[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 16, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6640-S6646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       TREASURY BOND YIELD UPDATE

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, about 2 weeks ago I spoke on the floor 
about the unprecedented budget deficits this country is now facing and 
the fact we are spending money we do not have. I specifically discussed 
the impact that is having on Treasury yields.
  What we know is that President Obama's budget has been scored by the 
Congressional Budget Office, which is our group, and I think they do a 
pretty good job. They take pride in being independent and fair. The 
head of it was selected by the Democratic majority in the Senate. It is 
certainly not a Republican organization. They are just fair, trying to 
do the best they can to try to calculate the numbers.
  What they calculated was that at the rate of deficit spending we are 
now undertaking, the total American debt will double in 10 years, from 
$5.7 trillion to over $11 trillion. In 10 years it will triple to $17 
trillion.
  That is a lot of debt. You might ask how do you do that? How do you 
spend more money than you take in? The way we do it is we borrow it, 
just like other people do. The Government borrows it. The way it does 
is, it puts out an auction or sale of Treasury bonds or bills, T-bills 
they call them, and people buy those things if they choose to do so, 
and the Government pays them a certain interest rate, whatever the 
interest rate is at the time.
  On short-term debt instruments--short term are under a few months--
those interest rates are still rather low because people are panicked 
over the economic situation. They are afraid to put their money in the 
stock market, so they bought Treasury bills. Other people around the 
world did too. They are not getting much interest, but they believe the 
Government will pay them back in dollars, eventually.
  So what has been happening to the 10-year Treasury bill, one of the 
foundations of our borrowing, is the rate has continued to go up. Two 
weeks ago, I pointed out that the 10-year Treasury yield had increased 
54 percent this year, at that time from 2.4 percent in January, to 3.7 
percent. Barron's, a major financial publication, predicted a few weeks 
ago that Treasury yields could top 4 percent this year.
  Well, guess what. Treasury yields topped 4 percent last week. The 
Wall Street Journal in a front-page article on June 11 said that the 
10-year Treasury yield briefly hit 4 percent yesterday afternoon before 
closing at 3.94 percent. That would be a 67-percent increase in the 
Treasury bill interest rate just this year.
  Why are the rates going up? It seems there is some disagreement 
between Washington and Wall Street. The Wall Street Journal article 
says this:

       Many policymakers see the rise in Treasury yields as a sign 
     that investors are optimistic that the economy is on the 
     mend. But many market participants say higher long-term bond 
     yields indicate investors are increasingly worried about 
     inflation.

  So I interpret that to mean that the Washington politico crowd, 
looking to see a positive vision here, say it is because the economy is 
doing better. And that could be a factor. But the folks on Wall Street, 
who are buying the T bills, say differently.
  Is the government responsible for this increase in interest rates? It 
seems that is a real possibility. The Federal Reserve is creating 
inflation concerns through its massive asset purchase program. The Fed 
plans to purchase $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities, $200 
billion in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae debt, and $300 billion in 
Treasury bills this year. Since there are not enough people who want to 
buy the Treasury bills, the Federal Reserve is stepping in and buying 
them in an attempt to keep the rate down.
  So far the Fed has purchased $481 billion in mortgage-backed 
securities, and $130 billion in Treasuries. The intention of the 
program is to reduce the Treasury yield and interest rates, but it may 
be backfiring. A Forbes.com article on May 28 quotes former Federal 
Reserve Governor Lawrence Meyer on how this kind of action could 
actually have a different impact. It could actually cause inflation and 
even cause a rise in the Treasury bond yield.
  This is what he said:

       This can become counterproductive. To the extent that you 
     stoke inflation fears and you

[[Page S6641]]

     get an inflation risk premium built in [to the bond yield] 
     you can't ease that away. You do have to be careful and more 
     measured than that.

  In other words, when there is a perception which may be reality that 
not enough people are willing to buy these Treasury bonds at lower 
rates, because they think even 4 percent may not be enough because they 
may fear that inflation is going to be 6 or 7 percent down the road, 
they do not want to lock themselves in for 10 years at a 4-percent 
interest rate that is below the inflation rate. So the Fed steps in and 
buys some of this to keep it low, and that may be having the perverse 
incentive of causing a belief to occur in the marketplace that 
inflation is on the way, and scares people even more.
  Also let me say this about the voluntary purchase of Treasury bills 
by citizens of the United States, people in China, the Middle East, and 
around the world. They do not have to buy Treasury bills. We are going 
to be offering amounts, these kinds of bills, in volume we have never 
offered before in the history of the Republic.
  So the question is, who wants to buy them? Who wants to hold a 
mortgage on the United States? What if we inflate our currency? Maybe 4 
percent is not enough. Maybe they want more. Maybe China, which had a 
huge trade surplus a few years ago, is deciding they are not going to 
buy so many Treasury bills in the United States. Maybe they decide they 
need to invest in their own economy, which is not doing as well as it 
has done in the past.
  The same about the Middle East. They used to have huge reserves of 
American money as a result of the high price of gasoline and price of 
oil on the world market. That price dropped some. So perhaps they do 
not have as much money to buy our Treasury bills either.
  So who is going to buy them? We are not talking about a little bit, 
we are talking about going from $5 trillion in total debt today to $11 
trillion in 5 years, and $17 trillion in 10 years. So we are talking 
about over $10 trillion in new debt we have to sell to someone in the 
world market.
  Also, what is the impact of the Federal Reserve, that entity we have 
created by law, when they buy Treasury bills? What occurs there? I 
remember hearing Mr. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve Chairman, talking 
about this on ``60 Minutes.'' Some of you may have seen him being 
interviewed on that program. I went back and had the transcript of that 
program called up, and we reviewed it. It is what I thought he said. In 
response to reporter Scott Pelley's question, Chairman Bernanke said 
about the Fed's programs:

       It's much more akin to printing money than it is to 
     borrowing.

  Mr. Pelley replied:

       You've been printing money?

  And Mr. Bernanke replied:

       Well, effectively.

  And he added:

       And we need to do that, because our economy is very weak 
     and inflation is very low.

  So if you want to know the definition of printing money, that is it. 
Some people say that is not a fair thing to say; we are not printing 
money. Mr. Bernanke says we are printing money. He is the Chief of the 
Fed. He is the guy who does it.
  Why does this matter to the average American? Even those who are not 
planning to buy a Treasury bill any time soon will be affected. That is 
because mortgage interest rates--what we pay to borrow money to buy a 
house with--track the 10-year Treasury yield. So as the 10-year 
Treasury goes up, mortgage rates go up too, and it is much harder for 
people to buy a home or to refinance. Or if you want to sell a home, it 
is harder for the person who wants to buy it to borrow the money. He 
has got to pay considerably more for a house in the interest rate. In 
fact, according to the Wall Street journal, 30-year mortgage rates have 
gone up 16 percent in the past 2 weeks, from 5 percent to 5.79 percent. 
This is the money, when you go out, you have to borrow money to buy a 
house with. What we need to happen in America is people buying homes 
and taking them off the market.
  There is a huge difference between 5 percent and 6 percent. On 
$100,000, 5 percent interest would be $5,000 a year you pay in 
interest; $400-plus a month. On 6 percent interest, it is $6,000 a 
year, or $100 more a month on $100,000. For a $200,000 mortgage it 
would be twice that. It would be $2,000 or $3,000 more a year you would 
pay in interest alone because the rate went up a bit.
  We were hoping that the interest rates would stay low to encourage 
people to buy homes, encourage people to refinance, and be able to live 
a better life. The Wall Street Journal article said that this 
increase--from 5 to almost 6 percent--will cut the number of people 
with an incentive to refinance their homes and save money by paying 
less interest by half.
  Let me mention one more thing. One of the things that is interesting 
in all of this is the impact our spending has had on the economy. We 
all hoped it would have a pretty dramatic impact. But it is not being 
nearly as effective as people thought. Even I thought we would have 
some impact in the short term.
  But I believe that CBO is correct. When we passed the $800 billion 
stimulus package that was supposed to put money out into the economy to 
build roads and bridges, we found out only 4 percent of the money went 
to roads and bridges, 96 percent went to other kinds of government 
spending, but that $800 billion was supposed to create a good bit of 
jobs and get this economy moving.
  I want to say things are not going as well as we would like. I remain 
optimistic. The Fed is doing all of these things, the spending is 
coming along. Surely we are going to have a benefit from that in the 
near term.
  But this shows the deficit surge. The deficit, by which I mean how 
much more money we are spending than we take in. This goes through 
March of this year. You can see how the deficit is increasing, how much 
our shortfall is. And by March, it has already topped $953 billion.
  That is more than twice the biggest deficit President Bush ever had. 
And he was criticized for his deficit. That is twice. We have not 
gotten to the end of the fiscal year yet.
  What the CBO projects--this is our own Congressional Budget Office, 
their numbers, and they are running the tally of how much we are 
spending and how much is coming in. They calculate by the end of the 
year the deficit will be $1.8 trillion, which is about four times the 
highest deficit President Bush ever had.
  I say that because people say: Well, President Bush had deficits too. 
Yes, he did. A lot of that was not justified, in my opinion. But we 
never had deficits like this in the history of the American Republic. 
And you do have to borrow this money.
  This is in March. By September 30, we are looking at a deficit of 
$1.8 trillion this year alone. And the whole debt of the American 
Republic, since its founding, is about 5.7 trillion before this year 
started. What is that? That is one-third in 1 year.
  We hoped that spending and this activity would help improve the 
unemployment rate. But you can see, it is going up. It was 6.6 and it 
has gone up to 8.5. Well, it is not 8.5 percent. That was in March. The 
latest number is 9.4 percent.

  So I do not know how much real boost we have gotten from this 
reckless spending. So much of it we knew was not job creating, and we 
debated that. It was clear that a lot of this was the kind of spending 
that would not create jobs. As I said, you heard about roads and 
bridges. Well, only 4 percent of the money went to roads and bridges. A 
lot of it went to all kinds of programs that are not job-creating 
programs. So I am concerned about that.
  This is a vibrant country, and I think we have the capability of 
bouncing back from hard times. I will just say, we are at 9.4 percent 
unemployment. Unemployment in the early 1980s, under President Reagan, 
when they had to break the back of surging inflation, they broke the 
back of 13-percent inflation. Unemployment hit 10.8 percent. So it is 
not as bad as it was in the 1980s, and we bounced back from that, and 
we can bounce back from this.
  But I have to say to my colleagues, if we do not have fiscal sanity 
in how we do our business, if we do not have a possibility of showing 
growth in revenues from economic growth and the containment of 
spending--and our deficits are surging for as far as the eye can see--
then I am not sure we will have the kind of healthy, robust resurgence 
we would normally expect to occur after a recession.

[[Page S6642]]

  Look at these numbers. This is very disturbing. We borrow all this 
money, and we spend it today. I know a great lawyer who has written a 
book, ``The Case for Character.'' He said: This is a question of 
character, what I am going to talk to you about here. It is a question 
about the moral character of the Congress and the President of the 
United States and how we approach our duties in a responsible manner.
  In 2009, this year, we expect that the taxpayers of the United 
States--on the $5.7 trillion we have borrowed--will pay $170 billion in 
interest. That is a total loss. That is money that goes out to people 
who have loaned us money. It is interest, just like on your credit card 
or on your mortgage--$170 billion. And look how it goes up. This is a 
chart I have of the interest each year. And 10 years from now, if we 
follow the President's budget, it will be $806 billion, according to 
the Congressional Budget Office.
  All right. That is just money. How much is that? How much is $806 
billion? Let me tell you what we do today. The Federal highway bill is 
about $40 billion. The Federal aid to education in all its forms is 
about $100 billion. So now, since we take money from the future, and we 
spend it today in a reckless way, I think, to get some sort of hope for 
stimulus we have not seen much of, we are going to saddle the people in 
2019 with an annual debt payment of $806 billion--10 times the Federal 
education budget, 20 times-plus the highway budget. So we do need to be 
focused on this issue.
  Let me say one more thing. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, the deficit is supposed to drop down in 2 or 3 years, but 
already it looks as if we will not meet those numbers. The economy is 
not as strong as they were projecting. It was a rosy scenario. But they 
project about $600 billion is what the deficit will be 2 or 3 years 
from now--30, 40 percent higher than anything President Bush ever had--
$600 billion. Then it starts up again, and it goes up to the 10th year. 
And in the 10th year, under the scoring of the President's budget by 
the Congressional Budget Office, the deficit will be over $1 trillion 
in that year--$1.1 trillion.
  That is not sustainable. And they are not projecting an economic 
slowdown. They are projecting modest growth over that period of time, 
solid growth for the last 5 years during this period. If we have a 
recession, presumably the deficits would be even larger than that.
  I guess I would say to my colleagues, this is a matter we need to 
start thinking about. It cannot be ignored. Nothing comes from nothing. 
If you get money to spend today, you must spend every dollar of it with 
care because you have borrowed it from the future, and somebody has to 
pay it back. It is not free money. Maybe it feels as if it is free 
today because we did not have to pay higher taxes or we did not cut 
some other spending program to get the money to do what we would like 
to do with it. We just borrowed it. But borrowing has consequences.
  Every year from here on out, that $806 billion will go up probably 
because in 2019 they expect not a balanced budget but an annual deficit 
of that year to be over $1 trillion. So the thing is going to continue 
to worsen. If we do not make some changes, this will continue.
  By the way, this does not include the spending we are talking about 
on health care, which you heard a speech about earlier. I will say this 
about it: the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has 
released details on a bill. According to CBO, what they have released 
so far scores at $1 trillion. Oh, we just got another $1 trillion not 
calculated in these numbers. ``Well, everybody just needs to have 
health insurance.'' So who is going to pay for it?
  We have to be smart. We have to see how we can improve health care, 
get more people insured, create a better system with the absolute 
lowest possible cost because we cannot continue this kind of reckless 
spending. Instead of learning a lesson from the already surging 
deficits, we seem to be blithely going on with a huge new spending 
program on top of that.
  The American people, I think, are uneasy. They think we are out of 
control up here. They do not think they have ever seen anything like 
this: deficits the likes of which we have never seen in peacetime.
  The U.S. Government passed a bill last fall that was supposed to buy 
toxic mortgages from banks, and now they bought a controlling share in 
General Motors. How did this happen? Did Congress ever vote on that? 
No. We did not vote on it. They took advantage of the language in that 
bill, which I was opposed to and voted against. One of the reasons I 
opposed it was because it was too broad and an unbelievable abrogation 
of congressional power to the Secretary of Treasury, who had already 
helped lead us into financial catastrophe. But people in panic, they 
all voted and gave him this power.
  Did anybody know we were going to use that money to buy an automobile 
company? No. In fact, Secretary Paulson at one point was asked at a 
hearing: What about buying stock in banks? This was supposed to be 
helping the banks. In the House committee, he said, no, we did not want 
to buy stock in banks. But a week after that bill passed, he was buying 
stock in banks. And they have not yet begun to buy toxic mortgages. 
Maybe they will begin soon. They say they have a plan now.
  I am saying the American people are right to be concerned about the 
reckless, irresponsible behavior of this government in Washington. I 
hope they will continue to watch what is going on. I hope the American 
people will speak out and let the folks up here know they expect us to 
do something more than deal with the problem next week. They expect us 
to be thinking about the long-term health of the American economy.
  I heard a well-known financial expert say: Well, you know what? I am 
not saying there will be reckless inflation occurring, although some 
people are predicting that. He said: After President Reagan broke 
inflation and we got the economy on a sound track, the economy grew at 
about 3 percent a year and inflation was about 2 percent. He said: What 
I am worried about is that what we are going to see in the next 10 
years is inflation at about 3 percent and growth at about 2 percent. 
That is not good. You want your growth to exceed the inflation rate.
  I do not know what will happen. I cannot predict it. But I know this: 
We are going to have less money to spend on the things we need because 
we are going to have to be paying a huge amount in interest. Those are 
real concerns. This matter is not going away. I believe the American 
people are becoming more and more attuned to these matters. That is 
what the Tea parties were about--a sort of spontaneous reaction by the 
American people saying: What are you guys doing up there? Surely you 
know this is not the way to handle America's business.
  I will say, I am going to continue to report on things that are 
developing. Surely we will begin to see some improvement in the 
unemployment rate and maybe some economic growth in the weeks to come. 
You would normally expect that when you pump the kind of money we have 
pumped into this economy. But in the long run, this begins to drag down 
the gains you make in the short run. That is what I am saying.
  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office said--analyzing the stimulus 
package alone--it would increase our GDP, our growth for 2 to 3 years, 
but if you took that over 10 years, the economy would grow less over 
the 10 years than if we had no stimulus package at all. That is because 
when you borrow money, not only do you have to pay interest on it, but 
it crowds out borrowing from the private sector.
  If a corporation wants to borrow money through the issuance of bonds, 
they are having to compete with the Treasury bills that are now paying 
4 percent, and they will have to pay a good bit more because people 
think the Treasury bills are better, safer investments than some 
private corporate bonds. It hurts the private sector because now they 
are paying considerably higher interest rates to get people to loan 
money to them instead of loaning it to the U.S. Government.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to share this. I 
hope and pray we can all figure out a way to work together to do a 
better job of being stewards of this economy. It is a high 
responsibility we have. No one knows everything. No one has a perfect 
answer to it. We are going to have to go through some tough times. I 
think that is clear, and there is no need to sugar-coat that.

[[Page S6643]]

  I am not blaming President Obama for everything that has gone wrong, 
and he inherited so much of this. I have talked about Secretary 
Paulson. I do not think Secretary Geithner is any better. He was 
Secretary Paulson's top adviser when they came up with this plan last 
fall.
  But, at any rate, we need to get our heads together and know one 
fundamental thing: Nothing comes from nothing. There is no free lunch. 
If you borrow money to spend today, there will be a cost in the future, 
and those costs can outweigh the benefits that are occurring today.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, we live in a world divided. International 
tension, mistrust, and even war too often separate Nation from Nation. 
But every 2 years, 10,000 athletes from more than 200 countries come 
together to celebrate the human spirit. They meet in competition, 
arriving on the world stage from all five inhabited continents. Each of 
these five continents is represented by a single-colored circle--a ring 
intertwined with four others to form the familiar symbol worn by every 
Olympic athlete. The Olympic and the Paralympic games are a powerful 
force for world unity and a boon to any city that hosts them.
  In 2016, the summer games will bring millions of dollars and the 
international spotlight to one of four world cities. Selected by the 
U.S. Olympic Committee from a broad field of candidate cities, Chicago 
is one of only four finalists for the 2016 Olympics, along with Madrid, 
Rio de Janeiro, and Tokyo. The International Olympic Committee will 
make their final selection this October.
  We must work hard to bring the Olympic games back to the United 
States. There is no greater honor than representing your country on the 
world stage. I am convinced there is no greater city in the world than 
Chicago.
  As President Obama and I can both attest, Chicago is a diverse and 
inclusive city. Situated on the banks of the beautiful Lake Michigan, 
it is the jewel of the Midwest. Chicago has always been a global leader 
in culture, art, architecture, commerce, sports, and even cuisine.
  The Olympic spirit is alive and well in Chicago. The Chicago 2016 
Olympic Committee recognizes the importance of the games and in 
renewing old friendships around the world, as well as establishing new 
ones. This ideal and the value of the ``friendship through sports,'' is 
at the heart of the city's Olympic bid. It is a city I am proud to call 
home, and it showcases much of what makes this country so great. That 
is why it is the ideal site for the Olympic and the Paralympic games.
  For the athletes, world-class training facilities and event locations 
would be very close together, allowing for convenience and ease. For 
visitors, outstanding public transportation and modern infrastructure 
would make all events readily accessible and easy to attend. For 
residents of the city and people across the United States, Chicago 
would shine on the world stage, and millions of dollars would pour in 
from across the globe.
  Especially if we pass S. 1023, promoting travel to the United States 
and relaying better information to visitors, Chicago will be the clear 
choice for the International Olympic Committee in October.
  This important legislation, known as the Travel Promotion Act of 
2009, would create a nonprofit corporation as well as a government 
Office of Travel Promotion. These organizations would work together to 
encourage business, leisure, and scholarly travel to the United States, 
restoring important components of our struggling economy.
  Travel and tourism, which generates as much as $1.3 trillion in the 
United States every year, has been on the decline since 2001, although 
the same industries have grown in many other countries. We must act 
swiftly to protect the 8.3 million American jobs that are directly 
related to travel and tourism. This means welcoming more overseas 
visitors each year--visitors who already spend $142 billion inside the 
United States on an annual basis.
  An increase in international tourism would increase the profile of 
the Chicago Olympic bid. The 2016 Olympics, in turn, would generate 
even more international tourism in Illinois and across the country. S. 
1023 would help this massive influx of visitors travel into the United 
States with ease. This would create jobs, increase tax revenue, and 
build stronger friendships across the globe.
  There are few international spectacles as singular and as inspiring 
as the Olympic and the Paralympic games. A force for unity in a world 
divided, these competitions have the power to bring us together as one 
people, celebrating the human spirit with one voice.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Dorgan and Senator Enzi in 
supporting S. 1023. This legislation would help to bring visitors from 
all over the world to the United States and would also help bring the 
2016 Olympics to Chicago, IL, because I have a special interest in 
bringing those Olympics to my hometown.
  Thank you. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, every year thousands of people 
travel to Colorado to enjoy some of the most exciting recreation 
opportunities in the world. Although my home State is known for its 
skiing, we are a summertime destination with 4 national parks, 5 
national monuments, and 41 State parks for travelers to enjoy. Visitors 
can go white-water rafting down the Colorado River or hike and climb in 
the magnificent Rockies. We have Wild West ghost towns, historic 
railroads, and American Indian cultural sites to visit.
  Obviously, travel and tourism is an incredibly important sector of 
Colorado's economy. For every $1 million spent in Colorado by domestic 
and international travelers, 11 jobs are created. Travel and tourism 
generated $13.7 billion in revenue in 2007 in Colorado alone, and 
almost 150,000 Coloradans owe their jobs to that industry.
  That is why today I rise to express my support for the Travel 
Promotion Act of 2009. I am a proud cosponsor of this bill, which has 
strong support from Members across the aisle, and I look forward to 
voting for its passage later this week.
  While I have listed just the beginning of the numerous reasons to 
visit Colorado, the truth is that our tourism and travel industry has 
suffered in recent years. Many people do not realize it, but across our 
great country our tourism industry never fully recovered after 
September 11, particularly when it comes to travel from outside our 
country into the United States. That compares with this fact: Travel 
around the world has dramatically increased in the past decade while 
travel to the United States has dropped. In 2008, we welcomed fewer 
visitors to our country than we did in the year 2000. Why? Part of the 
problem is that visitors from overseas have been confused by the new 
procedures for entering our country. Foreign visitors also say they 
don't think we are making much of an effort to attract international 
travelers. That is costing communities across our country billions of 
dollars in lost revenue. In fact, one study suggested over $182 billion 
has been lost since September 11, 2001.
  In my State of Colorado, the travel and tourism industry is a strong 
economic engine. It is one we have to keep strong and in which we have 
to invest. Part of that is in changing the perception that the United 
States is not interested in hosting foreign tourists. That is the point 
of this legislation. The legislation before us would help revive 
international travel to the United States so we can get that economic 
engine revved up to its full capacity.
  The purpose of the bill is to sell travel to the United States to 
overseas tourists, including areas that are not well-known 
destinations. Of course, the Presiding Officer's State is also a place 
where we want to attract people to its wonderful beaches and wonderful 
historical sites in the great State of Delaware.
  Let me tell you quickly some of the details in this legislation. It 
would establish a Corporation for Travel Promotion which would be an 
independent,

[[Page S6644]]

nonprofit corporation governed by an 11-member board that the Secretary 
of Commerce would appoint. It would create an Office of Travel 
Promotion in the Department of Commerce to develop the programs to 
increase the number of international visitors to the United States. And 
it would set up a travel promotion fund which would be financed by 
private-public matching dollars. Much of the cost would be borne by 
international travelers who would pay a $10 fee collected through the 
electronic system for travel authorization.
  Other countries are spending billions of dollars on travel 
promotions. Those of us who sponsored this legislation and hopefully 
will vote for it overwhelmingly at the end of this week think we should 
stay competitive with other countries. The Travel Promotion Act would 
directly contribute to the economic recovery of our travel and tourism 
industry. It would spur job growth, and it would contribute to the tax 
base of local, regional, and State governments, many of which are 
forced to make, as we know all too well, drastic cuts in this tough 
economic time.
  As well, before I close, I wish to mention that there are 
nonfinancial benefits to international travel as well. I wish to quote 
that great American Mark Twain. He said:

       Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-
     mindedness.

  America's image in the world, as we know, has suffered greatly over 
the past several years, but travel to our country, to America, is one 
of our most effective tools of public diplomacy. Studies have shown 
over and over that when people come to our country, they return home 
with a very positive view of not just our country as it is described in 
the books but the landscapes and the people and the way we live our 
lives. In addition to helping strengthen our economy, this bill would 
strengthen our place in the world.
  I end by thanking and acknowledging the chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, Senator Rockefeller, the ranking member, Senator Hutchison, 
and Senator Dorgan for quickly bringing this legislation to the floor. 
I look forward to the passage of the Travel Promotion Act so we can 
continue to get travel and tourism and, of course, our economy back on 
track.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, once tourists come to West 
Virginia, they often return. From the Appalachian Trail to the 
Monongahela National Forest, the beauty of our State is unparalleled 
and our people are welcoming.
  Tourism in West Virginia also creates jobs. As a result, our State 
spends money to promote West Virginia in the surrounding States as a 
tourist destination. But we surely would welcome more international 
tourists as well.
  Increasing overseas travel and tourism is a shovel-ready economic 
stimulus that will create thousands of jobs across the country--
including West Virginia. With the dollar at a low compared to other 
currencies, America is a bargain. We are open and ready for business. 
Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't know it.
  Compared to other countries, the United States fails to effectively 
advertise and promote itself overseas as a tourism destination. In 
1992, the United States attracted 9.4 percent of all international 
tourists; in 2007, the United States attracted only 6.8 percent. Since 
2000, the United States' share of international travelers has declined 
by 20 percent.
  Meanwhile, the rest of the world is promoting itself--often employing 
the best Madison Avenue techniques used for marketing heart medications 
and luxury cars. We all see enticing television advertisements to visit 
Italy, Greece, Jamaica, Ireland, Canada, Australia and Brazil. But few 
residents of those countries see advertisements enticing them to come 
to the United States--and to spend their money in the United States.
  If the United States had simply kept pace with global travel trends, 
58 million more overseas travelers would have visited the United States 
between 2000 and 2008. Those travelers would have generated 245,000 
tourism jobs in 2008 alone.
  The average overseas visitor to the United States spends $4,500 per 
visit. That means every 23,000 overseas visitors pump $100 million into 
the U.S. economy.
  We have spent billions of dollars to prevent the collapse of 
industries and billions of dollars to put people to work. But today, 
through the Travel Promotion Act of 2009, just $10 million will plant 
the seeds for leveraging private sector investment to increase the 
number of U.S.-based tourism jobs.
  Americans always have had a healthy skepticism about the role of 
government--what it should do and what it shouldn't do. To promote 
travel and tourism, we have long thought that the private sector--the 
companies that make money from tourism--should promote themselves. And 
some of the larger private sector players have promoted their specific 
interests overseas.
  But a private sector effort to fund a general ``Come to America'' 
campaign targeting overseas travelers has never fully materialized. 
When a resort or theme park spends advertising money overseas, they 
want the viewers to visit their destination, not just the United 
States. Some of our larger States promote themselves overseas. But, as 
you would expect, the advertisements entice foreigners to visit their 
States.
  As a result, potential tourists overseas may not be aware that the 
United States has far more to offer than California, New York, and 
Florida. They likely have never heard of hiking, rafting, or fishing in 
the mountains of West Virginia. For anyone who has not enjoyed those 
activities in my State, you are really missing something special.
  Because the hotels and tourist destinations of States like West 
Virginia cannot effectively launch their own international promotional 
campaigns, we must find a mechanism to pool and leverage resources so 
that these States become part of the international tourism economy.
  After the terrorist attacks of 2001, the subsequent security measures 
deterred overseas tourists. Many of those entry problems have been 
corrected now. But the negative perception still remains. Potential 
foreign tourists still are reluctant to deal with what they believe 
will be a difficult time entering the United States. No private sector 
company--and certainly not the hotels and tourist destinations in the 
States I have mentioned--will spend their own money to promote the 
improved process for entering the United States. Only a national, 
coordinated campaign--with some help from the Federal Government--can 
accomplish that goal.
  We have occasionally appropriated one-shot advertising campaigns to 
promote the United States overseas. But the Travel Promotion Act of 
2009 will create a sustained and stable public-private sector 
partnership in which Federal seed money is leveraged to increase 
private investment to promote tourism overseas.
  The bill would establish a travel promotion fund that is capitalized 
by a $10 fee paid by foreign travelers from visa-waiver countries. The 
bill would require the travel industry to match those contributions--50 
percent in 2011 and 100 percent thereafter. The fund would receive $10 
million in Federal seed money for 2010. The new fee for foreign 
travelers would cumulatively provide the means to lure them to the 
United States, but is too small to have any impact on an individual's 
decision whether to come to the United States.
  The funds would be used for overseas advertising campaigns to promote 
travel to the United States, including to areas not traditionally 
visited by overseas tourists. More importantly, the advertising 
campaigns would educate potential foreign travelers about U.S. visa and 
entry policies. Removing fears about entering the United States would 
dramatically increase tourism among overseas residents who might 
consider a range of vacation choices. If foreign tourists better 
understand U.S. entry and visa policies, the more likely it is that 
they will come to the United States--and the more likely it is that 
they will spend their money here, creating the jobs we so desperately 
need.
  Drug companies and luxury automakers spend billions of dollars on 
advertising for one reason: it works. The State of Florida estimates 
that its own State travel promotion campaign returns $3 in increased 
sales tax revenue for every dollar spent on promotion. The countries 
advertising foreign tourist destinations on American television

[[Page S6645]]

every night would not spend the money to do it but for one reason: it 
works. The United States--with so many spectacular destinations--must 
embark on its own worldwide promotion program because it will work.
  A sustained and stable tourism promotion program is a small 
investment that will generate huge dividends when foreign tourists 
spend their money in the United States, generating jobs and local 
revenue. Foreigners visiting the first time have the potential to 
become repeat visitors and will tell their friends to visit as well.
  In addition to stimulating jobs, we will improve America's image 
around the world through tourism. People who visit the United States 
are more likely to have a favorable opinion of America when they return 
home. Developing that kind of good will in a changing world makes 
travel promotion worthwhile.
  I would like to thank the sponsors of this bill: Senator Dorgan, 
Senator Inouye, Senator Reid, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Begich, 
Senator Mikulski, Senator Bennet, Senator Udall of New Mexico, Senator 
Udall of Colorado, Senator Ensign, Senator Martinez, and Senator 
Vitter.
  America is open for business. The people who work in our tourism 
industries are ready to work. Now we need to tell the world.


                            vote explanation

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on vote No. 208, had I been present for 
the vote, I would have voted aye on the motion to invoke cloture on the 
motion to proceed to the Travel Promotion Act of 2009, S. 1023.


                       Jefferson Award Recipients

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise to honor this year's winners of 
the annual Jefferson Award for Public Service and particularly four 
winners from my home State of Delaware.
  The Jefferson Awards were created in 1972 to serve as a kind of Nobel 
Prize for voluntarism and community service in America. Named for our 
third President, whose embodiment of our Nation's spirit of community 
and service continues to inspire, these awards are presented annually 
for both national and State winners.
  The mission of the State Jefferson Awards is to recognize unsung 
heroes in our communities who give their time and their care in service 
to others. On the national level, Jefferson Awards are bestowed upon 
those who have contributed significantly to advancing these principles. 
Past winners include Colin Powell, Bill and Melinda Gates, Oprah 
Winfrey, and Sandra Day O'Connor.
  This year, four outstanding Delawareans have won Jefferson Awards. 
They have contributed to voluntarism in the ``First State'' through 
innovative programs and a dedication to inspiring their fellow citizens 
to service.
  Elaine Chester, of Wilmington, has won a Jefferson Award for creating 
a program through the Delaware Division of Family Services to help low-
income children receive new, wrapped holiday gifts. She matched local 
children in need with Delmarva Power employees interested in sending 
gifts.
  Over the last few years, under Elaine's leadership, this program has 
expanded to become one of the largest corporate gift drives in 
Delaware. It benefits hundreds of children annually, including those 
who are terminally ill. Since its expansion to nursing homes, the 
elderly now receive gifts from Delmarva Power employees as well.
  Leonard Young, also of Wilmington, earned his Jefferson Award for his 
tireless promotion of public health and wellness initiatives. His 
encouragement of others to get regular preventive health screenings has 
led many Delawareans to incorporate healthy living into their daily 
routines.
  Leonard has spent a great number of hours educating youth about the 
dangers of substance abuse and how to prevent violent behavior in 
relationships. He is a leader in the community, and his involvement in 
various public health endeavors is far-reaching.
  I am especially proud that this year's national winner of the 
Jefferson Award for Outstanding Service by a High School is the 
Salesianum School in Wilmington, DE. Its efforts were led by two 
seniors, Robert Liszkiewicz and Dominic Taglione.
  The two led their classmates in an effort to increase youth 
voluntarism, and they gave their time to mentoring local students, 
volunteering with the Blue/Gold Foundation for Delawareans with 
intellectual disabilities, and helping at the local Ronald McDonald 
House for families with children undergoing medical treatment. The 
efforts of Robert, Dominic, and their fellow students at Salesianum 
have established a lasting program for youth voluntarism based on the 
principles of the Jefferson Awards.
  I am privileged to have the opportunity to meet Elaine, Leonard, 
Robert, and Dominic at a Senate reception today honoring Jefferson 
Award winners from across the country. I hope my colleagues will join 
me in celebrating their achievements, their commitment to serving local 
communities, and their embodiment of that greatest American quality of 
service above self.
  I yield the floor, and 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.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           IRANIAN ELECTIONS

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki 
Commission, which has had decades of experience monitoring election and 
promoting democracy and human rights, I would like to take a moment to 
speak on a troubling matter that has filled headlines around the world 
in the last few days.
  We have all seen the images. Violence and mass protests are erupting 
across Iran following the hasty vote count of a deeply flawed 
presidential election process in that country. Yet another unfortunate 
chapter is unfolding before our eyes that reinforces Iran's record as a 
police state and totalitarian regime more concerned with keeping its 
tight grip on power than yielding to the will of the people.
  I stand with President Obama calling for the government to exercise 
restraint and the violence to end. Regrettably, at least seven people 
have been killed and countless others injured. We may never know the 
true results of this election, given the lack of international 
monitoring. But what we do know is that in the last few days we have 
witnessed tens of thousands of Iranians raise their voices in protest 
to ensure that their vote meant something.
  On Friday, voters in Iran lined up in unprecedented numbers to choose 
their next president. I, like many others, was dismayed on Saturday to 
hear the ruling clerics rush to announce that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had 
won reelection by a large margin. Regardless of the limited official 
scope of his duties, President Ahmadinejad's consistent pattern of 
noxious remarks and his belligerent attitude inject understandable 
tension around the Middle East and beyond. He has used the presidential 
podium to instigate conflict with the international community, pursue 
acquisition of nuclear weapons, and spew hatred and intolerance toward 
Israel and the United States.
  I cannot say and will not say what could have been or should have 
been if any other candidate was elected, but there is no doubt 
whatsoever as to Ahmadinejad's unfitness as a leader.
  Equally troubling were the almost immediate reports coming from 
Tehran and elsewhere around Iran that there were deep flaws in this 
election. Elections do not equal democracy, nor do they guarantee that 
the will of the people will be reflected in their government. But this 
was not a free and fair election from the start.
  In Iranian Presidential elections, only a select group of candidates 
approved by a 12-person Council of Guardians are eligible to run. The 
Iranian regime, headed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, continues to 
severely restrict civil liberties including freedom of speech, 
expression, assembly, and association. Freedom to discuss ideas without 
threat of oppression is a fundamental human right that is essential to 
a government truly reflecting the will of its people. This freedom is 
absent in Iran. Typically, Iranian elections and public expressions are

[[Page S6646]]

carefully monitored and manipulated by the ruling regime to prevent 
challenges to their authority.
  The last few days seem somewhat different. The tens of thousands of 
people lining the streets of Tehran--in an incredible rebuttal to the 
ruling powers--want to know that the votes they did cast are counted 
properly. The deliberate lack of transparency in the vote tabulation 
and the blatant attempts to block mass communications among citizens, 
particularly youth, are too glaring to ignore. Even Supreme Leader 
Khamenei has been forced to backtrack on his immediate approval of the 
results and has called for at least the appearance of a recount in some 
disputed areas.
  Americans know something about wanting to have their votes counted 
accurately. The difference between our two nations: when the results of 
a U.S. election were in dispute, the world spotlight shined bright on 
the process and the people involved in resolving the conflict--
peacefully. Transparency and openness is not a hallmark of Iranian 
elections.
  Even before the presidential election took place, Iran's totalitarian 
regime blocked personal communications like texting and access to the 
Internet. Media have been confined to Tehran, if they haven't been 
asked to leave the country. The regime's ongoing attempts to curtail 
communication and silence protests--often with brutal force--
demonstrate the regime's fear of losing a grip on power.
  Allegations of a fraudulent vote count are a symptom of a regime that 
has survived by an authoritarian power structure that oppresses its 
people. On June 12, the people of Iran did not vote for the Supreme 
Leader of their country. Under the current system, the Supreme Leader 
and his supporters will continue to dictate policy to the President of 
Iran, regardless of who that president is and whatever policy decisions 
the president is authorized to make.
  The people of Iran want their voices to be heard and they should be 
assured that the world is listening. I urge those in power in Iran also 
to listen and implement the reforms necessary to allow the will of the 
people to be expressed.
  I look forward to a future when the people of Iran have an 
opportunity for a free and fair election of leaders of their choosing. 
It is my sincere hope that one day this vision will be realized, and 
the voice of the Iranian people will truly be heard.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________