[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 145 (Thursday, October 8, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10265-S10280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2010

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2847, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2847) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related 
     Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Vitter/Bennett amendment No. 2644, to provide that none of 
     the funds made available in this act may be used for 
     collection of census data that does not include a question 
     regarding status of United States citizenship.
       Johanns amendment No. 2393, prohibiting the use of funds to 
     fund the Association of Community Organizations for Reform 
     Now.
       Bunning amendment No. 2653, to require that all legislative 
     matters be available and fully scored by CBO 72 hours before 
     consideration by any subcommittee or committee of the Senate 
     or on the floor of the Senate.
       Levin/Coburn amendment No. 2627, to ensure adequate 
     resources for resolving thousands of offshore tax cases 
     involving hidden accounts at offshore financial institutions.
       Durbin modified amendment No. 2647, to require the 
     Comptroller General to review and audit Federal funds 
     received by ACORN.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 2626

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 2626 to the desk, and 
I ask for its immediate consideration or, if necessary, set aside the 
pending business and call up amendment No. 2626.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the pending amendment 
being set aside?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2626.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S10266]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To eliminate funding for Public Telecommunications 
                 Facilities, Planning and Construction)

       On page 111, strike lines 4 through 15.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor with an amendment that 
would eliminate another unneeded and unwanted earmark which is 
suggested by the President of the United States.
  Before I go into that, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record an article from this morning's Washington Post entitled ``Ex-
Staffers Winning Defense Panel Pork, Study Finds.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Ex-Staffers Winning Defense Panel Pork, Study Finds

                         (By Carol D. Leonnig)

       In the coming year's military spending bill, members of a 
     House panel continue to steer lucrative defense contracts to 
     companies represented by their former staffers, who in turn 
     steer generous campaign donations to those lawmakers, a new 
     analysis has found.
       The Center for Public Integrity found that 10 of the 16 
     members of the House subcommittee on defense appropriations 
     obtained 30 earmarks in the bill worth $103 million for 
     contractors currently or recently employing former staffers 
     who have become lobbyists. The analysis by the Washington 
     Watchdog group found that earmarks still often hinge on a web 
     of connections, despite at least three criminal 
     investigations of the practice that became public in the past 
     year. Those probes focus on a handful of defense contractors 
     and a powerful lobbying firm that together won hundreds of 
     millions of dollars in work from the House panel and are 
     closely tied to its chairman, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).
       On Tuesday, the Senate approved a $636 billion military 
     spending bill for fiscal year 2010; the House approved its 
     version in July. House and Senate members now will work in 
     conference to resolve differences between their two bills.
       The Center for Public Integrity's analysis found some 
     shifts in earmarking patterns since its similar analysis of 
     the 2008 defense bill. First, Rep. Peter J. Visclosky (D-
     Ind.), whose office records were subpoenaed by federal 
     prosecutors in May, has markedly reduced his earmark requests 
     and sought no work for private companies. Also, defense 
     appropriators are generally steering more earmarks to 
     nonprofits.
       The Washington Post has documented more than $400 million 
     in defense earmarks that Murtha has directed in the past 
     decade to research groups in his district, including the Penn 
     State Electro-Optics Center and the John P. Murtha Institute 
     for Homeland Security, which steered much of the funds to 
     private contractors.
       Since last fall, federal investigators have been probing 
     the PMA Group, a now-shuttered lobbying firm whose clients 
     had unusual success in winning earmarks from Murtha's 
     subcommittee. Founder Paul Magliocchetti is a close friend of 
     Murtha's and worked as a defense appropriations staffer when 
     Murtha was a rank-and-file member of the committee.
       PMA and its clients had been big donors to Murtha and his 
     fellow subcommittee members in the past decade, according to 
     a Center for Responsive Politics report, with Murtha 
     receiving the most. Since 1998, workers at those firms and 
     their family members provided $2.4 million to Murtha--who 
     helped insert more than $100 million in defense-related 
     earmarks into 2008 appropriations bills. Visclosky was 
     second, collecting $1.4 million, and Rep. James P. Moran, Jr. 
     (D-Va.) was next, with $997,000.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I quote from the beginning of it, 
something that is well known but continues to be authenticated about 
the corruption of the process that we go through in appropriations. It 
says, ``Ex-Staffers Winning Defense Panel Pork, Study Finds.''

       In the coming year's military spending bill, members of a 
     House panel continue to steer lucrative defense contracts to 
     companies represented by their former staffers, who in turn 
     steer generous campaign donations to those lawmakers, a new 
     analysis has found.

  Not an astonishing finding but, again, authenticating of the 
corruption that goes on around here and the reason Americans are fed 
up.

       The Center for Public Integrity found that 10 of the 16 
     members of the House subcommittee on defense appropriations 
     obtained 30 earmarks in the bill worth $103 million for 
     contractors currently or recently employing former staffers 
     who have become lobbyists. The analysis by the Washington 
     watchdog group found that earmarks still often hinge on a web 
     of connections, despite at least three criminal 
     investigations of the practice that became public in the past 
     year.

  Mr. President, I bring forward another amendment--this will be my 
sixth--to eliminate a program and the appropriations for it that the 
President of the United States has asked for. I often quote from this 
document. This will be the sixth one. This document is entitled, 
``Terminations, Reductions and Savings, Budget of the U.S. Government, 
Fiscal Year 2010.''
  Again, I would like to read from the introduction. This comes from 
the administration. It says:

       The President's 2010 Budget seeks to usher in a new era of 
     responsibility--an era in which we not only do what we must 
     to save and create new jobs and lift our economy out of 
     recession, but in which we also lay a new foundation for 
     long-term growth and prosperity. Making long overdue 
     investments and reforms in education so that every child can 
     compete. . . .

  It goes on and on. In the next paragraph:

       Another central pillar of a sound economic foundation is 
     restoring fiscal discipline. The administration came into 
     office facing a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion for this year 
     alone--

  By the way, I think that is up to $1.4 trillion now--

     and the cost of confronting the recession and financial 
     crisis has been high. While these are extraordinary times 
     that have demanded extraordinary responses, we cannot put our 
     Nation on a course for long-term growth with uncontrollable 
     deficits and debt.

  It goes on to talk about the problems we face.

       [T]he President has announced a procurement reform effort 
     that will greatly reduce no-bid contracts and save $40 
     billion, and at the Cabinet's first meeting, he directed 
     agency heads to identify at least $100 million in 
     administrative savings.

  Then it says:

       This volume is the first report of that effort. In it, the 
     Administration identifies programs that do not accomplish the 
     goals set for them, do not do so efficiently, or do a job 
     already done by another initiative--and recommends these 
     programs for either termination or reduction.

  We are talking about the administration speaking. We have identified 
121 terminations, reductions, and other areas of savings that will save 
approximately $17 billion next year alone.
  It goes on to describe what they are:

       Half of these savings for the next fiscal year come from 
     defense programs and half come from non-defense. No matter 
     their size, these cuts and reductions are all important to 
     setting the right priorities with our spending, getting our 
     budget deficit under control, and creating a Government that 
     is as efficient and it is effective.

  As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this will be the sixth 
amendment I have offered to support the President's request for 
reduction or termination of unneeded or unwanted programs. I am 
confident this will be the sixth time that the appropriators on both 
sides of the aisle will vote down the President's request--not my 
request, not my assumption, but that of the President of the United 
States and the Office of Management and Budget.
  By the way, had the Senate agreed with my amendments--which they did 
not--and supported the call of the President to end programs that do 
not accomplish the goals set for them, we would have saved the 
taxpayers $87 million. In this day and age with multitrillion-dollar 
deficits, $87 million is not a lot around this town, but it certainly 
is back in my home State of Arizona.
  What this amendment does, and I quote again from the President's 
document, and I will read from it:

       The Budget supports public broadcasting through increased 
     appropriations to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and 
     eliminates the unnecessary Public Telecommunications 
     Facilities Grant Program.

  Let me make it clear. The administration is supporting increases in 
public broadcasting but is trying to eliminate the unnecessary Public 
Telecommunications Facilities Grant Program in the Department of 
Commerce.

       PTFP funding equals less than 4 percent of the Corporation 
     for Public Broadcasting funding and has in recent years 
     supported the transition to digital television broadcasts 
     which will be completed in fiscal year 2009.

  The administration goes on to say:

       Since 2000, most [of these] awards have supported public 
     television station's conversion to digital broadcasting. 
     Digital broadcasting facilities mandated by the Federal 
     Communications Commission will be completed in fiscal year 
     2009, and there is no further need for this program.

  Again, it goes on to say:

       The Administration proposes to support public broadcasters 
     through CPB, and the

[[Page S10267]]

     Budget includes $61 million for the Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting in 2010, which is in addition to the $420 
     million enacted advance appropriation, for total proposed 
     2010 resources of $481 million, nearly $20 million above 
     2009. The Budget also includes an advance appropriation 
     request for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 2012 
     of $440 million to support public broadcasters. The 
     Corporation for Public Broadcasting funds can support the 
     same types of capital projects as PTFP funding as well as 
     stations' operating and programming costs. . . .
       The National Telecommunications and Information 
     Administration, the Commerce Department bureau that has 
     administered this program, was provided $4.7 billion in the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to implement the new 
     Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. Terminating this 
     program will enable the NTIA to focus its efforts on BTOP, 
     [the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program] a major 
     challenge for this small Commerce Department bureau, and one 
     which will aid the nation's economic recovery and help 
     promote long-term competitiveness.

  These are not my words. These are the words of the President of the 
United States. We are talking about $20 million savings by eliminating 
this program.
  One of the arguments we are going to hear, and one of the great 
sacred cows around here, is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 
This does not affect the increase in funds for public broadcasting. It 
simply terminates a program that the President of the United States 
believes is not necessary because its mission has been completed.
  I imagine we will lose again with appropriators on both sides of the 
aisle voting not to eliminate a program--again, the sixth amendment I 
have had trying to implement the recommendations of the President of 
the United States and the Office of Management and Budget, and while we 
are staring at a $1.4 trillion deficit for this year and a $9 trillion 
debt for the next 10 years. Those estimates have been completely 
underestimated.
  I tell the managers, the American people are mad. They are very 
angry. There is going to be another tea party in my home State this 
weekend. You know we are mad because we are stealing their children's 
money; 43 cents out of every dollar we are spending today is on 
borrowed money. Who is going to pay it back? They know they are. They 
know our kids and grandkids are. We cannot even eliminate a program or 
programs the President of the United States requests that we terminate. 
There will come, and it will come fairly soon, a day of reckoning.
  The reason I added this article from the Washington Post this morning 
is because, I say to my friends and colleagues, there is corruption, 
and there is corruption in the earmarking and porkbarrel process that 
goes on. The American people are tired of it. I urge my colleagues to 
adopt the amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second.
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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 the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the amendment of the 
Senator from Arizona to strike the funding in the bill for the 
Department of Commerce Public Telecommunications Facilities. His 
amendment would eliminate from the bill $20 million. That $20 million 
goes for competitive grants for public radio and TV stations around the 
Nation to upgrade their infrastructure and technology. His amendment 
would terminate the grant program in fiscal year 2010.
  He argues that President Obama's budget proposed to eliminate the 
program, so Congress should too. We are a separate and coequal branch 
of government. In this case, the CJS Committee respectfully disagrees 
with the President's budget. We know our President inherited a terrible 
mess. We know the previous administration ran up debts and deficits and 
now, as we try to clean it out, our President is looking for modest 
cuts to the budget. But here, with public telecommunications 
facilities, this is exactly what we need during these troubled economic 
times to provide access to quality TV to ordinary people who might not 
be able to afford cable TV, satellite TV, or dish TV.
  I am ready to dish on the McCain amendment. We need jobs in this 
country, and we need to let people know their government is on their 
side and that they can have access to public television--public 
television.
  Sure it is a public option. We like the public option on TV.
  But we know for our local stations, where donations are down and 
their revenues starved, you cannot put up the necessary antenna and 
other technology by doing it on bake sales and dialing for dollars. 
They need help from their government. This is what this does: A modest 
$20 million that will help replace equipment such as antennas, power, 
and telephone hookups, generators and other kinds of things.
  It will improve technology to keep up with changing requirements. 
Grants are competitive. There are no porkbarrel projects in this, no 
earmarks. The grants are competitive. The Commerce Department selects 
what are the ones that meet the compelling needs in communities. By the 
way, the local community has to provide 25 percent of local cost share 
so it is not a free ride.
  The President's budget and the amendment sponsor argue that this 
technology program is no longer needed because all radio, public radio 
and TV stations are already going from analog to digital, so we do not 
need it.
  This argument is flawed for two reasons. First, digital conversion 
has never been nor ever will be the sole purpose of the Public 
Telecommunications Facilities Program. The Public Telecommunications 
Facilities Program was intended to help public radio and TV upgrade 
their infrastructure and buy new equipment. Digital conversion 
equipment is eligible, but that is not all.
  I am saying this because not only do we provide public TV. It is 
great to have the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That is about 
content. About content. But you need to have an infrastructure to 
deliver the content. In many of our communities, the infrastructure is 
worn. It is dated. It is 20, 22 years old. So they are looking to 
replace it. Guess what. When they do replace it, it creates jobs, jobs, 
jobs in those local communities. It takes talented men and women to put 
that antenna or that tower up, to install that very important new 
digital equipment.
  For $20 million, we can broadcast to people, we can broadcast 
quality, and we have people going to work putting up and replacing 
dated equipment. Last year this program received almost $50 million in 
applications but had only $20 million to award. This funding is 
important in rural and underserved areas.
  Last year, the technology program received 57 applications from 
Native American communities alone. The President and the Senator from 
Arizona argue it is not needed because the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting will pick up the slack. I will repeat: I love Orszag, but 
maybe he did not read the fine print, which is the Corporation is for 
ongoing operations and programming. It does not provide funding for new 
infrastructure.
  It is about infrastructure; just like we want to have money to build 
our highways, we need to have superinformation highways. This helps the 
public facilities be able to do it. The local communities depend on the 
Commerce Department to do this.
  The program has built the Public Broadcasting System. It ensures that 
the American public has access across the Nation. This is not Senator 
Mikulski talking because she is the chair of the CJS and she wants to 
hold onto every program. I got a letter, as did my ranking member, from 
21 Members of the Senate, including the chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, asking us to put $44 million into the Appropriations 
Committee to fund this. We could only afford to do $20 million, the 
same as last year.
  Why? Let me read from their letter: For some four decades, PTFP has 
served as a critical infrastructure program for building public 
broadcasting systems of radio and TV stations that reach 95 percent of 
the American people.

[[Page S10268]]

  What does this do? It maintains infrastructure for transmitters, 
translators for the deaf, power, and antennas.
  It has been drastically underfunded in the past several years since 
suffering an 18-percent cut in 2002 and 2003. Over the years, PTFP has 
foregone $270 million in Federal funds over the authorized level during 
the last 8 years.
  I am not going to sound like an accountant here. I want to sound like 
I have accountability to my communities. I want them to have access to 
public TV and public radio and the technology to transmit it. ``PTFP's 
preservation role has always been most important,'' says the letter 
from the 20 Senators, ``because it is the only source of Federal 
emergency funds for public radio and television in the event of an 
emergency.''
  After Katrina and Rita, several stations in the gulf region were 
awarded these emergency grants so they could start rebroadcasting. 
Without those funds, many communities would have been vulnerable to the 
compounded effects of losing local news and the kinds of programs they 
needed as they were struggling to rebuild.
  On average, according to the letter from my 21 colleagues, including 
the chairman of the Commerce Committee, stations leverage these PTF 
funds by an additional 50 percent. So this is a Federal-local 
partnership.
  PTF funding is about providing access to quality TV. In my own 
community, it has meant access to educational programs. It has meant a 
way to link up to community colleges and the way they have done 
distance learning. Many of the early children's programs, many of those 
early children's programs often help get children learning ready. 
Again, yes, that is about content. But content cannot be delivered 
without infrastructure.
  During several weeks this summer as I lived in a rehabilitation 
facility getting physical therapy, many of my constituents said: Well, 
is it not great to watch public TV? We can see what is going on in the 
world. They loved the MacNeil/Lehrer show, even though it is not called 
that anymore, to get news about what was going on in the country.
  They loved hearing public debate in a civil way, thrilled and enjoyed 
``Mystery Theater,'' and at the same time were excited that their 
grandchildren were able to get learning ready, either at the preschool 
level or the work it was doing in the community college.
  There are a lot of things government does that is unpopular with 
people. But one of the things it does that is very popular with the 
American people is public TV and public radio. We have to maintain 
quality content. We have to maintain quality infrastructure.
  Because of that, I urge the defeat of the McCain amendment 
eliminating $20 million and essentially zapping those much-needed 
antenna and monitoring and transmission facilities we need. There are 
other things we can zap. Let's not zap public TV and public radio.
  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.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:15 
p.m. today the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the McCain 
amendment No. 2626; with no amendment in order to the amendment prior 
to the vote; further that prior to the vote, there be 2 minutes of 
debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have come to the floor very briefly to 
talk about the Congressional Budget Office's score of the health care 
reform proposal that is before the Senate Finance Committee.
  I understand that earlier today there were members on the other side 
who were questioning whether the Finance Committee's proposal is paid 
for and whether it reduces the deficit and whether it bends the cost 
curve of health care in the right way.
  Let me say that the Congressional Budget Office has now issued their 
determination on all those issues. Their conclusions are very clear. 
The Congressional Budget Office has said--and I will put on the chart 
stand a page from their report. It shows very clearly, over the 10 
years of the bill, from 2010 to 2019, that the deficit will be reduced 
by $81 billion if the Finance Committee proposal were to become law.
  With respect to the question that apparently has been raised by some, 
as to whether this bill is paid for, the Congressional Budget Office 
has answered clearly and unequivocally. They have said the bill is not 
only paid for over the 10 years, but it actually reduces the deficit by 
$81 billion.
  Second, on the longer term question of bending the cost curve and 
whether this proposal bends the cost curve in the right way, the 
Congressional Budget Office has also been clear and unequivocal. Here 
is what they said in their report of October 7, just yesterday:

       In subsequent years, beyond 2019, the collective effect of 
     the Finance plan would probably be continued reductions in 
     Federal budget deficits.
       . . . CBO expects that the proposal, if enacted, would 
     reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade 
     relative to those projected under current law--with a total 
     effect during that decade that is in the broad range of 
     between one-quarter and one-half percent of gross domestic 
     product.

  What does that mean? What CBO is saying is in the first 10 years, the 
Finance Committee plan would reduce the deficit by $81 billion. In the 
second decade, they are saying it would reduce the deficit by one-
quarter to one-half percent of gross domestic product. Gross domestic 
product over that decade, the second decade, is estimated to be 
cumulatively $260 trillion. That would be the gross domestic product of 
the United States from 2020 on through the next 10 years. One-quarter 
percent of $260 trillion is $650 billion of deficit reduction in the 
second 10-year period. That would be one-quarter of 1 percent of GDP. 
One-half percent of GDP over that second 10-year period would be $1.3 
trillion.
  Just to be clear, CBO has told us in their report of yesterday--and 
the Congressional Budget Office is the nonpartisan scorekeeper, the one 
we all look to for objective facts--that the Finance Committee proposal 
reduces the deficit by $81 billion over the next 10 years and in the 
second 10 years would reduce the deficit by one-quarter to one-half 
percent of gross domestic product. No one can be certain what the gross 
domestic product will be in the second 10 years. Current projections 
are that it will be $260 trillion. So one-quarter to one-half percent 
of that second decade would be a reduction in the deficit from what 
would otherwise occur of $650 billion to $1.3 trillion, bending the 
cost curve in the right way.
  I might add parenthetically, the Finance Committee plan is the only 
plan that has been produced that the Congressional Budget Office says 
reduces the deficit in the first 10 years and bends the cost curve in 
the right way, has further deficit reduction, in the second 10 years.
  I am a little disappointed when I hear some of my colleagues coming 
to the floor and suggesting that this really isn't paid for. We have a 
way of determining what scores are around here. We can all make up our 
own facts or we can rely on the Congressional Budget Office, which is 
the objective scorekeeper, nonpartisan. I have great respect for them 
even though I have had strenuous disagreements with them at times about 
how they score things. Indeed, I had strong disagreements with them on 
how they scored some of these proposals. But there has to be an 
arbitrator here, somebody we look to, someone with credibility, and the 
Congressional Budget Office does.
  For Members to come to the floor and suggest this isn't paid for 
flies in the face of the facts before us from the CBO. The 
Congressional Budget Office reported yesterday clearly and 
unequivocally that the Finance Committee plan is paid for; that it, in 
fact, reduces the deficit by $81 billion over the next 10 years; that 
it has further deficit reduction in the second decade of one-quarter to 
one-half percent of GDP. As I have said, in the second 10 years the 
forecast is that gross domestic product over that 10-year period

[[Page S10269]]

will approach $260 trillion. One-quarter to one-half percent of that 
amount would be $650 billion to $1.3 trillion of additional deficit 
reduction in the second decade. Those are the unvarnished facts. I hope 
that during the debate, which will be tough enough, which will be 
contentious enough, we will not resort to trying to mislead people as 
to the objective facts before us.
  It has been said by a previous President that facts are stubborn 
things. Indeed, they are. One of the stubborn facts is, we are on a 
course that is utterly unsustainable with respect to health care. 
Today, we are spending $1 of every $6 in this economy on health care. 
Seventeen percent of the gross domestic product is going to health 
care. The CBO long-term budget outlook says that in the next period 
from 2010 to 2050, we will go to spending 38 percent of our gross 
domestic product on health care unless we do something. That would be 
more than $1 of every $3 in this economy going to health care; in fact, 
close to every $1 of every $2.50 going to health care. That is an 
unsustainable course.
  The question before this body and before the Congress and before this 
President will be, Do we act or do we stick with the status quo? I 
suggest sticking with the status quo is utterly indefensible. There is 
no way to suggest that sticking with the status quo is going to succeed 
for America's families, businesses, or the government itself.
  The hard reality is, Medicare and Medicaid spending as a percentage 
of GDP is going up dramatically during this forecast period. It has 
been happening. This chart shows clearly, between 1980 and 2009, the 
share of our gross domestic product going to Medicare and Medicaid has 
been rising inexorably. We know that trend will continue unless we do 
something about it. That means we have to act. That means we have to 
take responsible steps to rein in the skyrocketing cost of health care. 
That is critically important to families, businesses, and their 
competitive position, and it is absolutely essential to the Federal 
Government. The trustees of Medicare have told us clearly: Medicare is 
going to go broke in 8 years unless we act. The Medicare trust fund has 
already gone cash-negative. The Social Security trust fund has already 
gone cash-negative. The time and the need for action is about as clear 
as it can possibly be.
  I appreciate the opportunity to respond to what some colleagues 
suggested this morning. It is clear--the Congressional Budget Office 
has told us--that the Finance Committee proposal is not only paid for, 
it actually reduces the deficit both over the next 10 years and over 
the next decade after that 10-year period as well. That is a 
significant accomplishment by the Finance Committee chairman who laid 
down this mark. We will see where the votes lie on Tuesday.
  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. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to speak on behalf of 
those of us who are concerned about NASA and express my personal 
appreciation to the Senator from Maryland, chairman of the 
appropriations subcommittee that handles NASA, for the tremendous work 
she has done in appropriating money to keep NASA going. If I may, I 
want to go beyond the Senator's appropriation. She has taken the very 
difficult task of a budget that is quite lean, put out by the 
President, and has come up with the best she can come up with in trying 
to sustain the Nation's human space program with those resources.
  What we know is, over the course of the last several years, the 
Office of Management and Budget and the White House have not given 
adequate resources to those of us in this Chamber who want a vigorous 
human space program. We simply, over the last several years, have not 
been able to get the resources we need for NASA to do everything it has 
been asked to do, with the result that NASA is now at a crossroads.
  I commend Senator Mikulski for her work in how she has put together 
this budget. We find ourselves now with the opportunity beyond this 
specific budget to strengthen and advance our leadership in the world 
or to stand by and allow what has become a hallmark of U.S. leadership 
to slip by the wayside.
  Last month, the blue ribbon panel the President appointed, called the 
Augustine Commission, released a summary of the findings from the final 
report on the Nation's space program. That report has not come out in 
detail. We await its release. In part, what it says is, the U.S. human 
space flight program that has made America a world leader in science 
and technology ``appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory.''

  Specifically, the report will say:

       [O]ur space program is being asked to pursue goals without 
     the appropriately allocated resources.

  So this country stands at a crossroads for NASA with a stark choice 
before us: We can continue on the path we are on--underfunding and 
underallocating our space program--or we can choose to act. We can 
choose to act by ensuring that the appropriate resources are allocated 
to meet the goals laid out before us.
  The Augustine Commission was abundantly clear. It said that--while 
the current path we are on is unsustainable--``meaningful human 
exploration is possible under a less constrained budget'' with an 
additional $3 billion a year. That is $30 billion additional over a 10-
year period. These are not my words. These are the Augustine 
Commission's words.
  Even though we face uncertain economic times--certainly in a 
recession--the challenge of finding that additional money is one we 
cannot afford to ignore.
  I wish to add my voice to others from this Chamber in asking the 
President to divert $3 billion to NASA from the unspent portion of the 
$787 billion in the economic stimulus recovery money. The stimulus 
bill--that we passed by a one-vote margin back earlier this year--was 
to get this economy moving again, to stimulate, to electric shock 
therapy the economy back to life by getting dollars out, turned over, 
and jobs created.
  That is a very good source for this money, for NASA to be able to 
continue on the road of what almost every American wishes for--to 
continue to explore the unknown.
  We have identified other possible revenue sources for future years. 
But no matter how much we find by scraping the bottom of the barrel, it 
is still going to come down to one thing: It is going to be the 
President's decision.
  If we remember, similar to President John Kennedy before him, a 
President has to decide and has to commit the resources. If this 
President will do it, it will commit the space program that will keep 
America a global leader in science and technology.
  Why do I say that? Think of all the effects of the spinoffs that came 
out of the Apollo Program when President Kennedy said: We are going to 
the Moon and back, and that was within a 9-year period.
  Currently, our space program is funded at less than 1 percent of the 
total Federal budget. Yet our space program has always paid back 
dividends--both tangible and intangible--which is vastly greater than 
the initial investment.
  The additional funding for NASA, I have indicated, will ensure the 
United States remains at the very top for the peaceful use of 
technology for the betterment of humankind. Of singular importance, 
this commitment will help us to inspire the next generation of 
explorers and the next generation of scientists and technologists and 
engineers and mathematicians and educators. It is this payoff which is 
Apollo's greatest and lasting legacy.
  We have a similar opportunity right now in front of us. You think 
about that generation of kids who got inspired when President Kennedy 
said we were going to do what was almost thought to be the impossible 
and how many of those kids went into math and science and technology 
and engineering. Look what that generation brought to us in the global 
marketplace.
  The Augustine Commission notes that the time may finally be upon us 
when commercial space companies can begin to carry some of the burden 
of the access to low-Earth orbit. Many of

[[Page S10270]]

these companies are already developing capabilities to give us a 
commercial resupply of the International Space Station. Are they going 
to be successful? We certainly hope so. Are they going to be timely? We 
do not know. These commercial ventures are already behind the timeline. 
We certainly hope they are going to be timely.
  This ability, according to the Augustine Commission, is critical to 
ensuring our ability to operate the station beyond 2016. Almost 
everybody unanimously agrees we should be planning to keep the 
International Space Station, of which we are still continuing to 
complete its construction and equipping, to keep that going at least 
until 2020 and to maximize the return of what has become a substantial 
$100 billion investment.
  Those commercial endeavors serve another function. They also create 
new industries and, with that, new jobs for Americans. But we are still 
going to have to have the question of: What is NASA's new mission, new 
architecture? How are we going to fund it? What are we going to do with 
the workforce in the meantime that is going to have severe disruptions?
  This is what the President of the United States is going to have to 
decide as soon as the Augustine Commission report is final and is 
published.
  The International Space Station has proven to us that many nations 
can work together on enormous endeavors in a peaceful fashion. The 
station--just now being completed--is at its dawn, and its many 
economic, scientific, and social payoffs from our investment are still 
to be realized. But the international partnerships formed during the 
design, the construction, and the ongoing operation of the station have 
proven something. It has proven that the world community looks to the 
United States for leadership in space.
  Many of the world's nations are patiently waiting to see which 
direction our country chooses, which direction this country chooses as 
a result of our President's decision. At the same time, these many 
nations are prepared to follow the U.S. lead in the form of additional 
commitments and resources in space. To turn our backs on space at this 
moment would have negative effects that would reverberate around the 
world.
  It is interesting that last night President Obama hosted several 
young people at the White House for a star-gazing party. Oh, that must 
have been very exciting for those young people. They had the 
opportunity to view, in vivid detail, craters on the Moon, the rings of 
Saturn, the colors of the planet Jupiter, and the belt of the Milky 
Way. For many of those kids, it was the first time they ever even 
thought of viewing those things.
  The wonderment displayed by those children--and many of those adults 
there as well--proved, once again, that the space program inspires. If 
all goes well, tomorrow morning America will successfully plow a rocket 
into the surface of the Moon to help determine conclusively whether 
large quantities of water can be found just beneath the lunar surface. 
Imagine, this mission may reveal new knowledge about a source of water 
for astronauts in the future and fuel for their rockets to explore the 
cosmos.
  A suitably funded space program is the best catalyzing element to 
gather and organize the energies and abilities of this Nation. In 
return, this program will pay many dividends, perhaps the most 
important of which is to inspire, encourage, and motivate the next 
generation of Americans.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting Senator Mikulski on her 
appropriations bill but then to join me in supporting increased funding 
for NASA and this Nation's space program.
  You can tell I am quite intense about this subject. I have had the 
privilege of being a beneficiary of our Nation's space program. I have 
seen us achieve extraordinary things. It is a part of our character as 
a people. We are, by nature, as Americans, explorers and adventurers, 
and I do not want us to ever give that up. That is why I make this plea 
to the Congress of the United States and to the President of the United 
States for NASA's funding.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, many of my colleagues have taken to the 
floor in recent weeks to discuss the details of health care reform and, 
in particular, the clear need for a public option.
  We have heard from distinguished Senators on both sides of the aisle. 
For the most part, this has been a healthy debate. But it is a debate 
that has been going on for almost a century. Over the years, the 
problem has grown. Care has become more and more expensive.
  Today, $1 out of every $6 spent in this country goes to pay for 
health care. Insurance company profits are up. Health outcomes are 
down. After a century of thoughtful debate, I believe the way forward 
is clear--very clear. The only way to achieve meaningful health care 
reform and bring costs down is through a public option that creates 
real competition in the system.
  Let me be clear. I will not vote for any health care bill that does 
not include a public option. That is because the stakes are too high to 
settle for anything less.
  Every day, more people get sick and die because they cannot get the 
quality care they need; 45,000 Americans died last year because they 
did not have adequate coverage. That is one death every 12 minutes and 
45,000 more will die this year and next year and every year until we 
pass meaningful health care reform.
  Some of my colleagues think we are moving too fast, and they say we 
should wait. I say the American people have been waiting long enough. 
We must not wait another moment.
  A public option would restore choice and accountability to the 
insurance market. It would help bring down costs and make quality care 
affordable for every single American.
  If you cannot afford private insurance under the current system, you 
will have the opportunity to buy a low-cost public plan or a private 
plan that is guaranteed to be affordable based on your income level.
  If you have private insurance but it is too expensive or they do not 
treat you right, you will have the opportunity to switch to an 
affordable and high-quality public plan. No American has ever 
experienced such freedom of choice when it comes to health coverage. 
That is because consolidation in the insurance market has left a few 
corporations with control of the whole industry. In Illinois, two 
companies dominate 96 percent of the market. They can charge 
excessively high premiums, drop your coverage for any reason or no 
reason at all, and cap the amount they will spend on treatment in any 
given year. That is why their profits are breaking records and growing 
four times faster than wages, while the rest of us suffer the effects 
of a terrible recession.

  But we can rein in these costs. If we pass insurance reforms that 
include a public option, these corporations would have to compete for 
your business. Premiums would come down. No one would be able to drop 
your coverage because of a preexisting condition. Companies would not 
be able to drop you in the event of a catastrophic illness, and they 
would not be able to place a cap on the benefits you can receive during 
your lifetime. Honesty and fair play would be restored to the system.
  I don't understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
can oppose such a plan. I don't understand how they can oppose 
competition in the market, which I have always regarded as a 
quintessential American idea. Certainly there is nothing wrong with 
making a profit. Insurance companies play an important role in our 
system, and I support that role. But between 2000 and 2007, the profits 
for the top 10 insurance companies grew at an average of 428 percent. 
Let me repeat that. Between 2000 and 2007, the profits of the top 10 
insurance companies grew by an average of 428 percent. This is not only 
unreasonable, it is breaking American businesses and families.
  Many analysts agree that health care costs have contributed to the 
severity of the current economic crisis, and it is easy to see why. 
Competition and appropriate regulations will rein in these excessive 
profits and put pressure on the companies to improve coverage or risk 
losing customers.

[[Page S10271]]

  Reform with a public option will restore choice to the insurance 
industry. Millions of Americans will be able to get coverage for the 
very first time. And far from driving companies out of business, health 
reform will allow an estimated 1 million to 3 million new customers to 
purchase coverage from private insurers. It will enhance their 
business.
  Some of my colleagues have expressed concerns about the cost of a 
public plan, but if they look at the way the program will function, 
they will see there is no reason for concern. As in any business, a 
not-for-profit public insurance option would require some initial 
capital to get it off the ground, but afterwards it would rely on the 
premiums it collects to remain self-sufficient. The current system is a 
strain on the American taxpayers. A public option will not be.
  There will be no government takeover. I will repeat that. There is no 
such thing as a government takeover. There will be no death panels, no 
rationing, and no red tape between you and your doctor. The public 
option would complement private insurance providers, not drive them out 
of business.
  It is time to take decisive action. This Senate has been debating 
health care reform for almost a century, while outside this Chamber 
ordinary Americans suffer more and more under a broken system. I 
believe we have been talking about it enough. Our way forward is clear. 
Now is the time for us to act. That is why I will not compromise on the 
public option.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me to stand on the side of the 
American people and demand nothing less than the real reform a public 
option would provide. We must not wait another moment.
  Mr. President, I thank you, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we will shortly be voting on the McCain 
amendment. We look forward to closing that debate. But before we do, I 
wish to comment that we are going to dispose of as many amendments as 
we can today and we are also going to arrive at a finite list of 
amendments. So for those Senators who do have amendments on both sides 
of the aisle, Senator Shelby and I ask our colleagues to come and offer 
them so we can dispose of them, as we did with the Senator from 
Arizona. He offered his amendment, we had a good debate, and we are 
going to vote on it. So please, colleagues, if you have amendments, 
come to the Senate floor and offer them.
  Second, if you have amendments that you wish to file, this is the day 
to file them. We are trying very hard to see if we can finish today, 
but that seems to be a bit of an exuberant wish on my part and on the 
part of Senator Shelby. But if we can't finish today, we would at least 
like to get a sense of the amendments colleagues wish to bring over 
today. Then when we get to the Columbus Day weekend, we can work to 
either come to an agreement to take them, or a way of disposing of them 
when we come back from commemorating when America was discovered by 
Columbus.
  Again, I ask my colleagues to come forward and either offer 
amendments or file amendments.
  Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2646

  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 2646.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Begich], for himself and Ms. 
     Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 2646.

  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To allow tribes located inside of certain boroughs in Alaska 
             to receive Federal funds for their activities)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Section 112(a)(1) of the Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-199; 118 Stat. 62) 
     is repealed.

  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, at a later time I will have a floor 
statement.
  Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2626

  There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a 
vote in relationship to amendment No. 2626, offered by the Senator from 
Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is another attempt to agree with the 
President's request to cut some unneeded spending. This time, it is 
only $20 million, which around here is obviously chicken feed. But the 
President has requested that this $20 million be cut. It is not needed. 
The program it was funded for is complete.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as the manager of the bill, I oppose the 
McCain amendment. This $20 million is competitive funding that helps 
local public TV and radio stations with equipment, things such as 
antennas, generators, fire-suppression equipment, and transmission. It 
improves technology. It enables our very important public TV stations 
to modernize.
  This is a competitive grant program--no earmarks but big footprints. 
It does require local cost sharing of 25 percent. It also creates jobs 
in local communities by actually installing this equipment, while we 
move out the very wonderful content of public TV and public radio.
  We, too, are stewards of the purse. The Commerce Department----
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we have to have the regular order at some 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I do like to know that. I like to follow 
the regular order. If the Chair would have notified me, I would have 
stopped sooner.
  I call for the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 317 Leg.]

                                YEAS--33

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Thune
     Wicker

                                NAYS--64

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg

[[Page S10272]]


     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Kerry
     Voinovich
  The amendment (No. 2626) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                           Amendment No. 2653

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, unless the distinguished Democratic 
leader is ready to speak, I ask unanimous consent that the Bunning 
amendment, No. 2653, be the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is the 
pending.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I also make a point of order against the 
amendment that it violates rule XVI, paragraph 4--legislation on an 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained and the 
amendment falls.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am very disappointed the majority has 
chosen to block full consideration of my amendment. What I am trying to 
accomplish is simply more transparency in the Senate. This would be 
accomplished by requiring a Congressional Budget Office score and 
posting of legislation 72 hours before consideration by committees or 
the full Senate.
  As a recent poll has shown, 83 percent of the American people support 
a waiting period before Congress votes on bills. My amendment would 
provide this to the American people. I think it is outrageous the other 
side is using a procedural tactic to block consideration of this 
amendment on this bill.
  Be assured I will be back to bring up this issue again and get a fair 
and full consideration of it by the Senate.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                    Amendment No. 2648, as Modified

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2648, and I send a 
modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2648, as modified.

  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide additional funds for the State Criminal Alien 
       Assistance Program by reducing corporate welfare programs)

       At the appropriate place insert:

                state criminal alien assistance program

       For an additional amount for the State Criminal Alien 
     Assistance Program $172,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended.
       Offset.--All amounts appropriated under this Act, except 
     for amounts appropriated for SCAAP, shall be reduced on a pro 
     rata basis by the amount necessary to reduce the total amount 
     appropriated under this Act, except for amounts appropriated 
     for SCAAP, under the heading ``Office of Justice Programs'' 
     under this title, by $172,000,000.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to propose an amendment 
adding $172 million for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program and 
offset it with corporate welfare funding currently in the bill.
  The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, known as SCAAP, provides 
Federal payments to States and localities that incur correctional 
officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens 
with at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations 
of State or local law and are incarcerated for at least four 
consecutive days during the reporting period.
  This program also reimburses State, county, parish, tribal, or other 
municipal governments for the costs associated with the prosecution of 
criminal cases declined by local U.S. Attorney's Offices.
  While we have made strides in securing our border, illegal 
immigration remains a significant problem, and the Federal Government 
should bear the additional burden placed on States and local 
governments. While this amendment does not fix our problems with 
illegal immigration, it does help local communities address costs 
associated with the incarceration of illegal immigrants who continually 
and repeatedly violate the laws of our country.
  This will bring this program's funding up to the 2009 level of $400 
million. This increase will match the level the other Chamber, the 
House of Representatives, accepted by a nearly unanimous vote of 405 to 
1. With increased funding for SCAAP, we can keep more repeat offenders 
off our streets and reduce some of the catch-and-release practices 
instituted by many communities that just don't have the resources to 
keep these criminals where they belong, which is behind bars.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure that 
critical funds reach our State, county, parish, tribal, and municipal 
governments to help battle the problems associated with illegal 
immigration and to keep lawbreaking illegal immigrants off our streets.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal relating to this matter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Las Vegas Police Refer 2,000 Inmates to Immigration Officials

                (By Antonio Planas and Lynnette Curtis)

       The Metropolitan Police Department forwarded the names of 
     nearly 2,000 inmates to federal immigration officials during 
     the first 10 months of a controversial partnership that 
     allows specially trained corrections officers to start 
     deportation proceedings against immigration violators.
       The agreement between the Police Department and U.S. 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement officially began Nov. 15 
     and is limited to the Clark County Detention Center.
       Nearly 10,000 county jail inmates through Sept. 19 were 
     identified as being born outside the country or their 
     identities were in question, said officer Jacinto Rivera, a 
     Las Vegas police spokesman.
       Police sent the names of 1,849 inmates who were determined 
     to be in the country illegally to ICE for possible 
     deportation.
       It's unknown how many of those inmates were deported. ICE 
     doesn't track removals that way, the agency said Wednesday. 
     Illegal immigrants referred to the agency by local law 
     enforcement become part of ICE's larger caseload. Those cases 
     can drag on for months or even years.
       The Police Department's partnership with immigration 
     officials has always been narrower in scope than that of 
     Maricopa County in Arizona and does not allow officers to 
     arrest people for immigration violations. Only once an 
     individual has been arrested on unrelated charges can he or 
     she be screened for possible deportation.
       Sheriff Doug Gillespie has repeatedly insisted the 
     partnership is meant to target violent criminals.
       In fact, police did not forward to immigration officials 
     the names of an additional 1,808 inmates who also were 
     identified as being in the country illegally because those 
     inmates had no violent criminal history, Rivera said. 
     Overall, 62,803 people were booked into the county jail 
     between Nov. 15, 2008, and Sept. 19, 2009.
       Hispanic and civil rights groups have fiercely criticized 
     ``287 (g)'' partnerships, named for the corresponding section 
     of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, saying they 
     target Hispanics and could lead to racial profiling and make 
     people afraid to report crimes.
       ``Evidence is mounting across the country that 287 (g) 
     programs are being run in problematic ways,'' said Maggie 
     McLetchie, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties 
     Union of Nevada. ``We understand federal immigration laws 
     need to be enforced, but that's the job of federal 
     immigration officers, not the job of Las Vegas police.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] moves to recommit the 
     Act H.R. 2847 to the Committee on Appropriations with 
     instructions to report the same back to the Senate with 
     changes that reduce the aggregate level of appropriations in 
     the Act for fiscal year 2010, excluding amounts provided 
     for the Bureau of the Census, by $3,411,000,000 from the 
     level currently in the Act.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, what this motion is similar to the motions 
I have made on previous spending bills. What we are asking the 
Appropriations

[[Page S10273]]

Committee to do is to fund our government at the 2009 level.
  In 2009, we saw huge funding increases. Then, with all of the 
spending programs, the government has seen massive increases on top of 
the increases in spending we had last year. So what we are saying is, 
while businesses, families, local governments, and State governments 
across the country are cutting their budgets, the Federal Government 
should freeze spending levels to 2009 levels. Let us not go on this 
massive increase in spending.
  We understand the census, which we do just once every 10 years, is 
not part of the normal budget process, so we allowed for that. We allow 
for the census to be funded. But everything else should be funded at 
2009 levels.
  We allow the Appropriations Committee to set the priorities; that is, 
what funding is to go into which particular program. Some programs are 
more effective than others, and they may have different priorities. 
That should be the prerogative of the Appropriations Committee. But 
what this body should be doing is sending a message to the American 
people that we care about our children and our grandchildren.
  What we are seeing right now is that we are borrowing 43 cents of 
every dollar we spend. Think about that. Think about a family or a 
business borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar they spend. That is 
what we are doing. I think this next chart illustrates very well on 
whom this burden is going to fall.
  The picture of this young lady was taken out in the public. She had a 
sign around her which said: I am already $38,375 in debt, and I only 
own a dollhouse.
  It is a picture of a cute little girl, and it would really be a cute 
picture if it wasn't so sad because it is true. Every child in America 
has a huge debt burden put on them because of the spending.
  During the last many years we have heard about the spending programs. 
The other side of the aisle actually ran on fiscal discipline. They 
said we spent too much money under the Bush administration. By the way, 
I agreed with that statement. I think we did spend too much money 
during the first part of this decade. But the spending levels now, in 
comparison, are skyrocketing. We are adding trillions and trillions of 
dollars in debt to future generations.
  So my motion, very simply, says: Instead of this large increase in 
this spending bill, we are going to live at last year's numbers. We are 
not even going to cut in ways State governments and local governments 
are doing. They are cutting. We are going to live within last year's 
funding levels--which were, by the way, increased dramatically. Last 
year, I think the same appropriations bill got a 15-percent increase. 
Let's at least live at last year's level instead of living on huge 
increases this year.

  I think this motion is the responsible thing to do for future 
generations and for the future of our country. We have to think about 
this debt. What is this debt going to do? We are hearing about the 
weakening dollar. There are articles every day in financial magazines 
about what a weak dollar means to America. The higher the debt, the 
weaker the dollar gets. We are adding trillions of dollars onto the 
debt. That weak dollar is going to hurt our economy into the future. We 
have to worry about not only inflation, but hyperinflation. We have to 
worry about whether jobs are going to continue to go overseas because 
of a weak dollar.
  Every country that has tried to handle their debt by devaluing their 
currency, which is what seems to be going on now--has never succeeded. 
The only way to control your debt is to get spending under control. 
That is what we have to do in this body. That is what we have to do in 
this country. My motion says: Time out. Time out from all the spending. 
Let's at least live at last year's spending level. Let's put a freeze 
on Federal spending so we are not hurting future generations. I 
encourage my colleagues to vote for this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Udall of Colorado are printed in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.


                              Health Care

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I come to the floor regularly to share 
letters from constituents of mine, Ohioans, letters we get from people 
commenting on the health care system. Many of these letters--most of 
them, in fact--have come from people who thought they had good 
insurance. If you had called them a year ago or 3 years ago or even, in 
some cases, a month ago and said: Are you satisfied with your 
insurance, they most likely would have said yes. Then one of their 
family members gets sick and it is a very expensive illness, spend 
weeks in the hospital or has all kinds of doctors visits and tests, and 
they end up spending so much that they lose their health insurance. The 
insurance company cancels them. The insurance companies call it a 
rescission.
  You read the fine print and you see these policies are not what they 
are cracked up to be. That is one important reason why this health 
insurance bill is so important.
  Let me share a couple of these letters with my colleagues.
  Edward, from Montgomery County, that is the Dayton area--Dayton, 
Kettering, Huber Heights, that area of Ohio, sort of southwest Ohio.

       About 5 years ago I took my wife to the hospital one 
     evening because she hurt her back. They took an X-ray but 
     told her nothing was wrong. She came back home, but she 
     stayed up all night crying in pain.
       I then took her to the emergency room where the doctors 
     took an MRI. It showed she had a ruptured lumbar disc that 
     could have led to paralysis. The insurance paid for the MRI, 
     but their attitude was sickening. After being admitted that 
     night, the next day the hospital told her she had to go home 
     because the insurance wouldn't pay for the stay.
       The doctors and nurses disagreed with that decision, but 
     insurance rules.
       The public option is the only thing that will keep these 
     companies honest.

  Edward from Montgomery County has it exactly right. He knows we need 
insurance reform so the insurance companies can no longer deny care for 
preexisting conditions, no longer discriminate against people because 
of gender or disability or age or geography. He understands there 
should not be a cap, an annual cap or a lifetime cap, on coverage, so 
if someone gets very sick and it is very expensive, their insurance 
could no longer be canceled.
  But he also understands not only do we need to change the rules, as 
our bill that we will bring to the Senate floor does, to change those 
rules so insurance companies can no longer game the system, this 
legislation also includes a strong public option as Edward asked for. A 
public option will make sure the insurance companies stay honest. It 
will inject competition into the insurance industry, and it will give 
people choice. That is why we call it a public option. It is a choice.
  If you are in southwest Ohio, in my State, you only have two 
insurance companies, and they have 85 percent of the insurance market. 
That is not competition. You know that means rates are higher. That is 
why injecting competition with the public option will help stabilize 
insurance rates and make the insurance companies behave a whole lot 
better than they have been.
  Let me share two other letters. I see my colleague from Pennsylvania, 
Senator Casey, is in the Chamber. Linda from Hamilton County, also 
southwestern Ohio, Cincinnati, Blue Ash, Avondale, that part of Ohio.

       I am 60 years old and I have private health insurance--if 
     you want to even call it that. I pay $450 a month and so few 
     services are covered until I reach a $10,000 deductible.
       Three years ago I had a double mastectomy. As a result, I 
     can no longer go to another insurance company because of 
     preexisting conditions.
       I have a good life. My husband and I worked hard, saved our 
     money, and have enjoyed our retirement so far. But I now find 
     myself not being proactive about my health care because I 
     know I will have to pay out-of-pocket for care until I reach 
     $10,000.
       That's not insurance. It is highway robbery. I want you to 
     vote----

  She says: Senator----

       I want you to vote for the public option. Get in there and 
     fight for those who have nothing and for those of us who want 
     to remain healthy in our golden years.

  Listen to what she says:

       I now find myself not being proactive about my health 
     care----


[[Page S10274]]


  Because she has a $10,000 deductible, living now, it sounds like, 
probably, on a fixed income, she simply cannot afford to pay that kind 
of money out of pocket to get the sort of maintenance of care she 
needs. So she simply is not taking as good care of herself. She is not 
able to have physicians and nurses and others help her maintain her 
health the way we encourage our constituents to do. We want people to 
get regular checkups. We want them to do all kinds of preventive care. 
She can't afford to because of this deductible. So she already, in some 
sense, has been a casualty of our health care system. I pray it is not 
worse than that. But in too many cases, that has happened. She argues 
again--she says: I want you to vote for the public option. She 
understands she will not have this kind of $10,000 deductible if she 
chooses the public option--a choice, but a choice that she sounds like 
she would make. She will not be turned away or in her mind think she 
can't get this other health insurance, these other health care services 
because they are so expensive. She understands and she asks for a 
choice--the choice of a public option.

  This is the last letter I will read before I yield the floor.
  Christopher from Summit County, the Akron area, northeast Ohio, Akron 
and Barberton and Tallmadge and Stow and that area of the State, 
writes:

       As a 58-year-old self-employed entrepreneur, it is 
     virtually impossible to obtain serious and genuine health 
     coverage insurance. Thanks to a relatively minor pre-existing 
     condition and total lack of a public option, I fall through 
     the cracks in the wealthiest nation in the world.

  Two sentences he writes: ``It is impossible to obtain serious and 
genuine health insurance'' and ``Thanks to a relatively minor pre-
existing condition and lack of a public option, I fall through the 
cracks in the wealthiest nation in the world.'' Why can't somebody like 
Christopher--he is self-employed, he had the initiative to start a 
business and employ himself, and he wants to have insurance. He is 58 
years old. His medical problems don't sound particularly severe, but he 
has a minor preexisting condition. He can't get insurance. That is why 
we are changing the law. We are no longer allowing denial of care for 
preexisting conditions, but we also need a public option, as 
Christopher asks for, for him to choose from if he would like to choose 
the public option or Aetna or Medical Mutual, an Ohio company, or CIGNA 
or BlueCross or whatever. But he also understands that the public 
option will enforce these rules, so the insurance companies can no 
longer game the system. In other words, the public option, as the 
President has said, will make the insurance companies more honest.
  It is clear our legislation does a handful of things that are so 
important. It is clear this will move our country forward. It says: If 
you have insurance and you are satisfied with it, you can keep that 
insurance, but we are going to build consumer protections around that 
insurance: No more denial of care for preexisting conditions; no more 
caps on coverage if you get very sick and you lose your plan--they 
can't throw you off your plan then; no more discrimination based on 
gender or geography or disability or age.
  The third thing our legislation does is it gives all kinds of 
incentives to small businesspeople to insure their employees: tax 
credits, allowing them to go into a larger pool with consumer 
protections. And our legislation provides insurance for people who do 
not have it, with some help from the government if people are low or 
median income.
  So all of that will mean a healthier population. It will mean choices 
for people because they can choose the public option or they can choose 
private care, and they know the public option will make our whole 
health care system much better.
  As we move forward and get this legislation to the President's desk 
before Christmas, I am excited about what we can do to make peoples 
lives better and to make for a healthier country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, first of all, I commend the words of my 
colleague, Senator Brown, on the issue of health care but in particular 
the importance of having a public option in our health care plan and 
the legislation the Senate will take up.


                           Afghanistan Policy

  I rise today to speak in particular with regard to the debate we are 
having--just beginning to have, by the way, and need to have a lot more 
debate about--the U.S. role in Afghanistan, with a special focus in 
terms of my own remarks today on building the Afghanistan National 
Army. At the same time, I would also like to recognize the dedication 
of the Pennsylvania National Guard as well.
  But first with regard to Afghanistan, the challenge we face in 
Afghanistan and Pakistan is a grave challenge indeed. Those who might 
disagree on the way forward or what to do next can agree on that, that 
it is a grave challenge. In order to get it right, and we must get it 
right, we need to debate these issues thoroughly.
  I have been fortunate enough in the 3 years since I have been in the 
Senate to be a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. As a member 
of that committee, most recently--the last couple of months, really--I 
have had several opportunities, as others have on the committee, to 
examine the military, political, diplomatic, and regional implications 
of our presence in Afghanistan. Chairman John Kerry has taken a very 
comprehensive approach, and I applaud his efforts.
  I also support the administration's deliberate consideration in 
making this strategic determination. The President is taking the time 
that I believe is necessary to make the right decision.
  General McChrystal as well has contributed much to this debate, not 
only with his report but, more importantly than what he put on paper, 
the kind of leadership he has provided to our troops on the battlefield 
and the way he has assessed the threats to our security and to our 
troops and to the Afghan people and the way he has articulated those 
threats.
  Now he has made a recommendation to the President. We hear a lot 
about what General McChrystal's report said, at least parts of it. We 
also hear a lot about General McChrystal's recommendation on troops. 
What we have heard very little about and need to hear more about is the 
nonmilitary part. What will happen on the nonmilitary aspects of this 
counterinsurgency strategy? That is vitally important and at the same 
level of importance as what we do militarily. So we have to get it 
right militarily and in terms of the other strategy.
  But one thing we have not heard a lot about is that General 
McChrystal has actually, in words I am quoting from the New York Times, 
endorsed the President's deliberate approach. General McChrystal was 
quoted on October 2 in the New York Times as follows: ``The more 
deliberation and the more debate we have, the healthier that is going 
to be'' for the strategy. So for as much attention as has been paid to 
what his report says, or at least part of what his report says, I think 
it is also important to listen to his words about taking the time to 
debate it and taking the time to deliberate it because if all we do in 
the Senate is point a finger to the White House and say the White House 
must do this or the President must do this or the administration must 
do this, we are not fulfilling our responsibilities in the Senate.
  A number of us have been talking about this challenge, but we have to 
hear from more voices here and we have to debate this in a very 
substantive, serious, thorough, and bipartisan way. I will talk more 
about that in a moment.
  In that same New York Times story, General McChrystal was also quoted 
as saying: ``I don't think we have the luxury of going so fast that we 
make the wrong decision.'' So I think it is important to highlight what 
General McChrystal has said about the approach we take, the approach 
President Obama is taking, spending a number of weeks looking at this, 
focusing on the strategy before the resources. A lot of people in this 
town want to just talk about troop levels only and resources only 
instead of getting a sense of where we should be strategically first 
and then getting to resources.
  We should consider the ideas set forth in a recent Wall Street 
Journal op-ed by the following Senators: McCain, Graham, and 
Lieberman--all

[[Page S10275]]

respected voices on national security and foreign policy.
  This is not going to be the strategy going forward, the solution to a 
difficult problem; this is not going to be a Democratic solution and it 
is not going to be a Republican solution; this has to be a strategy and 
a solution that comes from both parties.
  Also, I should say that only by working together can we develop the 
best strategy, and to literally focus on strategy before the question 
of resources. We cannot simply use sound bites to communicate the 
complexities of this conflict or simply reassert talking points from 
the Iraq war debate. If that is all we are going to do around here, we 
might as well not have a debate because that will not do it for this 
debate, especially when we are talking about what is at stake here and 
especially in this case. Politics must stop at the water's edge. I 
think we can do that. This body has done it in the past, and we can do 
it again.
  Let me say at the outset that our problems in Afghanistan are 
political in nature and will ultimately require a political solution. 
This does not mean additional troops may not be needed, but it does 
indicate to me that our strategy needs to reflect a deeper commitment 
to supporting the Afghan people in their efforts to focus on at least 
three principal areas--one, the obvious priority of security. There is 
a lot to talk about just under that umbrella. The second focus we have 
to have, as well as the Afghan people, is governance. We cannot govern 
for them; they have to govern themselves. President Karzai and whoever 
else has authority in that country to provide services have to 
demonstrate to us and to the world that they can govern themselves. So 
first security and then governance and finally development, and that 
obviously is a joint effort, not just American-Afghan but all of the 
more than 40 nations that are helping us in Afghan to help communities 
with water systems and infrastructure and education and so many 
others--health care included--so many other aspects that involve 
development or at least quality of life in Afghanistan.
  Ultimately, our success will come in empowering Afghan institutions 
to address their own internal security. In some cases, this may mean 
co-opting certain elements of the Taliban, in other cases taking on the 
Taliban directly. We are now at a stage where the United States can 
play a positive role in making sure the political framework for the 
country is sound.
  The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, has helped 
to focus attention on the critical importance of training the Afghan 
National Army or the so-called ANA. I applaud Chairman Levin's 
leadership in this regard and support his call for an acceleration--a 
rapid acceleration of troop training to the levels of 240,000 Afghan 
National Army troops by 2012. While there is some disagreement over 
these training timelines, no one disputes the central importance of 
getting the Afghan security forces trained well and soon. As this force 
is prepared to provide security, it will decrease the need for a robust 
U.S. presence in the country.
  I applaud the efforts of Major General Formica, head of the U.S. unit 
charged with training the Afghan troops. While the ANA certainly needs 
substantial additional assistance, we need to acknowledge the fact that 
this fighting force did not exist 7 years ago. Due in large part to the 
extraordinary efforts of coalition forces and people like the general, 
the ANA can be considered a measured success. Without these remarkable 
efforts, the Afghan National Army would not be in a position to grow at 
the pace necessary in the coming months.
  I should also add that the recent Presidential election in 
Afghanistan presented a very difficult security challenge, and both the 
Afghan National Army as well as the police performed pretty well. We 
could witness some security problems but on a much more limited basis 
than many would have predicted. So that is a bit of good news in all 
the bad news we hear about Afghanistan.
  Challenges do remain, however, and this training process will not be 
easy. A little more than 40 percent of the population in Afghanistan is 
of the Pashtun ethnicity, although they are not fully represented in 
the army at these levels. The officer corps of the Afghan National 
Army, based on traditions that go back decades, is primarily made up of 
Tajiks, who represent just over 25 percent of the population. The most 
substantial fighting in Afghan currently takes place in the Pashtun 
belt, an area of the country in the south and east along the border 
with Pakistan. I hope the Afghan National Army can continue to take 
these important ethnicity concerns into consideration as they grow the 
force.
  These are critically important concerns about ethnicity. We have to 
recognize that and not turn away from it.
  Second, Afghanistan has a very high illiteracy rate; some estimate as 
high as 70 percent. This presents considerable complication in troop 
training as some recruits are not able to read or write orders, 
understand maps or interpret instructions on how to operate equipment. 
Our trainers have come up with creative training techniques using 
pictures, for example, but this is no substitute for basic skills 
required in a modern army.
  The third challenge with regard to building up the Afghan National 
Army and perhaps the most significant is posed by the substantial 
resources needed to stand up such a force. Army recruits are paid only 
$100 a month, while there are reports that the Taliban pays as much as 
$300 a month. Both are small amounts, but when the Taliban is paying 
three times as much, that presents a challenge that we must confront, 
if we are serious about this. The Afghan National Army should begin to 
address the discrepancy. Overall the cost of maintaining this expanded 
force will be considerable, and it is unlikely that the Afghan 
Government will be able to shoulder this burden anytime soon. It is a 
challenge that involves both cost and the reality that the government 
doesn't have the resources to do all it needs to do in building up the 
Afghan Army. We need to be honest about that. This will be expensive 
but nowhere near as expensive as the continued deployment and costs 
associated with maintaining an international coalition force.
  I have tried to outline some of the realistic challenges we face in 
standing up the Afghan Army. Afghan Defense Minister Wardak, whom I met 
during my trip in August, oversees this effort in Kabul. Minister 
Wardak has been commended for his leadership of the Afghan armed 
forces. He believes these ambitious troop increases are challenging but 
possible. I hope we can aggressively pursue Chairman Levin's plan, no 
matter what comes of the President's strategy. An expanded and enhanced 
Afghan Army should be a central part of the equation. In the final 
analysis, this fight against the Taliban is an Afghan fight. We need to 
be there to support them, but a stable and peaceful Afghanistan will 
ultimately depend upon how well the Afghan Government can provide 
security for its own people.
  (The further remarks of Mr. Casey are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. CASEY. 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. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this week the latest version of the health 
care reform plan was scored by the CBO. The expectation is that 
sometime in the next few days, the Finance Committee will report out a 
bill which at some point will be merged with the bill that was produced 
by the HELP Committee. I rise to make some observations about the 
process generally, because we are talking about literally one-sixth of 
the American economy. This is not something that is inconsequential, 
and certainly it is something that is personal to most Americans. 
Health care is something they value deeply. Any type of reform ought to 
focus on patient-centered health care--not insurance centered, not 
politician centered, not Washington, DC centered, but patient-centered 
health care. As we get into this debate, we ought to have an 
opportunity not only for Members of the Senate to carefully examine 
what is in

[[Page S10276]]

this legislation but also for the American people. The American people 
deserve and have a right to know what is going to be in any final bill.
  My first point is that we have tried. An amendment was offered in the 
Finance Committee by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning, that would 
require for any bill that ultimately, once it is reduced to legislative 
language and has an estimate from the CBO about what it might cost, 
there be 72 hours for people to evaluate it, Senators as well as the 
general public. That amendment was defeated in the committee 
deliberations. Seventy-two hours is the bare minimum that ought to be 
required and necessary for people here in the Senate to look at what 
will be inevitably north of 1,000 pages of legislative language.
  The reason I say ``will be'' is because we don't know yet. We haven't 
seen legislative language to date. All we have is a concept paper. The 
Finance Committee will be voting out a concept paper. That concept 
paper has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office but it is just 
that. It is a concept paper. We have yet to see anything that resembles 
legislative language that ultimately is what we in the Senate will be 
asked to vote on.
  The simple expectation is that there ought to be an adequate amount 
of time, whatever that amount is, but at a minimum 72 hours was all 
that was requested by the Senator from Kentucky in his amendment before 
the Finance Committee. That was defeated by the Democratic majority.
  He subsequently offered that today, a resolution as an amendment to 
the currently pending legislation, the CJS appropriations bill. It was 
objected to. There was a point of order raised against it. It is pretty 
clear that our colleagues on the majority side do not want to consider 
having any sort of a requirement imposed that would allow people an 
adequate amount of time to review this incredibly consequential and 
impactful piece of legislation coming before the Senate.
  I make that observation to start with because it is relevant. This 
process needs to be open and transparent. The American people have a 
right to know exactly what is in this legislation. Even Senators and 
Senators on the Finance Committee right now don't know because they 
haven't seen bill language. What they are going to be voting on is a 
concept paper. And what the estimate that has been provided by the CBO 
is in response to is a concept paper, not legislative language. I argue 
to my colleagues that we need to have at least a certain amount of 
time. I would argue more than that--it ought to be 2 weeks, when we are 
talking about something this voluminous and this consequential for 
Americans or the American economy. I regret that our colleagues on the 
Democratic side of the aisle are objecting to what is even a minimum 
amount of time to review this legislation, and that would be a 72-hour 
time limit.
  I don't believe for a minute that the Finance Committee bill, even if 
and when it is reduced to legislative language, is the thing we will be 
voting on. There has been a lot of reaction to it and a lot written in 
the last couple of days about how this would be scored by the CBO. And 
there is a story out today that it actually would reduce the deficit, 
which I will get into in a moment.
  But before addressing that, this bill, when it does become a bill, 
will have to be married with another bill passed earlier by the HELP 
Committee. Those two will be merged. Where will they be merged? They 
will not be merged on the floor of the Senate. They will be merged 
behind closed doors in the majority leader's office by a handful of 
people who will be determining what is in the legislation. Then at some 
point they will have to come out and we will get an opportunity to look 
at it.
  I don't think the work the Finance Committee is putting in right now 
is anywhere close to what the end result will be. I argue that we will 
see a very different product produced by the majority leader when they 
go behind closed doors and a handful of people write the health care 
bill that will come before the Senate.
  Those are a couple of observations I wished to make with respect to 
the process and how flawed I believe it is with regard to the issue of 
being open and transparent and making sure there is accountability to 
the people.
  The second observation I wish to make has to do as well with the fact 
that most Americans believe there is a right way and a wrong way to do 
this. The right way ought to be making sure we are prioritizing our 
spending and being careful with taxpayer dollars.
  The wrong way is for Washington to go about this in the traditional 
way; which is, to raise taxes still higher, put the country further 
into debt, and more money into programs we do not believe--at least a 
lot of us do not believe--will work in the long run. Again, I will 
point out in a minute why we think this is the case, why these programs 
will not work in the long run.
  The right way to do this is for us to protect and expand that doctor-
patient relationship and to do it in a way that is fiscally responsible 
and to do it in a way that gets at the real crux of the issue; that is, 
how do we reduce the cost of health care in this country.
  As to the current bill, which I mentioned earlier, there have been 
some news stories in the last day or so about how this bill reduces the 
deficit, with $829 billion in spending and about $81 billion in surplus 
to reduce the deficit. What I think is important for people to focus on 
is, because there is a delayed implementation of these provisions in 
this bill that do not start kicking in until 2014 or thereabouts, the 
numbers that are being used by the other side and being reported upon 
by the media reflect a 10-year period starting now and going forward.
  But when the bill is fully implemented, when all the provisions are 
finally in place and we get the 10-year window from that point 
forward--or from that point through the 10-year window--that is when we 
get a real assessment of what the costs are. If we do that, the cost of 
this legislation is not the $829 billion that has been put out publicly 
and has been sort of picked up by the media in the last day or two, but 
it is nearly double that amount. It is $1.8 trillion.
  So it is a massive amount of new spending, a massive expansion of the 
Federal Government at the Federal level, and a massive amount of 
spending that somehow is going to have to be paid for either in the 
form of additional revenues, cuts in Medicare--which is what is being 
proposed--which I do not think, frankly, is ever going to happen. We 
tried back in 2005 when we were reforming Medicare to shave $10 billion 
out of that. We could not get the votes for it in the Senate. We had to 
bring the Vice President back from Pakistan to cast the deciding vote.
  So the notion that somehow we are going to be voting to cut $500 
billion from Medicare is a pipe dream. You would have to be smoking 
something to believe that is actually going to happen. That is one of 
the ways that $1.8 trillion of new spending is paid for.
  The other way it is paid for is with higher taxes. The problem with 
that is the taxes do not just fall on the ``rich'' or ``wealthy.'' They 
do not just fall on the insurance companies, which is where some of the 
taxes and fees in the Finance Committee bill are directed. They fall on 
the American people. In fact, I think it is important to point out the 
Congressional Budget Office, when asked about this, said 90 percent of 
the tax burden in 2019--90 percent of the tax burden in the health care 
bill--would fall on wage earners making less than $200,000 a year. That 
directly violates and contradicts the commitment and the promise the 
President made that he would not impose taxes on people making less 
than $250,000 a year.
  So we have these massive tax increases which, according to CBO, are 
going to fall disproportionately on people making less than $200,000 a 
year, and we have these cuts in Medicare which, in my view, are not 
going to happen or, if they do, could be very devastating to seniors, 
as well as to a lot of the health care providers across this country.
  But here is what is most amazing about all that: almost $2 trillion 
in new spending over a 10-year period--$500 billion, $600 billion of 
tax increases; $500 billion in Medicare cuts to pay for this--and who 
is to say if the Medicare cuts do not happen a lot of this will not end 
up being borrowed, which piles up huge debt on future generations of 
Americans. But after all that, and after all the bills, including the 
Finance Committee bill, it assumes a tremendous level of government 
intervention and involvement in the health care

[[Page S10277]]

economy of this country. The government is going to be in the middle of 
making decisions that traditionally have been made by doctors and 
patients.
  But after all that, we would assume, at the end of the day, the 
underlying purpose and goal of this--which is to reduce health care 
costs--would have been achieved. The truth is, it does not reduce 
costs. The bottom line is, after everything else is said and done, and 
we look at all the spending and all the taxing and all the new 
government expansion and all the new government interference and 
involvement and intervention in the health care economy and the 
fundamental doctor-patient relationship, we have not done anything to 
lower costs for the Americans who are struggling with the high cost of 
health care.
  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, during the Finance 
Committee markup last week, when asked whether the insurance company 
taxes would be passed on--and how would that impact the people who are 
actually having to pay the insurance premiums out there--they said 
those new taxes will be passed on dollar for dollar. We have seen all 
kinds of varying estimates about the amount of the increase, but there 
has not been a bill yet, of the five that have been produced by any of 
the committees in the Congress, that bends the cost curve down. They 
all raise and increase costs.
  I think that is the Achilles heel, ultimately--that the American 
people, who are struggling with the high cost of health care, are 
looking for solutions and for reforms that will actually put downward 
pressure on prices, and all that is being talked about is spending a 
couple trillion dollars of their tax dollars, raising taxes and cutting 
Medicare in order to raise their overall cost of insurance. Only in 
Washington, DC, could something that stunning actually make it in the 
light of day.
  So at the end of the day, it ought to be about reducing costs for 
Americans. It ought to be about trying to provide access for those who 
do not have access to health insurance. By the way, the most recent 
version of the Baucus bill--the Finance Committee bill--still leaves 25 
million Americans uncovered. So we are not covering a lot of people we 
are proposing to cover. We are increasing costs of health care for 
people who currently have insurance, and we are creating a couple 
trillion dollars of new spending when this bill is fully implemented 
over 10 years that, again, is going to, in some way, have to be 
financed with taxes, Medicare cuts, or, worse yet, perhaps borrowing, 
which will come on the backs of future generations.
  The amount of debt we are going to have at the end of 2019, according 
to CBO, is enough so that every household in this country will owe 
$188,000. Imagine if you are a young couple today just exchanging your 
vows, you are starting your family, you are getting ready to move on 
with your life, and you get handed a big fat wedding gift from the 
Federal Government to the tune of a $188,000 IOU. That is not fair to 
future generations.
  We ought to learn to live within our means. We talk about reforming 
health care. We ought to put reforms in place that actually reduce the 
cost of health care for working-class families in this country, that do 
not raise their taxes, that do not borrow from their children and 
grandchildren. Those are the types of things we would like to see as 
part of this debate.
  We have already put forward a number of proposals that would do just 
that: allowing people to buy insurance across State lines--interstate 
competition would put downward pressure on prices and insurance rates 
across this country--allowing people to join larger groups, small 
business health plans--something we voted on repeatedly in the Congress 
which has been consistently defeated in votes--dealing with the issue 
of defensive medicine, which it is estimated costs the health care 
economy about $100 billion annually; doing something about medical 
malpractice and all those physicians who order those additional tests 
simply because they are worried about being sued.
  We have had proposals put forward that would change the tax treatment 
of employer-provided health care plans so that those who do not have 
insurance would have a tax credit that would be available to them so 
they could go out and buy health insurance in the private marketplace.
  We are laying out a lot of solutions we believe actually get at the 
fundamental issue before the American people, and that is the high cost 
of health care and also trying to provide coverage for those who do not 
have it. None of these proposals, in my view--and I think the 
Congressional Budget Office, in their analysis, bears it out. These are 
all proposals that bend the cost curve up, that increase and raise 
insurance costs for this country.

  The only reason they could go out like they did yesterday and say, 
well, this actually reduces the deficit, is because of the massive tax 
increases and the massive cuts in Medicare that it assumes will take 
place.
  Again, I want to mention one more time, in closing, notwithstanding 
the numbers that were released yesterday by the Congressional Budget 
Office--and the way they were reported by the media--the number people 
need to focus on is the cost of this program when it is fully 
implemented.
  Because it is delayed, because many of the provisions in the bill, in 
its entirety, for the most part, are going to be delayed--the 
implementation--until 2014, we have to get the full picture of the 
cost, what it is going to cost in the 10 years once it is fully 
implemented because a lot of the revenues are front loaded, the costs 
are back-end loaded. That is why this sort of wires and mirrors--the 
approach that is being used--understates the overall cost. They can go 
forward and say, well, we are reducing the deficit over 10 years 
because of all the tax increases, which kick in right away, but some of 
the costs in the program do not come into play until later on.
  So the American people need to be engaged in this debate. They need 
to have their voices heard. Frankly, they have a right to know exactly 
what is in this legislation. That is why it should not be rushed. It 
should be done in a way that allows people to actually review this 
bill. It ought to be done in the light of day.
  Secondly, it ought to be done in a way that actually is fiscally 
responsible to future generations so we do not pile this huge burden of 
debt on them. But even more importantly than that, it ought to 
accomplish the stated objective, which is to reduce the overall health 
care costs for Americans.
  These proposals do not do that. There are ideas out there and 
solutions out there that do, some of which I just talked about. If we 
would be willing to sit down and come to a consensus about those things 
that actually do drive health care costs down, we could pass health 
care reform through the Senate this year, through the House of 
Representatives, put it on the President's desk, and do something that 
actually meaningfully reduces costs for Americans and what they pay for 
health care.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Tribute to Erica Williams and HER SEC Team

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise again today to honor a great 
Federal employee, something I have been doing each week on the Senate 
floor. I do so because I believe it is very important to recognize the 
unsung heroes who work every day on behalf of the Nation with great 
effort and often with great sacrifice.
  Today, I want to honor an employee of the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, one of our most important independent Federal agencies, 
whose work affects all Americans. This great Nation was founded on a 
belief in freedom and fairness--two fundamental pillars of American 
society.
  This is what the Revolutionaries fought for in the time of Samuel 
Adams and George Washington. It is what the Framers enshrined during 
the era of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Maintaining 
democratic government and fair, open markets were the charge of every 
administration and Congress from their day to ours.
  In the decades since World War II, American global leadership has 
focused on promoting these two concepts throughout the world. Democracy 
and

[[Page S10278]]

a fair marketplace complement each other perfectly. A society based on 
fair markets cultivates an egalitarian political culture. Likewise, 
democracy instills in all citizens the sense that they ought to enjoy 
in commerce what they so cherish in government: a marriage of liberty 
and equality.
  I have already spoken from this desk several times about the 
challenges we and the SEC jointly face today in protecting our 
financial markets. I have talked repeatedly about how, as a nation, our 
credit and equity capital markets are a crown jewel. Only a year ago we 
suffered a credit market debacle that led to devastating consequences 
for millions of Americans.
  I have squarely blamed the self-regulation philosophy of the SEC as 
being a major part of that problem. By this I mean that the SEC had too 
often deferred to those it regulates for knowledge, experience, and 
certitude. I feel so strongly about this because we have lived through 
an era where regulators and the leadership of regulatory agencies 
failed to regulate. Perhaps Congress, too, failed to give the 
regulators the tools and resources they needed to do their jobs 
effectively.
  These failures have contributed not only to a financial disaster but 
also to a loss of public confidence in our markets and our national 
economy. In addition, these failures run counter to our ideals of 
democracy and market fairness.
  During the time of the Revolution, we were a nation of farmers and 
merchants bound together by our common dependence on the trade of 
manufactured goods, foodstuffs, and local services. Today, we have 
become a nation of investors. Tens of millions of Americans own 
retirement accounts, and they depend on fair markets to protect those 
long-term holdings.
  Many Americans have suffered directly as a result of the markets 
losing value. Those who have not been hurt personally surely know 
someone--a parent, a friend, or a coworker--who has. The financial 
crisis has forced many to delay retirement or even go back to work. 
Most working Americans have lost something; some have lost almost 
everything.
  Under its previous leadership, the SEC lost its way. While the 
failure of the SEC to follow up on tips about the Bernie Madoff Ponzi 
scheme is certainly emblematic of this failure--and probably a huge 
blow to the morale of the agency--I believe morale at the agency may 
also have suffered for a much more fundamental reason. Too often in the 
past, the SEC leadership kept its employees from pursuing its core 
mission. This happened not only at the SEC but at other Federal 
agencies as well. There was simply a philosophical difference between 
their policies and the need for effective enforcement of regulations.
  Employees at the SEC, while still working hard every day, sadly, I 
suspect, have become somewhat demoralized by this and by resulting 
setbacks. And, I might add, SEC employees have also had to endure 
criticism of the Commission in recent months by concerned Members of 
Congress--myself chief among them.

  Today, the SEC stands at a crossroads.
  In the wake of last year's historic election, Washington has been 
focused on change. The greatest thing about change is that it offers 
the promise of a new start. I wholeheartedly believe one of the most 
fundamental qualities of the American people is the ability to pick 
ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and return to the important task 
before us.
  For the SEC, this means a renewed focus on its original mission: to 
maintain public faith in our markets, to protect all investors. The SEC 
needs to reassure our long-term investors--many of whom are average 
Americans saving for retirement--that the system is not rigged against 
them. I know the SEC can, and will, be a can-do agency once more.
  In 2005, the SEC moved into a new headquarters just a few blocks from 
the Capitol. It is a beautiful glass and stone building with a high, 
curving facade. The lobby is full of light, and its windows frame a 
view of the Capitol dome. Much of the building wraps around a 
courtyard, and in the center of that courtyard is a playground for the 
children who attend the SEC's employee daycare. Across the street are a 
school and a row of small businesses, including a busy coffee house. 
Behind the new building are the tracks leading out from Union Station 
carrying business travelers and commuters each day.
  The men and women who work in that building don't need to be reminded 
who they work for. They see them every day out of their windows. The 
stability and fairness of our financial markets affects every American, 
from the small business owner to the coffee house patron; from the 
daily commuter to the future of that toddler in daycare. I believe a 
new building provides a chance for a new beginning.
  I agree with the President that at least with regard to the financial 
crisis, the worst is behind us. Now is the time for the SEC to step to 
the plate. I know they can do it. I have faith in the SEC because it 
stabilized our markets in the aftermath of the Great Depression. I have 
faith in the SEC because it always proved to be resilient during times 
of institutional change, and I have faith in the SEC because it has 
some of the most talented public servants who are now working 
tirelessly to catch up after several years of failed leadership.
  One of those public servants is Erica Williams, a lawyer for the 
SEC's Enforcement Division. A graduate of the University of Virginia 
Law School, Erica has been with the SEC for 5 years. During that time, 
she has distinguished herself as a trial lawyer on several complex 
cases involving accounting and fraud. Before coming to the SEC, she 
worked at a major private sector law firm in Washington.
  In July, she and her team of SEC enforcement attorneys won a hard-
fought verdict in Federal court on a case involving insider trading. 
This case, commonly referred to as SEC v. Nothern, was a rare case 
involving U.S. Treasury bonds.
  She could not have had better colleagues on this case than John 
Rossetti, Sarah Levine, and Martin Healy, all of whom equally deserve 
recognition. John is a graduate of Catholic University Law School, and 
he served for 9 years as an SEC enforcement attorney. Sarah, who holds 
a law degree from Yale, clerked for Justice David Souter before coming 
to the SEC in 2007 as a trial attorney. Martin supported their efforts 
as a regional trial counsel at the SEC's office in Boston.
  Erica and her team had to prove that the defendant had insider 
knowledge from someone inside the Treasury Department. Approximately $3 
million in illegal profits had been generated from this scheme. They 
argued their case strongly and thoroughly. They also had to prosecute 
the case with fewer resources than are usually available to private 
sector litigators. They worked weekends and sacrificed time with their 
families for long hours spent in the office or on the road. It all paid 
off, a victory that reflects what the SEC is all about: punishing and 
deterring wrongdoing.
  What Erica achieved with her team is more than a court victory, 
however. She is helping to send a message the SEC is back; that those 
who are contemplating fraud better think twice. That is why I am 
honoring her as my ``Great Federal Employee'' of the week.
  I know this is only the beginning. The SEC knows it needs to focus on 
deterring those activities that make our markets unfair. That is what 
Erica's victory and what other recent gains of the Commission have 
done. As new SEC Enforcement Division Director Robert Khuzami has said, 
the SEC is engaged in ``a rigorous self-assessment of how we do our 
job.'' Their victory is what Khuzami meant when he promised ``a focus 
on cases involving the great and most immediate harm and on cases that 
send an outside message of deterrence.''
  I also have faith in SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, who shares my 
concern about the stability and the quality of our markets. She 
understands the trade-offs between market liquidity and market 
fairness, and she recognized how important it is to protect the 
interests of long-term investors.
  As my colleagues are aware, since March, Chairman Schapiro and I have 
exchanged communications, and I believe under her leadership the SEC is 
coming back stronger and better able to pursue its mission.
  The famous Alabama football coach, Paul ``Bear'' Bryant, once said:


[[Page S10279]]


       I have learned over the years how to hold a team together. 
     How to lift some up, how to calm others down, until finally 
     they've got one heartbeat, together, a team.

  Chairman Schapiro believes in the SEC's mission, and she is working 
diligently to ensure that all who work there are doing so with one 
heartbeat--as a team. They, too, believe in the SEC's mission, and we 
have to make certain they get all the resources they need, not only to 
catch up but also to operate ahead of tomorrow's market threats.
  Taped to the door of Chairman Schapiro's office is a sign for all 
those entering with new proposals or ideas. It reads: ``How does it 
help investors?'' This ethos must once again be the source of 
inspiration for everyone who works in that beautiful new building.
  As the SEC embarks on its next chapter, I want all of its employees 
to know when they walk out of that lobby each day and see the Capitol 
dome, they should feel confident that those of us who work under it are 
their partners. We will be their partners by making certain the SEC is 
strong enough to do its job, and we will work together with the 
Commission to help identify and prevent new problems before they arise. 
The American people also should have patience and hope that the SEC is 
back and on the right track. We all hold a common stake in its success.
  The era of looking the other way is now behind us. The time has come 
to look forward. I hope my colleagues will join me not only in honoring 
the service of outstanding Federal employees of the SEC such as Erica 
Williams and her team but in recommitting ourselves to help them pursue 
our common goal. When it comes to protecting America's investors, we 
must have one heartbeat.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Air Force Tanker Competition

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the recently 
restarted Air Force KC-X tanker competition.
  On February 29, 2008, after a lengthy competition, the U.S. Air Force 
announced that the team of Northrop Grumman and EADS was selected to 
deliver the best, most capable tanker to our warfighters, at a price of 
$3 billion less than their rival Boeing's offer.
  It was only after the GAO sustained a mere 8 out of 111 complaints 
submitted by the losing team--Boeing--that the award was overturned and 
the competition was placed in limbo.
  Even after GAO's recommendation, there is still nothing to suggest 
that the KC-45 was not the best tanker solution. This is a very 
important point to remember. The Air Force's contracting system may 
have been flawed, but nowhere did GAO state that the KC-45 is not the 
best tanker for our airmen.
  A year later, Defense Secretary Robert Gates terminated the award and 
canceled the entire tanker acquisition program.
  Secretary of Defense Gates' decision to cancel the Air Force's No. 1 
acquisition priority outright clearly placed politics and business 
interests over the interests of the warfighter.
  While Secretary Gates may have characterized this decision as a 
``cooling off'' period, it sent a clear message that only a Boeing 
tanker will be acceptable. The defense acquisition policy was 
unmistakable: No Boeing, no tanker. That is a fundamentally flawed 
policy that may please some Members of Congress from the States in 
which Boeing would build the tankers, but it fails to satisfy the 
critical need for the best new tankers for our warfighters. In that 
case, politics obviously trumped military necessity and troop welfare.
  After review of the September 24 draft RFP that begins the new tanker 
competition, I again have serious concerns that fairness and capability 
are being completely ignored.
  For a moment, let me elaborate. As a result of the last protest, 
Northrop Grumman was compelled to submit its proprietary, competitive-
sensitive pricing data to the GAO, which, in turn, provided that 
critical information to Boeing. Let me say it again. Boeing now has all 
of Northrop Grumman's competitive pricing information. Yet they are 
going to be competing again.
  Boeing knows exactly how the Northrop Grumman team was able to offer 
the best deal to the Department of Defense during the last competition. 
Boeing knows all of Northrup Grumman's bidding strategies.
  In a competition for a defense contract, nothing is more carefully 
protected than a company's pricing and bidding strategy.
  Let me remind my colleagues here that Northrup Grumman/EADS offered a 
clearly better plane, at a price that was $3 billion less than Boeing. 
And now, today, Boeing knows how they did it.
  Northrop Grumman has repeatedly asked the Department of Defense to 
level the playing field by providing them--Northrop Grumman--with 
Boeing's pricing information from the previous competition. To date, 
the Pentagon has continually denied Northrop Grumman's requests. The 
Department of Defense has stated that Northrop Grumman's pricing and 
bidding strategies are not relevant issues in the current competition, 
and that the data is outdated.
  Not relevant? I could not disagree more. It is intuitively obvious to 
anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the concept of competitive 
government bidding that the Department of Defense, from the outset, is 
tilting the competition toward Boeing. Northrop Grumman is being 
severely penalized before the game even begins. This situation is 
inconceivable and must be changed.
  Further, after review of the draft RFP, it is becoming increasingly 
clear that this competition is not structured around what we call a 
``best value'' competition that would ensure that our warfighter 
receives the best plane. Rather, it is structured around the lowest 
price technically acceptable competition that does one thing and one 
thing only--it reduces the chances that our warfighters will receive 
the most superior plane on the market.
  One would think that our Air Force's top priority would be to ensure 
that our men and women in uniform have the best, most capable 
equipment. It seems to me that is not the case.
  A lowest price technically acceptable procurement process focuses 
heavily on cost and does not take into account additional or advanced 
capabilities that may be available on the aircraft that will help us in 
the years to come. This means that price is more important than 
quality; that performance is not a critical factor; that added 
capabilities, technology that could help save the lives of our men and 
women in uniform and have an edge on the opposition, is not a key 
factor in the draft RFP.

  The fact that the draft RFP is structured so that cost is almost the 
only component considered in the competition makes the aforementioned 
pricing data issue even more relevant.
  When combined with Boeing's knowledge of Northrop Grumman's pricing 
data and not vice versa, it has become abundantly clear that the 
Department of Defense and the Air Force have their thumbs on the scale 
in favor of Boeing.
  As was clearly shown in the previous competition, Boeing has a less 
capable airframe, but Boeing now has all of Northrop Grumman's pricing 
data and a full understanding of Northrop Grumman's bidding strategies. 
This information is the holy grail for Boeing that provides them with 
everything necessary to surely submit a lower cost bid for their less 
capable aircraft.
  If this matter should not be a concern, then there should be no issue 
whatsoever with the Department of Defense providing Boeing's prior data 
to Northrop Grumman because Boeing, again, has Northrop Grumman's data, 
as they recompete.
  In order for this competition to be untainted, to be fair, to be at 
the level of openness and transparency that my colleagues and I were 
repeatedly assured would be the case, I believe it is imperative that 
Northrop Grumman be allowed to obtain Boeing's pricing data from the 
last tanker competition and that the competition shift away from

[[Page S10280]]

purely a cost basis to what is best for the warfighter.
  It makes no sense for a procurement process that has been continually 
hampered by scandal, delays, and jail time for certain officials to 
begin the latest version of this competition with such an absurdly 
uneven playing field.
  As we go forward, it is my sincere hope that the safety of our 
warfighters and the security of our Nation will become the priority, as 
it has been in the past, this time and decisions will not be based on 
political pressures that unfairly tilt competition.
  Unless the Department of Defense and the Air Force live up to their 
commitment of impartiality and transparency, I am fearful that our 
warfighters will have to settle for second best. Apparently, that is 
just fine with some, as long as Boeing wins.
  I yield the floor.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cardin pertaining to the introduction of S. 1765 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2625

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2625.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator the from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], for himself and 
     Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 2625.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide danger pay to Federal agents stationed in 
                    dangerous foreign field offices)

       On page 170 at the end of line 19 insert the following:
       Sec. XXX. Section 151 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 
     101-246, as amended by section 11005 of Public Law 107-273; 5 
     U.S.C. 5928 note) is amended:
       (a) by striking ``or'' after ``Drug Enforcement 
     Administration'' and inserting ``, the''; and (b) inserting 
     after ``Federal Bureau of Investigation'': ``, the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or the United 
     States Marshals Service''.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I, along with Senator Feinstein, have 
offered this amendment that would make the U.S. Marshals and the ATF 
agents, who put their lives on the line in dangerous foreign countries 
to protect our Nation and our citizens, eligible for danger pay.
  The U.S. Marshals and ATF agents are actively assisting Mexican law 
enforcement and the Mexican military in one of the bloodiest wars in 
the world today--the Mexican drug war. There have been nearly 10,000 
drug war murders and deaths in Mexico since January of 2007. President 
Calderon has deployed 45,000 troops and 5,000 Federal police to 18 
Mexican States to help combat these cartels.
  Every week, we read about the gruesome murders of Mexican law 
enforcement officers, many of whom have our own Federal agents serving 
at their side. Currently, FBI and DEA agents receive danger pay in 
Mexico, while U.S. Marshals and ATF agents do not. I believe it is 
outrageous that these agents--our agents--serving their country and 
risking their lives on a daily basis, do not receive this compensation 
like their Department of Justice counterparts.
  This amendment I offer on behalf of myself and Senator Feinstein 
simply brings danger pay parity to the Department of Justice Federal 
law enforcement officers working in dangerous foreign countries. This 
amendment, I believe, has a lot of merit, and although Senator Mikulski 
is not here right now, I believe she would join with me in support of 
this amendment.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:30 p.m., 
the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 2997, the Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration Appropriations Act; that debate time on 
the conference report be limited to 30 minutes, equally divided and 
controlled between Senators Kohl and Brownback or their designees; that 
if points of order are raised, any vote on the motions to waive occur 
beginning upon the use or yielding back of time; and that following the 
disposition of the points of order, and if the motions to waive are 
successful, then at 4 p.m., the Senate then proceed immediately to vote 
on adoption of the conference report; that upon adoption of the 
conference report, the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 2847, 
and the Ensign motion to recommit with 2 minutes prior to a vote in 
relation to the motion, with no amendments in order to the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________