[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 24, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3628-S3634]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL SERVICE REAUTHORIZATION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 1388, which the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A motion to proceed to the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1388) to reauthorize and reform the national service laws.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am pleased to rise once again to speak 
today on the Senate substitute amendment to H.R. 1388, the Serve 
America Act. As we heard in the statements last night, this legislation 
has been in the works for a long time, and I was glad last night to see 
it clear the first hurdle by a wide margin.
  This is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation. In my opinion, it is 
probably the most bipartisan bill we will see on the Senate floor this 
year. At every stage, Republicans and Democrats have been working 
together to craft this legislation in order to bring it where we have 
it today. It is my hope that when all is said and done we will see a 
broad coalition of Senators voting in favor of the bill.
  However, I do know, as of right now, not everyone in this Chamber is 
convinced this legislation is the right thing to do. So I want to take 
a few moments this morning to address some of the major arguments I 
have heard by those who appear to oppose the bill. Although many of 
these concerns appear to be coming from the Republican side of the 
aisle, I believe my arguments will be relevant to both sides.
  One argument I have heard is that the bill will impose mandatory 
service requirements on our citizens. I mention this claim first 
because, quite frankly, it is the easiest to refute. Despite the 
rumblings of the black helicopters some imagine to be circling 
overhead, every program in this bill is 100 percent voluntary. In our 
country, no one is compelled to give service, and this bill will not 
change that. Instead, it will give new and expanded opportunities for 
people who voluntarily decide to participate.
  Another more substantive argument I have heard is that given our 
current economic climate and budget deficit, it is simply the wrong 
time to invest in national service. The Government, these folks argue, 
does not have a role in these areas. I respectfully disagree with that.
  I share the desire of many of my colleagues and, of course, of my 
constituents to see more fiscal discipline in Washington. But, in my 
view, an important aspect of fiscal discipline is investing in ideas 
that work. I support this legislation because I believe volunteer 
service is such an idea.
  As has been stated, 75,000 national service participants leverage an 
additional 2.2 million volunteers every year--volunteers who are not 
subsidized by the Government in any way. That is a significant human 
capital return on what is, relatively speaking, a modest Government 
investment.

[[Page S3629]]

  In addition, there have been a number of studies that have shown that 
for every $1 invested in national service, there is anywhere from a 
$1.60 to $2.60 return on investment. That is in social benefits paid 
back to our society, whether it is kids being tutored, vacant lots 
turned into playgrounds and parks, homes being built, or in the form of 
disaster relief. It is an investment that pays for itself.
  I have also heard people refer to national service as ``paid 
voluntarism.'' I think this is mostly a question of semantics. We do 
need to be careful to differentiate between Americans who volunteer for 
full-time national service and community volunteers who give a few 
hours episodically throughout the year.
  Most current national service participants are spending a year of 
their lives serving their country full time, and their benefits include 
a subsistence allowance and an education award. The subsistence 
allowance is barely a survival stipend, a below-poverty payment that is 
enough to cover only the basic needs. The education award is a very 
modest benefit to encourage people to seek higher education 
opportunities once they have completed their terms of service. But in 
exchange for this small amount of support, these members dedicate 
themselves full time to solving problems that span the range of human 
life: from dropouts to elder care, from homelessness to prison 
recidivism.
  National service is not a job or a career move for these individuals. 
Indeed, no one is getting rich by participating in these programs. 
Those who join these programs are motivated to give back to their great 
country, to engage in their local communities, and improve the lives of 
those who are in need.
  Once again, we cannot discount the fact that the work of those in 
national service programs has a multiplying effect. If the measure of 
this legislation was solely to provide national service slots for 
250,000 individuals, I do not think we would have much to be proud of. 
But these national service participants will leverage millions of 
traditional volunteers and hundreds of millions of dollars of private 
investment in the nonprofit sector. The success of the program shall 
not be measured by the number of people who participate but by the work 
they accomplish.
  Other potential opponents of the bill have tried to label this bill 
as another ACORN bill. Of course, they do so without ever even 
inquiring whether ACORN currently receives money under national service 
programs. Although I am not usually one to spoil a good mystery, it has 
to be stated they do not. In fact, in the first year of the AmeriCorps 
program, ACORN was forced to return the grant it received under the 
program because it could not keep its political activities separate 
from its other work--this was in 1997--and they have not received any 
funding since.
  Make no mistake, I share the concerns of a number of my colleagues 
who do not want taxpayer funds to directly or indirectly benefit 
partisan political organizations, abortion providers, or illegal 
enterprises. While I believe current law prohibits national service 
funds from being used for such activities, we wanted to make it crystal 
clear that this would continue to be the case. I believe this was 
necessary in order to ensure the bill continues to enjoy bipartisan 
support.
  So as part of the managers' amendment, we have included a provision 
listing in detail the prohibited activities for national service 
participants. Specifically, under the bill no one will be able to use a 
national service position to influence legislation, or for union 
organizing efforts, or to participate in protests or boycotts, conduct 
a voter registration drive, engage in partisan political activity of 
any kind, or provide abortion services or referrals. In addition, any 
organization that has violated a Federal criminal statute is 
categorically ineligible to benefit under this legislation.
  Like I said, I understand the trepidation that some might have 
regarding these issues. Indeed, a number of so-called nonprofit or 
service organizations engage in what many believe to be objectionable 
activities. But I believe this language makes it clear that such 
activities will not be performed by national service participants. That 
being the case, I believe every Senator can support this bill without 
such reservations. I hope this puts the issue to rest.
  I am sure we will hear some other arguments raised by skeptics of the 
bill, and I will do my best to address them as they come up. I am sure 
the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, will as well. I 
just wanted to take a few moments to make sure people know these 
concerns have not gone unaddressed by the authors of this bill.
  As every Member of the Senate knows, the process of drafting, 
debating, and passing legislation is not a scientific one. There is no 
way of calculating all of the variables and finding all the angles in 
order to produce a perfect result. When any group of Senators works 
together on a bill--regardless of whether they are from the same or 
opposing parties--the best anyone can hope for is a final product all 
the parties will proudly stand behind, even if they do not agree on 
every single section or provision of the bill.
  The Senate substitute amendment represents the efforts of not only 
Senator Kennedy and myself but of Senator Enzi and Senator Mikulski as 
well, and others. As I said yesterday, I doubt any bill we consider 
this Congress will be spearheaded by such a diversity of beliefs and 
ideologies. As one coauthor of the bill, I do not claim the bill is 
perfect just the way it is, but I am proud to join my colleagues as we 
stand behind and work to preserve this product.
  I certainly respect and will work to preserve the rights of any 
Senator to oppose this legislation or propose changes in good faith. 
The ability of every Member to offer amendments is one of the richest 
and most important traditions of the Senate. That said, it is my hope 
we can keep the changes and additions to this bill at a minimum. If we 
add too much or take too much away from the bill, I think we may 
jeopardize the coalition we have worked to preserve thus far.
  Like I said, I do not claim the bill is perfect. But I do believe, as 
it is currently written, it has just the right balance to ensure that 
Members from both sides of the aisle should be able to get on board.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, first of all, I rise to thank my 
colleague from Utah for his excellent statement. I think he outlines 
exactly where we are in terms of both the content of the bill and the 
way we have approached this bill.
  It is my belief, as is the belief of Senator Kennedy, that we govern 
best when we govern together. That is exactly what the Serve America 
Act exemplifies. The architects of this legislation are Senator Kennedy 
and Senator Hatch, bringing to bear their own passion on Americans 
being able to give back to our society. Yet, with 16 years of lessons 
learned on the running of the Corporation for National Service, we have 
learned a lot.
  So this bill, as originally introduced, had not only good ideas and 
good intentions, but came from lessons learned on how to better focus 
our efforts, get more of a dollar's worth out of our efforts, and, at 
the same time, be able to harvest this growing desire of people to 
serve. This year, there are far more people who are applying for 
national service opportunities than at any other time in our history.
  Senator Hatch has also outlined the very important parameters we have 
set in the bill: no money will be going to participants to engage in 
partisan activities, no money going to participants that cannot 
demonstrate they are providing viable services and meeting the very 
clear requirements of AmeriCorps.
  There are other issues both Senators Hatch and Enzi have worked so 
constructively on to bring to our attention--great yellow flashing 
lights around these issues--and we heard them. We not only heard their 
concerns, I want to thank them because they brought not only concerns 
to the table but very sound solutions. So I want to thank them for 
that.
  I think on our side of the aisle, we have looked at AmeriCorps, we 
have looked at what President Obama is calling for, along with Senator 
Kennedy, and the wonderful contributions of Senator Dodd, and want to 
expand this program. But we realize there is a

[[Page S3630]]

limit. There is a limit to the money we can spend, and there is a limit 
to our organizational capacity on what we can undertake.
  So on our side there was an attempt to find that sensible center to 
be able to focus exactly on what we want to do in certain basic corps, 
and, at the same time, to merely make sure, increase the number of 
people volunteering.
  We have taken a look at the education voucher award. It has been 
frozen for 16 years. We made a modest increase, and our index will be 
to peg it to the Pell grants. This seems to be a sensible solution. 
There were those on my side of the aisle who wanted to double or even 
triple the education award. If we looked at inflation over 16 years, I 
would have been in that category. Well, in the spirit of compromise and 
consensus, we all sometimes have to not make the perfect the enemy of 
the really excellent. Therefore, in 2010, we will raise the education 
award to $5,350--a $500 increase. That would be less than $50 a year 
over the last 16 years.

  So we trimmed what the education award would be. We looked at how we 
wanted to triple the number of volunteers. We knew it couldn't be done 
in a day or a year, so instead, we phase it in over a 7-year period. 
Again, it was taking what we wanted to do, but organizing it at a pace 
we knew the taxpayers could afford, and so the corporation could 
develop the capacity to be able to expand the programs in a sound way.
  Then there comes the stewardship idea, which is, how do we make sure 
we build in certain reporting that really would ensure we were getting 
a dollar's worth of service for a dollar's worth of taxes? Senator Enzi 
of Wyoming, the ranking member of the committee, once again brought his 
very sound accounting skills to the table, and we came up with a way 
to, again, ensure value for the taxpayer, value for the community, and 
do it in a way that does not create a lot of micro-processes. We have 
put a lot of work into this bill.
  We don't want to lose sight of the fact that this legislation is to 
intended to really tap into the idealism of our young people. Idealism 
doesn't know gender, it doesn't know religion, it doesn't come from a 
ZIP Code. I believe it is really in the hearts of people everywhere in 
the world. It is a unique American characteristic to want to help your 
neighbor. Some people call it the Golden Rule--``Do unto others as you 
would have them do unto you''--but this is more. This is really saying: 
I want to take my life my talent, and put it to work in the community 
and make the community a better place. That is the original purpose of 
this bill.
  Yesterday, I don't know how my colleagues felt, but, gosh, I was 
buoyed when Senator Kennedy came on the floor, when he walked in that 
door with his jaunty cane and his good humor. The cheer that he brought 
to this body--it was very edifying, very inspirational, very 
energizing. Senator Kennedy brings his own unique energy to this.
  I have been talking to him about this bill. He is so pleased that the 
Senate is taking it up. He has been working with us as we have talked 
back and forth about improvements and so on. I know how strongly he 
feels about it. If he were on the floor himself today, he would be 
encouraging us. He would be motivating us. He would be inspiring us to 
pass this legislation so that we can engage a new generation of young 
Americans in national service, while at the same time, welcoming the 
large-scale participation of all generations to address national needs 
because, again, the desire to serve isn't based on age. It is not only 
young people who feel it. We all do.
  Communities across our country face challenges too numerous to count. 
If Senator Kennedy were on the floor, he would be reminding us about 
rising unemployment, particularly among young people, rising poverty, 
and falling home prices. At the same time, all of us are aware of the 
fiscal challenges many States and schools and communities are facing, 
which means they have to cut back on services just when families and 
children need them the most.
  Some of my colleagues believe we can't afford this legislation at a 
time when our debt is growing and our economy is struggling, but I say 
we can't afford not to pass this legislation. This bill offers 
innovative solutions to those challenges by asking more Americans to 
give their time to serve their country and their community. It answers 
the economic challenges of communities and families and what they are 
facing today. It is a carefully developed and focused solution.
  We have learned a lot in the past 16 years since we passed the 
original legislation about what works and what doesn't work. Senator 
Hatch spoke eloquently about it a few minutes ago. This bill draws on 
those lessons and actually puts them to work. We have learned that 
service can make a big difference in addressing specific challenges and 
that service opportunities early in life can put young people on the 
path of lifetime service. We have seen that older Americans want to 
serve their communities with skills and experience and that social 
entrepreneurs in the private sector are coming up with very innovative 
ways to tackle the challenges we face in a way that is affordable.
  This bill focuses national service programs where service can do the 
most good. I will repeat that. AmeriCorps, and these new programs with 
focused approaches, will focus service programs on where service can do 
the most good. In other words, following a Marine Corps adage, we are 
saying to the AmeriCorps volunteers: Be best at what you are best at, 
and be best at what you are most needed for. Be best at what you are 
best at, and be best at what you are most needed for. That is why we 
are talking about an education corps. That is why we are talking about 
a health futures corps, a clean energy corps, a veterans corps, an 
opportunity corps focusing on poverty. This is why we are focusing our 
service efforts.
  Social entrepreneurs such as those who started City Year and 
Experience Corps are the ones who are teaching us many of these 
lessons. When City Year began, it was about giving a year of service by 
a young person to do good in the community. That was the aegis of 
AmeriCorps. Back then, City Year took on all kinds of programs, but as 
City Year has matured, they found it is better to focus.
  City Year focuses primarily on tackling one of our greatest national 
challenges--the dropout crisis in high schools. In Baltimore City, my 
hometown, only one in three students who starts high school actually 
graduates. This is a travesty mirrored in inner cities and rural areas 
throughout our country. City Year focuses on how to deal with that 
dropout rate.
  Let's talk about Experience Corps. Experience Corps takes older 
adults and uses them as AmeriCorps volunteers. What they found is 
Experience Corps works best by working in schools. They are taking 
adults with years of experience and putting their skills to work, and 
it is making a difference. I have seen Experience Corps work in my own 
hometown of Baltimore in a school called Barclay Elementary School that 
has had its ups and its downs and its sideways. It has had talented 
teachers, often a good principal, and yet they needed help. In that 
surrounding community, within the shadow of Johns Hopkins University, 
Experience Corps works, and in many ways it has helped and assisted 
with volunteers and others coming from Hopkins. With that blend of 
volunteers, Barclay Elementary School has improved.
  When I asked the CEO of Experience Corps--because the people in this 
age group can do a variety of things--why education, he told me that's 
what Experience Corps could do best, where it was most needed. We have 
learned from programs like this, which is why AmeriCorps will now focus 
on these very specific core programs.
  We also found that this bill will, of course, encourages service 
learning opportunities for students, because students want to give as 
well. Working with Senator Dodd, who has been such a leader on these 
issues, we now have Summer of Service opportunities for middle and high 
school students. These young people want to do it.
  College is where so much of our young people's character and 
experiences are shaped. This bill recognizes that, going the extra mile 
by allowing the designation of 25 campuses of service which will 
undertake activities to help students engage in service that

[[Page S3631]]

will actually encourage people to go on to public service careers.
  This legislation also creates Encore Fellows to help adults 
transition to longer term public service with a nonprofit organization. 
These adults are volunteering by choice. They have knowledge and 
experience, and we just need to get them in the door. This is a way to 
bring in people who have retired and who have incredible skills, such 
as that retired accountant who can help a nonprofit get its books 
together and maybe find new grant opportunities.
  Finally, it is to help older Americans get more involved through 
Senior Corps, RSVP, Senior Companions, and Foster Grandparents. These 
are excellent programs.
  In this bill, we have taken innovation, creativity and lessons 
learned and come up with a new framework of service.
  Right now, our country faces an incredible economic challenge. We see 
it in homes, families, factories, farms, and communities all over 
America. But as you look out, you don't see faces of despair. People 
believe in this country, and children and grandparents know and even 
believe, also, in great possibilities. So while we are facing these 
great challenges, we have a great opportunity. This is not the ``me 
generation'' of a decade ago; it is the ``we generation.'' I think this 
bill will help us be ``we, the people'' who serve each other.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first, let me congratulate my colleague 
from Maryland and my colleague from Utah for their leadership on this 
legislation. This is extremely important legislation expanding the 
opportunities for people to serve our country in national service. Both 
have been leaders on this issue for many years. I am pleased that we 
are on the verge of really expanding opportunity, particularly for 
young people, to have a meaningful impact in helping their communities.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cardin pertaining to the introduction of S. 673 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, as we talk with colleagues and work to 
gather the votes, some of the naysayers, or those who have questions 
about the efficacy of this bill, say: So what, people go off and do a 
little bit of service, they feel good, and then they go off--OK, that 
is nice, but they could do that anyway.
  Well, they could do that, but what is often overlooked is the impact 
that service has on changing the lives of people who do service. We 
could talk about examples on my side of the aisle. We have Senator 
Dodd, who joined the Peace Corps. He has given long-term service to the 
Nation, including his work in Latin America, where he served as a Peace 
Corps volunteer. He continues that work on the Foreign Relations 
Committee. Senator Rockefeller went to West Virginia as a VISTA 
volunteer and was so taken with the poverty and hard times--and 
inspired by the determination of the people of West Virginia--that he 
made a go of trying to help them with their economic development and 
the economic empowerment of the people of West Virginia. He went on to 
run for public office and became a Governor and now is a Senator. We 
know of his and Senator Byrd's devotion to West Virginia and, again, 
their advocacy for those who were left out--the steelworkers, coal 
miners, and so on. Our democratic members bring those experiences with 
them.
  My own experience is very interesting as well. Yes, I do have a 
master's in social work and, yes, I did work in social programs. When I 
got my master's, I didn't only work in those programs that paid; I was 
also involved in those programs where I saw a need. While I was working 
in the streets and neighborhoods of Baltimore as a grassroots community 
organizer, it was very clear to me that people who had addiction 
problems had very few services to choose from. This was long before we 
had a drug czar and many of the programs we have today with addiction. 
I teamed up with a priest in the inner-city neighborhoods of Baltimore, 
Father Maloney, a Josephite, and we started something called Narcotics 
Anonymous, to open the doors. Many women came. We found the men and 
women together didn't get along. They each had their own story and they 
told them differently. I ran the women's groups and helped to start 
them.
  Those women had a different set of problems. I would go into the 
Baltimore city jail every Monday night to meet with a group of women to 
help plan for when they got out of jail. There was no discharge 
planning. Nobody was saying: How are you going to get a job? How are we 
going to keep you off drugs? How are we going to get your kids back 
from foster care? How do we make sure there is no abuse or addiction in 
the home?
  I would meet with them in the jail and work with Father Maloney when 
they came out. That was indeed quite an experience for a young social 
worker. I grew up with stories of women who were so poor that many had 
only gone to the sixth or seventh grade, or they had no education. They 
had no hope, they had only despair. I worked as a volunteer and helped 
to get them the service they needed. It had a profound impact on me. 
When I went to the Baltimore City Council, one of the first things I 
did was jail reform to try to bring services into the city jail so 
there would be an organized, systematic way of doing things. So I did 
jail reform in the city council, now, chairing the Commerce, Justice, 
and Science Committee, we do prison reform in the Congress and for our 
Federal programs--to make sure our Federal prisons have the staffing 
they need; to make sure the people who were there have the opportunity 
to turn their lives around.
  Then, we worked with incredible organizations--often faith-based--for 
post-prison discharge, so people wouldn't go back into prison. I know 
what those faith-based programs are. I worked for one of them as a 
volunteer. My lifelong commitment, starting in the streets and 
neighborhoods and working with Father Maloney, took me behind the bars 
to see what those lives were like. At the same time, now, in the 
Congress, we work for the important addiction services, work to make 
sure we have mental health parity, because so many people had these 
problems. Those are the kinds of things I did on my own as a volunteer. 
At the same time, we wondered what happened to the men. I asked, what 
happens to the men when they come out of jail? There were very few 
group homes, and working again with the Episcopal Church, a faith-based 
initiative, I went on the board of the Valley House. Do you know why it 
was called that? The 23rd Psalm says: I shall walk through the valley 
of darkness and I shall fear no evil. That is what it was. Those men 
were walking through and working through their ``valley of darkness'' 
as they followed their 12-step program. I saw a building that was 
tattered, worn, rundown.
  The very first thing I did was get some other women on the board, get 
my own volunteers, and we did our own habitat for healing. We worked 
with the recovering alcoholics and painted, cleaned, scrubbed, and 
whatever, got a good cook in there, so that when the men went out to 
look for a job, they came back to at least a hot meal and fellowship. 
We cleaned up the family at Valley House and shepherded them out of the 
valley of darkness and we led them to sitting at the table where their 
cups began to overflow.
  I learned a lot listening to those stories, putting in my own sweat 
equity. It was not about me; it was about the ``we'' whom we inspired. 
That is what community volunteer work does. While you are involved, it 
changes you. You listen to the stories and you know what that is. You 
want to make a lifelong commitment that the people you meet today you 
will never, ever forget

[[Page S3632]]

tomorrow. Those women I met at the city jail are now grandmothers. I 
hope those children are finishing school, and I hope their lives were 
turned around. I hope the men who were at Valley House went through 
that valley of darkness and went into the valley of life.
  As for me, as I tried to help them turn their lives around, they 
helped give my life direction. That is what we are talking about when 
we talk about giving back, getting involved, neighbor helping neighbor. 
For those of us who volunteer, the changes are significant. What I say 
is, each and every one of us can make a difference. But when we work 
together we can make change. This is one of the bills that will help do 
it.

  Madam President, I yield the floor.


                               The Budget

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, next week, the Senate is going to 
consider the budget resolution for fiscal year 2010. This may be one of 
the most important debates of our time. For 50 hours on the Senate 
floor, we are going to debate making a fundamental change in our 
economy.
  We need to face the facts. This President and this country have 
inherited the worst economic crisis in 75 years, and I do not 
exaggerate. No President has faced this kind of a challenge. We see it 
every day in the jobs that are being lost, the businesses that are 
closing, the homes going into foreclosure. We watched as our savings 
accounts dwindled during the decline of the stock market. Retirement 
plans are being changed. Children are coming back from college because 
families are worried about making the payment for their expenses. 
Fundamental decisions about homes, cars, and future expenditures are 
being withheld because of the uncertainty of our economy.
  Passing the economic recovery package that President Obama sent our 
way was the first step to getting this economy back on track, but it is 
not the last thing, it is not the only thing. The next step is to pass 
a smart, fair, responsible budget that makes the economy work again. 
This is not a separate item. This is a continuing effort that Congress 
needs to make, joining with President Obama, to show we are serious 
about putting this economy back on its feet.
  The President has proposed a budget that accomplishes that. It 
restores fairness for middle-class families, it reestablishes 
responsibility in the budgeting process, and it makes some smart 
investments in America's future.
  This budget begins to repair years of neglect in fundamental national 
priorities. It makes critical investments that we need for the economy 
to recover, particularly in the areas of energy, education, and health 
care.
  The President has proposed a return to the balance our country once 
enjoyed--careful investments in the future while protecting working 
families who have lost ground over the last decade. If we fail to make 
a number of critical investments now, it is going to be tougher for 
America's economy to get back on track.
  Many experts tell us that in order for our country to fully recover, 
we have to take a leading role not only in the Nation but in the world. 
We need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and develop renewable 
energy sources that reduce costs and create jobs.
  America still remembers well $4.50-a-gallon gasoline when those 
overseas who send us the oil decided they would squeeze us, and they 
did, and we couldn't say anything about it because we have become so 
dependent on foreign sources.
  We also know that the way we consume energy is affecting the world in 
which we live. We know that global warming is a reality, climate change 
is a reality, and if we do not use different practices and different 
approaches with energy, we may leave our kids more than a national 
debt; we may leave them a planet which is uninhabitable in some places.
  We also know we need to make it more affordable for Americans to 
extend and improve their education so they can reach their maximum 
potential and compete for good jobs in an increasingly competitive 
global economy. And we need to address health care costs. Whether it is 
an individual or a family or a business or a State or the Federal 
Government, the escalating cost of health care will break the bank no 
matter what the President's policies might be. We need to address it. 
President Obama has had the courage and I think the vision to say that 
has to be part of our agenda.
  This budget allows for critical investments in health care. The 
President's budget will begin the transformation of our health care 
system by allocating more than $630 billion over 10 years for 
fundamental health care reforms. How many times have we started this 
discussion and stopped it? Realizing the health care system in America 
needs dramatic reform, we find ourselves embroiled in debate and at the 
end of the day have nothing to show for it. President Obama stepped up 
in his budget and said: We are going to put the investment on the table 
to extend health care protection to those who do not have it and make 
it more affordable for those who do. He made that investment in his 
budget.
  The budget would also support the adoption of health information 
technology and the widespread use of electronic health records. The 
Veterans Administration does this. Because they have electronic 
records, they can make a better diagnosis for a patient, they can avoid 
errors that might occur while someone is hospitalized, and they can 
reduce costs. We should do that for our health care system across the 
board.
  The budget also expands research that compares the effectiveness of 
medical treatment so that patients and physicians have better 
information on what works and what doesn't.
  It would invest $330 million training doctors, nurses, and dentists 
we need to fill shortages of health professionals, especially in rural 
communities.
  It would invest over $1 billion to step up food safety efforts at the 
Food and Drug Administration to prevent the kinds of outbreaks of 
contaminated food we have seen recently, the most recent being peanut 
butter, but before that a long list of outbreaks in food safety that 
concern Americans and their families.
  This has been an issue I have pushed for a long time in the House and 
in the Senate, to try to coordinate our food safety effort in 
Washington so we can get more for our dollar and protect more families.
  These investments will come when we need them. Over 47 million 
Americans do not have health insurance today--47 million people who 
woke up this morning realizing they were one accident or one diagnosis 
away from wiping out their savings. One million families in my home 
State of Illinois, a State of 12.5 million people, have at least one 
uninsured family member, including 360,000 of those families who earn 
more than $50,000 a year. They earn 1,000 bucks a week and do not have 
health insurance.
  If you look at the cost of health insurance, you can understand. For 
some families, even $50,000 a year makes it difficult to protect 
everybody. Being uninsured is no longer only the concern of the poor. 
In fact, the poor are taken care of in our Medicaid Program. It is a 
risk for many of us, many middle-income families. Members of Congress 
are pretty lucky. We get the same health care protection that Federal 
employees receive. It is the best plan in the Nation. But my people in 
my home State are not that fortunate.
  Let me tell you about a fellow in Springfield, my hometown. Doug 
Mayol, since 1988, has owned a small business in downtown Springfield. 
He sells cards, gifts, and souvenirs. He is fortunate that his only 
employee is over 65 years of age and qualifies for Medicare and also 
receives spousal benefits from her late husband. If this were not the 
case, Doug does not think he could possibly provide health insurance 
for his only employee.
  As for himself, Doug knows, because he has a preexisting condition, 
that he faces the real possibility of becoming uninsured. Almost 30 
years ago, Doug was diagnosed with a congenital heart valve defect. He 
has no symptoms. But without regular health care, he is at great risk 
of developing serious problems.
  Like most Americans, his health care premiums have risen dramatically 
in recent years. In 2001, he paid $200 a month for health insurance in 
Springfield, IL. In 2005, he paid $400. And after he turned 50 years of 
age last year, his rate shot up to $750 a month. He has a

[[Page S3633]]

little business. It is hard for him to pay that.
  To keep his insurance affordable, he chose a smaller network of 
providers and higher deductible, which brought the cost down to $650 a 
month. Then last year, the payment jumped again to over $1,000 a month. 
Only by taking the highest deductible has he been able to bring that 
cost down to $888 a month.
  Think about that for a minute. That is $10,000 a year that this small 
business operator faces for basic health insurance with a high 
deductible, and he isn't even a costly patient. With his high 
deductible, the insurance company has never paid a claim for illness or 
injury beyond routine care. Yet his costs have exploded.

  He cannot afford not to have health insurance. Because of his faulty 
heart valve, he needs antibiotics before undergoing even a simple 
procedure, such as dental work.
  Although Doug should see a cardiologist periodically, he avoids it. 
He fears it would add another red flag to his medical record. Think 
about that for a second--avoiding basic medical care for fear it will 
raise the cost of health insurance. That is a reality for a lot of 
people in America.
  Why, in this wealthiest Nation on Earth, do we accept a system such 
as this, where a small businessman with insurance has to delay 
preventive care simply to avoid short-term costs, even though the long-
term costs, if something awful happens, will be far greater?
  All Americans want the best health care system in the world. Yet we 
all know that reform is not easy. The process will be complicated. We 
will have to compromise. And we will have to work together. But we have 
to start by laying the foundation. President Obama's budget does that.
  The President's budget also has a promising vision for education. The 
budget provides funding for innovations in the classroom, improved 
student assessment, improved teacher training, principal preparation, 
programs that reward teacher performance, and a significant expansion 
of early childhood education. Is there one of these we would question 
if it were our child or grandchild heading off to a school? We would 
want all of this as part of the curriculum, as part of the schoolday 
for that child to excel.
  These initiatives will help build America's education system so we 
can compete globally, and the budget will also change the way we 
finance higher education. It would finally end the Federal Family 
Education Loan, FFELs. This is a program that has proven to be 
outmoded, expensive, inefficient, subject to corruption, and a bad 
choice for students. A lot of us have known this for a long time.
  The first person to warn me about this program was the late Senator 
Paul Simon of Illinois who retired 13 years ago. It certainly has been 
an unfortunate situation.
  The current student loan FFEL program was an unfortunate choice for 
Holly Clark from Chicago. Holly wanted to be a teacher. To pay for 
college and graduate school, she borrowed over $60,000 in student 
loans. Think about that. She chose this FFEL program because she 
thought it would lock in low interest rates until she could pay off the 
loans.
  Because of fluctuating interest rates and changes in the program, she 
now pays 7\1/2\ percent interest each year. That is higher than she 
pays for her home mortgage.
  Holly heard about a Federal program that encourages teachers to work 
in a low-income school for 5 years by forgiving a portion of the debt. 
She taught for 4 years in an inner-city school, but then the school 
administrators left and the school became extremely unsafe. She left 
that job. She still has her loans, and she is not sure what she is 
going to do to repay them without giving up her teaching career.
  That is not what we need. We need young people who will submit 
themselves to teaching, not walk away from it. We can do better for 
Holly Clark. The FFEL program has proven to be costly for taxpayers and 
sometimes unfair to borrowers. The President's budget shifts the 
origination of student loans to the Federal Direct Loan Program 
starting in July of next year. We take the middleman out. We take the 
banker out of the picture because they are taking a profit. That change 
saves taxpayers $94 billion over the next decade. The banks are going 
to squawk. The people who have these programs are going to be upset. 
They are going to hire the best lobbyists they can get their hands on 
and come and stand out in the hall and beat on us when we come in to 
vote. But I hope we remember Holly Clark when we are making these 
decisions and not the folks with the Gucci loafers out in the hallway.

  This budget will also make spending on Pell grants mandatory, freeing 
this essential student aid program from the political process indexing 
the grants to inflation.
  We cannot transform our education system overnight into a world-class 
system unless we prepare our young people with the best education.
  On the issue of energy, the President's budget also provides a 
downpayment on weaning America from our dependence on foreign energy. 
The President lays out an aggressive path to reduce the consumption of 
fuels that contribute to climate change. Left unchecked, scientists 
predict global warming will lead to more heat waves and droughts over 
the next century, will result in lower agricultural productivity, 
threaten coastal areas with rising waters, increase severe storms and 
flooding and reduce biodiversity. These are real changes, some of which 
will be irreversible. We have to find a way to address this 
responsibly.
  President Obama's budget proposes a cap-and-trade system to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions. We can reduce emissions by 14 percent below 
2005 levels by the year 2020, and by 2050 we can cut emissions by 83 
percent below 2005 levels.
  Some say that is not realistic. They also said President Kennedy 
putting a man on the Moon was not realistic. We can do it if we have 
the political will and the guidance of a good President and the 
cooperation, bipartisan cooperation of Congress.
  The revenue generated from auctioning greenhouse gas emission 
allowances would be used to fund tax credits for working families and 
programs to green the economy and $150 billion over 10 years to develop 
clean energy technology that would create jobs. If this budget had 
already passed and funding were already available, Lee Celske of Aledo, 
IL, might have been able to put a small portion of that funding to good 
use. He has figured out how to create green temporary houses out of 
recycled glass--pretty cheap, as low as $30,000 in some cases--quick to 
assemble, and he thinks they are a good option for communities 
recovering from natural disasters. These are energy-efficient temporary 
homes that can withstand a category 5 hurricane.
  The factory that makes the houses would employ 30 high-tech, high-
paid, green-collar workers. Over the last 14 months, Lee has presold 
nearly $2 million worth of houses, relying on loan guarantees from his 
bank that would underwrite the factory once sufficient sales were in 
place.
  But then, suddenly, the bank pulled out. Lee has done nothing wrong. 
The idea is sound. The small company is ahead of its schedule on growth 
targets and it would create precisely the kind of green jobs America 
needs. Yet his progress has been stopped by a freeze in the credit 
markets. The President's budget would help finance these entrepreneurs 
in the green economy.
  This budget could create good jobs. It is a smart investment for our 
future. That is what the President brought to us in the stimulus 
package. This budget can create good jobs. It is a small investment for 
the future. That is what the budget continues to bring to us.
  There is another element that is important. For too long the Tax Code 
has favored the wealthiest people in America. At a time when working 
families, middle-income families are struggling to get by, they were 
not getting the tax breaks. That was the old way of thinking. That was 
old politics, old policies. The President's way of thinking is to reach 
out to provide a tax cut for every American family earning less than 
$250,000 a year. Ninety-five percent of Americans will not see their 
taxes increase a single penny under the President's budget. After 8 
years of stagnant wage growth for the middle class, with costs for 
health care, education, and utilities going up, with the unemployment 
rate above 8 percent and growing, and with as many as 13 million 
families

[[Page S3634]]

at risk for losing their homes, American families need a break. This 
budget would do that.
  I have listened to a number of my friends on the Republican side of 
the aisle criticize this budget. They say it spends too much, taxes too 
much, we have to borrow too much. They are ignoring the obvious. This 
President is committed to cutting the deficit in half in his first 4-
year term. When President Bush was elected, he inherited a surplus from 
President Clinton, a surplus in the budget. It had been a 2-year 
surplus and it was reducing the debt of programs such as Social 
Security. We were moving in the right direction. Our national debt that 
we an accumulated over the history of the United States to that moment 
when President George W. Bush took office was about $5 trillion. So the 
President, George W. Bush, came in with a $5 trillion national debt 
that he had inherited from George Washington until his moment in 
history and he inherited a budget surplus.
  What happened over the next 8 years? Sadly, under President Bush, we 
saw the national debt of America more than double in 8 years. The 
accumulated history of the United States had produced $5 trillion in 
debt. The 8 years of the Bush administration more than doubled that 
debt. President Bush took the surplus of the Clinton years and brought 
us to the biggest annual deficits in American history.
  Many of those who supported the President's approach, many of those 
on the other side of the aisle who voted for his budgets--many who 
stood in defense of President Bush when he said I don't want to count 
the cost of the war; we will set that aside; we will call it an 
emergency; we will not put it in the budget--are the same people who 
made that excuse for 7 years during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 
under President Bush. They saw the accumulated cost of those wars 
exceed $700 billion and none of it was in the budget. None of it was 
accounted for. Many on the other side said that was acceptable.
  They also supported the President's idea of tax cuts, tax cuts for 
some of the wealthiest people in America. Taking these things off 
budget, tax cuts for the wealthy--what happened? We ended up with the 
worst deficits we had seen in our history. That is what this President 
inherited. Now that he has promised to reduce the size of our deficit 
by half in his first 4 years, many on the other side are standing and 
saying we are destined now for bankruptcy. Where have they been for the 
last 8 years? Some of the harshest critics of the President's budget 
were giving a stamp of approval, year after year, to President Bush's 
budget.
  What President Obama is doing is an honest budget, a responsible 
budget that moves us toward reducing the deficit in a time when the 
economy is in a sorry situation.
  I think that is important. I think it is important we come together 
on a bipartisan basis to pass that. As to those who think this budget 
borrows too much, this President is on the right track of reducing the 
deficit. They have been on the wrong track for a long time. These are 
policies that they have offered before that did not work. They are 
yesterday's policies, yesterday's politics. It is time for something 
new. It is time for real change. Preparing the budget is about making 
choices and President Obama's budget is a document that makes the right 
choices. It is a document that is fair, giving tax breaks to working 
families, putting money into investments so their children can see a 
brighter future. It is a budget that is responsible. It puts the cost 
of the war online in the budget so we can track it as part of our real 
debt. It is a budget that also makes smart investments in America's 
future.
  It is not just a matter of creating a job, a make-work job. This 
President's vision is to create the kind of jobs in energy and new 
energy for the 21st century; in education, so our kids can compete in 
this century, and to make sure our health care system is one that gives 
us quality care at the lowest cost. That embodies three sensible goals 
that we in America share.
  This budget would bring true long-lasting change to America, and I 
certainly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to look 
long and hard at this budget, realize the good-faith effort President 
Obama is making with this budget, and join him in charting a course of 
spending for the next 4 years that will move us out of this recession, 
create jobs and businesses and give America a smart investment for our 
future.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________