rise to 5.4 million lost days at school. you know why we have these fac facts? because those who were skeptical demanded that the e.p.a. do this study. so we did the study, e.p.a., and we found out extraordinary -- i would challenge, i mean, anybody in the senate to show me an agency that can boast of this kind of result. it is -- and it explains why almost 70% of the american people say to us, you know, keep your hands off the e.p.a. don't mess with success. let them do their job. let them protect our health. let them protect our kids' health. e.p.a. has a great record. they're up against the biggest, most powerful interests in this country. they are. you know, they took a full-page

ad yesterday, those big interests, stop the e.p.a. okay. i ask rhetorically, why would you stop an agency that is preventing the deaths of the american people? why would you stop an agency that has this kind of track record? so i'll close with this, there's a series of these amendments, the worst of which is the mcconnell. because the mcconnell amendment says forever more the e.p.a. can never ever, ever do anything to protect our people from carbon pollution. and it says never ever, ever can the e.p.a. set standards for tailpipe emissions in automobiles. that's what it does. the american lung association, the american public health association, the american thoracic society, the asthma and allergy foundation of america, the physicians for social

responsibility, the trust for america's health, this is what they say about the mcconnell amendment. "the mcconnell amendment would strip away sensible clean air act protections that safeguard americans and their families from air pollution." who do we stand with? this is the question we all ask in our campaigns. who's side are you on? who do you stand with? so i've made a decision. a strong one. i'm going to stand with the kids. i'm going to stand with our families. i'm going to stand with these leaders who are working day and night just to protect our health. i'm not going to stand with a right-wing ideological amendment. i'm not going to stand with amendments that are mcconnel mcl light. because if it isn't broken, don't fix it. the e.p.a. -- no agency is

perfect, we know that. the e.p.a. is not perfect. but the record is clear, the actions by the e.p.a., along with local and state officials have saved countless lives. and if we leave our hands off of it, they'll continue to have a stellar record. i'll be back on the floor when these amendments come up for a vote. i just hope and pray that people will think about this very hard before they cast their votes. thank you very much, mr. president. and i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i have 12 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval and the majority and minority leaders and i ask unanimous consent that

these asks be -- requests be agreed to, these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: thank you very much. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

today -- this morning our former national security adviser, chairman of the joint chiefs of

staff and secretary of state, collin powell, will visit the white house and i expect they will discuss the current mission against the qadhafi dictatorship. when we look at this mission, i think it's important to review the wise words of general powell. in his wemtion in considering -- recommendation in considering any military mission for the united states in her coming years. when we thinkabout his virginiae it's been called the powell doctrine. and it was memorialized in a 1992 article called "u.s. forces, the challenges ahead." this article became known very much as the powell doctrine, with two editions that the public and press often put on his thoughts about military missions for the united states. in short, the powell doctrine includes answers to a number of questions that any president, secretary of state, or secretary

of defense should answer prior to or at the very least during a military mission involving the united states. those questions are, as follows: is the political objective we seek important, clearly defined and understood? next, have all other nonviolent policy means failed? third, will military force achieve the objective? at what cost? next, have the gains and risks been analyzed? and finally, how might the situation that we seek to alter, once it is altered by force, develop further? and what might be the consequences? added to this, the press and public have offered two more additions oftenly called part of the powell doctrine. can we hit the enemy with overwhelming force? and can we demonstrate the

support of the american people for the mission, as shown by a vote of the united states congress? when we look at the current libyan mission and apply the powell doctrine, we see a mixed picture, one that should be fixed by a rigid application of its questions and answers to them reported back to the american people. now, i support our mission in libya and i think the president's address to the nation was a good start. but i think we would serve our troops well if we proceeded to answer the powell doctrine questions rigidly. first, is the political objective that we seek to achieve important, clearly defined, and understood? i think the end of the qadhafi regime is important. i think the protection of civilians from an impending massacre is also important. and i think it would be clearly

understood by the american people. but in practical terms, we cannot protect, for example, the people of benghazi unless we stop the killer. and the only way to stop him is to disarm him and remove him from power. i think that objection would be be-- be-- or objective would be clearly understood, would be welcomed by our european allies and would bring about the long-term protection of the civilian community by which the administration first justified this action. secondly, have all nonviolent policy means failed? there is a 30-year record of diplomacy with regard to that libyan dictatorship. moammar qadhafi has shown himself to be one of the most violent and corrupt and at times even crazy leaders from the continent of africa. while the united states has had difficulties with him for three

decades, while secretary gates has referred to the imposition of jersey barriers here in washington, d.c., as early as 1983 when there were reports of potential qadhafi threats to our president -- at the time president reagan -- it took several decades for the rest of the world to lose patience with moammar qadhafi. the decision by the united nations and arab league and surrounding nations, not just to support resolutions in international forum but then for some of those nations, numbering over a dozen, to take military action, shows that finally the international community has broken with moammar qadhafi and feels that diplomacy of nonviolent means can no longer work with regard to managing him and the threat he poses. will military force achieve the objective? and i think it can. but here the situation is somewhat mixed. if air power is only applied to

a combat air patrol to enforce a no-fly zone, there is the potential for libyan armor and artillery to overwhelm what is a very discouringed and -- disorganized and rag-tag civilian army that initially made gains against qadhafi, then lost them and stood at the gates of benghazi, then retook key communities and came to the outskirts of sirte, then resort nearly all of those gains this week. when we look at how we should support the end of this dictatorship and the final protection of civilians in libya, we should understand that the provision of close air support, to take out libyan armor and artillery, is essential to this mission and that we should develop the means to command, control, and direct this effort. i'm concerned that today i'm

unsure, maybe uninformed but unsure as to how the close air support mission is handled. originally when this mission was undertaken, it was falling under the command and control of standard u.s. military doctrine. since libya is part of the africom combatant area of operations, this area of operation, as i understood it, fell under the command of the president of the united states to equity simplify of defense to general carter hamm, commander of africa. as the united states then moved to internationalize the military effort, it sought to transfer command to the north atlantic treaty organization, nato, and its commander, who also happens to be an american, admiral stavridis, who stands not only ages the commander of the u.s. forces in europe but as the supreme commander of nato.

i understand that the administration has put forward a task force to be commanded, potentially, by a senior canadian general who would command this operation. i understand that diplomacy went we will with regard to the command of the -- well with regard to the command of the antiair operation in this endeavor. but negotiations with regard to the provision of close air support were much more difficult. today i'm not exactly sure who is in command of those operations. is it general hamm at africom is it admiral stavridis as the supreme allied commander of europe? my hope is that we identify one key allied commander who is not just in charge of combat air patrol enforcing a no-fly zone but also close air support to ensure that the rebels are not defeated to a trite armor and

artillery from moamma moammar qs army and to achieve a lasting victory which in my mind could only mean the end of the qadhafi dictatorship. i am particularly concerned today about key weapons systems that are available to the united states and not to other countries. particularly the a-10 wart hog and the warship. these are critical assets critical to take out libyan tanks and artillery. if we internationalize this conflict and, as i've heard potential talk of removing combat platforms of the united states from executing close air support missions, my question is, would ac-130 gunships and a-10's be available for these missions? they are uniquely effective and would make this conflict shorter and more likely end to victoriously and my hope is that they would continue to be provided to the allied commander so that the progress could move

forward on eventually ending this conflict. general powell also asked that we estimate the cost of this operation. my understanding this morning is that this operation has cost roughly about $500 million and would likely entail greater costs if it lasts for a long time. we should estimate this cost, and we should also tell the congress how we're going to pay for it. t-my understanding right now is that the administration will not seek a supplemental and will take this out of the core budget of the department of defense. what implications does this have for procurement, for military construction, for pay and benefits, and for other critical operations of the united states led in order of importance: the afghanistan mission, the iraq mission, and the plus dozen ships that are now providing the critical humanitarian relief and

nuclear recovery of our allies in japan? general powell also asks us to ask the question, have the gains and risks been thoroughly analyzed? well, they may not have been thoroughly analyzed, i am comfortable to the administration's answers to these questions. had qadhafi taken benghazi, had he defeated the rebel government, i think he would have thefn moved over time to destablize the new guest in -- the flu government in egypt. an end to the camp david peace accords would nut jeopardy the operations of the suez canal. it would endanger israel, and i think the administration was wise to see a tremendous additional risk had qadhafi won this war. now, at least we know that the rebels are likely not to be defeated but a stalemate is also not in our interest, and i would hope that we would recall the advice of general sherman who said that we should make this as

rough and as difficult as possible to the enemy, so that, ironically, in most humanitarian terms, it ends and it ends on the terms of the united states, our allies and the new rebel government. powell also asks us how we might see the situation once it is altered by force to further develop and what consequences are there. my shop that we would quickly -- my hope is that we would quickly follow the direction of the french government and recognize the gentleman legal government to -- the jalil government to see that government as a growing partner for the united states and allies so that the people of libya would see who their potential transitional leaders are and so that we would have clear political authority for them. my hope is that a u.s. envoy would deal directly with the jalil government and that we would follow the suit of our allies and we would make sure that then there is clear lines of authority, not just on the

military side for combat patrol and close support but also for the leaders of libya. added to that are two other points: can we hit the enemy with overwhelming force? i strongly support the administration's limitation on no combat boots on the ground. i think that is a wise decision by the united states, and i think that we can still direct terrific, tremendous, overwhelming and decisive force to end this conflict as quickly as possible. my understanding is that other allied governments may not be so completely constricted on their ability to provide, especially the critical role of forward air krollers who will -- controllers who will direct air power to the most important targets to eliminate the libyan military. my hope is though, that we bring all combat set as to bear of the

united states and our allies so that we quickly eliminate especially qadhafi's armor and artillery force and so that he comes to a quick end on the military battlefield. finally, the powell doctrine often has included a final point, which is can the support of the american people be demonstrated? and i think in this case we have fallen short. while the congress and while the senate has adopted a resolution calling for a no-fly zone in libya, cosponsored by myself and the senior senator from nother -- or senior to me, the senator from nother, senator men nen derksz i think this is -- senator menendez, i think this is inaadequate to support what our troops are doing over libya. i think it is clear that our mission is sustained and that the critical will of the united states is enhance fundamental we could formally express support

for what our men and women are doing overseas. this has been done in some pretty tough conflicts in the past, particularly afghanistan and iencht and for this conflict, the administration should call for a resolution of approval and the elected representatives of the american people should vote. in general, i support the president's policy and would vote for this resolution, but i think it is essential for those who are on the field to understand that the congress is formally with them in a vote called to cast up or down for this mission and for all of its unintended consequences, potential up side, or down side. as colin powell leaves the white house today, i hope he carries this advice. i hope that all of us recall the key points that he laid out. i think he has wisely put forward for past presidents and this president a key checklist

that all of us, as citizens or those of us who are senators, as policy-makers, can have in reviewing the doctrine. in the end, the powell doctrine is a key easy dheklist to use to make sure we reavis the call for military action until absolutely necessary. but once necessary, that we hit the enemy with everything that we got. that we make the conflict as short and therefore as humanitarian as possible. that we demonstrate the full support of the american people for the men and women of the army, navy, and air force. and that we give them a clear mission with one allied commander. i hope the president gets this advice directly from the general today and i hope that the president and the senate follows it. and with that, madam president, i yield back and would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from come come. mr. you'r udall: madam presidene we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: correct. mr. udall: i ask unanimous i ass consent the quorum call be vitiated. i also ask unanimous consent to address the senate for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you, madam president. madam president, i'm here again to urge the senate to free up capital for small businesses to allow them to grow, expand and begin hiring again. now, unfortunately there's a burdensome federal regulation

that currently limits the number of small business loans credit unions can make to family entrepreneurs. credit unions have money to lend and they know small businesses in their communities and they know that these businesses desperately want to jump-start our economy by taking out new loans to grow their economy -- their companies, i should say, and hire more workers. two weeks ago, i came to this very floor to ask consideration of a bipartisan amendment, senate amendment 242, which i offered today underlying bill to raise this cap that i've alluded to on small business loans. the amendment would simply get government out of the way and allow credit unions to increase small business lending in their communities without costing american taxpayers a dime. and i want to repeat that, madam president, would not cost american taxpayers a single dime. now, when i've spoken on the

senate floor previously in support of this amendment and asked for the amendment to be considered, the chair of the small business committee, senator landrieu, objected to my request and indicated that senator johnston, the new chairman of the senate banking committee, opposed the amendment. and i want to clear up some misinformation that the american people might have heard at that time and thank senator landrieu removing from the "congressional record" her assertion that chairman johnson opposed my amendment. i understand that as the new chairman of the banking committee, senator johnson has an interest in revisiting this legislation, which i negotiated with the treasury department, the national credit union administration, and the previous chairman of the banking committee, senator chris dodd. but i would like to make it clear in the "congressional record" that chairman johnson does not, in fact, oppose this amendment. and i also would like to take this opportunity to clear up some confusion related to the $30 billion small business lending fund established as a

part of the small business jobs act which arose when i tried to call up my amendment two weeks ago. as i pointed out in my original remarks, banks were given access to the small business lending fund but credit unions have not been allowed to expand their small business lending because of the very cap on loans my amendment addresses. in our discussion here on the senate floor, it was pointed out to me that credit unions had been asked if they wanted to participate in the small business lending fund but that the credit union industry had turned down that invitation. i was unaware of such an offer and i appreciate being told of it, but i would also point out that unlike many banks, most credit unions do not need extra capital in order to make loans, which is what the small business lending fund intended to provi provide. rather, like i've said, most credit unions currently have capital to lend to small businesses but unfortunately they are being prevented from making those loans due to the

arbitrary cap limiting their small business lending to no more than 12.25% of their asse assets. so it's no wonder that credit unions didn't have an interest in the $30 billion bank fund, because they don't need the money and couldn't use it anyway because of this burdensome cap that's put on small business loans. so, madam president, i appreciate the opportunity here today to maybe -- maybe has arisen around confusion regarding my amendment, senate amendment 242. i thank the small business committee chair and ranking member for their great work on the underlying bill, which is very important to my home state of colorado. now, i really wish my amendment would get a vote today, but regardless of what happens today, i'm going to continue to work with chairman landrieu, ranking member snowe, and the rest of my colleagues to find innovative means to free up credit for small businesses in a responsible way.

and on a final note, madam president, you hail from a great state that has a significant banking and credit union sectors both. we know that they don't always see eye to eye, which is the root objection to my amendment. they still manage to operate side by side to serve their community's credit neevmentdz well -- creditneeds. why? because they both make up the fabric of america, and continue to grow our economy is simply the way we do business in the united states of america. and i'd like to highlight that spirit which is in stark contrast to the kind of divisive poll that's a have been brewing in america. one that further disagrees, draws ideological lines in the sand, and, frankly, sows disrespect at the expense of shared interest and

disrespectful prosperity. and the american people are seeing that today. there's a bulk of minority outside this very capitol demanding acrimony and a better approach from members of congress, which i believe, and many of us believe in the end, which will further disable our capacity to get our economy back on its feet. now, while this is happening outside, many of us here are inside doing the people's business. we treat each other with respect and we're here working on a bill to help small businesses invest in r&d and we're also negotiating a compromise to keep our government running. that's the american way i've always known and i applaud my colleagues who remain committed to working together. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor.

mr. udall: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. durbin: i ask consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, i rise today to speak about the issue of swipe fees. most people don't know what a swipe fee is, but it's almost part of your daily life. the next time you reach into your wallet or purse and pull out a piece of plastic to pay for something, like my debit card here, and present it at a retailer or a restaurant or hotel or a gas station, understand that what is happening in that transaction, there are several things that are not even visible. what is happening in that transaction is you are paying

that merchant and your bank is going to honor that payment on your account from your debit card, but then the bank and credit card company are going to charge the merchant for the transaction. now, in days gone by, if you paid in cash, obviously, there was no fee involved. if you paid with a check, which was done for a long time and is done less and less now, there were pennies charged to process the check. whether the face amount of the check was $1 or $100, pennies to pay for the process through the system. now a much more efficient system is being used with debit cards where you are actually withdrawing money from your own account to the credit of the restaurant or the retailer. and, unfortunately, there is a fee involved charged to the merchant or retailer called the swipe fee. accurately called the swipe fee. because what has happened is these major companies, visa and

mastercard and the banks that issue their cards have established how much each transaction will pay in this swipe fee or interchange fee. and the federal reserve just recently did an analysis and found something interesting. they found that the average swipe fee across america is 44 cents for each transaction. then they said, well, what does it actually cost to process this debit account movement of money from one place to another? and the commonsense was 10 cents -- and the answer was 10 cents or less. so there is a substantial charge in the millions of transactions that go on every single day and it has a direct impact on the place you do business. it means that there is an added cost to the retailer or merchant that you're doing business with for the use of this debit card that goes beyond the actual cost

to the company and the bank involved. well, you say to yourself, well, that's business, isn't it? if you're going to take these cards and you want the convenience of using these cards, you've obviously negotiated 44 cents and that's the way it goes. wrong. there is no negotiation involved. the retailers and merchants literally have no bargaining power in what that fee will be. and over the years that swipe feet or interchange fee has been creeping higher and higher. for many businesses across america it is a second or third most expensive item in doing business. that's right. beyond the cost of personnel and workers and beyond the rental and utilities paid or health insurance comes the swipe fee. the fee is charged by credit card companies for the use of debit cards and credit cards. so what we said last year while we were debating financial reform was this price fixing by

the credit card companies, and there are two giants, visa and mastercard, that control 80% of the credit cards in america, these swipe fee charged by them should be reasonable and proportionate to their actual cost. they shouldn't be able to force feed a swipe fee across america. and we said to the federal reserve, take a look at this and try to figure out a way to establish a reasonable proportional fee since the credit card companies and the big banks are not going to negotiate it. they're in the process of doing it. and we also said that any bank or credit union with less tha than $10 billion in assets will not be affected by this. our object was to make sure that the hometown banks, the local banks, the local credit unions could continue to charge interchange fees without any type of oversight by the federal

government. some people said, well, why didn't you include them? well, we tried to give them an opportunity to continue to do business because i think, frankly, those that are closest in the communities are the ones that we ought to be mindful of and protective of. perhaps i have a little prejudice involved too. the biggest banks in america, the top 1% of banks in america are the ones that do almost 60% of this credit card business. i'm talking about the same wall street banks that ended up getting a bailout from the federal government to the tunes of hundreds of billions of dollars. i don't have a lot of sympathy for them. they made some stoop i had mistakes -- stoop i had mistakes. we shouldn't create an opportunity for them to fix prices when it comes to merchants and retailers across america. well, this passed last year with a strong bipartisan vote of 64. and the biggest banks in america and the biggest credit cards -- credit card companies in america

have been working nonstop ever since to stop this from going into effect. they have poured more resources into this effort than i've seen. and i've been around this place for a while. they want to stop this because they hate swipe fee reform like the devil hates holy water. for them it is a dramatic loss of money. how much? each month -- each month in america these swipe fees generate $1.3 billion -- $1.3 bi generate $1.3 billion -- $1.3 bi llion for the banks. at the expense of merchants and small businesses and large businesses too, for that matter, across america. but not just at their expense. these swipe fees are being paid every time a person uses a debit card or credit card to pay the government -- to pay a university. to make a charitable

contribution. now, that's a reality. and $1.3 billion a month, most of it going to the biggest banks and credit card companies in america they believe is worth fighting for. and so the fight has been joined. and senators have come to the floor and introduced an amendment to postpone this swipe fee reform for two years. two years to study it. let me see, 24 months time times $1.3 billion. over $30 billion they want in a handout to the biggest banks and credit card companies in america. i don't think that's fair. it's sure not fair to the small businesses that have asked me to introduce this and asked me to continue to fight for it. it's not fair to these businesses or their customers. you see, our efforts are not just supported by the businesses, they're supported by the consumer federation of america, the largest consumer advocacy group in the united states. they understand that if you're

dealing with a competitive business -- let's assume you have gas stations across the street from one another and you make more profitability at one gas station, they can lower prices and be more competitive with the gas station across the street. the same isn't true when it comes to big banks and credit cards. when it comes to credit cards we don't have a monopoly, but a duopoly, two companies, very little competition between them. there is a lot of competition in small town america. some people ask my tackle some of these issues that involve the big banks and credit card companies and others. they say, don't you understand that these operations that you're fighting are pretty large in terms of their resources and their political might. there's truth to that. the banks are a $13 trillion industry in america, according to the american bankers association, $13 trillion. and last year the banking industry in america made ove

over $87 billion in profits. visa and mastercard were spun off from big banks a few years ago and now are multibillion dollar companies that control nearly 80% of the payment card market. people tell me these financial industry giants have unlimited resources and they're going to fight when there's a billion dollars a month on the table. well, i don't think the people of illinois sent me or sent from their own states other senators to hand the keys to this country over to the big banks and credit card companies. they sent me here to make sure that wall street banks follow the same rules of the road that man street businesses follow every single day. there's nothing wrong with fees charged for services provided as long as those fees are transparent and are set in a competitive market environment. don't tell me you're for a free market and then say, but visa and mastercard can fix prices.

don't tell me you're for a free market and then say, those prices that they fix have to be concealed and hidden from the public. when markets are characterized by transparency, competition, and choice, consumers get a benefit. but consumers don't benefit when fees are hidden, changed without warning or set by agreement between competitors. sadly, that describes many of the fees that banks and card companies have charged in recent years. we passed the credit card act in 2009. and then the dodd-frank wall street reform act last year. and the consumer protection act was also included. we targeted many of the hidden pres that -- fees that consumers pay in america, and if we don't do it, ladies and gentlemen, if the united states senate doesn't do it, i will say to my colleagues, it won't be done. these powerful economic business entities in america need to be watched closely. don't take my word for it.

take the word of those who analyze the recession which we're dealing with. left to their own devices, they will go to extremes when it comes to profit taking. and that's what's happening when it comes to these big banks and credit card companies today. if we don't stand up for consumers and small businesses right here on the floor of the senate, shame on us. who else is going to do it? by making fees transparent and helping to inform consumers, our laws will help the financial services market work better for all americans. this swipe fee or interchange fee reform amendment that i added to the dodd-frank bill also addressed an anticompetitive market failure in the debit card system. for years the banking industry has engaged in a he could losive -- exclusive practice, they have allowed visa and mastercard to fix the interchange fee every time a debit card is swiped, the banks get the fees, but they don't set

the fees, their friends at visa and mastercard set the fee that's will be charged. this is price fixing pure and simple by visa and mastercard on behalf of thousands of banks. and this price fixing is currently unregulated. of course every bank in the country is going to tell you that the interchange system is working just fine senator, that's because with senatorially fixed interchange rates banks don't have to worry about competition much each bank knows the bank down the street is getting the same fee they are. there are two fundamental problems with visa and mastercard fixing of these interchange rates and swipe fees. first, centralized rate fixing gives the hard-issuing banks no incentive to manage their operational and fraud costs efficiently. all banks in the visa network are guaranteed the same visa fixed -- price fixed interchange rate whether they're efficient or not. there's no competition and the

fees literally subsidize inefficiency. second, because visa and mastercard, the credit card giants, control nearly 80% of the debit card market and merchants can't realistically refuse to accept them, visa and mastercard have the incentive to constantly raise interchange rates to encourage banks to issue more of their cards. so fee rates keep going up and the merchants are helpless to do anything about it. i have heard so many speeches on the floor of the united states senate here about our love for small business, and we should. it is the backbone of the economy of america. this interchange fee goes to the basic survival of small business across america. and if this senate is going to decide that it's more important to protect the big banks and credit card companies than small business, shame on us. and we should accept the reality that it means that these small businesses will struggle, will not be as profitable, will not

hire as many people. can that make us a better country? can that help us out of a recession? merchants can't say "no" to visa or mastercard because of the market power of these two credit card giants and because swipe fees are fixed by the networks. a merchant doesn't even have the option of negotiating a better deal. so merchants are stuck with ever-increasing swipe fees passed along to the consumers in the quoft of gas -- in the cost of gasoline and groceries. consumers pay for the debit interchange system to the tune of $16 billion a year. do you know what the interchange fee is in canada, charged by visa and mastercard, the same fee i've been talking about here, through the banks in canada? zero. there's no interchange fee. you know what it is in europe? a fraction of what it is in the united states. now why is that the case? why would these credit card giants say that they can't

survive oversight of their interchange fees in the united states and charge zero in canada and pennies in europe? because the canadian government came to them and said, we are not going to let you rip off our small businesses. we will regulate you. they said, never mind. we won't charge one in canada. in europe the same thing happened. if we are silent, exactly the saim oppose -- exactly the opposite will occur. some people out there apparently trust visa and mastercard to price-fix in a fair and benevolent way. we don't see the need for reform. if you believe that the giant credit card networks can be trusted to fix interchange prices in a way that's fair for banks, merchants and consumers, then you should be fine with the status quo. that is exactly what the amendment coming before us will do. it will postpone for two years and put into a study this issue.

well, we should study things before we act on them. that's for sure. but let's look at the record. we've had nine different congressional hearings on this issue, and three separate studies already. we've studied this one to death. what the banks and credit card companies want us to do is to keep on stiewdzing so that they can collect $1.3 billion every single month. that's what their strategy is. i don't place my trust in visas and mastercard, and i'm not alone. last year a strong bipartisan majority in congress said, we better stand up for congress and retailers and consumers. and we passed this law. and now the banks and credit card companies are pulling out all the stops. i learned yesterday that chase, which is one of the major issuers of these debit cards across america, sent a letter to their customers in a number of states and said, you know, if you don't repeal the durbin amendment, we're going to end up in a position where we won't be

able to give you all of the rewards which we're offering you on your debit and credit card. well, first, this just relates to debit cards, which don't carry the big reward programs. and, secondly, this kind of veiled threat from these credit card companies should not be taken seriously by any consumer across america. the last time we had credit card reform, we unfortunately waited months before it became law. the credit card companies saw it coming. so what did they do? they dramatically raised their interest rates on consumers across americadured that period of time. zoo expect any favors -- don't expect any favors from this industry. if we do not regulate the credit card industry and the banks that issue these cards, trust me, the consumers will continue to lose time and time again. and as for chase, i don't think they're going to be any -- there are going to be any poppy flowers sold on their behalf on any street corners.

in i recall correctly, they had a 48% increase in profits over the last year. they're doing quite well. now it is time to give small businesses and consumers across america a break. congress said if banks are going to let screes is a and mastercard fix the interchange rates, they must be reasonable and proportionate. reasonable and proportionate. that's narrowly targeted reform through the federal reserve. the new law will provide a constraint on ever-rising interchange fees that the current broken market does not provide. given this job to the federal reserve. they put out draft rule making and are slgt comments from across the country. chairman bernanke called me and said, they needed an additional few weeks to come out with the rule that will go into effect in july of this year. i understand it. i want him to do his best. i want him to follow what this law says, excepting credit unions, community banks are less

than $10 billion in assets. the fed is taking this job seriously. i am glad they are. the fed knows that many small banks are concerned that the reform might affect them, even though the law clearly chements them. last week -- clearly exempts them. last week chairman beer -- last week baron bernanke said he understands their concern. we don't need another study. a study is an excuse for a delay, an excuse for credit card companies and the biggest banks in america to take $1.3 balance month out of the economy and away from small businesses. i want my colleagues to know there is broad support for debit interchange reform. i've received many letters in recent days from individuals, small businesses, and organizations that support reform. now, i will readily concede that the big-box retailers are also benefited by this. i am not trying to hide that. that's fafnlgt bu fact.

this has been generate by a lot of local people and local businesses. let me tell you, this is hardball as far as the big banks and credit card companies are concerned. i happen to mention that i was brought to this issue four or five years ago by a good friend of mine, very conservative gentleman who has been very successful in downstate illinois named rich neiman. he's expanded in all the midwest. he and i agree on a lost political issues. but i always turn to him when i have a business issue because i know he will give me an honest analysis. rich told me when he started accepting plastic at his grocery stores, it went from just a small number of transactions to now almost half the transraksz with plastic. they're killing bhee this interchange fee. the credit card companies and debit card companies are charging him these fees and he has no voice or bargain in the

process. they charge whatever they want to charge and he pays t as a man who is trying to create jobs in small-town america, i thought he had the right approach to this. they should be able to recover their reasonable, proportionate cost for using a debit card. but why should they be allowed to penalize a business like rich's. we will, i said this publicly a couple days ago and not surprisingly, some folks on the other side decided to go after and attack rich neiman as a businessman. i am going to stand with him. from my point of view, he is a good man. i don't think he votes for a lost democrats. i hope once in a while #e might vote for me. but notwithstanding that, i respect him so much. and i'm sorry that he had to take this beating in the press from the other side. he can take it, though. he's been a tough guy who stades stood up for his family and business all his life. on march 18 i received a letter from the american council on education, mr. president. and nine of the national associations representing colleges and universities -- here's what they said.

"debit card swipe fees have been a hidden expense for students and families paying for college for which they receive no benefit. as a result of the law enacted last year, the federal reserve's proposed rule, we believe colleges and universities will see reduced debit card costs will be able to pass on to students through lower costs as we will as increased resources for institutional grant aid and student services." you don't think about t you think about gas stations. but the fact is students use plastic for everything. and the universities and colleges end up paying these swipe fees to the big banks and the credit card companies and debit card companies as a result. march 15, i got letter from the consumer federation of america. some of the folks on the other side said, this will never help consumers. these businesses are going to take all the savings that would otherwise go to the big banks and credit card companies and they're going to just take those and go home. well, i disagree and so does the consumer federation of america. here's what they said on march 15. "the current interchange system

is uncompetitive, nontransparent, and harmful to consumers. c.f.a. does not support delaying implementation of the new law," which is what the amendment coming to the floor today suggests. march 15 i received a letter from the consumer group public citizen and u.s. pirg here's what they said. "the durbin amendment was designed to curb anticompetitive practices in the payment card market. we do not support legislation calling for delay of the durbin swipe fee amendment." yesterday i received a letter from americans for financial reform. a coalition of over 250 flat, state, and local groups including consumers, civil righted, investor, retiree, labor, religious, and business groups. mr. president, here's what they said. from a consumer point of view, the current interchange system is not defensible. feeble competition in the payment card marketplace has led to unjustifiably high debit interchange fees that the poorest americans, generally cash customers, are required to

subsidize at the story and at the pump. we oppose efforts to delay implementation of the durbin amendment through congressional action." they want to stop this rule before it is issued. because they're afraid that once it is issued and once people realize the savings to business and consumers across america, they'll never go back. so they are pulling it on trying to move this amendment as quickly as possible to stop the federal reserve from issuing the rule which the law requires them to issue. on march 17 the hispanic institute sent me a letter. "16 countries and the european union regulate swipe fees and their experience demonstrates that regulation benefits consumers in lower fees and lower costs of goods. there is no evidence that swipe fee regulation will lead to an increase in other consumer fees." the national small business association -- and i said, we spend more time on the senate venerating -- senate have en

vatting small business anything other than our troops. "the durbin amendment and the proposed fed rule are beneficial to america's small businesses. further delay and ea and another big bank handout are not." i also received a letter from 185 state and national state trade associations representing 2.7 million stores and 50 million employees. let me say at the outset, the coalition i'm representing is not nearly as powerful or as large politically as the big banks and the credit card companies. we can't match them in terms of their political power, the number of lobbyists they hire, the number of letters they send and all the rest. for the most part, they represent a lot of small businesses who are trying their best to get fair treatment. "we have roaptedly sought to negotiate with the card companies to reform this broken marnlgt and bring savings to our

customers. 15 years later, we have concluded that normal market forces cannot and do not work and a broken market with price-fixing with banks controlled by a duopoly." they urge congress to oppose any efforts to delay swipe fee reform. united food and commercial workers. the union which i used to belong to when i was growing up. here's what they whroat and said. "delaying swipe fee reform will also delay the creation of thousands of jobs each year that would result from reduced interchange fees. this reform is long overdue for working americans everywhere." the national community pharmacist association, the national association of chain drug stores sent me a letter and said, "we request any assistance you can provide in ensuring the timely completion of the final regulations and enforcement of the durbin amendment." the national association of college stores and 20 state associations wrote and said, "credit and debit purchases account for more than $1 00 million annual eyely in

interchange fees paid by college bookstores and their student and parent customers." let me repeat, mr. president. $100 million a year paid by colleges students and their student and parent customers. convection ssessive swipe fees that would otherwise be returned to students through lower prices are being misdirected toward credit card companies and large banks. every month of delay means higher costs for students and parents at a time when schools are being asked to do more with less funding." i'd like to ask unanimous consent these letters be included in the congress on at this point. -- in the "congressional record" tirpt. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i know what i am a up against here. you don't take on chase and all the big banks in america, the ones that have the lion's share of these debit card. you don't take on vice is a and mastercard and not get siewtd up for battle. that is real battle but it is a darn important battle and it is going to test yoafnedz the

wisdom or justice of this proposal, it is going to test who owns the united states senate. is this a senate that is willing to stand up for small business across america? is this a senate that is willing to say we'll fight for consumers even at the expense of the profits of the banks and credit card companies? i think consumers across america know which side we should be on. and i hope we will be. we were last year with 64 senators, democrats and republicans, joining to stand up for small businesses and large businesses alike, retailers and merchants. i know the big banks and credit card companies have enormous resources and i know they have a reach in every direction. i know they're running commercials, sending an army of lobbyists to capitol hill. they have allies in the united states snavmentment i know they will try to pull out all the stops. i want my colleagues to know that i think main street is worth standing up for. certainly when this comes to

their fights with wall street. small businesses, consumers, universities, labor unions, and merchants are sick and tired of the banking industry's tricks and traps and hidden fees. they want fees that they can see and they want them set up in competition, not fixed by credit card companies. they want the wall street banks to play by the same rules of the road that the main street businesses play by every single day and so do i, and i hope the senate does as well. i urge my colleagues not to let the big banks and credit card companies avoid accountability for two more years. in the name of a study, do not give a $30 billion handout to the biggest banks and credit card companies in america and that's exactly what the amendment pending on the floor will do. do not delay interchange reform. do not delay swipe fee reform. and don't give those banks another multibillion-dollar handout with no strings attach attached.

i urge my colleagues to let the federal reserve do the job we sent their way. let them move forward with the important process of swipe fee reform. on behalf of businesses and merchants all across america, they're counting on the senate to be on their side, to help them in reaching profitability and making sure that their savings are passed along to consumers, and in being the number-one engine for the creation of new jobs in america. our question is, whose side are you on? i'm on the side of small business and main street, i hope my colleagues will be as well. and, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i enjoy the previous speaker's presentation. mr. president, i come to the floor today to talk to you about the ongoing negotiations between the white house, speaker boehn boehner, and my colleagues here in the senate regarding the appropriations for the current fiscal year. since the beginning of the 112th congress, the house and senate have been trying to find common ground to -- to finish

the appropriations for fy 2011. and instead of reaching a long-term compromise, we've passed no fewer than six short-term continuing resolutions. not only does that disrupt our military men and women trying to serve, but also every other facet of government and people's lives throughout this great country. six funding resolutions that provide little in the way of responsibly addressing our staggering deficit, little certainty with our trading partners and absolutely no certainty whatsoever to the world market in terms of our ability to manage our nation's finances. you know, sadly, rather than reaching a workable, bipartisan solution responsibly addressing our staggering deficit, which is expected to reach $1.5 trillion this fiscal year, our leaders have repeatedly given us false choices between a continuing resolution proposal -- between continuing resolution proposals that either don't go far enough to reduce federal spending and

proposals that i feel establish the wrong priorities for me and my state and many other people as well throughout this chamber. and it -- and i feel in many of the choices that were made disproportionately affect low-income families and seniors. one of my senate colleagues, mr. president, if you remember, has characterized this process as -- and i quote -- "hobson's choice." and i agree. you know, the world right now is looking for two things. the world markets, the financial markets and the people that invest in this country are looking for two things. they're looking for to us do a lean-and-mean budget, you know, get our fiscal and financial priorities in line right now. that's what they're looking for. then they're also looking for to us tackle entitlements, whether it's, you know, military, obviously, social security and medicare, medicaid, et cetera. and then they'll know that, in fact, they can invest here. and when they do invest, it's -- their money's going to be safe and they're actually going to get a good return.

when pimco doesn't even do any more bonding with the united states of america, that's just a sign. when you have other countries throughout this world actually being downgraded by the bonding services, it's a problem. we're -- we're in this financial kind of roll to negativity and we have to get our physician dal and financial house in order -- fiscal and financial house in order right away. and i've been absolutely disappointed, and i know everybody listening in the gallery and everybody watching today has been absolutely disappointed by the pace of negotiations between the two chambers. i mean, we've done f.a.a. hey, great, i want to fly on a safe plane. i get it. we've also done the patent bill, and i want safe drugs, i want safe everything. i get. all right? now, we're on the small business. and the gentleman before me spoke. i get it. i'm on the committee, i'm happy to do it. but are you kidding me? i mean, really. we're in the biggest financial mess that we've ever been in and we're doing everything but dealing with the -- with the financial mess. so here we are, you know, we'r we're -- we're at a 14 -- when i

got here, just for the people listening, $11.95 trillion national debt. it's over $14.3 trillion and counting. it's an historic deficit. and, unfortunately, despite passing six different fy 2011c.r.'s, each with an understanding that passage would move our negotiations further along, we're once again faced with the likely hoofed a government shut -- likelihood of a government shutdown. i never, ever thought i would be a united states senator from massachusetts and come here and say, oh, my gosh, i was actually here when they actually shut down the government. i wonder what it feels like? what do i tell the staff? what do i tell all the people back home? i'm not going to participate in that. i'm going to be a problem solver. i'm going to be one of the guys, i don't care if you're liberal, you're conservative, you're republican, you're democrat, i don't care what party you're from, i'm going to come here to try to find solutions and try avoid any type of government shutdown. because i don't want one. no one i'm talking to wants one. so what does that mean? we have to actually get these

negotiations in perspective. we actually have to express to our leaders, as i just did, th that, hey, i'm concerned, i want to make sure that we start to tackle these very real issues. and while the -- the federal government is only a small part, i mean, gosh, i can't tell you how many -- senator cochran's right over there. how many times have we been in committee hearings now and they're talking about wasting billions and billions and boilians of dollars -- billions of dollars, $76 billion just through, you know, one program that we're attacking. i was in the military budget hearing the other day. $104 billion over budget for one weapons system. are you kidding me? i mean, really. it's just phenomenal. so here we are, we're debating i guess cutting $61 billion, give or tai on the one hand but -- take on the one hand but we don't have a problem basically going over budget $100 billion-plus in various programs and wasting various billions of other dollars. so on the one hand we're fighting about really this,

which is a small, minute part of what we're doing, on the other hand we're giving away the money money. there was just a report that came out that says we're wasting billions of dollars just for duplication. you know? why don't -- executive order number 1, let's fix it. so we don't have to worry about this. that money that we save could be used for the seniors, for the kids, for the pell grants, for all the things that people are fighting about right now. i will say, however, that -- that a government shutdown absolutely serves no purpose and is in no one's best interest. it's not in our country's best interest, it's not in the workers' best interests, and it's absolutely not in the global economy's best intvment aninterest.and, i, for one, stao work with any member, any congressman, or any member of the administration who wants to get together and solve any of these problems. i will say, however, i am encouraged about the recent developments in the negotiations and the news breaking yesterday that a possible deal is close. that's great.

what are they taking $33 billion? i just cited there were $104 billion in one military program and then, you know, dealing with medicare, issues, where $76 billion goes out every year just because. so that's great, i'm happy we're doing it. but the world's looking for a couple of things. they're looking for that fix, the lean-and-mean budget, but they're also looking for us to get a handle on entitlement reform, eliminating the waste and abuse, just the commonsense things that every single person in this gallery and everybody listening does in their home and in their business y. can't we treat the fell government like a business for once? just makes no sense to me. i'm sorry, i know i'm not the new guy anymore. i can't say that. you're the new guy, mr. president. congratulations for being mr. president today. and let me tell you, though, as being the new guy, i'm hopeful that you agree with me that we have to kind of work together. and we've tried to do that, you and me, and senator carper and others to try to find that common ground. i think we all agree on what the number is. it's just a question, do we

tackle it here or do we tackle it here? i'm actually from the approach of let's do a little bit of everything and satisfy every special interest, every political interest and just get the problem solved. and it's going to take real choices, tough choices. right now, everybody listening right now absolutely understands that everything is on the table. but we have to be fair and judicious about our cuts. how do you get a to z just overnight? there's no transition period, there's no consideration for -- for jobs and -- and actually, you know, the safety of people in some of these cuts. so i stand ready, as i said, to work with each and every one of you to do what it takes and put politics aside. and listen, is there an election this year, mr. president? i don't think so. because i'm looking at 2011 right now, 2011 as the one year, the one chance that we have to actually solve problems. just solve problems, folks. 2012, we can do whatever we do in the political season, i get

it. but for right now, we have a great opportunity, we have an opportunity right now to send a message to all those folks who say, you know what? washington's, you know, broken. washington's broken. you know, in washington, it's like hey, you're great, you're great, everyone's great. senator carper's great. he's one of my best friends up here. but listen, outside of washington, they say they have no clue what we're doing. they don't trust us. they don't think we're addressing the very real problems that affect our -- our great country. and our collective work begins by having a clear understanding of the seriousness of our budget concerns. now, i know we've had those bipartisan meetings and i'm so encouraged as a relatively new member that we've had about 60, 65 people come together to hear what the number is. is it snact is it fiction? is it real? what is it? we agree that we're in trouble. so why are not the leaders of this great country, all leaders -- there's plenty of blame to go around, folks -- why aren't they getting together and really seriously letting us know

what the priorities are? why doesn't the president call my office or your office or anyone else and say, you know what, scott? these are my priorities, scott. i challenge to you work with me to get them done. what are his his priorities for cuts? does anyone up there know? i don't know. because if he called me or if he called you, i know we'd give him certainly the respect that the office deserves and we would actually go out and say, you know what? i'll work with my colleagues, mr. president, or mr. leader or mr. minority leader and we'll actually find those -- those common things that we can do. we can start by the report that just came out and eliminate all that -- all that duplication. some instances -- i don't want to misquote, but i think it was like 26 agencies doing the same thing. are you kidding me? ugh. well, i believe, you know, that the responsibility in the -- that we've been given is -- is huge. look at these young people here. you know, a lot of them came to the basketball, we had a charity basketball game last night, senator thune and i, and a lot

of the young pages came. and it was so exciting to see their faces. and they're so excited to be here. every one of these young people are saying oh, my gosh, i'm in the united states senate. i'm in the united states senate working here for these people. we look up to them. we expect them to do better and be better. they challenge us on a daily basis just by those bright eyes, the fact that they're all back studying each and every free second -- some more than others, i might add, okay -- and they're looking for us to solve problems because it's really not even them we're worried about now. it's like their great-grandchildren f. we do nothing, is that -- if we do nothing, is that what you want us to do, folks, nothing? document mdo you want me to do ? i'm not going to be part of the do-nothing caucus around here. i'm going to work towards commonsense solutions and commonsense goals. and hey, if i lose, whatever? but if i played a role in history right now, in this time in history, to right now make a difference and make a change.

and i'm -- i'm so hopeful. un, i'm an optimist -- you know, i'm an optimist. i really believe that we can do it better and i believe that we have an opportunity to do better right now -- do it better right now with your leadership and the other senators who are going to be here soon to just get together and solve the problems, folks. we can battle in 2012. the world is looking at us right now to make a difference. and i'm hopeful that we'll find that ability to do so. because if we don't, then we've missed a great opportunity, you know, to just solve problems. so thank you, mr. president. i appreciate your patience and your occasional smirks. and i yield -- i yield the floor. thank you. mr. carper: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. car carper: i just want to y to the senator from massachusetts, i saw no smirks on the face of this presiding officer.

he's a -- he's a breath of fresh air here and so are you. the -- i just want to follow up. i wasn't planning on doing this. i want to talk a little bit about clean air and the responsibilities that the environmental protection agency has to help us meet clean air. but i do not to follow up on a thing or two that senator brown has -- has mentioned. he talked a little bit about the deficit. come back a little over two years ago senator barack obama today right over there and gave his farewell address to the uniteunited states senate. a bunch of us were here to hear what the next president of the united states had to say. when it was over, he went down to where all these pages were sitting and senator obama went down and shook hands with each one of the pages and walked up to walk out. i walked over to him and i had written down as he was speaking, i had written down with my pen six points things that i thought he should focus on to reduce the deficit in the time that he

became president. he looked at my list and said, i can't read your writing, tom. i said, i'll send you an e-mail. i sent him an e-mail amplifying the five or six points that i had mentioned. among the things i suggested to him, we have a lot of improper payments like billions of dollars in money that we are overpaying, making mistakes, as it turns out, we need to do something about it. i told him that we have a lot of fraud in medicare and medicaid. and we need to once we identify that fraud have contractors, private-sector contractors go out and recover the money and get it back for the treasury. i told him that we have a -- a problem with surplus property -- there's a lot of property, thousands of pieces property, wear husban warehouses that we t use, we ought to stop paying utility and security for that property. i said we have big cost systems

for major weapons systems and that we need to do something about that. i told him -- the overru overrun $42 billion. by 2005 major oversystem costs about $200 billion. by 19 -- i think by 2007 and so it was something like $295 billion. i said we've got to do something about this, major system weapons cost overrun. i mentioned something called the tax -- there's a lot of money owed by people, companies to the treasury and the i.r.s. thinks it's over $300 billion a year. that's a pretty big bucket list for a new president-elect. i urge you put together your administration, you focus on those things. everything i just mentioned, subcommittee on homeland security and government affairs, on federal financial management, everything that i just

mentioned, we've been working on. not every day, but every week we've been working this list. and last month we had the top -- top official that came in from the department of health and human services. their responsibilities include overseeing medicare and medicaid. and it turns out improper payments -- mistakes, honest mistakes accounting mistakes made in medicare about $45 billion last year. $45 billion. overall in the government not counting improper payments, $125 billion. this is not fraud. it is mistakes, accounting errors, $125 billion. half of it was medicare. the administration came and testified before our committee about a month ago and said the improper payments for medicare, which last year was $50 billion, we promise to cut that in half from $50 billion to $25 billion. a huge reduction. we have reported by eric holder, our attorney general, reports in medicare, he thinks the annual fraud numbers could be as much

as $60 billion. last year medicare -- the attorney general recovere recovered $4 billion in fraud. the good news is that's more than we ever recovered in any other year since we have been keeping record, the bad news is there's $64 billion more that's cash on the table we need to get. we put in the health care legislation, the affordable health care law a number of tools to help the attorney general go out and reduce improper payments, reduce fraud and get the money that's been misallocated and fraudulently taken. it's not as if we're noting to anything. one of the things that we're trying to do that senator brown is the ranking republican on, and we have rob portman, claire miscass skill and tom coburn and people who do care about spending and trying to make sure that we pay our taxpayers money more effectively.

the spend thrift to look at every program that we're running, whether domestic programs, whether it's defense programs, whether it's entitlement programs, tax expenditures to make sure we getting the right bang, best bank for our bucks and where we're not, to do something about it, to fix it. and we're actively involved in that in getting some results. we need a whole lot more. but i just wanted to mention it. i wasn't planning on doing that, but i wanted to mention that. i wanted to followup on our comments of our democratic whip, senator durbin, called the interchange amendment, he talked a little bit about that before senator brown did. there's been times in my life as governor and as a former naval flight officer, i have done things that had an unintended consequence. i had the best intentions. the unfortunate thing in my view flowing from the adoption of the interchange amendment that we adopted here was adopted in

conference is unintended circumstances. and i think the intents were good to try to make sure that money goes from -- from the fee that's collected from swiping our debit cards, that money would go to the consumer, not to the banks and not to the merchants, but there's -- there's reasonably the consumers may not benefit from this at all. there was an effort to protect credit unions and smaller banks in the interchange amendment. as it turns out now the people lobbying the loudest are the credit unions and the small banks, the community banks and consumer banks saying there's an unintended consequence. i hope we can slow the process down. hit the pause button for a year or so and find out what the unintended consequences are and see if we can let cooler heads prevail. maybe do something that actually will be good for consumers. now, what i really came to the floor to talk -- to talk about and i'd like to do that now deals with clean air. and it deals with jobs. a little bit about the

responsibilities that the environmental protection agency has with respect to clean air and to make sure that as they execute their responsibilities, that we're mindful of jobs. a lot of people think they can't have cleaner air without destroying jobs. as it turns out, we can have both. we can have cleaner air, we we've had it for year, we adropped it in 197 -- adopted it in 1970, literally created hundreds of jobs to reduce emissions of nig nitroge dioxid. by -- we not only saved lives and improved health, we put a lot of people to work coming up with new technologies that reduce harmful emissions. we've got a lot of people working across the country coming up to reduce emissions from cars, trucks and advance to give us better gas mileage.

when i filled up with gas over the weekend, $3.50 per gallon, we're going to -- as our presiding officer knows we're going to build in delaware at our old g.m. plant, fisker, cars that drive 80 miles per gallon, vehicles that get huge, huge improvements in mileage and part -- we're getting this greater improvement in mileage, we're doing -- reducing our depends on foreign oil, we're cleaning up the air and we're putting a lot of people to work. this is where we can have our cake and eat it too. i just came, mr. president, from -- from -- a bible study group and there were nice comments by you on the prayer breakfast, before that we did a telephone town hall meeting, i learned that from bob corker who shared the idea with me. you get a big conference call

from the people from your state. we have 5,600 people on the call. we spent about an hour together. one of the ladies on the call said to me in her question, she said, why are we letting the e.p.a. tell companies what they can do with respect to their emission. we're going to destroy jobs and on -- and on and on. it's as it turns out, the premise is not correct. it's not that the e.p.a. wants to do this. it's their job. e.p.a.'s being told by the u.s. supreme court that under the clean air act if the e.p.a. can show through good science that there is harm to our health or to our welfare as a people by virtue of our pollution, e.p.a. has no other choice but to regulate it if we won't pass regulation laws to do that. we have not passed laws. some people say why not put a cap on tax an carbon, things that we burn that have carbon, make it more expensive. maybe people use less of that. we're not going to put a tax on

carbon. i don't know that too many people have the political courage to do that. we argued about to reduce acid rain by reducing through market system, emissions of sulfur dioxide and met our reduction targets at one half the time at one-fifth the cost. people don't talk about acid rain. there's talk to take that approach and put it to reduce carbon dioxide. the supreme court interprets the clean air act, they've got to do something. we've not done our part, so the job of the e.p.a. is to pass commonsense regulations that will be mindful of the impact on jobs. as it turns out, we're going to create a lot more jobs by virtue of cleaning up our air than we're going to lose in terms of employment opportunities. the last thing i want to say, mr. chairman, if i could, we -- the chairman -- the presiding officer and i live in delaware, the first state of in the constitution.

enormously proud of our state. in delaware we don't have mountains. you don't find the blue ridge mountains, you don't find the rockies there. in delaware we're a flat, low-lying state, just north of maryland, just south of pennsylvania and just -- just to the west of new jersey. we -- i'd like -- i joke with people, i say the highest point of land in delaware is a bridge, and that's not much of an exaggeration. something's happening in our lovely little state, we don't have a lot of land, but what we're starting to see happening is the sea level is rising. not only in delaware, beaches an delaware shores, it's happening up and down the east coast and this the gulf and along the west coast as well. we used to in our beaches, we have great beaches, we used to replenish our beaches every five or six years because of the waves coming in and having a nor'easter and we have to replenish our beaches, we have to do it more frequently because

the sea level is starting to rise. as the presiding officer knows north of r rehoboth beach is beautiful national wildlife refuge called prime hook. it is right on the delaware bay, but prime hook has a beautiful fresh water wetlands and marshes and it's a great place for people to hike and watch birds and do all sorts of things. and it's a real national treasure. we're starting to see saltwater intruding and taking over what had been previously fresh water marshes and wetlands. and if you look at the delaware river from the delaware bay, north from the delaware bay up to the delaware -- it becomes the delaware river and heads up into pens and new york. as you go up further an further up the delaware -- and further up the delaware, instead of from saltwater to brackish washington to salt -- brackish water, it

goes further an further up north. something's going on. strange the kind of tornadoes, frequency of tornadoes and thunderstorms in the middle of the winter. i guess nine -- the 10 hottest years on record, nine of them have occurred in the last decade. something's going on here. and what e.p.a.'s trying to do is to figure out is there some way we can reduce or gradually reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases into the air and do so consistent with a strong economy. we have to be smart enough to figure that out and to have a partnership with the executive branch, with businesses an here with the legislative branch an to be sint with the -- be consistent with what the supreme court has ordered us to do. we spend more money for health care than japan by far. we spend more money on health care than any other nation on earth by far. in japan they spend half as much

than we do for health care, they get better results. everything from a higher life expectancy to lower infant mortality. they cover everybody. they spend half as much, get better results, cover everybody. how they can they be that smart and we be that dumb? one way to spend less money on health care is to have cleaner air. we can not only save billions of dollars, we've made great progress, we can save 10 maybe hundreds of billions of dollars to make air to make it cleaner. i'm happy to conclude it's a joy to see you presiding here and be here with you in this chamber with all of these young people and recount one of my favorite stories about barack obama and the six points i came to him 2, 2 1/2 years ago to refuse the deficit. we're starting -- reduce the deficit. and we're starting to do those things. with that, mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. thank you.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quoruquorum call:

mr. tester: mr. president, i had he ask that the quorum call be vitiated. sphefer officer without objection. mr. tester: thank you, permit. i rise today on behalf of rural america. all of montana is rural america and despite good intentions, rural america too often gets overlooked when we pass things here in the senate. that's what happened when this body passed an amendment limiting debit card interchange fees last year. it was an attempt to address a problem, but like people on both sides of the aisle, i voted against it, and it was a mistake because it had unintended consequences that will hurt rural america. it's a mistake now. since we took that vote, the regulators have said that small issue exemptions for banks and credit unions with assets of less than $10 billion, which is what that amendment said, the reason why many members supported this amendment, simply

won't work. at a banking committee hearing back in february, chairman bernanke said, and i quote, "we are not certain how effective that exemption will be. there is some risk that that exemption will not be effective and that interching fees available through smaller institutions will be reduced to the same extent that we would see for larger banks." at that same herling, fdic chairwoman sheila bair said, i think it remains to be seen whether they can be protected with this, the small banks and credit unions. i think they're going to have to make up that -- make it up somewhere, probably by raising fees that they have on transaction accounts." the acting comptroller of the currency has said that the fed's proposed rules have -- quote -- "long-term safety and soundness consequences for banks of all

sizes that are not compelled by the statute." the regulators who have been tasked with implementing these rules have said that they simply cannot guarantee that small issuers can be exempted from these rules, small issuers being community banks and credit unions. market forces will drive down rates for community banks and credit unions that are supposed to be exempt from these rules. a lot of my colleagues, republicans and democrats, agree. fortunately, having the opportunity to fix things and i'm asking for your help-to-a ply -- for your help to apply the brakes, so we can stop the unintended consequences that comet from allowing the federal government to set the cost of swipe fees on the one hand debit card. just this morning someone asked me, why is a farmer from montana leading the charge on an issue like this? well, mr. president, this is simple really. i'm not in this fight for the big banks.

i don't think these rules are going to help the consumers one lip. the cost of a hamburger isn't going down a few cents if this is enacted. and there are no assurances that retailers would pats savings on. there is a reason that walmart is dump ago ton of money to fight against this. i am stepping in the middle of this fight because when government sets prices on debit card swipe fees it is the little guys that get hurt. rural america pays the price. community banks and credit unions get socked. we can't afford to let that happen. and we can prevent it. community banks and credit unions are a critical part of america's economic infrastructure. without them, small businesses and family farms and ranches in america would go by the wayside. when farmers and ranchers need to invest in a new piece of equipment or buy feed or diesel fuel, who do they turn to? they turn to their community banks and credit unions, organizations like the stockers

bank, the mi seoul la federal credit union, yl low stone bank, the list goes on. and america's community banks and credit unions are the backbone of her small businesses. these financial institutions help small businesses grow, help small businesses create jobs and help keep rural america growing. not the wall street banks. these rules do not allow community banks and credit unions to cover the legitimate costs associated with debit transactions. these are guys who simply don't have the means to eat the cost of debit card fees that are limited by the federal government and they don't have the volume to make up this revenue elsewhere, like the big guys do. for community banks and credit unions this rule will only toad banking costs and it is going to prevent community banks and credit unions from being able to compete with the big guys. and if they can't compete with debit products, they will lose customers. it will also limit the use of debit pushing folks toward

credit instead. and already community banks are talking about limiting debit cards to $50 or $100 or ending free checking or adding new fees to a.t.m. withdrawals, measures that will in the end cost customers. this rule will further consolidate the financial industry and that's eelly the last thing we need in this country. but in rural america, financial consolidation, what that means is community banks and credit unions will have to compete with wall street with one hand tied behind their back. not only will that hurt upon montana's farmers and ranchers and small businesses, not only will that hurt the ability for rural communities to create jobs -- rural businesses to create jobs, it could result, and i think it will result in community banks going out of business toasmght the same is true with credit unions. that's not what anyone would call reasonable and

proportionate. yes, there's supposed to be a carve-out in this rule for community banks and credit unions, but both chairman bernanke, chairwoman bair tell us that this exemption simile will not work. only in washington will you get criticized for trying to make sure that legislation actually does what it's supposed to do. only in washington does it -- does this mean that you're trueing to kill the bill -- trying to kill the bill. some have said this means billions in interchange fees that multimillion dollar clock stores will have to pay. clearly, these rules are going to put community banks and credit unions out of business, the same institutions that is right lifeblood of rural america. it's a fact that the folks that are going to be hurt, the bottom line with this is the small businesses, the community banks, the credit unions, not the big

box retailers. that's why senator corker and i and a whole bunch of senators on both sides of the aisle introduced a bill to stop this rule and take a closer look at the unintended consequences. let's slow down, study the issue, let's find a thoughtful and careful solution. if we do that, we will see -- if we don't do that, we will see our critical community banking infrastructure disappear. this issue is not about picking sides. it's about making sure that we don't trample on a financial infrastructure that rural america needs to stay in business. mr. president, i ask my colleagues for their bipartisan support on a responsible bipartisan bill. our economy cannot afford to let this rule go into effect until we study its impacts, both intended and unintended. with, that i yield the floor -- with that, i yield the floor and request the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: thank you, mr. president. is there a quorum in place? the presiding officer: yes, there is. steinstein i ask unanimous consent that the -- mrs. feinstein: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: i rise to speak in morning business. this afternoon or another time quite possibly we will have are very strong amendments that will strip e.p.a. of its mandate to protect the american public from pollution, which threatens our public health and well fare by inducing climate change. specifically, i strongly oppose the mcconnell amendment, which would be a complete stop-work order for the environmental protection agency to reduce

carbon pollution. i also oppose senator stabenow's amendment which would strip california to impose tailpipe emission standards beyond federal standards. california has had the right to go beyond the federal standards to protect its citizens from dangerous pollution since 1970. that's 40 years. and i oppose senator rockefeller's proposal to prevent e.p.a. from studying, developing, improving or enforcing clean air act greenhouse gas regulations for at least two years. i oppose these amendments because they would allow polluters to keep polluting. they would endanger public health and well fare and they would in -- welfare and they would increase our dependence on oil and this is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. as the lead author of the bipartisan 10 and 10 fuel economy act with senator snowe

and senator ted stevens, which passed this body by voice vote, i would like to explain why the mcconnell amendment would undermine fuel economy and lead to less-efficient vehicles in the united states. the amendment would legislatively prevent e.p.a. from acting to reduce vehicle emissions that threaten our public health. after -- health after 2017. and it would also strip california of its right to protect its own citizens from dangerous pollution. the prohibition would undermine the bill we sought to pass and did pass and was signed by president bush. and that is 10 miles of -- of increased fuel efficiency in 10 years. and it directed the enviromental protection agency and the department of transportation to work cooperatively to increase

fuel economy and decrease pollution. mr. president, this was a big win. i began in 1993 with senator gordon and dick bryant. no longer in the senate. one from washington and one from nevada. and we sat right over there and tried to draft some language for a sense of the senate, something as benign as the sense of the senate to begin to work on automobile fuel efficien efficid we couldn't get it passed. then senator snowe and i got together on an s.u.v. loophole close are bill, and that went on for several years. and we couldn't get that passed. and then the 10 and 10 fuel-efficiency bill, and viola, we were able to get it passed. and it was going well. and cars are more fuel

efficient. and corporate average fuel efficiency standards are being interpreted in a much more constructive way based on science. as a result of the law, the administration has put forward the most aggressive increase in vehicle efficiency since the 1970's. increasing fleet-wide fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon by 2016. the final you rules will save about $1.08 -- 1.8 billion barrels of oil and reduce by nearly a billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the lives of the vehicles covered. it seems to me that's very good public policy. as a result, american consumers benefit. they'll have more efficient vehicles and they will pay less for gas. and those savings are considerable. this single program to reduce

oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions under the 10 and 10 fuel economy act and the clean air act results in an aggressive policy to advance the goals of both laws. the regulations also demonstrate that strong federal standards are the best means to ensure that california and other states are not legally obligated to enforce more aggressive standards to protect the health of their citizens. a right california has had since 1970. bottom line, these harmonized standards demonstrate the success of 10 and 10 fuel economy. despite the tremendous success of this first round of joint-jewe-fuel economy, the mcconnell amendment would

prevent the e.p.a., the department of transportation and california from pursuing cooperative and coordinated standards again. similarly, the stabenow amendment would prevent california from participating in this process. this would halt an ongoing cooperative process to set a single set of cost-effective standards for cars, trucks, and s.u.v.'s from 2017 to 2025, which will increase fuel economy, which will reduce pollution, and which will save americans billions of dollars. it's backwards public policy. e.p.a. and the department of transportation have already conducted the technical assessment, which demonstrates that a significant increase in fleet-wide fuel economy, 6%

annually, is both technically feasible and cost effective for consumers. they're working to complete a single set of standards in full cooperation with california. but the mcconnell amendment and the stabenow amendment would both stop this effort because the auto industry would prefer to sell gas guzzlers than continue -- that continue our dependence on oil. and the amendments prevent waivers that have been a part of the clean air act for decades preventing leading states like california from doing anything beyond the national standard. so it both handcuffs and cripples corporate average fuel efficiency. it stymies it. it symptoms it. it -- california's 38 million people. we are our own pay setter.

we want to work with the rest of the states to have a unified standard so that we are not our own economy, so to speak, with fuel efficiency. and that's the right thing to do and it is happening now and this would put an end to it. the end -- the amendments prevent waivers, as i said, that have been part of this act for decades. and that means that never again, no matter what the circumstances, can there be a waiver. it would turn back the clock on historic efforts to improve the efficiency of the nation's automobiles and slow any future effort to reduce pollution and improve fuel economy. bottom line, a vote for this amendment is a vote to increase our suscept ability to oil

market price spikes, how much americans will spend at the pump for decades to come, it will be much, much more, and a vote to increase pollution that threatens our public health. unfortunately these amendments not only stop the vehicle rules, the mcconnell amendment strips the e.p.a. of its authority to enforce the clean air act with regard to pollutants that e.p.a. scientists have conclusively determined endanger public health and that the supreme court has said the e.p.a. must enact in the massachusetts decision. the stabenow and rockefeller amendments similarly delay this action. polluters would be able to continue to pollute and the agency charged with protecting us from this pollution would be powerless to stop it or even limit it. blocking the clean air act and

its lifesaving protections makes no sense. this act has had a long and successful track record of reducing pollution and protecting the health of our children and our families. since its passage in 1970, the act has sharply reduced pollution from automobiles, industrial smoke stacks, utility plants, and major sources of toxic chemicals and par particulaparticular. in the first 20 years the act made real strides in reduce -- in 1990 alone, the act prevented 205,000 premature deaths, 674,000 case of chronic bronchitis, 22,000 cases of heart disease, 850,000 asthma

attacks, and 18 million child respiratory illnesses. the clean air act continues to provide benefits for our children and our family. emissions of six common pollutants have dropped 41%. in 2010, 1.7 million asthma attacks were prevented, 130,000 heart attacks, and 86,000 emergency room visits. that's in one year alone this past year. and it provides economic benefit to the united states. thoroughly peer-reviewed studies have found that for every $1 spent on clean air protections, we get $30 of benefits in return. in 2020 alone, the annual benefits of the clean air acts rules are estimated to be

nearly $2 trillion. now, advocates for these amendments argue the united states cannot afford environmental protection. they continue to say we must poison our air and water in order to develop our country. i just don't believe that. pollution is a burden on our economy. it's not a force for good and post-effective -- cost effective reduction makes our nation stronger, not weaker. we harm our economy when we ignore our pollution. so time and time again, the people of california have demonstrated that we are unwilling to choose between a healthy environment and a healthy economy because we choose both, and so should the united states. i strongly encourage my colleagues to reject these misguided amendments, whether they come up this afternoon at 4:00 or another time, that would let polluters off the hook, that would increase our dependence on

oil, that would increase -- i should say, would increase the mileage of -- excuse me, decrease the mileage efficiency of automobiles and light trucks and would harm our environment. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the order of the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, all of my colleagues, i think, know by now after all of these months,

almost years, how deeply i feel about the need to stop e.p.a. regulation. for a period of time so that congress can have the time that we need to develop a smart energy policy, which we have not. it's enormously important to the people of west virginia. having said that -- and i'll say quite a lot more -- i cannot tell you how strongly opposed i am to the mcconnell-inhofe amendment not only because it goes too far, not only because it eviscerates e.p.a. from some fundamental responsibilities that it has, for example, cafe standards, but it has, mr. president, absolutely no chance whatsoever of becoming law. none. mine does. theirs doesn't. we think we're going to pass, the president's going to sign something that eliminates e.p.a.

forever? they'll say, well, we can always change that in a couple of years. no, it isn't that. it's a theological decision to pick out a campaign issue for 2012. and that's fine because that's the way things go. but to destroy the e.p.a. permanently is an act that i have not seen since i came here. there will be people in many states, including my own, that think that's a wonderful idea. but i would require them, ask them to think more deeply. the mcconnell-inhofe amendment makes a point but it doesn't solve a problem. i'm here to solve problems. so is the presiding officer. the amendment would take away e.p.a.'s ability to address greenhouse gas emissions emissions/forever. it doesn't make any difference what happens five years, ten years from now in greenhouse

emissions. nuances that have to be made in policy or in regulation. the air starts cleaning up, maybe we can lighten things up a little bit. if it doesn't, then we have to do something. if you take away and put out of business forever the e.p.a. which looks out for the health and safety of everyone who lives here and it would be permanently banned from doing its job. is this an adult amendment? it can't be. people must only be looking at the next election. or they must be afraid. to be afraid of voters is not a good thing. that's a quick way to lose. tell the voters the truth -- the presiding officer is pretty good at this -- is what's more important in public policy. so, they burn it forever, can't

do anything, no matter what we know or what we learn in the future about greenhouse emissions. the total elimination of e.p.a.'s role with no other structure in place. nothing in place is irresponsible, unrealistic and immature. what we need is a time-out to stop the imposition of e.p.a. regulations, regulations that don't allow for the development of clean technologies that would hurt the economy at a critical point in our recovery, but to do it tpwhaeu keeps us -- in a way that keeps us all focus and working on a long-term energy policy, which doesn't say close down. it says we're going to have a pause here, a pause that refreshes, hopefully refreshes our ability to do clean energy policy. my bill would be effective from the date of its passage were it

to pass, so it would be two years. that's plenty of time to come up with an energy policy. we've avoided doing that for so long now. and i think a lost that is politics, and it's very sad. the environmental protection agency, i have to say, including to my own constituents is not a frivolous agency. it is the object of much scorn in my state now and a lot of states that produce coal and probably, you know, in the minds of a lot of senators. it was created to regulate pollution. you think back to wartime london where you couldn't see five feet in front of your face. i think back to when i was a student in japan for three years at the end of the 1950's and you couldn't see three feet in front of your face. now all of a sudden you can see for 1,000 mimes, so to speak, because the air is clean. the environmental protection agency is not a frivolous agency.

it was created to regulate pollution. that is its job. does that make it uncomfortable? yes. does that make me want to pass my amendment? yes, to have a stop for a period of two years where they cannot go to staigs nature sources and -- to stationary sources and others and say, you can't do anything. it is a phos, but at the end of the pause, it stops. it doesn't put e.p.a. out of business. it's crazy. it is congress's job to legislate and that includes energy policy. granted, stipulated, i think the presiding officer would say that that was lawyer-say, it is stipulated. makes it fact. congress passed the clean air act in 1970 and has updated it in the decades that fovmentd is the clean air act perfect? certainly not. very few laws ever are which is

why we are open to make them better. but eviscerating the e.p.a.'s ability to do its job forever is nonsense. child-like. take my football. i'm going home. it feels good, standing up for coal, but what this really does, this stands up for natural gas. we have a lot of natural gas in west virginia. natural gas has 50% of the carbon that the coal does. so the people think that by doing this that people are going to go ahead and burn coal in power plants and other places. they're not. north carolina already has 12 power plants which have been switched from coal to natural gas. probably more by now. that was about a year ago.

ohio is doing some of the same. other states are doing some of the same. natural gas is abundantly plentiful. i like natural gas. it's a terrific thing. it's 50% as dirty as coal, but it is less dirty and it is cheaper, and so power plants are going to that. now, i'm trying to figure out in my mind, madam chairwoman, how does that help west virginiaians? how does that help west virginian coal miners and operators? if people are make up their mind -- and i have had the president of american electric power tell me this directly, of course we'll switch to natural gas. he said, i would use banana peels if they could reduce heat. but they don't stay with coal out of loyalty. they have to deal with certainty. here we create permanent punting

about what the landscape is going to be for energy use and the making of electric power in our country. and, again, may i please bring up once again, madam president, that this bill has no chance of becoming law. the mcconnell-inhofe bill has no chance of becoming law. so why -- why do they do did? they have to know that. i don't think it'll pass in here. certainly isn't going to pass the white house. in politics, you can say, i wish there were public and president of the white house. there isn't. the democratic one. he's not going to let this happen. he's not going to have an executive agency with an enormous amount to do with cafe standards and all kinds of regulations, he is not going to have it obliterated, eviscerat

eviscerated, eliminated. he won't do that. he'll veto it if it should ever get that far. so what do they think they're doing? are they trying to impress their constituents? are they holding high the bafner? i'll get rid of this whole e.p.a. thing and we can all celebrate together? pretty shortsighted, i would say. pretty shortsighted. feel good, yes. do good, no. i think it is well-known that in west virginia we have very serious disagreements with the e.p.a. i say all kinds of things about the e.p.a. constantly, in all kinds of situations. but, you know, people do care about clean air. they do care about clean water also. it is not a sin. sometimes in america you can get the best of both worlds. we want a strong future for clean coal, and we want a national energy policy that protects and promotes clean

coal. let me make a point. when i say the word "clean coal," the only hearing of that is coal. people don't hear the word "clean." so i have to make a point here. don't blame coal miners for this. coal miners go into the mines every day in these unbelievably difficult situations and they mine the coal that's there. that's been there for a billion years or 10 billion years that god put there. that's their job. maybe it's high ash, maybe it's low ash, maybe it's high sulfur, maybe it's low sulfur. they mine what's there and then that gets shipped to a power plant or to other countries for steel manufacture making purposes. -- for steel-make purposes. one of the ironies of this is some of the loudest anti-- my amendment, my little two-year

amendment that stops at the end of two years comes from coal operators who actually don't shut much -- ship much coal to power plants. they ship most of their coal because it is low-sulfur, overseas to the growing market in south korea and china and a lot of other places, and japan. swhee difference does it make to -- so what difference does it make to them? none. but they want to be in the chorus, so they join the chorus about let's get rid of e.p.a. they're not affected. they're just mainlining it right overseas and making tons of money because it is very low sulfur coal and very, very good for making steel. and we know that if coal is frozen in time the way senators mcconnell and inhofe are proposing, it will be rapidly

eclipsed by other energy sources. oh, yes, most especially natural gas. we have so much natural gas in west virginia that you could swim in it, if you could just get about 10-15 feet underground. i like natural gas. it is a great asset to have it. marcella shale, problems are solved through technology. but that's what's going to havment then our coal miners are going to look at some of their representatives on both sides of the aisle, here and in the house, and they're going to say, now wait a second ... i thought you were protecting me. how i come a not mining coal? how come some of these power plants have now switched to natural gas, in the majority, let's say, a few years from now? so mcconnell-inhofe as an amendment codifies the vicious

uncertainty that is threatening coal today. electric utilities are right now making, as i've indicated, investment decisions based upon that uncertainty. it's a bad place from which to make a decision, and with very few exceptions, logically, that means they are not building or rebuilding coal-powered plants, natural gas will overtake coal. now, west virginia wins in either case, because we have so much coal, we have so much natural gas. but in this particular amendment, i'm trying to protect coal miners and their jobs, by having carbon-captured sequestration, by having a possible, and there are others that are out there. we already have two in west virginia that are taking 90% of the carbon out of coal. they are at work, dow chemical company, american mechanic power

company -- they're both doing that both making money out of t and, yes, the government helps. but they're taking more than 90% or 90% of the carbon out of coal. doesn't that turn coal into clean coal? isn't clean coal what we want? isn't that what we have to have? so this is all part of a drive for an energy future for west virginia coal miners and others and other people around the country and for a clean energy future. so, in effect, my amendment is a timeout. it's the timeout that we need, and it's the only option on the table, madam president, that can pass. that can pass. it's fine to bring an amendment here which makes you feel good, muscular, antigovernment, let's make government smaller, let's get rid of government and swell

your chest and feel good and put out a great press release. but then it ends up not passing the senate or ends up getting vetoed. one of the two is going to happen. so it is a nonstarter. so i think a lot of those on the other side of the aisle are going to throw the vote for political purposes, as indicated. if we can remember back to the omnibus reconciliation act in december of last year, the chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturers, the coal association -- all republicans had agreed to vote for my two-year amendment, timeout amendment. all of them. papers calculated who it was, how we would get to 60 votes and we got there. and then what happened -- and this is a little bit in the weeds and i apologize for that

-- but all of a sudden, nine republicans withdrew from that omnibus reconciliation agreement. so there was no way it would come up. now, why did they do that? i don't he know. it was at the beginning of the master -- was that the beginning of the master plan of thinking, we're going to make this an issue for the next two years so we can wipe out some more democratic seats. it certainly didn't have anything to do with energy policy. so, as i say, my amendment says that forea period of two years the e.p.a. will not have the power to enforce greenhouse gas rules on stationary sources including power plants, manufacturers, and refineries. that sort of covers it. they can't do anything for a period of two years regulatory about power plants, manufacturing companies, or refineries. utilities. but the moratoria would last for

two years and then it would stop. why? because two years is in fact enough time if we could get ourselves together around here for serious people to come up with a serious energy policy that includes clean coal and everything else on the face of the earth that works, to get our country off of foreign oil. two years is enough time to develop a plan to build the carbon-captured sequestration technologies and get them accepted by wall street. which will fund them endlessly once they're convinced that they're work. on a sufficient scale. and ace say, this is being demonstrated by american electric power company and by the dow chemical company in west virginia right now. and i will repeat gerntion they are taking 90% of the carbon out of coal. sound like a good deal to me. natural gas has 50% carbon. clean coal would have 10%

carbon. which is the better deal? i think the second one s my amendment would lead to that. so i would say that two years is enough time to get past this pointless debate, this really pointless debate, about whether climate science is real. and find common ground on solutions that create jobs, protect the air we breathe and make us energy independent. two years is enough time to take the decisions about the greenhouse gas out of the hands of the e.p.a. and put them back in the hands of congress for two years. greenhouse gas emissions are an enormously important issue, but they're not the only problem we face and cannot be allowed to take precedence over every other matter that affects our people. we really can find ways to solve this problem to it can't our core -- to protect our core

industries and lessen the cost. the cafe rule is a big deal between the e.p.a. and the department of transportation is a case in point and relevant to the debate today because it is also undermine by the mcconnell-inhofe amendment. the cafe rules saves americans billions of gallons of gasoline and reduces the dependence on foreign oil. it does it very explicitly. it keeps going up. the air gets cleaner. transportation, i -- i think the figure is that transportation overall is something like 50, 60, maybe a little more percent, of our air pollution problems. so the cafe standards have become very, very important. most of us believe very strongly that we need to make our cars more efficient not just of the environment, but the high cost of gasoline and its impact on every single american family, not to mention our national security. but under the mcconnell-inhofe

amendment, e.p.a. could never work again on fuel efficiency. and the recent progress that we've made which is so widely supported by industry and the american people would be undermine. this is not a solution. it is, as i said, a permanent punt or maybe a stunt and i, madam president, will not support that. last year my colleagues on the other side of the aisle declared, as i said, their support for my amendment overwhelmingly. the -- the daily newspapers that come out on the hill calculated the 60 votes that i had to overcome the filibuster, the u.s. chamber of congress was all over it, the coal association, everybody. then suddenly some seemed to want to have a fight more than a policy and they wanted to have a fight for the next election more than a policy, more than they

wanted to work together to solve the problem. so now suddenly they say stopping the e.p.a. for two years isn't good enough. we can stop them permanently. folks back home will love that. they say they'd rather stand by and do nothing if they can't stop the e.p.a. forever. in effect, that is correct. and they think the american people will not see through that. my amendment has been around for over a year now. people know what it does. so to call this a cove vot coves disingenuous. the e.p.a. has said if there is to be a new power plant or factory, they have to find ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. because of these new rules, companies won't build that new factory. they won't build the new power plant. they won't employ some of the millions of americans that are out of work and that is why i

believe these regulations need to be suspended. that's in my amendment. senator inhofe has repeatedly argued that congress needs to make these decisions, and i happen to agree with that. my bill would give congress the time it needs to discuss the options and my approach creates a reasonable time limit. so doing away with the e.p.a. authority doesn't give clarity and it definitely kicks the can down the road. my amendment, which, unfortunately, will come whenever it comes, it no doubt won't do particularly well, madam president, because all -- all of the folks on the other side and unfortunately some of our colleagues on this side will vote for that because they think it sounds kind of neat. it probably won't do very well. but that doesn't mean it isn't right. so let's have real solutions like clean coal. let's play a role in meeting our

energy needs. let's be sensible about it. let's be bipartisan about it. west virginia's ready to provide that coal and so are a lot of other states. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and quickly turn to a discussion about our nation's energy future. i thank the chair and yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. a senator: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president, i would just briefly like to say with regard to the debate over the limitations on co2, on global warming gases and the enviromental protection agency, that congress has never made a decision on this. and the way it came out, in my view, is an example of judicial activism in a dangerous end run around popular sovereignty in

america. 40 years ago congress passed a clean air act. that act was designed to deal with particulates in mercury, sox, things that were determined to be pollutants. there was no thought at that time that carbon, co2, was a warming gas that would create global warming. it was before the global warming discussion really ever was generated. congress had no intention whatsoever to say that carbon dioxide, which is a plant food, which is not harmless to human beings and had never been classified as a pollutant would be placed under the total control of the enviromental

protection agency. but later an activist supreme court, 5-4, seemed to say, but would not -- but with not perfect clarity, seemed to say that because now we know we think some say that co2 is a global warming gas that could cause global warming, the enviromental protection agency must regulate it. must regulate what really is a plant food and it had never been considered to be a pollutant. and so i think congress needs to pack. i think that congress needs to assume responsibility. we need to say, no, we're not prepared to direct that the enviromental protection agency

control all co2 emissions in the country. we never intended that. we're not prepared to do that. if we want to start town that road, we in congress, will figure out how we should start down that road, how much ought to be done. but no group of bureaucrats should be empowered to regulate every farm, every apartment building, every schoolhouse, every automobile, every vehicle, every train much less every electric generating plant in the country. so it's a big deal about reality and power in america and it's just one more example of how judges and -- and bureaucrats are utilizing powers really never intended to be given to them. really they sort of create to impose their agenda on the rest

of the country. i believe we should back away from that and that's why i support senator inhofe and his -- and his view. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. a senator: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. mrs. shaheen: thank you. i'm here, madam president, to join my colleagues who have been down on the floor today with the leadership of senator boxer to oppose amendments that would undermine the clean air act. the clean air act has been one of the greatest public health success stories we've ever had in this country. in 1970 republicans and democrats came together to pass this landmark piece of legislation to address air pollution that was leading to countless deaths and lifetimes spent battling chronic illnesses, illnesses such as asthma and emphysema. that legislation was signed into law by president richard nixon.

it's very clear that the threat of greenhouse gas emissions to public health is real. two years ago the e.p.a. found that manmade greenhouse gas emissions threatened the health and welfare of the american people. their decision wasn't made in a vacuum, and despite what some of the supporters of these harmful amendments may claim, e.p.a.'s decision was based on the best peer-reviewed science. they were guided by the best science protecting the public health, not politics. the american lung association, the american public health association, the trust for america's health, and the american thoracic society, some of our nation's leading public health experts all oppose these misguided efforts to stop e.p.a. from protecting our clean air. you know, we've heard the same story from polluters over and

over again. today they tell us that reducing carbon pollution through the e.p.a. will wreck our economy. back in 1970, and then again in 1990 they said the clean air act would wreck our economy. time and again we've heard the same arguments, and they've not been true. it sort of reminds me of aesop's fable, "the boy who cried wolf." since we passed the clean air act in 1970, we have dramatically reduced emissions of dozens of pollutants. we've improved air quality and we've improved the public health. the e.p.a. estimates that last year alone the clean air act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, and 86,000 emergency room visits. and this is particularly important to us in new hampshire and in new england because we

are effectively the tailpipe of this country. we have one of the highest rates of childhood asthma in new hampshire in the country, because we are still phasing out some of the coal-fired plants in the midwest that are causing these air emissions. our -- during the same period, since the clean air act saved all of those illnesses and deaths last year, we've been able to grow our economy. our gross domestic product has more than tripled and average household income has grown more than 45%. so we know we can protect public health. we can save our environment. we can grow our economy. i recognize that as governor of

new hampshire when back in 2001 we passed the first legislation in the country to deal with four pollutants because we understood that we needed to clean up our air and that we could do that and protect public health and keep a strong economy all at the same time. i wish that same can-do spirit and bipartisanship that led to the passage of the clean air act in 1970 and then later the clean air act amendments in 1990, i wish that same can-do spirit existed today to address carbon pollution, because instead of debating amendments to undercut the clean air act, we should be working together to enact commonsense legislation to reduce carbon pollution and to continue to grow our economy. i have no doubt that the american people have the ingenuity and the competitive spirit to solve our energy

challenges. what they need from us in washington is leadership. so i urge my colleagues to reject these amendments, to work together to craft energy policies that can help move us away from a carbon economy and transition to a clean energy economy. thank you very much, madam president, and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: are we in a quorum call situation? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: mr. president, i rise to speak about the current

status of the ongoing bipartisan budget talks. mr. president -- madam president, we are in a much better place than we were two weeks ago. the two sides are much closer than you might be ail to tell from the public statements. after three months of back-and-forth, two short-term continuing resolution-containing cuts, and one near collapse of the talks last week, we can finally headed for the home stretch. last night we had a very good meeting with the vice president. afterwards, he confirmed that the house republicans and we in the senate are for the first time in these negotiations working off the same number. as the vice president said last night, there has been agreement to meet in the middle, around $33 billion in cuts. the appropriations committees on both sides are now rolling up their sleeves and getting to work to figure out how to best

arrive at that number. today speaker boehner said, nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. that is a fair and reasonable position to take. he need not publicly confirm the $33 billion number, but as long as both sides keep their heads down and keep working, a deal is in sight. we are right on the doorstep. but, madam president, there are outside forces that don't like this turn of events. owtdz capitol today there was a -- outside the capitol today there was a tea party rally staged to pressure republican leaders not to budge off of h.r. 1. they want speaker boehner to abandon these talks and hold firm, even if that means a government shortdown on april 8 -- shutdown on april 8. this is a reckless and, yes, he can extreme position to take --

extreme position to take. earlier today, the republican leader came to the floor to defend the tea partiers rallying outside this building today. let me say this clierntion i gay with some of his points. i agree that the fact that the tea party is so actively participating in our democracy is a good thing. they have strongly held views and they join the debate. this is as american as it gets. but the tea party's priorities for our government are wrong. their priorities are extreme because they're out of step with what most americans want. every poll shows that americans want to cut spending but with a smart, short scalpel, not with meat ax. they want to eliminate the fat but not cut down into the bone. they want to focus on waste and aimbues. they want to -- and abuse. they want to cut oil and gas

subsidies. they want to end tax breaks for millionaires. they don't want to cut border security or port security funding that kipes safe. they don't want to take a meat ax and cut vital education programs. they don't want to end cancer research that could produce research that saves many, many lives. and, most of all, unlike the tea party, most americans don't want the government to shut down. they want both sides to compromise. madam president, a deal is at hand if republicans in congress will opportunity the tea party voices that are shouting down any compromise. these tea party voices will only grow louder as we get closer to a deal, and our resolve must remain strong. if the speaker will reject their calls for a shutdown, we can pass a bipartisan agreement.

many conservatives, whom i would otherwise disagree with, agree with me on at least this point. it was very interesting to see on fox news yesterday three commentators autumn on the same show -- all on the same show plainly agreeing that it is time to accept a compromise with democrats to avert a shutdown. charles krauthammer was add month that a shutdown would be avoided and that if a shutdown did occur, the republicans would be blamed. a conservative columnist said "what really should happen is if boehner could strike a deal with the blue dogs and the moderate dems and just go with the $30 billion with the senate and just move on." unquote. and bill chris stl agreed that while republicans may like to pass a budget solely on their terms with only republican votes, the reality is the

speaker would need democrats to get a deal done. mr. president -- madam president, the tea party may have helped the republicans win the last election, but they're not helping the republicans govern. the tea party is a negative force in these talks. but we are close to overcoming this force and cutting a deal. as the negotiations enter the home stretch, here's how we should define success: first and foremost, a government shutdown should be avoided. we should all agree on that. it bothers me when i hear some on the other side of the aisle or in the tea party say we should shut down the government to get what we wafnlts second, the top-line target for cuts should stay around the level described by the vice president and that both parties are working off of. this makes complete sense, since

$33 billion is the midpoint between the two sides. and it's what republicans originally wanted in february before the tea party forced them to go higher. third, the makeup of the cuts, as i suggested a few weeks ago, should not come only from domestic discretionary spending. you cannot solve our deficit problem by going after only 12% of the budget. mandatory spending cuts must be part of the package, and the higher the package goes, the more the proportion should be tilted in favor of mandatory rather than discretionary spending. and, fourth, the most extreme of the riders cannot be included. there are some riders we can probably agree on, but the e.p.a. measure is not one of them. neither is planned parenthood or the other extreme riders that have been so controversial. i believe we can settle on a few

measures that both sides think are okay, but the most extreme ones do not belong in this budget bill. those are issues that should probably be debated but not as part of a budget and not holding the budget hostage to them he wil-- tothem. madam president -- sorry, madam president, if we can adhere to these tenets, we can have a deal that both sides can live with. fipple is short and we need to begin moving on to the pressing matter of the 2012 budget. and speaking of the 2012 budget, let me say a quick word about that. i saw today that house republicans plan to unveil their blueprint next week. interestingly, the report said republicans no longer plan to cut social security benefits as part of that blueprint. they are admitting that it is not a major driver our current deficits. that is true, and this is a

positive development. it comes after many of us on the democratic side, including leader reid and myself, have insisted that social security benefits not be cut as part of any deficit-reduction plan. it is good to see that republicans, including the house budget chairman, according to the reports in the paper, now agree with us. his original plan called for privatizing the program. i hope we are not going to bring up that again, because it will not pass. but if the house republicans instead simply insist on balancing the budget on the backs of medicare recipients instead of social security recipients, we will fight them tooth and nail over that, too. there has to be give on all sides, shared sacrifice, not just in any one little area. a lot is at stake in the current year's budget, but in another

sense, it is simply a prelude to the larger discussions ahead. we urge the speaker to resist the tea party rallies of today and the ones that are to come, to accept the offer on the table on this year's budget, and let us tackle the larger topics that still await us. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. mrmr. nelson: necessarily madam president, would the senator yield? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: would the senator please yield? mr. schumer: i will be happy to yield it my friend from florida. mr. nelson: just if a question. in the senator's opinion, why would the republicans, particularly from the house of representatives, want to cut social security since the social security system has little, if any, effect upon us getting our

arms around the deficit and moving the budget toward balance over the next ten years? mr. schumer: we will, my friend from florida makes a good point. in fact, by law, the social security system and its pluses and minuses and the federal government's budget -- the federal government's budget, and its pluses and minuses, must be separate. so, by definition, by law, the two are separate. social security has its liabilities and assets and a big pile of assets over here, and the federal government has its lienlts and assets -- its liabilities and assets and the twain don't meet. so one would think, particularly those that are saying "privatize" that their opposition to say include social security in large-scale budget tawrks which we need & which are good, and i commend the group of six for moving forward in this direction, but one would think

that is an i had lodge can cal -- ideological agenda because they simply want to privatize it. then when you see some of them may want to extend tax breaks for millionaires to permanently, which would increase the deficit by a huge amount and yet at the same time say let's deal with social security, let's privatize it, which doesn't have anything to do with the deficit, you scratch your head and say, i don't think deficit is really what's going on here. mr. nelson: i thank the senator for his erudite analysis. mr. schumer: and i thank my colleague for the erudite question and yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: thank you so much. madam president, abraham lincoln began his famous house divided

speech with simple homespun advice, that we should first -- and i quote -- "know where we are and wither we are tending before we judge what to do and how to do it. we are embarked on a journey of great consequence regarding what to do about our nation's budget and how to do it. this is a vital conversation. we simply must reduce our annual federal deficits and our nation's debt. but it would seem wise at this important time to take president lincoln's advice and examine where we are and wither we are tending, as we go about making these decisions. so i will touch on a few factual landmarks that may help orient to us where we are and help us learn "wither we are tending." the first and the most obvious thing is that we just weathered the worst economic crisis since the great depression. few of us who were here then --

i know the presiding officer was here -- i think we will never forget the animal fear and the desperate urgency displayed by treasury secretary paulson and federal reserve chairman bernanke as they, having looked into that abyss, came into this building, to the l.b.j. room right over there, and pleaded for our help to save the world economy. we are now past the worst depths of the financial and economic crisis, and as this chart shows, the economic recovery, measured in jobs, is proceeding, though all too tentatively and all too slowly. in rhode island, for instance, we're still at 12% unemployment in the providence metropolitan area and over 11% statewide. so to lincoln's question, "where are we"? well, gradually trending in the

right direction but no one can yet rule out a double-dip back into deeper recession. into this gradual and tepid recovery, the republicans want to inject h.r. 1. well, what can we know about that? mark zandi, an economic advisor to senator mccain's 2008 presidential campaign, says that this legislation, the house bi bill, will cause 700,000 job losses. that wipes out about half of the recovery, if that number is correct. goldman sachs, the wall street investment bank, says that that bill, h.r. 1, could lower g.d.p. growth by two full percentage points in the remaining two quarters of the fiscal year. now, goldman sachs, they are no fools where economic numbers are concerned, and it would be a

perilous choice to dismiss their warning. our present rate of economic growth is only about 3%, so reducing that by a full 2% over a year, again, could wipe out more than half of our economic recovery. and, of course, economic growth correlates to federal revenues, so the cuts damaged economic growth, in turn, create revenue loss so there would be less deficit reduction. so that's one landmark of where we are. we're in a too-slow economic recovery from what was nearly a second great depression, and we face a bill from the house that threatens that too-slow recovery. another mark of where we are and "wither we are tending" relates to the balance between regular americans and corporate

america's respective contributions to our nation's revenue. in 1935, regular americans and corporate america evenly split the responsibility to fund our country's obligations. then each of these indicated years it broke through the following revenues. humans paid as much as corporations in 1978, three times as much in 1971, four times as much in 1981, and recently the ratio broke through 6-1. individual americans contributing more than six times the revenue that corporate america contributes. when people say how overtaxed corporate america is, it's worth looking at the facts of where we actually are and wither for decades we've been tending. ever diminished corporate contribution to our nation's

revenues. look next at how we collect revenues. look at the landmarks of our dysfunctional tax code. start with what it takes to comply with our beast of a code. the national taxpayer advocate, an independent office within the i.r.s., has calculated that americans spend 6.1 billion hours of time engaged in tax compliance each year. think of what could be invented, what could be built with 6 billion hours of human work. instead, all consumed every year in the economic dead-weight loss of tax compliance. in terms of where we are, that is an important fact and it's an abysmal place to be. let me take you to another pla place. here is a picture from our budget committee chairman, kent conrad, taken in the cayman

islands. this nondescript building doesn't look like much. it certainly doesn't look like a beehive of economic activity. but over 18,000 corporations claim this building as their place of business. gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "small business" when you think of 18,000 corporations claiming that building as their place of business. as chairman conrad has pointed out, the only business going on here is funny business, monkey business with the tax code, tax gimmickry. this is estimated to cost us as much as $100 billion every year. and for every one of those dollars lost to the tax cheate cheaters, honest, tax-paying americans and honest tax-paying american corporations have to pay an extra dollar or more to make up the difference. here's another building with a tax story to tell about where we

are as we look at our budget debate. this is the helmsley building in new york city. this building is big enough to be its own zip code so that the i.r.s. reports of tax information by zip code can tell us a lot about this building. here is what this building tells us from actual tax filings. the well-off and very successful occupants of that building paid a lower tax rate than the average new york city janitor pays. it seems extraordinary but it's not a fluke. the average tax rate of a new york city janitor is 124.9% of their -- is 14.9% of their income, of a new york city security guard, 23.8% of their income, and of the occupants of that building, 14.7% of their

considerably larger incomes. that seems like it must be extraordinary. but it is not a fluke. the i.r.s. reports that the tax rate actually paid by the highest-income 400 americans, the story is the same. the highest-earning 400 americans in the i.r.s.'s most recent calculations each earned an average of $344 million-plus a year, over a third of a billion each every year, 400 of them. i truly applaud their success. it is a magnificent thing. but here's the rub. they actually paid on average only a 16.7% total federal tax rate. so i asked my staff to calculate the wage level where a regular single worker starts paying 16.7% in total federal taxes. it is at a salary of $28,650.

a representative job at that income level in my home state, in the providence labor market, is that of a hospital orderly, which the bureau of labor statistics calculates pays $29,100 a year. at that point, they're paying the same as the 400 biggest taxpayers who each earned over a third of a billion dollars, 16.7%. so it's not just the fortunate and successful residents of the helmsley building who pay a lesser share of their income to support their country than does the janitor. it's also the top 400 income earners, those averaging over a third of a billion dollars in income, who contribute a lesser share of their income than the hospital orderly pushing his cart down the halls of rhode island hospital at night.

so where are we? well, seems to me we're upside-down as far as this is concerned, and i believe that no less an economic titan than warren buffett, the fabled oracle of omaha, agrees with me that this needs to be corrected. the corporate tax code makes little more sense. decades of lobbyists have carved it into a swiss cheese of tax loopholes, of earmarks for the rich and powerful. the result? we have a nominal corporate tax rate of 35%. but here's what "the new york times" reported last week. general electric, one of the nation's largest corporations, made profits of over $14 billion last year and paid no u.s. taxes. in fact, it actually received a $3.2 billion refund from the taxpayers. maybe that was a one-year anomaly.

but a previous analysis by the "new york times" of five years worth of corporate tax returns found that prudential financial only paid 7.6%. yahoo, 7%. southwest airlines, 6.3%. boeing, 4.5%. and what looks to be our tax avoidance champion, on $11.3 billion of income, the carnival cruise corporation, which paid 1.1% in federal taxes. one recent paper actually calculated their cash effective tax rate at 0.7% on $11.3 billion in income. madam president, carnival lines is not just taking you for a cruise, they are taking you for a ride. but wait, there's more. don't forget that we make the american taxpayer subsidize big

oil to the tune of $3 billion a year, and big oil has made a trillion dollars in profits this decade. indeed, on an effective tax rate basis, the petroleum gas industry pays the lowest rate of any industry. these are all noteworthy landmarks, i believe, and each should inform us about where we are and "wither we are tending" as we face our budget. but the big landmark, the mount everest of landmarks, casting its vast shadow over this entire budget discussion, is health care. i agree with congressman paul ryan. he said, "if you want to be honest with the fiscal problem and the debt, it really is a health care problem." he is dead right. and the landmark feature of this landmark problem is this -- the health care cost problem is a health care system problem.

our martial health care costs are exploding -- our national health care costs are exploding. the national health care system is driving the costs of medicare. the health care system is driving the costs of medicaid. the health care system is driving the costs of private insurance. the health care system is driving the cost of the military's tricare system. no one is exempt. the health care system is what is driving the cost problem in public and private programs alike, so we have to address the health care system problem if we are going to get our health care costs under control. how do we solve this? we actually have a pretty good toolbox. it has five major tools in it. one is quality improvement. quality improvement saves the cost of errors, misdiagnosis, disjointed care and so forth. for example, hospital-acquired

infections alone cost about $2.5 billion every year and they are virtually entirely avoidability. they should be never events. two, prevention programs. prevention programs can avoid the costs of getting sick in the first place. more than 90% of cervical cancer is curable if the disease is detected early through pap smears. three, paying doctors for better outcomes rather than for more and more tests and procedures can save money while improving the outcomes. four, a robust health information infrastructure has been strimentd to save $82 -- estimated to save $81 billion a year by the rand corporation and that number may be low as the system builds itself out. finally, five, the health care costs of our is -- to delay and deny payments to doctors and to hospitals. the doctors and the hospitals

have had to fight back so they've had to hire their own billing departments and consultants. in the little cranston community health center, which i visited a few months ago, half of the staff are dedicated to trying to get paid. and they have to spend another $200,000 a year on consultants. all of that, the entire war over payment between insurers and hospitals and doctors adds no health care value. zero. we've heard that on private insurance side anywhere from 15% to 30% of the health care insurance dollar gets burned up in administrative costs. we know we can do better because the cost of administering medicare are closer to 2% of program expenditures. add this all up, and the numbers here are enormous. the president's council of economic advisers stated that 5% of g.d.p. can be taken out of our health care system without hurting the health care we

receive. that's about $700 billion a year. the new england health care institute says it's $850 billion a year. the well-regarded lewin group estimated the probable savings at $1 trillion a day. a figure echoed by former bush treasury secretary o'neil. not only are the numbers enormous, but the results are a win-win. consider the five strategies, higher quality care with less errors an -- and infections. prevented innessnesses. secure, complete health records when you need them electronically so your doctors, your lab, your form si, your -- pharmacy, your specialist all know what everybody else is doing. payment to doctors and hospitals based on keeping you well and keeping you well rather than getting more procedures to you. finally, not so much infuriating insurance company bureaucracy

hassling both patients and doctors. those ant bad outcomes even -- those aren't bad outcomes even without the savings. what do we draw from this if we keep all these landmarks in mind where we are in this budget debate? our colleagues on the other side, particularly our house republican colleagues, say that they're determined to reduce our national deficit and national debt. but in evaluating our claim, look at h.r. 1, which spends all its cost cutting fury on only 12% of the budget. the nonsecurity discretionary spending. and zero% on the revenue -- 0% on the revenue side. if they're serious about deficit and debt reduction by risk destroying 700,000 jobs when job destruction only adds to the deficit and to our debt through lost economic activity and our revenue. if they're really serious about deficit and debt reduction, why is not one corporate tax

loophole on the chopping block? not one. why is the tax code off limits in this discussion as it burns up $6 billion of our precious hours every -- six billion of our precious hours every year and makes that orderly pushing the cat down the hallway -- cart down the hallway pay a higher rate than those fortunate americans who made a third of a billion dollars each in a single year. if we're serious about this, if debt is the most serious thing that we face, why is there no discussion of corporate america's ever diminishing corporation as share of our national revenue? if our friends are really serious why is there no plan for even one of the 18,000 corporations in that phony baloney headquarters in the cayman islands to pay its proper taxes? and, finally, if they're really serious, why is there so much pure political nonsense about

obamacare and socialized medicine instead of a mature discussion about using and improving the tools in the health care bill to address our grave national health care system problem? further, why is it necessary to throw planned parenthood and head start and every single idealistic young kid under the bus? not one kid in american school doing teach for america can be spared? and, yet, we must keep our full deployment of 57,000 troops in germany? is it necessary to single out the environmental protection agency for the gutting that polluters long have lusted for? why go after social security, which has never contributed a nickel to america's debt or

deficit? it just seems to me, madam president, that until one -- just one corporate tax loophole is on the table, until one, just one subsidy to big oil is on the table, one, just one subsidy to big agri business, until we're beginning to talk about billionaires contribute federal revenue in the same share of income as that hospital orderly and until our friends are not so casual about threatening 700,000 jobs and perhaps $20 billion in related tax revenue, until the cuts and all those riders in h.r. 1 make it something other than a republican trojan horse of political favors and ideology, then count me a skeptic about their real priorities. i've always found that you get a better read looking at what people actually do rather than

just believing whatever they say. and if you look at what h.r. 1 actually does, it's the same old republican agenda. attacking programs that help the poor, attacking women's right to choose, attacking national voluntary service, helping polluters get around public health measures, reducing the share of revenues paid by corporations and very high income individuals. it's the same old song. and most important, if you go that road, it's just not adequate to meet the serious problems at hand. we need to look throughout the budget and across all of our opportunities to bring down our nation's deficits and to bring down our nation's debt. i look forward in the months

ahead to a serious, fair, and sensible discussion, a mature discussion of how to reduce our deficits and our debt. i thank the chair. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: