter note. It is a gloomy day in our Nation's Capital. It has been raining, sometimes pretty hard. When I was walking up here from the train station it was.

I want to go back and talk about the issue of uncertainty and lack of predictability. I think the greatest impediment to getting our modest economic recovery going and turning it into a robust economic recovery is to address so much of the uncertainty and lack of predictability. It revolves around a bunch of issues. Can we demonstrate to those who question our ability to find the middle to reach across the aisle? Can we demonstrate the ability to govern? Are we able to demonstrate through an approach much like the Bowles-Simpson Deficit Commission plan the ability to get us back on the right track in terms of reducing our debt?

What is going to happen with the health care law? Is it going to be deemed constitutional or unconstitutional? What about the Tax Code? What is going to happen in a year from now, and what will happen to all of these tax provisions that expire at the end of this month? There is a lack of certainty and a lack of predictability, and we need to deal with that.

I want to mention two or three promising signs before I close. We have new job numbers for the month of November. The unemployment rate dropped down to 8.6 percent. Before we stand and celebrate that, there are still a lot of people we know who don't have a job and are looking for a job. A lot of people stopped looking for a job, and that is one of the reasons that number has dropped.

Here is the good news: There were about 120,000 private sector jobs created last month. About 100,000 jobs were created the month before and roughly 200,000 jobs the month before that. So that is roughly 140,000 jobs per month. We are actually starting to see growth occurring not just over a couple of months, but now for well over a year there has been private sector job creation. It is not the numbers that we like, but it is in the right direction.

The other thing we are seeing is a regrowth and rebirth of revitalization occurring in the manufacturing sector of our economy. Some of you may know that we have something called a manufacturing index. If it sits at 50, it means the manufacturing sector is not growing, and it is not shrinking. I think it has been over 50 for about 25 consecutive months.

We are seeing a resurgence of manufacturing in this country, which encourages me to believe that what the President is trying to do, to double exports over a 5-year period of time, is not just a pipe dream. It is something that might just happen. It is aided by the three free- trade agreements that we passed in the last month or two.

On those happier notes, I want to say thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to talk about some leadership that is needed and the willingness to compromise if we cannot get Mr. Cordray confirmed this week.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, today is Delaware Day. Something very important for our State and our Nation occurred on December 7, 1787. Senator Coons is here. I ask him to take a moment and share with our colleagues what that was all about. What happened then at that Golden Fleece Tavern?

The First State.

The small wonder. Thirty of those guys who were there that day--I would like to say they were drinking hot chocolate. I am not sure what they were drinking at the Golden Fleece Tavern, but the outcome was a good one. For one whole week after that, Delaware was the entire United States of America. Who was next, Pennsylvania? Maybe Pennsylvania, maybe New Jersey. Then the rest followed and I think, for the most part, it turned out pretty well.

The Constitution that was ratified that day--the thing about it is that it is the most enduring Constitution of any nation on Earth, the most copied or emulated Constitution of any nation on Earth as well, and a living document that provides for us to change and update as time goes by. It is remarkable, the role we played in getting the ball rolling in this great country of ours.

I want to go back to July 1776, if I can. Not far away from the Golden Fleece Tavern, there was a guy named Caesar Rodney, who rode his horse. Does the Senator want to share that story?

If you look at the back of the Delaware coin, you might say why is Paul Revere on the back of that coin? Well, that is not Paul Revere, that is Caesar Rodney riding the horse from Dover to Philadelphia. For people who are familiar with Dover Air Force Base, where big planes come in--the C-5s and C-17s that fly all over the world--as you come in on the approach, the runway heading north- northeast to land, you are very close to flying over an old plantation house where a guy named John Dickinson used to live. There is a John Dickinson high school in Delaware, which was named after him. He was also a guy who was involved in the Constitutional Congress and also involved in the Declaration of Independence, and the penman of the Revolution. So if you think about it, there at the Golden Fleece Tavern, the Constitution was ratified. Caesar Rodney, from Dover, departing from not far from there, casts the tie-breaking vote for the Declaration of Independence, and the penman of the Revolution, growing up in what is now the Dickinson plantation. There is a lot of history there, especially for a State that doesn't have a national park.

Maybe we can do something about that with the Senator's help and that of Congressman Carney, and our colleagues in the Senate and the House--and maybe including the Presiding Officer from North Carolina. In closing, believe it or not, the economic value of national parks is actually charged for every one of our States.

The most visited sites in the United States among tourists from foreign countries are our national parks. The economic value to the State of North Carolina--I was told last year--from

their national parks was $700 million. Not bad.

Madam President, we call this the Delaware way. As my colleague from Delaware knows, whenever I run into people who have been married a long time--50, 60, 70 years--I ask them what is the secret to being married so many years. They give some funny answers, but they also give some very pointed answers. One of the best answers I have heard--and I hear it over and over--as the reason why they have been married such a long time is because of the two Cs. I say: What are the two Cs? They say, ``Communicate and compromise.''

I would suggest that is what we do pretty well in our State. It is not only good advice for creating an enduring marriage, but it would also be good advice for us in this body, in this town, to do a better job--both parties--at communicating and compromising. We show, I think every day, in our State, if we do those things, take that seriously, the result is pretty good. We could get a better result here if we keep that in mind.

With that, I think we have said our piece. It is Delaware Day, one more time, and may the spirit of Delaware and the Delaware way permeate this place as well.

I have enjoyed being with my friend and colleague in this colloquy.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. President, I am compelled to rise in opposition to this resolution which would block the

EPA's ``good neighbor'' clean air rule from being implemented.

Before I talk about the real-world impacts that would result if we block this new clean air rule, I would like to go back in time 21 years ago when this body debated the last major update to the Clean Air Act.

That day, we weren't debating how to weaken or delay our clean air laws, we were considering bipartisan legislation that would improve our clean air laws and make them stronger. Eighty-nine Senators approved the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, a Republican President, George Herbert Walker Bush, signed them into law, and we are all the better for it.

I believe we can protect our environment and grow our economy at the same time. It doesn't have to be one or the other. The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 are great examples of just that. For every dollar we have spent installing new pollution controls and cleaning up our air, we have seen a $30 return in reduced health care costs, better workplace productivity, and saved lives. In other words, for four decades fewer people have gotten sick and missed work because of the Clean Air Act.

Just last year, it is estimated that 160,000 lives were saved from the Clean Air Act protections in place today. Here is some more good news. Our economy didn't take a slide because of these protections either. Quite the opposite. Since former President Bush signed the bipartisan Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 into law, electricity rates have stayed constant, and our economy has grown by 60 percent.

Despite the successes, more needs to be done. We know more today than we did 20 or 30 years ago about how pollution impairs our health. We know even more about how pollution travels from one State to another. We know more about how to curb that pollution in ways that make sense and are cost effective.

My State of Delaware has made great strides in cleaning up its own air pollution--investing millions in clean air technology. Unfortunately, air pollution knows no State boundaries and easily drifts from State to State. Delaware, like many east coast States, sits at the end of what I call America's tailpipe. That means most of the pollution in Delaware isn't caused by sources in my State. It is caused mainly by sources in Ohio, Indiana, or other States in the Midwest. In fact, 90 percent of Delaware's air pollution comes from beyond our borders.

As Governor of Delaware, I could have shut down our entire State economy, and we would still have been out of attainment of public health standards. This is pollution we need our neighbors to clean up. Unfortunately, that hasn't always happened.

Sadly, many of our upwind neighbors have not invested heavily enough in new clean air technologies. Some States have even built taller smokestacks so the pollution would fall on neighboring States, keeping their air clean and making our air dirty. At the end of the day, downwind States can spend millions of dollars to clean up their act, but unless we require upwind States to make serious reductions, States like mine would not get much healthier and people will continue to get sick and die.

For all Delawareans and all the others who are living at the end of that tailpipe, I say enough is enough. The EPA and the courts agree. This is why the EPA has implemented this cross-State air pollution rule. This rule follows the intent and the direction of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. It ensures that all of us do our fair share to reduce air pollution.

That is the way it ought to be. Like my colleagues, I try to live my life by the Golden Rule, to treat other people the way I want to be treated. That is why this rule is fair. My State and neighboring States shouldn't have to suffer because other States aren't required to clean up their act at our expense.

Furthermore, even if we ignore the fairness and equity arguments for the cross-State air pollution rule, it is still a no-brainer because the cost-to-benefit ratio of these new protections is overwhelming. This rule will save up to 34,000 lives every year. That is roughly the number of people who fit into Fenway Park for a Red Sox game. All these great benefits will be negated if this resolution passes.

To my friends who are thinking about voting for this resolution, let me ask you this: What if the prevailing winds in this country blew instead of west to east, from east to west? What if those of us who live along the east coast, from Virginia to Maine, chose to operate older, dirty coal-fired electric plants? What if we built tall smokestacks that sent the harmful emissions coming from our plants upward into the air to be carried away by the winds from our regions only to end up in the air and breathed by people living in areas to our west? What if by operating these older, dirtier powerplants we lowered the cost of electricity along the east coast while raising it for our neighbors in the Midwest? What if by operating these older, dirtier powerplants we decreased the health care costs associated with dirty air for Americans living along the east coast while increasing health care costs for Americans living in the Midwest?

I will tell you what they would say. They would say it is unfair. They would say we shouldn't be able to get away with polluting their communities year after year. They would say somebody should right this wrong. They would say: Haven't you heard about the Golden Rule; that we should treat all others the way we want to be treated? They would say enough is enough.

Here are the facts. The technology exists to end this scourge of pollution. Utilities all around the country have already installed it. In doing so, they have put tens of thousands of people to work, including hundreds in my own State of Delaware. The utilities have the money. We have a trained workforce that wants to go to work. We just need to act.

A clean environment and a strong economy can go hand in hand. We don't have to choose between one or the other. Join me in defeating this proposal. Give your neighbors who live in our part of the country--give their kids and their grandparents--air to breathe that would not send them home from school or work or off to the emergency room and into a hospital or worse yet, take their lives.

Please join me and vote no against this motion to proceed to this resolution.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.