a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: i would understand that we're in a quorum call and i ask that it be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: i'd like to speak as if in morning business for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: mr. president, we find ourselves in dangerous territory while republicans and democrats continue to point fingers and hold fiery press

conferences, a government shutdown is quickly approaching. the blame game is like quicksand. it has the ability to drag down not just the senate and the house but our entire economy and even our country. no matter how you look at it, a shutdown would be reckless and irresponsible. we can get this short-term budget problem resolved if all parties would turn off the rhetoric and stop the campaigning. a few extreme partisans stand in the way of progress, blocking a good-faith effort of many others seeking common ground. i ask them to take to heart what it says in the book of eye disciia, "come now, let us reason together." we need to overcome this budget impasse and live up to the oath we took and to the people we represent. larger challenges await our attention. it is not in our best interest to see a government shutdown, and i don't think it is in the best interest of the nation to continue on this deficit

spending cycle that we've been on. we owe it to the american people and the world is watching us to show american leadership on both our short-term and long-term fiscal challenges. i'd like to see us turn our forts to the blueprint provided by the -- effort to the blueprint provided by the deficit commission. we must find ways to reduce spending, address an entitlement -- address entitlement programs and reform the tax code. and now with all the the momentum built up over the last few months, it is the time to lead. we must make the serious decisions to get our nation out of the red so that we can be competitive in the future. again, i'd say, let's turn off the rhetoric and be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

you know, in washington, the blame game has become par for the course. it's become just politics as usual. in fact, it's one thing that people in my state are sick and tired of. and one of the reasons they've lost confidence in the congress and in our government. and besides that, how in the world does holding press conferences and pointing fingers at others -- how in the world does that help resolve anything? besides that, it's just not true, because the truth of the matter is that we are in this fiscal situation that we're in today because of th of decisiont all of us have made over the last decades. in fact, i saw yesterday -- or i guess it was yesterday in the paper where speak boehner was talking to some of these caucus and he talked about get ready for the shutdown and there were ovations over there well, let me say this. there are no ovations over here

for a government shutdown. we do not want to see it. i'm not just talking about the democrats in the senate. i don't know of any republicans in the senate who want to sea a shut -- to see a shutdown. one of the stefts i see when i look at -- one tests that i use when i look at politicians is is the louder they have, the more often they have press conferences to blame other people, that probably means the more they are to blame for the problems we have today. i certainly hope as the elections roll around next year the american people will remember many of the politicians' attempts here in washington to avoid responsibility for this terrible fiscal crisis that we're in. one thing we need to keep in mind is that what we're talking about this week in terms of shutting down the government -- i hope that doesn't happen. but what we're talking about this week is really only this important for the next six months. we're only talking bee about foe

rest of this year. the only night that we need to have is -- the only fight that we need to have is over the long-term fiscal policy of this country. so for the next six months -- i don't want to say that's not important, because it is -- but i would say it's a time for us to demonstrate to the american people, to the markets, and to the world that we can come up with political solutions to very challenging problems that we have. i'm also very concerned in this fragile economy that if we do shut down the government, that might be something that would shake this economy and actually possibly stop it in its tracks. i hope not reverse it, but i do have the concern about an abankrupt cutoff of government spending, twha might do to the

economy. you know, our fiscal challenges that the debt commission has focused on and many of us have focused on, they're beyond politics. they're bigger than politics. they're more important than the next election. in fact, they're more important than our own personal political fortunes. this fiscal situation that we're in is not about the next election, but it's about the next generation. in fact, if you look back at the time that we call "the battle of britain," one of the things winston churchill that said that always stuck with me, he said, never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few. and he was talking about those brave men who flew those airplanes over great britain to protect the skies and protect the british people and really to win the war, to stop nazi germany from invading and dwel

defeating the english imierks the british empire. the so few that we have today could be named, and their names are tom coburn, dick durbin, mark warner, saxby chambliss, mike crapo and kent conrad. those few have been meeting for weeks, even months, to try to come up with a comprehensive budget agreement based on the blueprint that the debt commission has given us. i would say that these six senators, they're not politicians. they're states mern. they're trying to do what's right for the country. they're trying to $what's in the country's best interest, not their own best interest. i can guarantee you, each one of the six will face tremendous criticism from their own parties and from other quarters about what they're trying to do. to me that's courage, to me that's leadership, to me that's

what's being a senator -- that's what being a senator all about. right now i know there's six of them meeting. i know at some point once they come out and once they're ready to announce what they want to do, many others will join that effort. but i think that we need to cheer them on and encourage them to finish this very hard task that they've begun. i'm reminded when i think about those six sitting here in the capitol in various rooms around the capitol, i'm reminded of the phrase in the declaration of independence right before our founding fathers signed that great document where they say, "we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." well, this is our time to put it all on the line. we need to put our political lives on the line, our political fortunes on the line, and our honor. and we need to honor the commitment we've made to this

country when all 100 of us stood up -- nrvetio in fact, all 535 s stood up and took the oath of phs -- that we were going to do what was right for this country. i'm also pprehen also reminded n the book of isiah in my statement a few minutes ago -- i'm reminded many times in the bible, we're always encouraged to do right, to do justice, to show mercy. we want to really be upright and true. i think that's what they call us to do and what they want us to do. i'm also reminded in the new testament when jesus is talking to political and religious leadership of his day, he says, are you so blind? and are we so blind that we

can't see the forest for the trees here, that we can't understand how important it is for this country to get our debt and deficit wa where it needs to be? are we so blind as to not be able to see that we need to put everything on the table, that this is a fippl time for great leadership and sacrifice and we all have to give up something to get this done? it is our time to lead. this may be the greatest challenge of our generation, of any of us who are in this chamber who are serving either in the house or senate right now, this may be our one moment in history for greatness. and i sincerely hope that we rise to the challenge because i believe the future of the republic depends on it. mr. chairman, i -- or, mr. president, i yield the floor. thank you.

mr. 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 nebraska. mr. nelson: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: and i ask for leave

to speak for ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: who ordered. mr. johanns: mr. president, i would like to talk about an e.p.a. that i believe is out of step with american agriculture. e.p.a. continues to pursue regulations that would require farmers to file for an additional permit if they want to apply pesticides. well, just last month, administrator jackson mentioned -- and i'm quoting -- "the critical work that farmers are doing to protect our soil, our air and our water resources." yet the e.p.a. continues i believe to handcuff our farmers and our ranchers with very stringent, new regulations but still -- still expects them to do all they can to feed a hungry world. time and time again, farmers have consistently proven to be excellent stewards of the environment. they make their living from the land and they are very mindful

of maintaining and protecting and improving it. i speak from experience. i grew up on a farm. unfortunately, we've watched organizations use the courts to twist laws against american agricultural production. a democratic congressman from california recently noted that e.p.a. -- and again i'm quoting -- "often pursues a course of agency activism." he points out that the e.p.a. is using the settlement of lawsuits to give them jurisdiction over issues that may not be allowed under existing law. more and more, we are seeing important policy decisions that impact agriculture arise not from the legislative process, where it should arise from, but from the litigation process, where a lawsuit settlement

results in policy decisions being made. in january 2009, a court overturned the normal practice of allowing farmers to apply pesticides as long as they complied with labeling requirements under the effect insecticide, fungecide and rodencide act, which is known as eifra. the court ruled that e.p.a. doubly regulate pesticides applications under eifra in the clean waterage. at least 25 senate and house -- clean water act. at least 25 senate senate and house members, including myself, wrote an amicus brief regarding the decision. but insted the obama administration chose to waive the white flag, innorg science and caving to the activists. they urged the supreme court not to hear the expais to let the

ruling -- case and to let the ruling stand. for years, e.p.a. managed pesticide permitting within established environmental and safety requirements, yet the administration refused to defend what was a very established, a very long-standing approach. the e.p.a. asked for a two-year delay to write the permit and set up a compliance regiment. they moved forward with one onerous permitting requirement for our producers that will provide really no environmental gain. this would subject the pesticide appeaappear caters -- applicatoo new requirements and to requirements that duplicate, a distinct shift in how the e.p.a. regulates pesticides. it created a whole new world. this additional permitting is now inefficient, it's unnecessary, and i would argue

it's inappropriate for agriculture. e.p.a.'s permitting requirements also present a challenge to local public health officials who work to control mosquitoes and prevent the spread of disease. the american mosquito control association estimates that complying with the additional regulation could cost each pesticide user at least $200,000 and potentially $600,000 in california alone. and the dual permit requirement may reduce the availability of pesticides proven to control mosquito populations. thus, the ability of public health officials to control mosquitoes and the spread of disease will be hindered. well, we all know that bugs and weeds won't wait on another additional permit from e.p.a., and i sure don't think farmers

and public officials should have to go through this additional process. last week, the house of representatives passed the reducing regulatory burdens act. it's h.r. 872. and it passed with overwhelming support, and i'm very pleased to report a bipartisan vote of 29 292-130. and democrat congressman collin peterson, who i worked with when i was secretary of agriculture, and have a lot of respect for said this, and i'm quoting, "it was never the intent of congress to burden producers with personal permit requirements that would have little to no environmental requirement." i could not agree more that the former chair of the house ag committee. he's not alone, 57 of his colleagues, democrats, supported this bipartisan legislation to

set the record straight and send a clear message to the e.p.a. now, here in the senate, i'm a cosponsor of a similar bill that senator roberts introduced this week and i'm pleased to stand here today and support his bill. both these bills are designed to eliminate this burdensome, costly and redundant permit requirement for pesticide permit applications. i comment his efforts here. he is really trying to do something to solve this problem while protecting farmers and ranchers from additional regulation, but also very mindful of our environment. i urge the majority leader to act quickly on the legislation to address e.p.a.'s recountry ant and -- redundant and costly double-permit requirement. we can address this in the senate. if we don't find a solution, our producers will continue being

told how to operate in a very, very difficult environment. our producers already deal with the uncertainty of mother nature. we should not infuse even more uncertainty into their lives in the form of these regulations that duplicate with no discernible benefit. president obama recently promised to eliminate programs that duplicate each other. in fact, he issued an executive order calling for a government-wide review to identify programs that either duplicated, or as he said at the time, were just plain dumb. mr. president, i submit to you that this pesticide double regulation is really unnecessary and as dumb as it gets. we should support our farmers and ranchers as they produce safe, affordable food. and they are working to protect

the land. american agriculture can continue to feed the world and our farmers will continue to care for the land unless we setup unnecessary roadblocks. this redundant pesticide permitting requirement is just another example of overreach. the u.s. senate, i hope, will follow the example of the house, who voted resoundingly in a very bipartisan way to correct in situation. we cannot afford delay with the compliance date just around the corner. it's a deadline we shrimp cannot ignore. -- it's a deadline we simply cannot ignore. mr. president, thank you, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to express my strong opposition to any attempt to prevent the enviromental protection agency from doing its

job and protecting our families and our environment. the amendments that are being considered here in the senate would hurt our environment, they'll harm our national security by increasing our depends on foreign oil, they're going to devastate our public health efforts and take us in the wrong direction as we fight to compete and win and create jobs in the 21st century clean air economy. mr. president, the positions of leading scientists and doctors and public health experts are clear. global climate change is real. it is harmful and it has to be addressed. rolling back e.p.a. standards would be devastating to the health of our families and especially our children. these are settled issues in the scientific world. we shouldn't be spending time debating them over and over and over again on the senate floor. by the way, mr. president, with the price of oil spiking and families paying more and more at the pump, we ought to be focused on ways to move our country away

from our dependence on foreign oil. these amendments will do exactly the opposite, they will disrupt efficiency standards that sacrifice billions of dollars of fuel and savings and increasing our foreign imports. they'll derail the cooperative efforts of automakers and autoworkers and e.p.a. and states to develop these unified national standards that provide certainty for businesses to invest in new technologies. and, frankly, mr. president, they would be harmful to our national security. every dollar we send overseas to pay for oil is more money in the pockets of countries that are too often far from friendly to our national security interest, and that doesn't make any sense to me. but this debate isn't just about health and the environment and it's not just about our national security dependence on foreign oil. it's also about jobs and the economy, which is exactly what we ought to be focused on right now.

we are currently working on legislation on the floor to help small business owners to innovate and grow, to give them the resources they need so they can expand and add jobs and compete in a global economy. these amendments that are being considered to that bill will move our country in the opposite direction. first of all, they're going to cause massive uncertainty and upheaval for clean energy companies like the mckin street company in my home state of washington that are working to create jobs and grow a clean energy economy. if the rules of the game keep changing, businesses are never going to have the confidence they need to invest and add workers. second of all, we all know that america needs to move quickly into the 21st century clean energy economy. other countries, like china and india, are pulling resources into investments creating jobs and creating infrastructure. we need to make sure that we position ourselves to compete and win in this critical sector.

that's why instead of harmful legislation and amendments that would take us in the wrong direction, instead of doing that, with we should be talking about policies that reduce our depends on foreign oil, support our national security objectives, and unshackle our economy. so we can tap the energy of our creative workers and make sure our workers continue leading the way in this 21st century economy. that's the direction our country needs to be moving toward a healthy and clean environment and toward the clean energy jobs of the future. we can't just bury our heads in the sand and expect our energy and our environmental problems to somehow disappear. the longer we put off dealing with these issues, the more it is going to cost us in the future. and that's exactly what the amendments that are on the floor will do. they're bad for the environment, they're bad for the economy, they're dangerous to our family's health. with science -- the science on

these issues are very clear and it's something that the people in my home state of washington take very seriously. because when families across america go outside for some fresh air or turn on their tap and hope to have a clean glass of water, they expect these resources to be just that, clean. so, once again, i strongly oppose any attempt to take away the e.p.a.'s ability to do their job and i hope we can work together to find real solutions to the critical problems that face our country. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, the president today is heading to philadelphia to talk about energy. well, the president talks a good game, but unlike energy, talk is cheap. well, the president plans to host a town hall meeting about his new energy policy. and i think it's time that the -- that the rhetoric face the reality of what the country is -- is seeing, experiencing and dealing with. and if -- if the president truly

wants to get a handle on energy costs, he needs to start by immediately stopping his environmental protection agency from attempting to enact a backdoor cap-and-trade regulation. that's exactly what the e.p.a. is doing. the only effect that that can have is to increase energy costs on american families. and the president, himself, admitted as much in 2008. at that time he said in an interviews with a san francisco newspaper, he said, asks under my plan of cap and trade electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." is the president really serious about decreasing dependency on foreign oil? if so, he would rescind his veto threat against today's congressional legislation regarding the policies of the e.p.a. that's why i'm here in support of the mcconnell amendment.

the mcconnell amendment keeps energy prices low. it prevents the e.p.a. from blocking the development of domestic energy. it restores the clean air act to its original congressional intent. i support the mcconnell commonsense amendment. now, most likely today we'll just hear more of the same from the president in his speech and town hall meeting in philadelphia. and more of the same is the last thing that the american people need right now. american families are facing increasing gas prices. our national security is being jeopardized by dependence on foreign sources of energy. unrest in the middle east and north africa is driving high prices even higher. now, the company of energy made an -- the department of energy made an estimate that families across this country will spen spend $700 more on gasoline this year than they did last year.

meanwhile the president will most likely deliver another speech with great goals, but limited action. with gasoline at over $3.50 a gallon, the president fails to appreciate the -- the effect that this has on the effect specifically that his administration policies have on families with bills with kids and with mortgages to pay. in 2008 president obama, then a candidate for president, said that the problem wasn't that gas prices were too high, but they that they had risen too fast. in his words, he said, he would have preferred a more gradual adjustment. well, this may explain why the president spent his first two years in the white house undermining and abandoning all of the above approach to energy. it's no wonder that he's now trying to cast blame on those who are offering a responsible alternative.

the president says he wants to cut our imports of foreign oil by a third by the year 2025. well, to me it doesn't -- he doesn't appear to have right vision or political will to get there. the united states has the most combined energy resources on earth. but when faced with new sources of u.s. energy, the administration's automatic response has been to regulate, to delay, or to shut down. the president's say one, do another policy is making the pain at the pump even worse. his approach is long on making promises, short on taking responsibility. he talks of his concern for the people affected by the gulf oil spill, yet his drilling shutdown of the gulf of mexico killed their jobs and strangles energy production even today. u.s. offshore oil production is expected to drop 15% this year thanks to the policies of this administration.

the president's claim that blaming his administration for -- quote -- "shutting down oil production" -- he says it doesn't track with reality. but i will at the you, the administration's stalling on gulf oil and gas drilling permits is so antibusiness that even former president bill clinton called it ridiculous. so even as the president says he wants to cut oil imports, he told an audience in brazil just a week or two ago that he wants the united states to become one of brazil's best customers for oil. he said he would expedite new drilling permits. he claims that oil companies are -- quote -- "signature on supplies of american energy just waiting to be tapped." close quote. but the biggest thing standing in the way is the red tape from his own interior department and his own environmental protection agency.

while use it or lose it -- that's the president's own sound bite -- it ignores the reality that the obama administration's own policies are the most significant roadblock we have to exploring for american energy. the president also claims to support alternative fuels. yet he didn't once mention converting oil into fuel or tapping oil shale. oil shale production could produce an estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil. that's three times the amount of saudi arabia's oil reserves. the way we can address our economic and our national security needs is by producing more american energy. we can't afford to pick and choose our energy in a time of uncertainty. we do need it all. this means allowing more u.s. exploration and lifting the burdensome regulations that make it harder for americans to produce more energy. renewable energy is part of it. renewable energy is important.

but there is no way that green energy and green jobs can replace the red, white, and blue energy and jobs that have continued to power our country for over a century. until the administration acknowledges this, the administration policies will continue to make the pain at the pump even worse. and that's why i urge the members of the body, urge my colleagues to adopt the mcconnell amendment. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nother. mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise in strong opposition to the mcconnell amendment, and i listened to my distinguished colleague from wyoming. i enjoyed working with him. but this is one in which we fundamentally disagree. this isn't about energy production. this is about clean air.

and this amendment is a blatant attack on the clean air act. and from my perspective in nother, any aa -- and from my per peculiarive in new jersey, any attack on the clean air act is an attack on new jersey, primarily because of dirty, old coal plants, every state is out of compliance with the clean air act. now, one of those coal power plants is the aging portland generation station located just across the delaware river. and this plant emitted 30,000 tons of sulfur dioxide in 2009. that is almost three times the amount of all seven of new jersey's coal plants combined. so we've cleaned up our act.

others need to do it for the collective air that we breathe as americans. its pollutants waff across the river causing a whole host of respiratory illness from airs ma to heart disease -- from asthma to heart disease. if not for the clean air act, my state or any other state similarly situated would not have been able to petition the federal government to stop the pollution that this pennsylvania plant spews into new jersey's air. just last week, new jerseyans received some good news. under the authority of the clean air act, the federal government proposed a rule that would grant my state's petition. if finalized in coming months, the rule would lead to an over 80% reduction in the portlan pod

coal plant's sickening sulfur dioxide emissions. if not for the clean air act, my state would not have this victory within its grasp. it would not have the opportunity to protect its citizens. we simply cannot gut the one piece of federal legislation that protects the air that we breathe. imagine having to tell your child they cannot go outside to play because the wind isn't blowing quite the right way, because the air that they'll breathe will damage their lungs. the mcenclose i asks don't -- the mccloskeys don't have to imagine it. they know t on poor air quality days in the summer, their daughter could not even make it to the family car, much less go outside and play, without starting to wheeze. family activity began to revolve

around trips to the doctors, treatments and stays at the hospital. it was a severe economic hardship on the family, not just because of cost but also because all of these trips made it difficult for erin's mother national a lee to -- natalie to hold down a job. 4-year-old christon a quuvment ino suffers from severe asthma and takes six different medications a day to control asthma attacks. but still his mother, iri snchts lives with a constant fear that an attack sanders the corner. on bad air days, they avoid going outside and when on the highway in trarveg the windows are kept closed. 14-year-old soma of elizabeth, new jersey, also suffers from severe airs mavment he has been on daily steroid medication to control his mas for three years and if he skips a day, his lungs

start to falter and he can't catch his breath. his mother sharon realized that pollution in their old neighborhood was triggering attacks and had an opportunity to move the family. since that move, samad has been doing much better, but he still requires daily medication. these children are part of a sobering national reality, a new jersey reality. their days revolve around inhalers, steroids, and constant anxiety over when air pollution will trigger another severe asthma attack. according to the national centers for disease control and prevention, each year -- each year -- over 10,000 new jerseyans are hospitalized due to asthma attacks triggered by air quality problems. thousands of sick days are taken each year in new jersey by

either as matterics or parents of as matterics, which leave consequences for the new jersey economy. asthma attacks triggered by air pollution cause scores of premature deaths in my state each year. aaron mcclosky, christian mcqueno, saman matheo bring these statistics to life. while their causes of asthma are many, air pollution is their common trigger. the clean air act directly impact their health, their quality of life, and even the ability of their parents to keep a job. for them and for thousands of children like them, weakening the clean air act will mean more days quaestorred in their homes and emergency rooms and those visits to those emergency rooms. this amendment, the mcconnell amendment, the one i call the dirty air amendment, is the

first of many amendments that we can expect to see that are aimed at preventing the federal government from regulating polluters under the clean air acact. caring about children's health means not allowing polluters to place profits ahead of people, ahead of the well-being of our children. and i mean all children, no matter their race, ethnicity or class. low-income and minority americans continue to be disproportionately exposed to pollution that's harmful to their health. a recent analysis showed, for example, that two-thirds of u.s. latinos, about 25.6 million americans, live in areas that do not mean the air quality standards under the clean air act. and perhaps this begins to explain why hispanic americans are three times more likely than whites to die from asthma

attacks. why latino children are 60% more likely than whites to have asthma. low-income and minority americans will also be disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change. let's be clear. the scientific consensus is overwhelming. climate change will increasingly create more frequent and more extreme storms, more violent and sustained heat waves, meaning more costly and dangerous floods and droughts, hotter summer days will mean more ozone formation and more bad air quality days. in this way, climate change directly endangers all of us, our children and our children's children. the changes in weather patterns and increasingly extreme weather events also directed in direct effects. security of our food supply will be at risk due to more frequent heat stress. the security of water supplies will be at risk due to droughts. all of these reasons scientists agree that climate pollution

endangers public health and well fair. that's well understood. and we can curtail these risks by regulating climate pollution. but no, big polluters want to kick the can down the road and want to pretend they aren't polluting. big polluters want to pretend these risks aren't real. they want the mcconnell amendment to pass so they can continue business as usual. so this is not about energy, because if the new jersey coal fire plants can ultimately reduce their emissions by 80%, it's the question of an investment. they're still producing energy, mr. president, 9.2, 9.3 million people in the state, they're producing energy. but the reality is they're doing it in a cleaner way. that's what this issue's all about. we must not allow polluters to set our priorities. how many children, how many

children in new jersey or in other parts of the country that face the reality of dirty air, how many children are we willing to have deathly ill in order allow polluters to continue to spew toxins in our air that we collectively breathe? and doing so risks not only our health and that of future generations, it risks the promise of a green economy built on green energy jobs, energy efficiency, innovations and reduced waste and pollution. so i urge my colleagues to stop the effort to gut the clean air act. i urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. let's make sure that we bequeath to future generations the ability to have an air that ultimately we can collectively breathe, that doesn't sicken our families and doesn't undermine our collective health. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and observe 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 arkansas is recognized. a senator: mr. president, i rise today -- the presiding officer: is quorum call is in effect. a senator: i ask for unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you. thank you, mr. president. i rise today to express my strong support for the mcconnell amendment. this amendment prevents e.p.a. from continuing to reach beyond

congress's clear intent under the clean air act. congress did not authorize greenhouse gas regulation under the clean air act. this amendment is an appropriate response to clarify the law that has been misinterpreted. the e.p.a. should not be making policy decisions beyond the authority clearly granted to the agency by congress. let's remember, last year congress rejected cap and trade agenda on a bipartisan basis. e.p.a.'s agenda is a job-destroying agenda. it will raise the price of energy, food and gasoline. the cost of this policy will be transferred to the people of arkansas and all americans. every time they shop at the store. e.p.a.'s agenda will not lead to

a cleaner environment. american manufacturing will be hurt and our manufacturing capacity will be replaced by foreign competitors with weak environmental standards. this amendment will allow individual states to keep existing policies in place by permitting them to regulate emissions as they see fit. this amendment also enables the e.p.a. to focus on the important purposes of the clean air act, which i strongly support. the clean air act must be used to protect the public from harmfuharmharmful pollutants. the clean air act was not intended to address climate change concerns. finally, let me address a myth that we keep hearing. some have stated that the supreme court is forcing the e.p.a. to take this heavy-hand

heavy-handed, backdoor cap-and-tax approach. this is wrong. the supreme court stated that the e.p.a. can decide whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. many senators bring the supreme court's interpretation of the law is wrong, yet e.p.a. made a political decision based on the court's ruling to expand their jurisdiction far beyond what congress intended. this amendment will correct that action. others have stated that this amendment would permanently eliminate the e.p.a.'s authority to regulate greenhouse gases. this is also wrong. no policy is permanent unless it is part of our constitution and even the constitution can be amended. we can enact this amendment and still have a debate in this body about needed policy changes in the future. finally, let me quickly address some of the alternatives to this amendment that are being

suggested. some have my colleagues have suggested delaying the e.p.a.'s actions by two years. others have suggested that one sector of the economy or another should be exempted from e.p.a.'s unnecessary and burdensome rules. i would suggest that these proposals do not provide the cover that some senators want. bad policy is bad policy, whether carried out this year or two years from now. our job creators need certainty. restraining the e.p.a. for two years will not provide the certainty they need to invest and create more jobs. exempting one sector of the economy is also not enough. there is no excuse for protecting just one sector while watching americans in other sectors lose their jobs to foreign competitors. at the moment, our priority must be job creation, protecting our industrial and manufacturing sectors, and keeping gas and

food prices low. we must make sure the e.p.a. avoids politically-driven initiatives and becomes focused on its core mission: protecting air and water quality and preventing exposure to toxic contamination. with that, mr. president, i yield back and note the absence of a quorum. mr. franken: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota is recognized. mr. franken: thank you. mr. president, i rise to speak on my pay for war resolution which i am submitting today. this resolution would change the way we pay for war spending and it would change the way we deliberate about going to war. this is not a symbolic resolution. it would return us to the traditional american way of paying for wars, where the

congress and the nation confront head-on the financial costs, commitment and sacrifice of going to war. this is something i believe in strongly. it's an issue i've been working on for months. this did not start with libya, though libya certainly gives it a new urgency. a number of my friends on both sides of the aisle have expressed concerns about the potential costs of the war in libya, but this resolution is broader than libya. it's about how we're going to pay for any wars in the future. the resolution seeks to reestablish a fiscally responsible way of paying for our wars. it's fiscally responsible because it would require that war spending be paid for or offset, as we say here in the

senate. it's also morally and politically responsible because it would reestablish the connection between the citizenry of the united states and the costs of going to war. a burden that is now shared solely by the men and women of the military and their families while the rest is passed on to future generations in the form of debt. the last ten years, our wars have been paid for by borrowing, mostly from china and other countries willing to finance our debt and by giant emergency spending bills. that's unusual in american history. and, frankly, my resolution is aimed to make sure it stays unusual. iraq and afghanistan have cost

us well over a trillion dollars. in fact, the congressional research service's most recent estimate is that including this fiscal year, congress will have approved $1.25 trillion for iraq and afghanistan, $806 billion for iraq and $444 billion for afghanistan. that is a staggering sum of money and it's been financed through debt, through borrowing from other countries and emergency supplemental spending bills, which go on our debt. what's more, the iraq war was accompanied by a massive tax c cut. that failed fiscal experiment created the impression that going to war requires no financial sacrifice. we know that that's just not true. the question is: who will bear the financial sacrifice?

the agai generation that has ded to go to war or its children and grandchildren? mr. franken franken: the iraq ad afghanistan wars drove up our deficit. they didn't single-handedly create our deficit problem but they made it much worse. and if we're going to fix our deficit problem, rejecting how we finance those wars must be part of the solution. we have to ensure that the manner of funding, by borrowing, of the iraq and afghanistan wars remains an anomaly in american history. and that's why my resolution -- that's exactly what my resolution seeks to do. it will ensure that future wars don't make our deficit and debt problem worse. it will ensure that congress and

the american people must face the financial sacrifice of going to war, and it will force us to decide whether a war is worth that sacrifice. a huge gap has grown between the majority of the american people and the small proportion who serve in the military. so much sacrifice has been asked of them and their families and joat little of the rest -- and yet so little of the rest of us. my resolution will reconnect those who serve and our larger society. the obama administration has taken an important step in seeking to reduce reliance on morning spending bills and instead budget for war through the regular budget process. they have included an overseas contingency operations account over and above the budget for the day-to-day operations of the defense department. that account is where you now find our war funding.

but the improvements of the obama administration has made are not enough. the momentous decision to go to war deserves a way of paying for those wars that matches the seriousness of that decision. overseas contingency operations should be paid for. thus, my resolution simply says that if there is a new overseas contingency operation requiring new funding beyond the defense base budget, that funding must be offset. it does not specify how that offset is to be found, leaving it up to congress to decide. different people have different ideas. some may propose spending cuts. others may propose revenue increases or a combination of the two. but the bottom line is that congress must find a way to pay for the costs of new wars that

we decide to undertake. more specifically, this pay for war resolution creates a point of order so that any senator can to be a legislative proposal that allows for spending on new overseas contingency operations that is not deficit-neutral. but it has some flexibility. first, it allows the costs of war in a given year to be offset in -- over ten years because of how the budgeting process works now, spending cuts must be found in the same year of funding as the war spending but, if need be, any offset on the revenue side can be spread out over ten years. my resolution also allows the offset requirement to be overridden by a vote of 60 senators. so if three-fifths of us deem it important enough to spend on an overseas contingency separatio n

without paying for it ourselves, that can happen. i believe this fully addresses any concern that people might have about unduly tying the hands of the president or of the congress, for that matter. if there were a genuine emergency that required immediate military response in the short term and that couldn't be covered by the defense -- by the base defense budget, my resolution would not tie our hands. any true emergency would certainly motivate enough of us to vote to waive the point of order. similarly if a particular at a particular time our economic circumstances made it especially ill-advised to be to offset the spending on war, we would be able to waive or override the offset requirement with 60 votes here in the senate. let me talk briefly about how this resolution handles iraq and

afganistan. unfortunately we are where we are on iraq and afganistan, and this resolution is not meant to drive policy on those wars. it is forward looking. earlier i mentioned the obama administration's praise for the effort to reduce reliance on emergency supplemental spending bills. my resolution would strengthen that effort by exempting spending on those wars from this offset requirement, but only up to the amount of the president's regular budget request. anything above that cap would be subject to the offset requirement. for example, for fiscal year 2012, the president requeste requested $118 billion for iraq and afganistan. any costs over and above that request would need to be offsettlement that number should -- offset. that number should go down as we draw down from iraq and afganistan. this number is derived, by the way, from a recommendation of

the president's fiscal commission. the idea that we should pay for our wars is not a democratic idea. it is not a republican idea. it's not left or right. it's not antiwar. it's not pro war. just common sense. that's why my resolution has garnered expressions of support from a diverse range of organizations and defense and budget experts. it's supported by the senator for american progress action, by the bipartisan policy senator, and by the committee for a responsible federal budget. noted fiscal hawk, david walker, former come toller of the united states, has expressed his support, so have mile mcginnis of the committee for responsible budget. and a number of experts have

stated the rational for the bill very powerfully. here is what michael ohand lynn said -- quote --"senator franken's proposal is serious and smart. fighting wars will while not asking the broaderring a nation for sacrifice an commitment. and meanwhile racking up federal debt in a way that endangers the economic prospects of future generations." and here's what william niskana and benefit friedman of the cato institute say -- quote -- "democracies cannot accurately evaluate policies with hidden costs. deficit financing sends war bills to future taxpayers. that limits the extent to which voters and their representatives weigh the war's costs against other priorities. the effect is to make war feel cheaper than it is."

unquote. and here's what dean baker of the center for economic policy research said, "the vast majority of people in the country have no direct connection to the people serving in the military. if we think that a situation requires the men and women in our military to risk their own lives, then the rest of us should at least be willing to pay for the cost of this adventure with our tax dollars." my resolution makes budgetary sense and makes moral and political sense, that's why i'm confident my resolution will garner the support of my colleagues and of the american people. i think americans understand that the way we've gone about paying for the wars in iraq and afganistan by borrowing and putting the financial burden on later generations instead of taking it on ourselves is just not good budgeting, and, frankly, it's just not good decision making about war. right now we're hiding the cost

of war by shifting their financial burden to future generations. and we're refusing to consider the real sacrifices that war requires of a nation. not just the members of the military. that has to change. so we need to start paying for war. and it needs to be part of a larger conversation about how we address our nation's deficit and debt. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the text of my resolution be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama's recognized. mr. sessions: mr. president, i'd like to speak a few moments on behalf of the mcconnell-inhofe amendment. i thank them for their leadership in dealing with the governmental regulation of carbon dioxide, amendment number 183. i just want to share a few thoughts about a matter that's important to me. i served several years as a ranking republican on the judiciary committee. i'm interested in our legal system and how it works and i have to say that the supreme

court ruling that resulted in the situation we're in today is a classic example of how unelected officials, not just judges, but, really, unelected officials, bureaucrats, contrary to the democratic-republican ideals on which this country was founded, ideals that require accountability, that require responsibility, that allow the american people to hold their officials responsible and accountable for what they do, how this whole process has resulted in a -- in a -- in a situation that is dramatically contrary to the ideals of the american founders and our american people today. for this reason alone i believe the mcconnell-inhofe amendment

should be passed because we're talking about a situation in which unelected governmental employees, bureaucrats, employees, public servants, whatever you want to call them, are systemically going about regulating every administration of co2 in the country under a very theory and they were never given the explicit authority to do so. they will, under the power they've been given, have the ability to regulate your automobile, the heating unit in your home, hospitals, businesses, cities, and anyone else that utilizes carbon fuels to produce energy that their

family and business and city depend on. this is what it's all about. how did it happen? what occurred here? well, 40 years ago congress passed the clean air act. at that point in time congress was clearly focused on how to clean up the atmosphere, smog, fog, smog, and pollutants and pa particulamercury, sulfur die oo, all these -- dioxides all of these products were in our atmosphere and congress took action to contain that and it has helped produce a much cleaner atmosphere than we've ever had. i won't say ever had, but certainly in modern times pollutions were far worse 30

years ago, 40 years ago than they are today. our -- our atmosphere has far less dangerous pollutants in it and the extent of that act was very successful. but since this earth was created, we've had a marvelous balance, human beings, animals breathe in air, they take in oxygen out of that air and they breathe out carbon dioxide. it's not a pollutant. it's never been considered to be a pollutant. plants, as you know, from your basic high school classes, breathe in carbon dioxide and omit oxygen and the whole life-cycle process that is so marvelous and goes far beyond our ability to go to express how

marvelous and wonderful it is. well, centuries and centuries and millennia ago, plants and the world sucked in carbon dioxide and were buried under the ground and this carbon dioxide was trapped with the plants and became coal and oil and gas and in recent years we've been taking that out of the ground, we've been burning those fuels and been creating more carbon dioxide. and after the clean air act passed, after it became law, because at the time it became law, nobody realized we had the potential danger of a warming planet. congress never thought when they passed the clean air act, never had the slightest idea that thousands of bureaucrats would be able to take that act that

they passed and control every home, every business, every city, every hospital in america. so what happened? well, the concern over global warming arose. whatever people had about that the concern was out there and many people believe it's a serious threat. others think it's not so serious. but at any rate the law -- a lawsuit was fiesmed that's what we -- was filed. that's what we have so much of in this country. people file lawsuits especially on environmental issues. they say, well, the planet is warming. and one reason it's warming is because there's a global warming gas co2 being emitted more today, we're digging it out of the ground and reemitting it back into the air and this is a kinger to us an -- this is a danger to us and we believe this

is a pollutant now. we call co2, this plant food, this naturally occurring substance in the atmosphere is now a pollutant. we say it is and the e.p.a. should be required to regulate it. and by a 5-4 decision the supreme court seemed to say, but with not much clarity, that the e.p.a. should examine this and if it's a pollutant, they should regulate it. because that's what they said the statute meant. well, first of all, i don't think the statute meant that. i agree with the four judges who dissented. i believe congress never had any intent whatsoever to give e.p.a. the ability to control the emission of co2 all over america. i have no doubt of that. and it's not in the statute in

any way that provided any clarity for the supreme court to state i suspect -- to say that. i suspect it was a product of activism. judges got excited about the claims several years ago -- actually less so today -- of the danger of co2 to global warming and they wanted to see it happen and they just interpreted the statute that way. but not really too clearly. so now the enviromental protection agency is setting about to do so. and it's a major intervention by the united states government in every aspect of american life. it has the potential to drive up costs for individual americans as they heat their homes and their cars to place a real burden economically on the american economy and to put us in a bad situation economically. so what the mcconnell-inhofe

amendment does is it says, wait a minute, congress didn't approve that. we don't want to do that. we don't want e.p.a. regulating co2 all over the country unless we direct them to do so. unless we, the elected representatives, decide that it ought to be done. and this decision ought not to be executed by five out of the nine members of the supreme court, with lifetime appointments, utterly uncuttable to the american people, or thousands -- tens of thousands of governmental employees, public servants, bureaucrats in the environmental protection agency. they don't get to do it either. it's our responsibility. if we're going to impose a massive regulatory burden on every american in this nation,

this congress ought to decide when and how and under what circumstances it should be done. we have people in this congress and in government who act like we have no control over it. the supreme court ruled the e.p.a. is issuing regulations. well, why don't you do anything about it? well, that's just how -- we don't have any responsibility. don't blame me. you don't like it, well, it wasn't my fault. i didn't pass the clean air act 40 years ago. i wasn't on the supreme court. many a not an e.p.a. bureaucrats -- i'm not an e.p.a. bureaucrat. but we're the united states congress. the congress of the united states of america, accountable to the american people. it is a question of constitutionalism. it's a question of separation of powers. it's question of responsibility. if we were to decide that the emission of co2 is of

significant danger to our environment and it ought to be regulated, let's vote to say soavmenso.if we decided that att in time we're not able financially, there's not enough scientific evidence, there's no justification for going forward with the regulation of co2 at this point in time -- and i'm inclined to believe massive regulation is not the appropriate thing to do today, but that's a decision congress ought to make, and we ought to be held accountable for the decisions we make. then that's the way our country was set up to conduct issues of importance. and i got to tell you, this is a big issue. if it's before the senate, it would take -- we should have

tremendous debate, weeks of debate, because it's going to be hundreds of billions of dollars in cost, trillions of dollars in cost if we set about to regulate all co2 in america. it just is. i don't see how it can be disputed. and we act like we're washing our hands of it. the supreme court didn't make a policy decision that this was the right thing to do. thea's not their role. in fact, they were den, they wos what they d they would say, is all they did is take a statute passed 40 years ago before global warming was even considered, an issue to be confronted by the congress, and they decided that five of them -- five of them decided that congress, the statute they passed, required e.p.a. to regulate co2 nowvmen now.

not then maybe, but now they decided it does. four of the judges on the supreme court said, no, congress, if they did not expressly say that, they clearly had no intention of doing that. and it shouldn't be imposed on america. but the five won and now an unelected group of american employees are setting about to regulate where we are. we do not need to do that. the american people should not allow this to happen. so that demand that their congress be responsible for what it does when it opposes such a monumental cost on the economy and the american citizen, and that's our responsibility. the mcconnell-inhofe legislation faces up to that squarely. it says that we're not going to allow this circuitous route of interpretation of statutes to result in one of the most

massive governmental intrusions in american life to occur. it ought to be a matter of public debate, intense debate, not discussion before such things happen. i salute my colleagues for offering the amendment, and i urge my colleagues to support it. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

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, we're going to be voting this afternoon on a number of e.p.a. bills. one in which is mine which calls for a short two-year waiting period but does not shut down in any way the e.p.a. particularly on cafe standards. i have two messages, one is i hope, but doubt, but nevertheless hope that people will vote for my bill. as of last december i would have gotten every republican vote, but when they broke away from

the omnibus recollection agreement, those votes went out the window, so i think they'll vote for mcconnell, which i think is a mistake. first of all i'm opposed to the mcconnell amendment. i think it's foolish. it overreaches. it's briefly satisfying and devastating on a long-term basis. a case in point, it undermines the ability because of -- because it obliterates the e.p.a. to set cafe standards. too few people in this body understand that 31% of all carbon emissions come out of the rear end of trucks and cars and other vehicles. and that the right and the power and the science to set cafe

standards is incredibly -- an incredibly important mission of the e.p.a. under the mcconnell amendment, that, along with everything else that e.p.a. does, is out the window on a permanent basis. it's good-bye e.p.a. forever. that strikes me as not mature approach to legislation. i understand the frustration. we had that in west virginia. the e.p.a. doesn't understand necessarily the nuaunces of economic situations, there's a more exacting way to present legislation and so i call for a two-year time-out period. but i don't abolish e.p.a. i say for a period of two years they shouldn't do regulations on power stations, manufacturing plants or oil refineries.

that strikes me as not a fatal thing. it strikes me as something that could become law. the most important thing i can say about the mcconnell bill, i just pray that that sinks in, it won't, but i pray that it will, there is not one chance in 10 trillion that the mcconnell bill will become law. it will not happen. he shuts the e.p.a. down permanently in all respects forever. it will never happen. i doubt it will pass the senate it will certainly not pass at any other level where it counts. so why do they do that? they do that because it doesn't solve the problem, it makes a point. it makes people feel good because they're mad, but, in fact, it does great destruction to our future. it doesn't solve a problem. i'm here to solve problems.

what i think we do need is a time-out to stop the impositions of e.p.a. that don't allow for clean technologies and would hurt the economy in a very critical point in our still slowly moving recovery, but to do in a way that keeps us all focused and working on the long-term energy policy. yes, we've had problems with e.p.a. in west virginia, but the answer is that you don't -- you don't get rid of the agency forever. i mean, it's -- this -- it's incomprehensible to me that mature people could actually be for that, vote for that, respouse that, but they -- espouse that, but they have. and as of last december when we were doing the omnibus appropriations bill, every republican would -- had agreed, more or less, you know, to vote for my bill, just a two-year

time out which shouldn't affect cafe standards. but then all of a sudden nine republicans defected. the election had already been held, the house was about to go into republican hands, and once they defectd, then -- defected, then everything crashed down and all of the votes that i would have gotten from the republican party are now gone. i doubt that i'll get any votes from the republican party and not many from my own party, which -- which i regret, but which i understand. i believe -- i believe in clean coal. people say coal. i much like it better if they say clean coal. because if it's just coal the way it is in the ground, we're not going anywhere and natural gas will overtake coal, put them out of business. i've said this to the coal

operators quite frequently, they don't believe me. it's true. it happened in north carolina, 12 power plants, in lots of other places. i have nothing against natural gas. we have a lot of natural gas. natural gas has one half of the carbon that coal does. it has one half. they call themselves a clean fuel and in relation to coal in the ground, they are. but 50% is a long way from what we are already doing in west virginia, which is taking 90% of the carbon out of coal as a comes -- as it comes out of the ground. it goes to a power plant where there's a dow chemical company on the one hand, american electric power on the other have already -- and i've seen their plants and i've seen their results and i went with secretary chu where they're taking 90% of the carbon out of coal. that's not bad. you can call that clean coal.

we've got a gigantic energy problem. we need everything we can get. i was even prepared to be for nuclear, which is about 20% of our current power structure. i'm not sure which am right now. -- where i am right now. i have to think more deeply about that. i'm worried because our power plants are old also like the japanese ones are. so all i can say is, i'm for keeping our eye on the ball. i'm not for making us sort of feel good on a very temporary basis -- you know, everybody gets mad at the e.p.a. it's sort of like opening day in american baseball, i mean, you just do it and people cheer, but if you -- if you do it the way it's done in this amendment by abolishing the -- the agency, that's a long season and it's a really bad win-lose record. so i hope that -- i hope that my bill will get sufficient votes.

i'm not sure -- i don't think it will because i think the folks on the other side of the aisle have completely deserted it because they feel a great solidarity, want to show their power, and along comes an elimination bill -- i just couldn't be for that. morally i couldn't be for that. i'm strongly for west virginia coal miners. i just came back last night from the first anniversary of the 29 coal miners who died. it wasn't an anniversary, it was a memorial. and powerful, powerful life being a coal miner, which is unknown to most people what it's like, what the dangers are, but they do it and they're strong, but what they -- what they produce could be cleaned up, the technology is there. that's what my amendment would do, give a two-year time-out to let us work the technology, try to be convincing to wall street and then we could be on our way to have not only natural gas

every single alternative energy i can possibly think of, perhaps minus ethanol, but that's a different story and we'd be on our way. in any event, it's -- it's a clear choice. clean coal has to play a role in meeting our energy needs. it's abundant. it can be clean. the technology is there. more is on the way and so i hope that people will vote for my amendment and i hope very strongly that they will vote against the mcconnell amendment. in the final analysis, i guess, if they -- if they don't and they vote for the mcconnell amendment they're going to lose anyway because it's never going to get anywhere. it's a guaranteed loser in the legislative process. mine, i think, could be helpful. i thank the presiding officer and yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, in a couple of hours now the senate will vote on the inhofe-mcconnell amendment which would prevent the e.p.a. with moving -- from moving forward with a dangerous and -- i say dangerous, but certainly harmful to business and certainly costly greenhouse gas regulations and i hope my colleagues in the senate will support that amendment for a number of reasons. because it bears heavily on one of the great debates that we're having in the country today. and i find it -- i think the american people must find it confusing. i certainly do. when you get all these mixed signals coming out of the elected leaders in washington, d.c. the american people must be incredibly confused because the president has said in -- rhetorically, at least, he's talked about the need to reduce our dependence, our dangerous

dependence on foreign energy. he talked recently about getting the number of barrels of oil that we import every day down by one-third at the end of this decade and the fact of the matter is, mr. president, that we do spend a billion dollars every single day on foreign oil. a billion dollars that we export out of this country because of the addiction that we have to foreign sources of energy. the problem, mr. president, is that everything this administration is doing is contrary to that goal. if you look at the policies that are coming out of washington, d.c., right now today, they are -- they completely contradict this idea that we ought to be moving toward energy independence and getting away from this dangerous dependence that we have on foreign sources of energy. and i'll point out a couple of things. we have, of course, in the gulf of mexico the so-called performerup -- pemratorium.

the outer continental shelf has been put off limits by this administration and many federal lands where there are abundant energy resources have also been placed off-limits. in fact, there were some areas that had been developed or going to be -- that were going to be permits issued for exploration in some of the states in the wes where we know we have abundant energy resources that have now been repealed or pulled back by the administration. just recently 77 in the state of utah. 21 in the state of montana. we have enormous resources right here in our own country that we could be developing that would get us away from sending this billion dollars a day every single day to foreign countries around the world because of our addiction to energy. now, the other thing that was tried here in the congress last year was a cap-and-trade bill. it passed the house of representatives, passed narrowly. it was never voted on in the united states senate because

there wasn't political support for it in the united states senate. that legislation would have dramatically increased the cost of energy in this country, made it more expensive for our small businesses to run their business operations and imposed dramatically higher electricity and fuel costs on american consumers. that was a given. i think that everybody conceded that was the case. but because there wasn't political support for it here on capitol hill, it ended up not becoming law. well, what we have now coming out of the e.p.a. is essentially a cap-and-trade bill through the back door. the e.p.a. has decided that they will do, by regulation, what they could not get done -- the administration could not get done through the political process here in the congress. and the point i want to make about that is that the cap-and-trade bill is widely debated and discussed -- that was widely and debated and discussed at the time, would have driven up energy costs. this would have the sact exam

effect. if you're concerned about economic growth and job creation, which we all should be -- lord knows when you've got almost 9% unemployment and lots of people look fog for work, that ought to be our number-one priority -- the fact that you would be putting policies in place that would be counter to creating jobs and getting capital deplied out there in our comirks i think, probably defies explanation, at least for most americans. in fact, the american council for capital formation projects that the uncertainty created by the e.p.a.'s climate change regulations would increase the risk premium of capital by 30% to 40%. the additional uncertainty is projected to reduce u.s. capital investment by as much as $400 billion per year. so, mr. president, i would argue that if we are serious about parading jobs, if we're serious about growing the economy, why would we want to sideline hundreds of billions of dollars of capital every single year because of these onerous and

costly regulations? and that's a major reason why there is $2 trillion today sitting on the sidelines. talked about a lot, but, you know, nobody seems to be really concerned about changing that. and what i hear repeatedly from those who are able to invest and have capital put to work is, they don't like the economic uncertainty coming out of washington. and in most cases, if not in every case, it is focused on these regulations, on regulatory agencies, particularly the e.p.a., who continue to come up with new proposals to drive up the cost of doing business in this country. there was a charles river associates study that projected that the e.p.a.'s cap-and-trade regulations could increase wholesale electricity costs by 35% to 45% and reduce average worker compensation by $700 per year. now, what's unfortunate about this whole situation, mr. president, is that the regulations will drive up energy and gasoline prices the most for

middle- and low-income families. that's where the impact is going to be most felt. roger besdeck at the commerce of department concluded recently a that e.p.a.'s regulations will "impact low-income groups, the elderly and minorities disproportionately, both because they have lower flks to begin with -- lower incomes to begin with but because they have to spend more of their income on energy and rising energy cost inflict great harm on these groups." and i would go on to point out, mr. president, that perhaps the greatest burden of increased energy costs resulting from these new greenhouse gas regulations will fall upon the elderly social security recipients who represent 20% of all households in this country and who depend primarily on fixed incomes. they have limited opportunity to increase their earnings from employment. so they get hit the hardest. what these regulations are going to do are target and hit the people who can least afford to

deal with it. so we have an opportunity here today to do something about that. i think that what we are seeing with the e.p.a. and many of these government agencies is an example of overreach, which is a function, in my view, of bureaucracies that have gotten too big. we all talk about government. there's going to be, i think -- i hope at least, a great debate over the size of government, how much government intervention we ought to have, and i think most americans have concluded that government has gotten too big and it has grown too favment perhaps the greatest example of that are these federal agencies that have this tremendous propensity to want to regulate everything that they can out there. and to the detriment of many of our small businesses and those that are trying to create jobs. and as an example of how much our government has grown, the historical average for this country and when we spend on the federal government, as a percentage of our total economy, as a percentage of our g.d.p.,

is about 20.6%. well, this year, its eats over 25 prchlt so-- prchlt%. so the government continues to grow relative to the economy. the private economy continues by virtue of compare ton son to -- impi virtue of comparison to shrink. we ought to be looking at what we can do to create economic growth in this country as opposed to the things that are being done to expand government. the solution that we have put forward today, the inhofe inhofe-mcconnell amendment, mr. president, is a -- there's been a lot of discussion about it what it would or wouldn't do, but i want to point out some things that it would not do. because it does get at the heart of this issue, which is preventing the e.p.a. from moving forward with these costly and burdensome regulations. but there are a number of things that it does not do. it does not prohibit states from regulating greenhouse gases and addressing climate change. the amendment allows states to

keep existing policies in state and allows states to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as they see fit. the bill makes sure clear that any changes made are not federally enforceable. the mcconnell amendment does not overturn the agreement between the white house, california, the automakers, the e.p.a., and the department of transportation on greenhouse gas emissions from cars. a lot has been made out of that issue. that is something that the mcconnell amendment does not do. in fact, the amendment expressly preserves the auto agreement and the most recently enacted fuel efficiency standards. in 2017 and beyond shall the amendment ensures that any future national auto regulations concerning greenhouse gases will be decided by congress, which frankly, mr. president, is where it should be decided, which is why this overreach, i think, is such an example of big government gone bad. the mcconnell amendment does not overturn clean air and

public health protections under the clean air act. the amendment maintains all of the clean air act's provisions to protect the public from harmful pollution. thousands of clean air act regulations would remain untouched by this amendment, so certainly this amendment does not shall, as has been suggested, gut the clairktd. -- gut the clean air act. it is the contrary. the amendment does clarify that congress never gave the e.p.a. the authority under the clean air act to regulate greenhouse gases for climate change purposes. that responsibility, as i said before, lies and should lie with the congress. finally, mr. president, the mcconnell amendment does not stop the u.s. government from taking any action to address climate change. the amendment puts puts congresn charge of u.s. energy policy. the bill expressly preserves federal research development and demonstration programs addressing climate change. so, if democrats in congress, mr. president, want to enact climate change regulations, i would encourage them to bring a

climate change bill here to the floor. that is where this should be debated, by the people's representatives, not decided by bureaucrats in some federal agency. wheys the e.p.a. -- which is what the e.p.a. regulations would in fact do. there are a number of amendments that have been offered which i would describe as political cover amendments. they want to, because they know their constituents -- they're hearing the same thing we are from our small businesses, agricultural groups, from consumers across this country, about what these regulations would do and how they would impact adversely electricity and fuel costs in this country, and so they're trying to give themselves, i think, some cover to be able to vote forkin for st i want to point out that all of these other amendments that are being offered up by our democratic colleagues as alternatives to the ink who have-mcconnell amendment don't get the job done. we talk add little bit -- we heard a little bit earlier today about the rockefeller amendment which has the two-year delay in

it. but again, it is a very limited scope to that amendment. and the temporary nature of the amendment is going to provide very little relief for businesses and consumers across this country. if it is enacted, permits for new projects and the jobs associated with those projects could be stalled until after the two-year period. there is no assurance #-rbgs mr. president, that any of these permits would be issued during this two-year period when this amendment would be in effect. the rockefeller amendment would not stop or delay other e.p.a. methods for increasing energy prices such as the national ambient air quality standard for a co2. the rockefeller amendment does not prevent climate change nuisance suits sponsored by environmental activist groups hostile to energy development. now, i could say the same thing essentially about some of the other proposals that are out there, the stabenow amendment also has a two-year delay, but it allows e.p.a. to continue moving forward with rule making.

it just wouldn't allow them to finalize those rules until the end of the two-year period. and if the amendment is enacted, permits for new projects and the jobs associated with those projects again could be stalled until the end of that two-year period. so there are a number of -- there are just flaws in all these amendments, none of which are designed to do the job. if you are here today and you are serious about doing something to address what your consumer groups, what your form organizations, what your business organizations are asking you to do, and that is to prevent the e.p.a. from moving forward with something they really don't have the statutory authority to do and should be reserved to the congress, but they'ring about to move forward with it anyway -- if you're serious about addressing that issue, the only alternative for you is to support inhofe-mcconnell amendment of it's that simple. it's 2340 straightforward. and all of these political cover amendments that are being toferredz $offered by our democrat colleagues are simply that: cover amendments. and they don't get at the heart of the issue. and so, mr. president, i would

again go back to where i started and that is to say that we ought to in this country be seriously debating policies that will move us away from the dangerous dependence that we have on foreign energy. as i said earlier, every policy coming out of washington, in my view, is designed to make it more difficult to develop the very energy sources that will create a domestic energy supply in this country that would release us from this grip that foreign countries have on us with regard ting in. so i hope that -- with regard to energy. so i hope that the inhofe-mcconnell amendment will pass today and that it will have bipartisan support. it's already been talked about that perhaps none of these are reach the 60-vote threshold. what i would say to my colleagues is, again, if you are serious about trying to solve this issue, if you are serious about trying to make sure that the electricity and fuel costs don't go up dramatically for

your constituents, then this is the amendment that you need to be for. the other amendments don't get at the issue. they are political cover amendments. and i think it's pretty straightforward when you playbook at the number of groups that have come out opposed to those amendments and in favor of the inhofe-mcconnell amendment. and i would just mention briefly again the farm -- the american farm bureau, the chamber of commerce -- you look at all the small business organizations that are out in support of the inhofe-mcconnell amendment and opposed to the amendments that are offered up by our colleagues. and i want to read just a quote from one of those letters. "congress, not the e.p.a., should be guiding america's energy policy. without action by lawmakers the e.p.a.'s regulations will make it difficult to attract new manufacturing capacity and jobs to the united states, let alone double u.s. exports in five years," which is what our goal has been, "as president obama has pledged." and this letter is signed by a number of organizations

including the national association of manufacturers, the national association of wholesaler distributors, the national federation of independent business, the u.s. chamber of commerce, and as i said before, i've got other letters here and -- from the major farm organizations, including the american farm bureau, spue n. support of the inhofe-mcconnell amendment and offing the other political cover amendments that are being offered by our democrat colleagues. mr. president, let's get this done right. let's send a message to the e.p.a. and to the administration that this is the job for the congress to deal with. this is something the people's representatives should be dealing with, not unelected bureaucrats in federal agencies who have -- clearly have an agenda but an agenda that is clearly contrary to capital formation, to competitiveness, to job creation, and to economic growth. that is what this congress should be focused on, and that's why a vote in support of the inhofe-mcconnell amendment is so important. mr. president, i yeefl. -- i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, we've heard a lot of rhetoric on the floor of this chamber today defending why air pollution is just fine, explaining why dismantling air pollution regulations is really in the interest of our economy and of our families. indeed, my colleague from south dakota has listed kind -- it's like a little shop of horrors, that the status quo creates economic uncertainty, that the

air pollution regulations increase the risk rate of capital, that they destroy jobs, that they even hurt the editorial earl, that they are an abuse of power unauthorized by congress. i -- i -- i'm wondering, what else is left on the list of reasons to defend the dismantling of air pollution regulations that protect american people? that are popular in the eyes of american citizens because they want to live in a world where they can enjoy breathing the air throughout our nation. let's start by recognizing that the truth about the mcconnell amendment is it increases our dependence on foreign oil. we've heard something about it driving the cost of oil up. is that right? well, no, it's not. repealing the endangerment finding and taking away e.p.a.'s

part of the regulation of mileage standards is estimated to increase our consumption of oil by 455 million barrels. 455 million barrels. gas prices are about $3.50 a gallon right now. so the mcconnell-inhofe amendment represents a $68 billion expenditure on additional oil. it means importing $68 billion more of oil. it means exporting 68 additional american dollars overseas to strengthen the economies in the middle east or nigeria or venezuela. that energy tax, the mcconnell-inhofe tax, is a tax that goes out of our country. it hurts us in the worst ways. it's a tax that goes directly to

oil companies, out of the pockets of working families to some of the most profitable corporations in the history of human civilization. now, gasoline prices are set by the law of supply and demand. if you increase demand for oil, you also drive up the price. so, if anything, the mcconnell-inhofe amendment doesn't decrease the cost of gasoline. it increases the cost of gasoline. politifact.com took on this issue. members of congress backing this amendment were arguing that it keeps gas prices from increasing. politifact.com, that independent evaluator of claims made on the floor of the senate and floor of the house and other places, ranks that claim false. i can tell you that it's in our interest as a nation to decrease

our dependence on oil, not to increase it. we need to decrease that dependence because that's important for our national security. we need to decrease that dependence because many of the dollars we send overseas end up in the hands of those who do not share our national interest. we need to decrease our against on foreign oil because -- decrease our dependence on foreign oil because when those dollars leave, they do not circulate here in america. indeed, our purchases of foreign oil account for about 50% of our foreign trade shortfall. so at a time when both parties should be working together to put america's interests first on energy, the mcconnell-inhofe amendment increases our addiction to oil, increases our addiction to foreign oil, creates a supply impulse that raises the price of oil, and

isn't that context completely misguided. but perhaps the real issue here is public health. this mcconnell attack on the clean air act asks congress to vote in lock step against the scientific judgment of e.p.a. scientists and to tell the agency charged with protecting public health and the health of our children to ignore dangerous carbon pollution. now, in 2010 alone, the clean air act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, 86,000 emergency room visits, because clean air isn't just pleasant. it is in fact healthy, and it is great for the american quality

of life to be healthy. you know it's amazing progress. it's progress made over the last 20 years under the bipartisan clean air act of 1990. and this amendment would instead yield to those short-term impulses. it's come up on all sorts of aspects of the clean air act. each time that the agency has moved to say this is a concern, there are those who say, no, no, in the short term that might cost me to adjust. i might have to do things slightly differently. but then ten years later everyone looks back and goes, you know, it is a good thing we thought about mercury in the air. it's a good thing that we took on lead in the air. and so on and so forth. so, taking a longer-term view, we need to stay together and

resist these short-term impulses to take and dismantle the clean air act. the american lung association said the mcconnell amendment is -- and i quote -- "a reckless and irresponsible attempt to once again put special interests ahead of public health." the american lung association, the american public health association the asthma and a jill foundation of america -- and allergy foundation of america have urged we resist temptation to dismantle the clean air act with the mcconnell-inhofe amendment. there is a very simple reason for that. each of these amendments would have e.p.a. put aside the practice of using science to set commonsense standards to protect public health. instead, these amendments would

have the science world put their head in the sand about these problems. and indeed, i'm not just concerned about the mcconnell amendment. i'm concerned about all of the amendments that we're considering today designed to deflect, delay, and dismantle the protection of clean air. the baucus amendment would take away e.p.a.'s ability to use the best science to continue to modify and tailor the standards that they are setting for carbon pollution and their ability to make sure that major polluters are covered. the stabenow and rockefeller waopldz put a two -- would put a two-year delay on pollution standards. it's tempting to think a two-year delay might be an acceptable middle ground, but a two-year delay in protecting public health is two years too long. let me be very clear about this

debate. the mcconnell amendment and associated other amendments that we'll consider are wrong because we should not increase our reliance for energy on the most unstable regions of the world. we should not ship american dollars overseas for energy. we should not tolerate more pollution in our air and water. and we should not decrease our ability to build on america's foundation of its ingenuity and make those environmental decisions in clear partnership with a stronger economy. i think that each of our constituents across this country, as they think as

parents about the future of their children know that clean air is the right course. but our children probably understand better than we do another key aspect of this, because this conversation today is largely about carbon pollution. and we need to wrestle with the fact that carbon pollution has a very substantial impact on the temperature across this planet. before the industrial revolution we had a carbon dioxide level about 270 parts per million. that level of co-2 in the atmosphere needs to be kept below 350 parts per million. i would like to report to you today, i would be pleased to be able to report to you today that

before we get to that point of 350, we're going to be able to make the adjustments necessary so that we don't end up in a situation where we are creating long-term adverse consequences for our planet. but indeed, we cross that 350 boundary long ago. we are at 390. we're headed for 400. and whereas 10 to 15 years ago it was going up one part per million per year, it's going up two parts per million per year. the curve is getting steeper. the pace is getting steeper. we are seeing this reverberating from coral roofs, arctic tundra, we're seeing it in ice sheets, we're seeing it in glaciers, we're seeing it in insect populations that are thriving and decimating the forests of the northwest where i come from that weren't there a few years ago. we're seeing it in all kinds of patterns across this planet. and when i visit university

campuses and students talk about the issue that is nearest to their heart, the top issue is that we address this threat to our planet. and this conversation goes to the heart of this. my generation isn't as up to speed as our college students are about this, but the planet cannot wait for them to graduate, pursue their careers, run for office and arrive here on the floor of the senate. so it is our responsibility as americans concerned about our dependence on energy, as americans concerned about keeping our dollars in our kpheul creating jobs -- in our economy creating jobs, and as americans concerned about the sustainability of our practices to say no to mcconnell-inhofe, to say no to the other amendments being brought forward to delay or destroy or dismantle the clean air act. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you. we're going tpof a series of -- we're going to have a series of stacked votes at 4:00. i wanted to spend a few minutes on three or four amendments clarifying some of the things i've heard rumbling. one is we have an amendment that will in fact take away unemployment insurance for millionaires. 2,840 households who reported an income greater than $1 million or more on their tax returns were paid a total of $18.6 million in unemployment insurance benefits in 2008. that number is higher in 2009. we don't have the final numbers yet. this included over 800 earning over $2 million and 17 with excess income of $10 million collecting unemployment benefits. we have an amendment that will prohibit that. there's been some concern to say

that the costs associated with that the way it was scored by c.b.o. would neutralize the savings versus the cost to eliminate that would be even. even if that's true, which we've done a calculation -- we think it costs about $900,000 a year to have people who are applying for unemployment insurance to sign a statement that their income is not above $1 million. but even if it costs the same as what we're spending, we shouldn't be giving unemployment benefits to people who are earning $1 million a year. it's foolish and it exacerbates the tendency of enriching those that are already there versus what unemployment insurance is for, for those who are truly dependent on it to survive. so i wanted to clarify that point. the second amendment, in march the g.a.o., in response to an amendment that i put on the last debt limit, issued a report listing what they think are billions of dollars of savings

in terms of duplication. and i'd be remiss to say that our president, he did -- he embraced that. in his state of the union speech, one of the goals of his administration is to eliminate duplication and consolidate. so we have two amendments that are going to be on the floor. one's mine and one is from the chairman of the appropriation committee, senator inouye, that are designed to save us $5 billion. but there's two big differences between those amendments. my amendment says o.m.b., you've got the study. find the $5 billion. report to us what you can do by yourself and what you need us to do to help you. his amendment waits six months from the time we pass the bill -- five months to study, to come back, and then for us to do it -- which means we won't have any savings at all until we're well into the fiscal year 2013. and every year we waste $5

billion on something we shouldn't waste is a year that we're borrowing $2 billion of it just to pay the bill. so i understand it's a cover vote. what it means is we'll never get the $5 billion in savings, whereas my amendment will get us $5 billion worth of savings this year. the way we get rid of a $1.6 trillion deficit is $1 billion, $2 billion or $5 billion at a time. everyone recognizes the duplication. what we're asking the administration to do is to take the very low-hanging fruit that they can recognize right now, do the rescission, recommend to us and let us act on them. rather than waiting two and a half years to get that done. so it's very straightforward. we know that there is significant duplication in the federal government, and let me just -- let me just give you some of the findings of the g.a.o. report. and remember, this isn't tom coburn's report. this is a g.a.o. report. they only look at one-third of

the federal government, the first third. they have got two more reports to come to us with the second third and then yearly. we'll get this report yearly on the problems of duplication in the federal government. we have 47 job training programs across nine different agencies that we spend $18 billion. not one of them has a metric on it to see it's effective. we're doing a study right now in the permanent subcommittee on investigations on where are the reports, what are the people saying who have been through there, where is it helpful, where is it not? because in our legislation when we pass these job training programs, we didn't have for metrics to see if they were effective. so there is one area where we could consolidate. maybe one or two, only three of those have charges that are totally separate from the others. the rest of them overlap one another. there is five departments and eight agencies, over two dozen presidential nominees are overseeing bioterrorists. we know we can consolidate that. we'll actually be much better when we do in terms of our

efficiency and our communication between agencies. that's $6.48 billion a year. we have 20 agencies, 56 programs on dedicated to financial literacy, and we can't even -- we don't even know what they cost. the g.a.o. couldn't determine what they cost. 56 different programs on financial literacy, and we're teaching the people that have a a $1.6 trillion deficit, we're teaching americans financial literacy? and if we should teach them that, which is not a bad goal, why do we need 56 programs to do that? we have 80 economic development programs across four different agencies. we're spending $6.5 billion. just consolidating the administrative costs across those could save us us $100 million, $200 million, $ 300 million. we have 50 agencies for 32 food laws. they mentioned about salmon. if they are in saltwater, they get one agency.

in freshwater, they get another agency. that's foolish. 18 nutrition programs, very important to our kids and those that are dependent on it. $62.5 billion. do we need 18 programs to do that? could we do it with ten, eight, two, three? the questions haven't been asked, but asking the o.m.b. to look at the low-hanging fruit and to take the $5 billion out and work with congress to get it done in the next appropriation cycle. 20 homeless programs, seven agencies, $2.9 billion. 82 teacher quality programs, 16 agencies, and $4 billion. why would we have 82 teacher training programs? it just shows you the magnitude of the problem that we have in terms of getting our budget under control, not managing things effectively, not doing the oversight that we should do. we have 52 programs for entrepreneurial efforts. i don't have any problem with that, but why do we need 52?

35 programs to oversee infrastructure. overseeing infrastructure is important, but why do we need that many programs? 28 programs to oversee new markets. 28 different programs funded by the federal government across six different agencies to oversee new markets. we could consolidate a lot of that. so the president has said that he wants to do this. we ought to give him the tools that will help him do it more quickly because every day we wait, it costs us more money. finally, we're -- we will have a vote ultimately on the ethanol blenders credit, and i have been remiss to not give the number one leader on that who has a bill of her own, senator feinstein, credit because she really has led on this for a long time. her bill is slightly different than the one we're going to offer, but she really has led on that issue. she understands the importance of it, both the environmental impact of burning ethanol when we're actually burning more fuel

and actually cutting out more co2 than what we would if we were burning pure gasoline because of the inefficiency of ethanol. so i wanted to recognize her, and when we come to a vote on this, on the ethanol blenders credit, i will ask her to speak on that, if she would. finally, i would say in regards to that issue, for people who don't understand, we're going to spend $5 billion this year paying the major oil companies 45 cents a gallon to blend ethanol into gasoline. there is a federal law that requires a mandate. it's called the renewable fuels mandate that says last year was 12.5 billion gallons. this year it's 13.2. it's over 25 billion five years from now, gallons that have to be blended. we have a letter from the people who received this tax credit, who are going to receive this this $5 billion who say they don't want the $5 billion, they

don't need the $5 billion. yet we're going to have some resistance around here of not stopping a payment for something that's already mandated by law to those who receive it who don't want it and have put it in a letter saying they don't want it. it's already in the record. why would we continue to spend spend $5 billion of our kids' money on something they don't want, isn't going to change the outcome, and we won't have to borrow 40% of it to make the payment. to me, it's beyond me that we would not do that, and it's my hope that we would be successful with overturning that. with that, i would yield the floor and note 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 colorado. mr. udall: before the senator from oklahoma leaves the floor, i wanted to rise and -- i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president.

before the senator from oklahoma left the floor, i just wanted to rise and join him in supporting the commonsense amendment that he just outlined, the coburn-udall amendment would fix what -- i think not most but every single american, senator coburn, would be shocked to discover, that millionaires and billionaires have been drawing unemployment benefits. now, unemployment insurance is a critical temporary safety net for americans who need help to get by when they fall on tough times, but providing unemployment insurance for millionaires much less billionaires who do not need it for their basic necessities is fiscally irresponsible, to put it mildly, and, frankly, it doesn't make much sense. i think, senator coburn, you put it better, you said it's foolish. we all recall that for months last year, we struggled to find ways to put unemployment benefits in the hands of americans who were really struggling in the face of this tough economic downturn. and it was controversial.

we worked hard in the senate, and it was drawn out because unemployment benefits are expensive. but i -- i support extending those benefits for out-of-work americans because they help, and we found a way ultimately to pay for them. but little did we know that in taking care of these good americans that it was made even harder because literally in this -- this number astonished me, literally thousands of millionaires and billionaires were abusing the system. they were drawing extra payments for themselves, and it just increased the price tag for all of the rest of us. so in the end, we're talking about values here. we're talking about hard work and playing by the rules. that's how most americans operate, but there are few folks always looking to game the system, and i can't believe that some of the most well off among us have been asking for a government paycheck while out-of-work americans day in and day outlook for jobs, they want

to provide for themselves, they want to do it in an honest way, and they don't want to draw those unemployment benefits. that's the decision and the action of last resort. so we have had 13 straight months of private sector growth, we have added about almost two million jobs. our economy is still fragile, and too many coloradans, too many americans are looking for work. families in my state and i know in my neighboring state, oklahoma, are working to balance their budgets, find a way to set aside money for college, take care of their kids. but then asking them to pay for unemployment insurance for millionaires, it's just -- it's unbelievable. so i'm truly honored to work with my colleague from oklahoma. this would save $100 million, as the senator said. every day we wait, we waste money. every day we don't take an opportunity to save money, we're doing a disservice to the taxpayers. so i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. it -- it is a smart change and

it avoids tarnishing an otherwise worthy and critical way to temporarily assist americans who fall on tough times. mr. coburn: would my colleague yield? mr. udall: i'm happy to yield. mr. coburn: i thank the senator for his cosponsorship and work on this amendment. i would like to put into the record -- i haven't had a chance to share this with you because i just got it. i have a breakdown from the i.r.s. of the 22 states that don't have any millionaires because they screen for it. and it's not millionaires. it's earning more than than $1 million a year. in other words, they are earning -- these are people who actually have income of greater than $1 million a year in terms of adjusted gross income. there's probably many more who have less than that. all we're screening is we're saying here's a cutoff, it's a legitimate cutoff. so there is 2 states -- 22 states that don't allow this right now in their process. i was wrong in my statement on the 600,000 to 800,000.

the calculated cost of putting this in is $200,000 a year. for a very minimal cost, we're going to say $20 million a year, at minimum, and it's going to help not those who are already very comfortable but those who are struggling to make ends meet who find themselves out of a job. mr. udall: the senator makes important points. it's a small investment, if you will, the $200,000 in saving taxpayers significant amounts of money, and as the senator points out, the important outcome here is that the integrity of the unemployment insurance system is maintained. i also would note, as the senator did, that the point is it's $1 million in income or more, it's not if you have assets. if you're a rancher that is fortunate enough to have lands that are worth significant amounts, you're ill liquid and

you -- -- you are illiquid and you may be struggling to make ends meet. this applies to people who have income of over $1 million annually. that makes sense. this is an important amendment. i urge all our colleagues to support it when we have a chance to vote for it later today. mr. president, it was my understanding that i was speaking on senator coburn's time, and i would ask unanimous consent that the agreement reflect such allocation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: mr. president, with that, i would yield the floor and 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 new jersey.

mr. lautenberg: mr. president, we're speaking as if in morning business, is that correct? the presiding officer: we are in the middle of a quorum call. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, this afternoon -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. lautenberg: oh. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, this afternoon whic this chambes got to face a clear question: what matters more, children's health or polluter's profits? we will be voting on amendments that will cripple the government's ability to enforce the clean air act. mr. lautenberg: now, this is a landmark law that protects our children from toxic chemicals in the air and illnesses like asthma and lung cancer.

in 2010, the clean air act prevented 1.7 million cases of childhood asthma and more than 160,000 premature deaths from occurring. the numbers will big but numbers don't mean much unless it's your child. if it's your child, there's no number that's too large to take care of that child's health. you want to know the real value of clean air act to american families? talk to the millions of parents who live in fear of their child's next asthma attack, and it's a fear that my own family knows very well. i have a grandson, terrific athlete, very energetic and he suffers from asthma. he's an athletic child.

every time he goes to play soccer, my daughter, his mother, will check first to see where the nearest emergency room is. she knows very well that if he starts wheeze, she's got to get him to a clinic in a hurry. and no parent should have to worry about that, letting their children play outside. the fact is, the clean air act has improved lives for millions of young people. the supreme court and scientists agree that the clean air act is a tool we must use to stop dangerous pollution. and we have a -- a picture on display here that i'll show you in just a minute and it demonstrates so clearly what it's like with smog in the air and it permits us to imagine

what it looks like inside a child's lung. we are unfortunately searching for the placard, which we'll shortly have. and -- this picture shows what toxic skies look like, and it's an ugly scene but it's much uglier when it's inside a child's young or a child's body or anybody who is sensitive to polluted area. that's the picture coming out of the smokestack and the picture turns into reality when it's in the lung or the body of an individual. but allowing countries --

companies, rather, to reduce pollution say it would cost too much for polluters. too bad. what's a life worth? what's a -- a -- what's it mean to someone who is sensitive to polluted air not to be able to get out or top coughing or stop wheezing? but allowing companies to continue polluting doesn't eliminate the costs. it simply shifts the cost to our families, our children and all of us who breathe that air. the american lung association and five other health groups sent a letter opposing all of these amendments, health groups opposing all of these amendmen amendments. they say -- and i quote here -- "the clean air act protects

public health and reduces health care costs for all by preventing thousands of adverse health outcomes, including cancer, asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and premature deaths. and i'm aware of the threat that asthma can be. i had a sister who was a victim of asthma and she would -- if we traveled together, families together, she would have a little respirator that could be plugged into the cigarette lighter hole and enable her to breathe more comfortably. and one day she was at a school

board meeting in rye, new york, where she was a member of the school board, and she felt an attack coming on. and her instinct was to try to run to her car so she could plug in the machine to the lighter hole, and she collapsed in the parking lot and she died three days later. and we saw it up front and personal. it's a terrible, terrible family tragedy. she had four children at the time. so when we look and we see -- talk about how threatening it is to control pliew we say no, no -- control pollution, we say no, no, no. the threat is to our family health and well-being.

and that's what we're about, families with young people across the country, across the world. it doesn't matter what the cost is. there isn't a family in the world that wouldn't dispose of all of their assets to protect and continue the life of a child. and history shows that the cost of cleaner air is very low compared to its enormous benefits. thanks to clean air -- the clean air act, fewer parents miss work to take care of children suffering from asthma. more families avoid the crushing health care costs associated with a heart attack or stroke. and people live longer, more comfortable -- more comfortably and more productive lives. simply put, weakening the clean air act puts the profits of polluters ahead of the health of our children. to see what the what's would look like without the clean air

act, we only need to look at china. on a visit there, i was scolded by the minister of environment that the united states was using too much of the -- of the world's oil, fuel, creating difficulties in the air. and when i was in the minister's office, i invited me to join him at the window 23 stories up in the air. we looked outside and we couldn't see the sidewalk. that's how thick the polluted air was. the air in china is so polluted that many people where masks when they walk outside. we don't want to be doing that in america. so, mr. president, the -- this

poison must not be the future. i don't want it for my grandchildren and i don't want it for anybody else's children or grandchildren. in our senate, in our congress, our goal must be to take care of our obligations to protect our families, and the strongest obligation that anyone has, anybody that we know who has children doesn't want to endanger their health. i ask all of my colleagues, stand up, vote down these dangerous -- these dangerous efforts to destroy the clean air act. it belongs as part of our environment and protects our children and protects the environment and we mustn't let this opportunity miss -- be misunderstood and say, no, we've got to vote "no" to give the polluters a preference before

our children. with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i rise today to speak against the radical mcconnell-inhofe amendment and in opposition to the efforts to overturn the supreme court. we should not be gutting the clean air act and public health and environmental protections that are important to every american. these antienvironmental, antipublic health, antieconomic riders i believe don't belong on a small business bill. when you boil it down, what's at stake here are pretty straightforward. it's about the good versus the

special interest. the facts speak for themselves. and according to some comprehensive reports, the clean air act will save our economy $2 trillion through the year 2020. and even more importantly, the clean air act will cumulatively save 4.2 million lives by 2020. mr. president, those are striking numbers and that's why it is so important that we protect the clean air act and turn down these radical amendments that are trying to overturn it. you know, congress has stopped other radical attempts to overturn laws that are about protecting our environment and protecting the safety of the american people. i remember here on the senate floor the debate 2003 on mtbe. mtbe was a fuel additive that just a drop leaked into a water system could ruin that supply. yet mtbe manufacturers, who were

on the hook for billions of dollars of cleanup, wanted free pass, they wanted immunity. and they came here to the united states senate hoping to get that. well, importantly enough, a group of bipartisan senators stood up to tha that proposal ad the proposal to let mtbe manufacturers off the hook was turned down. there have been other attempts to overturn the clean water act, the superfund cleanup act and sometimes they get as far as bills or only a hearing. sometimes we have votes on them. but these things all have one thing in common. it is about the greater good versus special interests. and time and time again congress has ended up wisely on the right side and has rejected these proposals by special interests. the environmental protection that's we have continue today because we've stood up to fight for them.

in passing an anti-e.p.a. amendment would hurt our economy. that certainly the case with the mcconnell-inhofe amendment. it would overturn hard-won games from the 2007 energy bill that put cafe standards in place at a higher level to get fuel efficiency economy for consumers in america. this was passed on a bipartisan basis and it was very important in helping consumers save money and car buyers as much as $3,000 over the life of a car because we have made them more fuel efficient. this legislation seeks to overturn that. and it is these fuel economy standards passed with that bipartisan majority in 2007 that is helping us get off of our dependence on foreign oil. not more domestic drilling.

we could drill in every pristine, untouched corner of the united states and sometimes it seems like the backers of those interests would like us to do that. but in a recent letter senator bingaman and i received from the energy information administration, which i would like to place into the record, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: in 2007 the energy information administration was predicting that our foreign dependency was going to continue to increase in the coming decades. now, i should note that after the 2005 energy bill, i've heard some of my colleagues on the other side say that was the great predicter and it was going to help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil. but the truth is is that the subsequent eia -- e.i.a. analysis made after we passed the 2007 energy bill, says according to the experts in analysis only two policies in

that landmark bill increasing cafe standards and renewable fuel standards are the reason we are less dependent on foreign oil. so the things that have made us less dependent on foreign oil are the very things that people trying to gut out of important legislation already on the books. it is not the case that additional drilling, drilling, drilling, and saying to the e.p.a. ignore the supreme court on the clean air act is going to help us. reducing demand is going to reduce prices at the pump and looking at the u.k. they produce almost all their own oil from the north sea, but they still got hammered in 2008 when oil prices peaked at $147 a barrel. so the notion that somehow let's skirt our environmental responsibilities and drill, drill, drill and somehow we're going to protect ourselves from

the price of oil, you need to look no further than the u.k. in that example. i don't understand why the minority leader wants us to increase our nation's reliance on foreign oil. i think we should be getting off of foreign oil and not allowing polluters to addict another generation to that product. i think we should be getting off of foreign oil, not future generation where we'll be fighting the chinese over every last remaining supply of expensive oil. i agree that it would be better if congress acted to address the diversity of our nation's energy sources, and i'm anxious to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to help get free market legislation that would do that and would protect consumers. and i'm certain that there is a bipartisan solution here that we can all agree to. but we can solve our carbon pollution problem by working together, not by burying our heads in the sand, and saying

that we can ignore the supreme court's to ignore the clean air act. there is a way to transition to a 21st century economy. we should get about that. it doesn't have to be about picking winners and losers and we can do it and protect consumers while we go. i want my colleagues to continue to work on that as a framework, but until then, i urge my colleagues to vote against these amendments that will undermine our clean air act. that will actually increase our dependence on foreign oil, force consumers to buy more gasoline and make our air dirtier. we can do better, mr. president, and i hope that we will. i thank the president and i yield the floor.

ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask consent that senator boxer, chair of the environmental public box committee be the -- works committee be the next democratic speaker and that she have up to 10 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that after the -- the presiding officer: quorum call is in progress. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks by the senator from texas, that senator boxer, i understand, wants to speak for 10 minutes and that i be recognized after senator boxer for about 10 minutes. that's going to be about the time frame that we'll have. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mrs. hutchison: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i have, i believe, about seven -- the presiding officer: corker is in progress. mrs. hutchison: i ask unanimous consent to lift the quorum call. mrs. hutchison: i'd whriek to, before i start talking on the bill, which is my most important reason for being here, because i am such a believe their we need to repeal the e.p.a.'s efforts.

but something happened last night, and i feel compelled to say on the floor of the senate that i am very proud of the texas aggie women mo won the national basketball championship last year. and that is so important -- it is. and i just want to say a couple of words about that, because this is the first national championship that the lady aggies have ever won and it was a great game last night. and i certainly congratulate noter dime's fighting irish as we will, but the texas aggies played and came behind in the half. they defeated notre dame and i want to congratulate the texas aggie ladies but i also want to say that texas a&m's coach gary

blair became the oldest coach to ever win a national women's championship. and he has turned the lady aggie basketball team into this national championship team. i want to mention daniel adams. her all-american performance last night was incredible. and it's just a great day. you know, i'm a texas longhorn, and most days i am for all of our texas teams, and i love to say "gegga aggies." there's only one day i can't say that. that's thank giving day. but 364 days a year i'm all for the aggies. all america should recognize when they play like that. with that, i'd like to say that my colleague, senator cornyn and i are going to ask unanimous consent to offer a resolution congratulating the lady aggies of texas a&m of winning the 2011

national collegiate athletic division i basketball championship. i would like to submit that tort record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: thank you, mr. president. i want to speak on the mcconnell amendment that senator inhofe has worked so hard to bring up and also lisa murkowski from alaska. because we all know what's happening to gasoline prices in the united states right now. they have gone up now -- average is about $3.60 a gallon. and what we're looking at is more increases in those gasoline prices if the e.p.a. is really allowed to take an authority that it does not have and regulate greenhouse gases. some of the other amendments offered on this subject are well-intentioned but they do

fall short of actually making a difference. the amendment before us just repeals e.p.a.'s efforts. it's very simple and very clea . small businesses are struggling to survive, struggling to keep workers understand and trying to make it in -- and trying to mike it in very small margins in this economic time. families are facing higher energy costs. we're all suffering. i have a pickup truck which i love to drive. i filled it up a couple of weekends ago and it was about $60. now, that's a pickup truck. that's a basic form of transportation for many americans. farmers depend on affordable energy prices. they must put gasoline in their trucks, diesel in their harvesters, use energy-intensive fertilizer. higher costs for farmers mean higher costs for food. you're talking about now an inflation that we cannot afford in this kind of economic environment. during all of this, the e.p.a.

now wants to impose a new gas tax on america in the form of greenhouse gas regulations. last congress i issued a report that documented how the kerry-lieberman climate legislation would impose a $3.6 trillion gas tax on the american people. using the data from e.p.a. and the energy information administration, we calculated that climate legislation would impose a $2 trillion gasoline tax, a $1.3 trillion diesel tax, and a $330 billion jet fuel tax. according to the e.p.a. and the senior obama administration officials, regulations would be evening worse than legislation. that was one of the main arguments they used in support of climate legislation, that the regulations would be even worse than cap-and-trade legislation. but, that's exactly what we're getting with the e.p.a., now

trying to regulate what we could not pass in the legislature for good reason. the baucus amendment could shield small business and farmers from e.p.a. permit requirements, but it codifies the requirements for energy and fuel produce,meaning everyone in america will still pay higher energy prices. the stabenow and rockefeller amendments only delay the higher energy costs and job losses for two years. that's not good enough. i hope that my colleagues will see that this is our time to tell the e.p.a. that we will determine what we want them to regulate, that that is the responsibility of the united states congress. we are to make the laws, they are to implement them. they are not to reinvent them in their own model of what they have the authority to do. they have the authority to do

what we give them authority to do, and we have not given them the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. the refineries say that this added amount of regulation is going to cost so much that they will have to raise their prices in their factories, and that assuredly will raise the price of oil and gasoline throughout the use of our country. so, mr. president, this is an amendment -- there's only one amendment of all the amendments on this subject that will really do the job. it's simple and clear. it would eliminate the e.p.a.'s ability to make regulations in an area that congress has not authorized it to do. that's what we need to do. congress needs to take the reins and halt the overregulation that is hurting our small businesses and hurting our economic

recovery. and i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the mcconnell-inhofe-murkowski amendment thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i'm here because i want to urge a "no" vote on all these amendments that essentially stop the environmental protection agency from doing their work, as it relates to air pollution. and i'm here to do that because never before have we ever interfered in a enforcement of the clean air act and it's worked because we have seen tremendous, tremendous advances in our clean air. pollutants cause or contribute to asthma, emphysema, heart disease and other potentially lethal respiratory ailments and

we know from the work of the bush administration and that of the obama administration that the endangerment finding that said that greenhouse gases were danger us for our health predicted that ground-level ozone would increase if we did nothing and we'd have more cases of asthma and coughing and people staying home from school and staying home from work. the e.p.a.'s endangerment finding is key, and here's what they told us. "severe heat waives are projected to intense fishings which can increase heat-related deaths and sickness. remember, this is related to carbon pollution, greenhouse gases. exactly what my colleagues are trying to either slow down cleaning up or stop cleaning up. in an unprecedented assault on our nation's health -- unprecedented assault on our nation's health. we even have had a senator stand up here and say that e.p.a. doesn't have the right to

regulate carbon pollution, greenhouse gas emissions. i would urge my person that everyone else saying that to read the clean air act. it's so clear shall did and by the way, the bush administration didn't want to enforce the clean air act, and they went all the way to the supreme court, and the supreme court said, uh-huh -- it's very clear in the clean air act that, yes, congress meant that we should control this type of dangerous pollution, once an endangerment find is made. and that was made. what the mcconnell amendment does, which my friend jim inhofe was actually the author of the full bill, same thing, is essentially say that the e.p.a. is overridden -- they repeal the endangerment finding. that's like my coming here and saying, i want to repeal science that says that smoking causes lung cancer.

okay? i want to play doctor. i want to play scientist. it's absolutely a dangerous precedent because it involves our people. and climate change is expected to worsen regional smog pollution, which can cause decreased lung function, aggravated asthma, increased emergency room visits and premature death. why on earth do my colleagues want to repeal an endangerment finding -- by the way, senator murkowski once tried it; it failed. and it's going to fail here today. but the fact is, why should we play doctor? i know we have a -- some of us have a great elevation of ourselves. but, please, we don't have -- yoacouple have doctor degrees, t most of us aren't scientists and doctors. we act like we are. and i'm just too humble to repeal, you know, science, and that's what they'd do here. now, let's look at the health successes of the clean air act.

in 2010 alone, the act prevented 160,000 premature deaths, 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, and 3.2 million lost days of school. i'm telling you, the clean air act has been a great success. the number of smog-related health advisories in southern california has dropped from 166 days in 1976 to zero days in 2010. why on earth would we want to mess with a law that has been working? it has been working. i defy anyone to point out a law that has worked he's w worked as one. we went from 166 days in los angeles where people were told not to go out doors to zero days in 2010. because the e.p.a. -- created by

a republican president, richard nixon -- that e.p.a. does its job. does its job. look at the bipartisan support for the clean air act. first of all, it passed the senate 73-0, the house 375-1. and the conference report was approved unanimously, and now suddenly i can't find a republican to say they fully support the clean air act. what has happened to my friends on the other side of the aisle? this was a bipartisan issue. it certainly is with the people. in 1990, we had a bipartisan vote sonde by president george herbert walker bush. senate: 89-10, house: 401-25. that's why so many people in this country still support the clean air act. let's look at that -- results of that bipartisan poll that we had.

bipartisan support. it was created -- the e.p.a. -- by richard nixon, republican president george herbert walker bush signed the reauthorization, and 69% of people in this nation -- and this is a poll that's -- was taken february 14 of this year -- say that the environmental protection agency should update clean air act standards with stricter air pollution limits. listen, stricter air pollution limits. now, the polluters don't like it. they're -- they're crying all the way to the bank. they had the biggest profits they ever had the oil companies. they don't want the e.p.a. enforcing the law. and, by the way, my colleagues' name this amendment something like the gas reduction price act, car something like that. they say this is going to help

us stop gas prices from risings. it has nothing to do with it. you know, every time we move forward with the clean air act authorities, there are predictions from all the polluters about how horrible it will be, and we never had such a period of prosperity. since ri -- since richard nixon signed the clean air act. 68% say congress stay out of the clean air act act. leave them alone; don't change it. this amendment by mcconnell and the others all interfere. 69% say e.p.a. scientists, not congress, should set pollution standards. this mcconnell amendment and the others all put congress in the middle of this. guess what? the people are smart. they don't want politicians deciding what to do about their health. they don't come to us when they have asthma.

they don't come to us when they get cancer. they rely on physicians. they rely on scientists. but we're playing doctor here today. we're going to repeal, or they're trying to repeal the endangerment finding that went along with the e.p.a. deciding to move forward and enforce decreases in carbon pollution. now, "the washington post" on march 24 had a very interesting article in it, an op-ed piece signed by christie todd whitman, e.p.a. administrator, from 2001 and 2003 and william rubbing -- william rucklehaus. you know what they said? today the agency richard nixon created in response to the

public outcry over air pollution and flammable rivers is under siege. the senate is poised to vote on a bill that would for the first time disapprove of a scientifically based finding, in this case that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. and this is signed by two republican former heads of the environmental protection agency. i'm telling you that the mcconnell amendment is radical in the extreme. we never before played doctor and repealed a scientific finding that said a certain solution is a problem. they also say it's easy to forget how far we've come in the past 40 years. we should take heart from all the progress and not, as some in congress have suggested, seek to tear down the agency that the president and congress created to protect america's health and environment. so if you're interested in

bipartisanship around here, why don't we look at the facts. and the facts are that the american public supports e.p.a. and the clean air act. the facts are that richard nixon created the e.p.a. the facts are george herbert walker bush signed the clean air act amendment. and the facts are -- and i will finish with this -- that it is very clear in the clean air act that carbon pollution and any pollution related to climate change is covered. so this is a reality check from someone who believes we shouldn't go down this dangerous path of playing doctor, playing scientist, overturning the environmental protection agency which enjoys almost 70% support among the people of this greatest of all nations. i thank you very much, and i would yield. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: first of all, let

me just state that i agree in one respect with the senator from california. first of all, we agree on a lot of things. we agree on infrastructure and things we know this country needs. but in the area of the clean air act, she said show me one republican who supports it -- i support the clean air act. it's been a tremendous success. you stop and look at the real pollution. i'm not talking about greenhouse gases. i'm talking about the six real pollutants and what has happened. it's amazing the success of the clean air act. i agree with that. i'd like to remind everyone though that the clean air act would not be regulating co2 except if the court said if you want to do it, you can do it. they did not mandate it can be done. it's really worth considering. i think since i have the time right now until we're voting on the first of three cover votes before they get to mine -- by the way, i'm willing to correct

my good friend from california. she referred to mcconnell. it's the mcconnell-inhofe amendment. in fact, it came from my bill that i introduced with fred upton some time ago, a bill that's going to be voted on in the house of representatives, i think, today. so it's very appropriate that we take it up now. i might add that this amendment has been up, i think, postponed six or seven times, and i applaud the majority leader for letting us have these votes. it's very important that we do this. now, here's what i'd like to say that i think is important. people need to understand a couple of things. first of all, what this is all about. you know, we talked about, starting in 2003 -- no, starting in the 1990's when they had the kyoto convention that we were supposed to ratify, president clinton never did submit it to the senate for ratification. but nonetheless, it was one that regulated greenhouse gases.

and i remember at that time i think it was the wharton school. we did an analysis. what if the united states of america were to ratify the kyoto amendment and live by its requirements. what would the cost be. it came out somewhere in the neighborhood of between $300 billion and $400 billion. we defeated that. didn't defeat it, we just never ratified it because the president never submitted it for ratification. then in 2003 came a number of votes. almost every year we had legislation that was introduced that would do essentially what the kyoto treaty would have done and would have been cap and trade. so we had m.i.t. and others look at it to see what in fact would be the cost if we were to do this. i can remember when my good friend, the junior senator from california, senator boxer, and i talked on the floor during the last time we defeated her bill, i think this might have been the waxman-markey bill. it doesn't matter, they're all

the same. i stipulated to the science. i said let's assume the science is right. it's not but let's assume it is so we don't have to talk about that. assuming it is, let's talk about the economics. that's when we developed what it would cost. in my state of oklahoma, i have a policy that when we talk about billions and trillions of dollars, i try to say put it in context as to what it would, how it will affect my taxpayers in the state of oklahoma. so i have a very simple thing that i do. i take the total number of families that file tax returns and then i do the math. if you divide that into say $350 billion a year, that means the average taxpayer in my family -- my state of oklahoma would have to pay $3,100 a year in additional taxes in order to pay for the cap and trade regime that comes with any type of a legislation. and so we talked about that, and consequently we defeated each bill that came along.

this is the key thing: the obama administration is very beholden to some of the far and left wing people and he commited to try and pass some kind of cap and trade. so he said if we can't do it legislatively, we'll do it through regulations. so we have all these regulations that they started, e.p.a. started coming down with. i have to mention, of these regulations one is very significant because i remember when she was before our environment and public works committee, i said to her -- and this is right before going to the big u.n. party in copenhagen about 16, 18 months ago, i said you know, i have a feeling, madam director, that you're going to come up with an endangerment finding, and when you do it has to be based on some type of science. what science would you base it on? and she said primarily on the ipcc. just make sure everybody understands what the ipcc is, the ipcc is the united nations. they are the ones that came wup

this whole thing -- came up with this whole thing and said this is what the end of the world is going to be and all this. anyway, i said if you're going to have an endangerment finding, co2 is endangerment to the health, it has to be based on some science. what science would that be based on? the answer was, well, the united nations, it's going to be based on the science of the -- of the ipcc, the intergovernmental panel on climate change. that's the united nations. coincidentally, right after that is when climategate came and they found they had been cooking this since for about ten years and that the legitimate interests and input of real scientists were completely rejected. and so the science just flat wasn't there. that's why i said at the time that we -- that we had this bill up, i'll stipulate to the science even though the science isn't there. i know it's not there. but what is there is the economics. here we are faced with the situation where we were looking

at the possibility of the environmental protection agency coming and regulating co2. i will contend that they can do it if they have an endangerment finding but they don't have to do it. the economic punishment to america would be tremendous but it wouldn't do any good. here's the big question: what if i'm wrong. people asked me, inhofe, what if you're wrong? you've been leading this fight for nine years. what if co2 does endanger health and cause global warming and all these scare stories you hear? my response is if that's the case it's not going to make any difference because even the e.p.a. director admits that if we unilaterally in the united states of america pass some type of regulation that stops the regulation of greenhouse gas that is it's not going to affect the overall release of the emissions, co2 emissions. the reason for that is very simple. that if you, if you do only in

the united states of america, you would argue that that's not where the problem is. the problem is in china, the problem is in mexico, the problem is in india, in countries, third-world countries that don't have any emission controls at all. i think everyone agrees if we pass something like these regulations of the e.p.a. unilaterally, it wouldn't reduce emissions any, not any at all. consequently, all this economic punishment to achieve nothing. i would take one step further. as we chase away our manufacturing base, as they say would happen, that we would be in a position where we couldn't -- they'd go to countries where there's no emission, it would have the result of increasing emission. even if senator boxer is right in everything she says, she's wrong in the respect that if we passed it, it's not going to lower emissions. that's the fact. we're running out of time but i

have the time up to 4:00 and i'm going to go over four things that are going to happen, tpaoeupbzing the -- finalizing the vote. let me finish because i'm going to need all the time i've got right now. mr. baucus: i ask unanimous consent to speak for two minutes prior to the vote on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. inhofe: reserving the right to object, is the senator talking about doing it after 4:00? mr. baucus: before the vote, yes. mr. inhofe: before the vote? all right. i'd say if you would include me to speak for one minute at that time, i have no objection. mr. baucus: that would be fine. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: the senator, by the way, senator baucus is going to have an amendment up, and i think it's kind of interesting because with three amendments i refer to as cover amendments -- in other words, there are a lot of democrats who don't want to vote to take away the jurisdiction of the environmental protection agency to regulate greenhouse gases, so they have other ones. the baucus amendment is one that is going to exempt certain small people, small farmers and all

that, but that doesn't exempt them from having their electricity rates escalate. the american farm bureau says we don't want any of the cover votes. we don't want the baucus bill. we don't want stabenow and we don't want the rockefeller. stabenow would also have a delay in certain parts of the regulation. the rockefeller vote, which is going to be the third vote that we vote on starting at 4:00, is one that would merely have a two-year delay. in other words it, says you can go ahead and do this regulation, but we're going to kind of put it off for two years. the real vote and the one that is the critical vote -- and if there is anyone out there that doesn't want to go home to the people and say i'm responsible for passing the largest tax increase in the history of america by defeating the inhofe-mcconnell amendment, then go ahead and vote that way. that's going to be a serious problem not for me, but for the senators who might vote the wrong way. so i'd only say this, that the mcconnell-inhofe amendment would be the fourth one that we

vote on. this is the critical one. the rest are cover votes. with that being at 4:00, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i also ask consent that in addition to my being able to speak for two minutes and senator inhofe one minute -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: -- that senator boxer also be allowed to speak for one minute on this amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, i have, i think is a very commonsense amendment. it basically says okay, it generally makes sense but there should be a couple of exceptions. the general rule is we should have regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, but not for agriculture. i'm talking about agriculture producers. not processors. regulations still apply to processors. i'm just talking about producers, agriculture producers, they should be exempt.

currently there are not regulations. e.p.a. may or may not pass regulations that affect agriculture producers. i think we should make clear to the american agriculture that they are exempt. they are not the greenhouse gas polluters. second, this amendment puts in place and codifies e.p.a.'s attempt to deal with small business with its tailoring rule. it may or may not be upheld in the courts. passage of this amendment would allow this to be upheld in the courts. essentially, it says there are 15,000 emitters in the country, greenhouse gas emitters, and that they are the big ones. the other six million, basically, are the very small ones. what about the big ones, the 15,000? those are large plants run by big corporations. they have essentially produced most of the greenhouse gas emissions.

96% of these, 15,000, the big ones, are already subject to e.p.a. criteria. they have to get permits. moreover, they admit 70% of the greenhouse gas emissions. so i'm just saying small business, there are a lot of them, very important that they be exempt from e.p.a. regulations. very common sense, veteran rule okay, but exempt agriculture and exempt small business. the presiding officer: the senator from montana has consumed your two minutes. mr. baucus: thank you. mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: point of inquiry not to be taken from the time that i have. inquiry is when we get into the four votes, are we going to have time for and against additional time arguing the amendments? the presiding officer: there are two minutes of debate equally

divided between the stacked votes. mr. inhofe: okay. so i would assume then, i would ask the chair, that these two minutes are going to be the minutes having to do with the baucus amendment, the first one we vote on. is that correct? the presiding officer: the senator has -- senator baucus has one minute -- i'm sorry. senator boxer and senator inhofe each has one minute. mr. inhofe: on the baucus amendment? the presiding officer: yes. mr. inhofe: thank you. i thank the chair very much. let me go ahead, in deference to my good friend, senator boxer, i will go first and you can go last. let me just mention, this is on only the baucus amendment. yes, the senator is right in presenting his amendment that it does exempt farmers and some small businesses from the higher costs and all that, but here's the problem with that. all you have to do is read the statement by the american farm bureau where they say look, all of our farmers across america, even if this only affects the --

the -- the refiners and the manufacturers, that increases the costs of fuel, and the cost of fuel is going to go higher and nothing -- you don't get anything for it, and for that reason, they oppose the baucus amendment. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, when senator baucus talked to me about his amendment, it sounded quite reasonable to make sure that we codify the tailoring rule of e.p.a. which really exempts broad swaths of american businesses from their work on enforcing carbon pollution reductions, but as it came out -- and i've discussed this with him -- it goes further. it harms the promotion of clean renewable biomass, effectively stopping e.p.a.'s ability to use the clean air act to encourage this kind of alternative energy. it also undermines the clean air act's new source review program

for carbon pollution, which ensures that the biggest polluters use modern pollution control technologies. it basically says the e.p.a. cannot go and force it using the new source review unless there is another pollutant involved. so as the chairman of the environment and public works committee, i have deep concerns. the baucus amendment is opposed by leading public health organizations, the american lung association, the public health association, the thoracic society, asthma and allergy foundation of america, physicians for social responsibility, the trust for america's health, as well as clean energy, business environment and conservation organizations. and for that reason, although i really fully understood the initial intent and i thought it was laudable, this has transformed into an amendment that -- that i don't support and the leading public health organizations do not support, so i would urge a no vote on the baucus amendment, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: all time has expired.

the question is on the baucus amendment number 236. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

quoruvote:

the presiding officer: are there any senator in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? on this vote, the yeahs are 7 and the nays -- the yeas are 7 and the nays are 93. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. the presiding officer: there are now two minutes of debate on the stabenow amendment. who yields time? the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. for years, i have -- [inaudible] consistently and repeatedly said that we need to have a balanced and comprehensive american energy policy. we can't just impose

regulations. we need small incentives to create the technology for a clean energy economy. the stabenow-brown amendment is based on the framework that has been worked on in a bipartisan basis for the past two years to develop a truly comprehensive clean energy policy that would allow us to phase in regulatio regulations. this amendment would allow the e.p.a. to do their work but would have the enforcement of that work be done in two years. we would build on the success of the advanced energy manufacturing credit known as 48-c that has created jobs at 183 businesses in 43 states. we have put the right incentives in place because we know when we do that, we help businesses create good-paying jobs and we can reduce carbon pollution at the same time.j our amendment also allows what the e.p.a. has indicated as their intention toward agriculture by giving our producers the certainty that they need. the amendment -- madam

president is a commonsense approach to addressing the issue of clean energy. i would ask for its support. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, a parliamentary inquiry. senator inhofe and i are going to speak for 60 seconds. is that compliant? the presiding officer: the senator has that right. the senator from california. mrs. boxer: can i have order? the presiding officer: order in the chamber. mrs. boxer: thank you. colleagues and friends, the stabenow and friends -- as it relates to carbon pollution for two years, which is going to cost jobs, it's going to harm america's competitiveness, and worse than that, i think around here delay sometimes is a code word for never. a two-year delay could become a long-term delay. it becomes more expensive and in the mean time our air gets dirtier. and i'll close with this, 68% of

the people, this is two months ago this poll was taken, believe that congress should not stop e.p.a. from enforcing clean air act standards. and, yet, this amendment and all the others do just that. let's stand with the people, with the american lung association, with the physicians who have taken a stand against all of these amendments, and allow the e.p.a. to do its job. i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, let me just join my friend from california and say that the stabenow amendment's very similar to the one that we voted on before. it admits that the e.p.a. will harm manufacturers, but it doesn't do anything to protect anyone from the higher price of energy. the farmers will tell you that. the two-year delay so when it expires the e.p.a. can drop its regulatory hammer on farmers and businesses. i urge your vote against the stabenow amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment number 277. the -- the -- the yeas and

nays -- is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. the presiding officer: vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 7, the nays are 93. under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, this amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 215 offered by the senator from west virginia. the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: thank you, madam president. madam president -- mrs. boxer: madam president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: may the senate wil be in order. mr. rockefeller: my plan would put e.p.a. on hold for two years and no more but not on hold in many of its other duties; for example, exa fay standard. many of our colleagues don't realize and certainly the ones who are going to support the mcconnell bill don't realize

that 31% of all greenhouse gas emissions in this country come from the backs of trucks and cars. i don't stop them from going ahead and doing that. what i want is some breathing space so that we can take two years -- yes, there's a lot of frustration in my state about e.p.a. and permits, and i understand that very well -- but i want to take two years so that we can sort of think together it is a a body and come up with an energy policy. l i'm ready for a that. aim not the same person i was two or three years ago on this sufnlts but we need that tiesm so i ask my colleagues respectfully to support my amendment, which stops at the end of two years, which continues the use of cafe standards, allowing e.p.a. to set those, and i ask my colleagues to vote against the mcconnell amendment, which i think is truly a stunning aberration. a senator: madam president? madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i'll take 30

seconds and then yield to senator inhofe. for the reasons we've already said about public health, for the protection of our clean air act, i'm going to urge my colleagues to defeat the rockefeller amendment. but let me just add one other point. the american renewable energy industry has written to us and has told us that the uncertainty of a two-year delay is more than two years. and it causes american renewable energy companies to be at a disadvantage with foreign energy companies, costing american jobs. uncertainty adds to job loss in america. for the sake of the public health of americans, for the sake of our economy, i urge my colleagues to reject the rockefeller amendment. mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: yeah, the two-year delay just encourages bureaucrats to stawrl on new permits and it doesn't real lier accomplishing in. it delays new construction, delays new jobs. one of the interesting thing about all three of these bills is everyone agrees that the

e.p.a. should not be regulating greenhouse gases. if you are going to have a root canal does it really help to wait two years? i irnlg to you vote against it. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: