[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 162 (Tuesday, November 3, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11009-S11015]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


            UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2009

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 3548, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3548) to amend the Supplemental Appropriations 
     Act, 2008, to provide for the temporary availability of 
     certain additional emergency unemployment compensation, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Baucus-Reid) amendment No. 2712, in the nature of 
     a substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 2713 (to amendment No. 2712), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 2714 (to amendment No. 2713), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 2715 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2712), to change the enactment 
     date.
       Reid amendment No. 2716 (to amendment No. 2715), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, shortly, we are going to be voting on 
the unemployment compensation bill. I have already taken to the floor 
to urge my colleagues to pass the underlying bill, which provides 14 
weeks of additional benefits to those who will exhaust their 
unemployment compensation. This is an insurance program. The funds are 
there, assessed through the compensation system of our country in order 
that we have money available for those who have lost their jobs during 
a recession, and that is exactly what has happened.
  These are extraordinary times. I know the Presiding Officer will 
agree with me that we have been to our States, and we know there are 
people who are unable to find jobs. This past week, I was at the 
employment office in Baltimore and saw people coming into that office 
in large numbers and asking for jobs. I talked to individuals, saw the 
faces of people who want to work but who can't find jobs. So it is 
critically important for the system to work, and that means we need to 
provide the safety net of unemployment compensation during these times, 
and we need to extend it to all States.
  The bill before us will provide those additional 14 weeks in every 
State. In my own State of Maryland, we have many counties that have 
unemployment rates far in excess of the 8\1/2\ percent, which was the 
trigger number used in the House bill. So it is appropriate we pass 
this bill for the people who will benefit by it, and it is also 
appropriate we pass it to help our economy. We know the dollars that 
are provided through unemployment compensation work their way back into 
our economy, very quickly helping our economy.
  I wish to talk also about the leader's amendment that will extend to 
first-time home buyers a tax credit that would expire at the end of 
this month. I had introduced legislation, along with Senator Isakson, 
to extend the credit for an additional 6 months, and I am pleased that 
provision is included in the leader's amendment that also expands the 
credit for an additional 6 months.
  According to the IRS, 1.4 million people used the credit as of 
September 2009. As many as 40 percent of all home buyers this year will 
qualify for the credit. It has clearly worked according to its intended 
purpose; that is, to get potential home buyers off the sidelines and 
into the market and buying a home. It is estimated that the credit is 
directly responsible for 200,000 to 400,000 purchases this year. 
According to the National Association of Realtors, those additional 
sales have pumped approximately $22 billion into the economy. It is 
getting our economy back on line.
  The credit has succeeded in reducing the glut of homes for sale, but 
it needs to be extended. We still have too much inventory that is out 
there, and it is affecting new home starts, which are critically 
important for our economy. We know the real estate market was the spark 
that put us into this recession. We know that. We know what happened to 
home values. We know what happened to people who were unable to sell 
their homes. We know what happened with foreclosures. We know we need a 
healthy real estate market to get us out of this recession.
  We have seen some signs of improvement and stabilization in the 
market, but we are certainly not out of the woods yet. Inventories are 
still way too high. Dean Baker, codirector for the Center for Economic 
and Policy Research, notes that price declines could resume later this 
fall.
  Quoting Mr. Baker:

       The uptick in sales driven by the credit has led to a 
     substantial increase in the number of homes offered for sale 
     at just the time that the boost from the credit is dwindling. 
     The inventory will also be a much larger drag in the slow-
     selling winter months.

  We know winter is notoriously a slow season, but we have too much 
inventory that is out there. This would be the wrong time for Congress 
to allow this credit to expire.
  Other economists, such as Mark Zandi of Moody's, and James Glassman 
of JPMorgan Chase, support extending the credit.
  The substitute amendment, which I have cosponsored and which is 
similar to the bill I introduced--S. 1678--extends and expands the 
credit to April 30, 2010, for binding contracts and then allows 60 more 
days to close. I think that makes sense. The closing period sometimes 
hampers the use of the credit. For example, if someone was to enter 
into a contract today, even though the credit is there, it is highly 
unlikely they could settle by the end of the month, taking advantage of 
the $8,000 credit. It makes sense to say that as long as you have a 
binding contract by April, you have 2 months later to close in order to 
get the credit.
  The amendment keeps the $8,000 credit for the first-time home buyer 
and then provides a $6,500 credit available to other home buyers who 
have lived in their current homes for at least 5 years. These are the 
step-up sales. These are people who currently own homes, who have lived 
in their home for 5 years, and are now trying to buy another home. You 
can't buy a house and try to flip it to take advantage of the $6,500 
credit. It is a smaller credit than the first-time home buyers', but it 
is still a significant credit and it is available for homes costing up 
to $800,000.
  I don't think there are many homes in the area that will qualify 
under the income limits, but it does allow those to qualify. The income 
limits have been lifted slightly from $75,000 to $125,000 for an 
individual and from $150,000 to $225,000 for joint filers.
  So it takes care of where the market needs help, where there is too 
much inventory, and will allow the credit to, again, tell people: Look, 
the economy needs your help. This is a good time to buy. The government 
is going to be your partner with this $8,000 credit for the first-time 
home buyer and a $6,500 credit for the person who has lived in their 
house for 5 years.
  There are a couple more points that I think need to be underscored. 
The credit is fully paid for. It will not add to the deficit. That is 
an important point, but I would also point out that this credit will 
help stimulate our economy, which will generate economic activity, 
which will help us on our budget deficit. It really does help our 
economy, and it is fully paid for, so it doesn't add to the deficit, 
and that is one of the points I mentioned when I first introduced this 
bill with Senator Isakson--we were going to look for a way to make sure 
it is paid for.
  I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, for 
coming forward with an amendment that is fully paid for, that is 
offset. I believe that is the way it should be.
  The second point I want to bring up is it includes tough antifraud 
language and ``math error'' authority for the IRS to ensure that only 
those individuals and families who qualify for the credit take 
advantage of it. I know we are all concerned about reports we read in 
the paper about potential fraud on this credit. Any fraud is wrong, but 
we know if we set up a new credit there are those who will press the 
point more than they should. We have to make sure the antifraud 
provisions are in this bill so those entitled to this credit are those 
who take advantage of it and it is not used inappropriately. Language 
is included in this amendment to

[[Page S11010]]

make sure that, in fact, happens. It is a bill that is properly 
balanced.
  I wish to make one other point. I heard the chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee said this, and I agree completely. Senator Isakson 
and I talked about this. The credit will end. This is not an extension 
because we believe this is a credit that should be there indefinitely. 
We do not. This credit is to help bring real estate back to where it 
needs to be for our economy to recover. We give until April so that 
people can take advantage of this credit during this tough economic 
time, knowing full well that the winter is going to be a slow season, 
normally, for home sales and in the spring people are more likely to 
start again looking at home sales. We want people to take advantage of 
this now, recognizing that come April this credit will not be extended. 
This is the time to take advantage of this government credit that helps 
you in buying a home.
  As I said earlier, the slump in housing led us into this recession. A 
rebound in the market will lead us out of this recession. Extending the 
credit is a prudent and fiscally responsible measure.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the leader's amendment, and I hope we 
will shortly have an opportunity not only to pass this amendment but to 
pass the underlying bill that will extend unemployment compensation to 
literally, in my State, the tens of thousands of people who otherwise 
will lose their benefits by the end of this month and the 1.4 million 
Americans who will lose their unemployment compensation benefits by the 
end of this year if we do not act.
  For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, any day now the Senate will begin to 
debate a single bill affecting the lives, the wallets, and the health 
of all Americans. Three Senators from the other side of the aisle have 
been working behind closed doors, trying to stitch together yet another 
health reform bill--a bill that will restructure 17 percent of the 
American economy. It is unclear when the other 97 Senators will get to 
see the majority leader's bill.
  As we wait for the opportunity to read the bill, to examine the bill, 
to see what is in it--and the American people are waiting as well--I am 
reminded of a book that I believe still has much to teach us, ``The 
Federalist Papers,'' particularly Federalist 62 authored by James 
Madison. He says this:

       The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more 
     calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty. It will be 
     of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men 
     of their own choice--

  Let's get that over again.

       It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are 
     made by men of their own choice if the laws be so 
     voluminous--

  You have seen this 1900-page House bill--

       That they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot 
     be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are 
     promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man 
     knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be 
     tomorrow.

  That is what we are looking at. The quote strikes a chord with 
everyone who hears it because it summarizes so very well what we are 
facing today in the Congress--in the Senate, in the House--as we are 
dealing with health care and health reform. The House health reform 
bill is nearly 2,000 pages long. The Finance Committee bill is over 
1,500 pages. The HELP Committee bill is over 1,000 pages.
  Some in Washington may believe that drafting a bill in secret and 
then rushing to enact it into law with little debate is the perfect way 
to avoid tough questions and public scrutiny. That plan has not gone as 
intended. The American people are much too smart. As the American 
people began to understand the details, they began to ask the tough 
questions. They know what the Democrats in Congress and the 
administration are trying to do. The American people are not buying it. 
They are not convinced that we should turn over the Nation's private 
health care system to Washington, to bureaucrats, and to the Federal 
Government.
  Of course the American people want reasonable, commonsense health 
insurance reform. We need that. But the American people do not want a 
bill that limits their freedom and bankrupts the country. Fortunately, 
the American people see that the numbers simply do not add up. They 
know that if the reform bills we are debating become law, the health 
care costs are going to go up.
  I go home to Wyoming every weekend. I was there yesterday. People 
continue to ask me: How will all of these health care bills affect me 
and affect my family? Inevitably, the question is followed by a 
statement. It says: Tell those people back in Washington that I want 
them to fix what is wrong with our health care system, but whatever 
they do, that should not make things worse for me and worse for my 
family. I can't afford to pay more for my family's health care.
  I agree completely with the people of Wyoming. Health care costs 
today are rising three times faster than inflation. Especially during 
these economic times, rising health care costs stretch family budgets 
to the limit. It also makes it harder for employers to keep offering 
health benefits to their employees.
  Now the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, 
and the Health and Human Services Office of the Actuary are all telling 
us what the American people already know. They are telling us that if 
we pass the health reform bill that is coming before us, we are going 
to make things worse.
  What exactly did all of these nonpartisan organizations say? On 
September 22 of this year, the Congressional Budget Office sent a 
letter to the Finance Committee chairman, to Chairman Baucus. In the 
letter, the CBO said two important things. No. 1, premiums in the new 
insurance exchanges would tend to be higher than the average premiums 
in the current individual market. This was a bill that was supposed to 
lower costs. No. 2, people with low expected costs for health care 
would generally end up paying higher premiums. Again, that is not where 
we are supposed to be heading. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, the Baucus bill actually causes many individuals and families 
struggling today to afford health insurance to end up paying more.
  In the same letter, the CBO also indicated that tax increases in the 
Baucus bill will make monthly health insurance bills go up, not down.
  During the Finance Committee debate, my friend from Texas, Senator 
Cornyn, asked CBO Director Doug Elmendorf a specific question. He said: 
``Would the new fees on health insurers be passed along to health 
consumers?''
  Dr. Elmendorf responded. ``Our judgment,'' he said, ``is that the new 
fees would raise insurance premiums''--make them go up.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation confirmed exactly what the CBO 
Director had said because during the same Finance Committee debate, the 
Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff said:

       Basic economics is that the fee will be reflected in higher 
     premium costs.

  Who pays the premiums? Obviously the people who are being insured or 
their employees.
  I wish to point out that, like many things in this Baucus bill, this 
new insurance tax system, the new taxes begin in the year 2010--next 
year--a full 3 years before Americans see any benefits, any coverage 
benefits. So they are going to start paying for this years before the 
benefits actually arrive. I thought the goal of health reform was to 
lower the cost for hard-working Americans, not to raise the costs. 
Instead, the respected economists who looked at this are telling us 
that monthly health insurance costs will go up for every single 
American starting next year.
  Next, the Health and Human Services Office of the Actuary, which is 
another nonpartisan, highly respected scorekeeper, took a look at this 
Democratic health reform bill. On October 21, they released a memo 
analyzing the House bill, at the time H.R. 3200. Unfortunately for the 
Democratic leadership and the White House, the news was not good. The 
House bill bends the cost curve up. The expenses go up. According to 
their memo, health care spending will increase if the House bill 
becomes law.
  Here is what they said:


[[Page S11011]]


       In aggregate, we estimate that for calendar years 2010-
     2019, National Health Expenditures would increase by $750 
     billion or 2.1 percent over the updated baseline projection.

  Often the government uses fancy, complex language, so let me be very 
clear about this. They are saying that as national spending on health 
care increases, American families will see their monthly health 
insurance premiums go up.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle will try to tell you the 
data is meaningless. They will try to tell you the taxpayer-funded 
subsidies included in the bill will make the health care premiums more 
affordable. It is fascinating to me that the Democrats do not even try 
to deny that premiums will go up. They admit it. Instead, they tell us 
not to worry about it.
  We should worry about it. The people of Wyoming worry about it. The 
people of America are worried about it. Why? Because hard-working 
American taxpayers and the generations to follow will be forced to pick 
up the tab. I want everyone who is listening to know that the American 
people are not being fooled. They understand that subsidizing something 
does not make it cheaper.
  Not only do the proposals in front of us raise taxes, they slash 
nearly $500 billion from Medicare, from the hard-working Americans who 
have given and sacrificed and who rely on Medicare for their health 
care, and they raise premiums, they raise the cost for people who have 
insurance. They are doing it not to save Medicare but to create an 
entirely new entitlement program.
  Again, my friends on the other side never seem to mention that most 
Americans will not even qualify for these subsidies that are being 
promised. About 160 million Americans get their health insurance 
through an employer. Under the Democratic health reform plans, they 
will not qualify for a Federal Government subsidy. You have to take the 
health insurance your employer gives or buy a policy on your own, 
whether you can afford it or not. That is going to be the law. Either 
way, it will cost you more if this bill becomes law.
  We have not even gotten into the issue of the quality of the care you 
will receive under this new government-run system. The Congressional 
Budget Office also confirmed that almost 5 million American people who 
buy insurance through this new government exchange will not receive any 
help to pay for their insurance. What good are taxpayer-funded 
subsidies to help pay for premium increases when most people don't 
actually qualify for the promised help?
  It sounds to me as if the Baucus bill will stick people with higher 
taxes, will take away their choices, will remove personal freedom, and 
will implement changes that increase their monthly health care costs. 
This is not reform; it is a blatant effort by Washington to take over 
health care in America.
  It is important that Members of Congress and the American people 
fully understand how the Democratic health bills will increase costs, 
so let's go through the list one by one.
  We have already talked about the new tax on health insurance 
providers. Experts tell us this tax will be passed on to patients. 
BlueCross BlueShield of Wyoming tells me this tax will raise monthly 
premiums of families in my State by $500 a year.
  Then there are the new requirements. The Democratic bills all have 
the Federal Government defining what kind of insurance can be sold and 
must be purchased. Well, this makes it illegal for insurers to sell 
certain policies that many people have today, that many people like, 
and that many people want to keep.
  How do they accomplish this? The Democratic bills require most health 
plans to offer products that meet new, higher, specified what are 
called actuarial values and cover an exhaustive list of mandated 
benefits. If you do not know what the term ``actuarial values'' means, 
you are not alone. I have been in the practice of medicine for 25 years 
taking care of families all across Wyoming. I had never heard of it.
  ``Actuarial values'' is a technical term. It stands for the total 
amount of health spending paid for by an insurance plan. In other 
words, the actuarial value of a health plan depends on all of the 
benefits, on any cost sharing that the health plan covers. Actuarial 
values are represented by a percentage. In insurance plans, they can 
range anywhere from 55 percent to 90 percent. Typically, as these 
values increase, the cost increases.
  Well, the health care bill raised this so called actuarial value 
minimum to a standard of 65 percent, which actually is much higher than 
many policies that are sold on the market today. As a result, experts 
tell us that people who buy insurance will pay at least 10 percent more 
just to meet the new standard.
  I am sure the other side of the aisle will try to say: Do not worry. 
We will protect you.
  You know, the idea was that you should be able to keep the insurance 
you have so that your premiums will not go up. But what they do not 
tell you is that you are out of luck if your insurer stops offering 
coverage or if you want to change your policy in any way.
  How might you change your policy? Well, you might add dental care or 
vision benefits. If you want to do any of those changes, you are out of 
luck. Any change to your current insurance policy and the promise that 
``you get to keep what you have if you like it,'' well, that promise 
will not come true.
  Finally, there are some new rules called age rating. They are going 
to drive up the premiums specifically for younger folks. The age rating 
rules limit the amount premiums can vary between healthy younger 
Americans and older individuals. Experts tell us that the Finance 
Committee bill, for example, will cause monthly insurance premiums for 
younger, healthier people who are then going to be subsidizing older 
folks who are sicker--to drive up the premiums of younger folks by 69 
percent. These extreme price increases will force young healthy people 
out of the market. A young person will see that it is cheaper to pay a 
$750 fine annually, what they call a tax penalty, and forget about 
having health insurance than it is to pay $5,000 a year for health 
insurance when, as many young people believe, they will never need it. 
Besides, if this young person does get sick, he or she can always buy 
health insurance later without facing a penalty.
  That is exactly how this bill is written. Without a doubt, the 
policies I have described will cause health insurance costs to go up 
for millions and millions of Americans, and specifically so very much 
for young Americans.
  Plans that the President promised the American people that they could 
keep if they liked, well, we all know the President cannot and will not 
keep that promise. I will give a specific example. In Wyoming, a 
healthy 35-year-old man can go out today and buy a high-deductible 
health insurance policy for about $90 a month.
  Scorekeepers at the Congressional Budget Office estimate this level 
plan in the Finance Committee bill will cost $392 a month. That is a 
huge increase because that is what they are going to be mandated to 
buy. Not one of my constituents can afford to pay 329 percent more for 
their health insurance than they can pay today.
  We can solve the problem of rising medical costs without a government 
takeover of health care. I struggle with the assumption that people 
generally can be trusted to do the right thing and society prospers 
when government has less to say about how people run their lives. 
Others start by assuming that Washington knows best and should take 
more authority over all of us.
  There are better ideas that improve our Nation's health care system, 
commonsense reforms on which all of us can agree. Having practiced 
medicine, taken care of families in Wyoming for 25 years, I would 
prefer a step-by-step approach to reform--simple, commonsense, 
affordable changes that we can implement right away. And all of those 
ought to be centered on the patient, patient centered, not government 
centered: Giving people incentives such as lower costs when they engage 
in healthy behaviors; prohibiting the use of preexisting condition 
clauses; allowing people to take their health insurance with them if 
they change jobs; allowing Americans to buy insurance across State 
lines, to shop for a policy that is best for them, best for their 
family; giving people the same tax breaks that big companies get when

[[Page S11012]]

people buy their insurance policies individually; dealing with abusive 
lawsuits and the situation there that involves doctors ordering many 
tests that do not necessarily help the patient stay healthy but help 
protect the doctor in case of a suit; and allowing small businesses to 
pool together in order to offer health insurance to their employees at 
a more reasonable cost to the employees as well as to the business.
  The time has come to work together for meaningful reform. I think 
most Americans would prefer that we get these reforms right than pass a 
2,000-page bill--a bill that raises taxes, a bill that cuts Medicare, a 
bill that costs $1 trillion, and a bill that represents a Washington 
takeover of health care.
  The American people want better. The American people deserve better. 
The American people deserve nothing less.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I would like to talk about health care as 
well, and I brought a few pages that the American people would be 
interested in. This stack closest to the podium is actually the House 
bill, the 2,000-page House bill. On this side is what we are working 
off of so far on the Senate side because what has been put together has 
been put together behind closed doors, and it has not been released 
yet. I assume that is because they do not know the cost and what 
adjustments will have to be made in order to meet the cost 
requirements, although it is an extension of cost of probably $1 
trillion.
  I wonder if there is anybody in America who believes we can expand 
programs by $1 trillion and it will not cost a dime for the rest of us. 
But at any rate, the stacks over here are the ones from the Senate 
side. The little bottom stack down there is the Senate HELP bill. Then 
this is the Senate Finance bill, the 1,600-page bill, although when we 
were actually debating this bill in committee, we did not know how big 
the bill would be because we worked off a 220-page summary and did 
summary amendments.
  So this is the first time we have actually got to look at a final 
product. What is interesting about doing a summary bill is that the 
amendments are done in summary. If an amendment does happen to pass by 
the minority, then it is written by the majority, and the devil is 
always in the details. So we are very anxious to see, although there 
were not a lot of amendments that we got passed there.

  What I mostly want to talk about today is the impact on small 
business. The status quo in health care is unacceptable. Health care 
costs are skyrocketing, insurance premiums are increasing, and too many 
small businesses can no longer afford to offer health insurance to 
their workers.
  While I agree we need to change our current system, the approach 
reflected in the current health reform bills is the wrong answer. That 
is these bills. Quite a stack of papers. Very encompassing. Very 
comprehensive. This is going to affect every single American. We have 
never had a bill that affected every single American, and that is why 
it is so complicated. That is why it is so large. That is why it is so 
hard to deal with. That is why there will be so many mistakes as we go 
through a pile like that trying to make a few amendments that will 
improve the bill. They need a lot of amendments that will improve the 
bill.
  So while I agree we need to change our current system, the approach 
reflected in the current health reform bills is the wrong answer. I 
object to the current health care reform bills not because I support 
the status quo but because the bills do nothing to address the problems 
of increasing costs and premiums. These bills will not reduce health 
care costs and will actually increase insurance premiums for most 
Americans.
  I have fought for years to enact commonsense reforms that would help 
slow health care cost growth and make the insurance market work better, 
particularly for small businesses. Before I entered politics, my wife 
and I ran a small business. We had shoe stores. We know firsthand how 
hard it is to meet payroll and provide meaningful benefits to 
employees. I understand how the current insurance market fails to meet 
the needs of many small businesses.
  That is why I fought for real reforms that will actually help small 
businesses. In 2006, I introduced a small business health plan bill 
that would have saved the taxpayers about $1 billion and would have 
provided health insurance to almost 1 million people.
  The bill would have made commonsense reforms to the insurance market 
and given more leverage to small businesses to help them negotiate 
lower insurance premiums. The insurance industry, working closely with 
many of my Democratic colleagues fought to defeat my bill. 
Unfortunately, they were successful. We could not pass the cloture 
motion to proceed; we were short about three votes. Had we been able to 
get those three votes, we would have been able, with one amendment, to 
clear up the objections that were made during the cloture debate.
  Since 2006, little has changed in the insurance marketplace. Health 
care costs and premiums continue to spiral upwards. The Kaiser Family 
Foundation reports that costs for small businesses with less than 200 
employees--I consider that to be a pretty big business--rose by 4.7 
percent from 2006 to 2007, 2.2 percent from 2007 to 2008, 5 percent 
from 2008 to 2009, and they are expected to rise next year.
  Small businesses cannot continue to sustain these types of price 
increases. They need and want reform and Congress should deliver 
reform. Congress should pass a bill that decreases the cost of health 
care and reduces insurance premiums across the board, not just for the 
poor, not just for the uninsured.
  Unfortunately, the bills that Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid and 
President Obama are pushing through Congress will do little to address 
spiraling health care costs and will actually increase the insurance 
premiums most Americans pay for their health care.
  Even worse, increases in premiums will come at a time of rising 
unemployment. The 2,000-page Pelosi bill and the 1,500-page Senate 
Finance bill will drive up costs, increase taxes, and expand the size 
of government. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the 
administration's own official actuaries, the National Association of 
State Insurance Commissioners, and at least six other private studies 
have all reported that the Democratic leadership bills will drive up 
costs.
  Actuaries at the consulting firm, Oliver Wyman, which did one of the 
studies, estimated these bills will increase premiums for small 
business by at least 20 percent. WellPoint, the largest Blue Cross Blue 
Shield plan in the Nation, looked at their actual claims experience in 
the 14 States in which they operate and concluded that premiums for 
healthier small businesses will increase in all 14 States; in Nevada by 
as much as 108 percent.
  Even the Congressional Budget Office has said:

       Premiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be 
     higher than the average premiums in the current-law 
     individual market.

  Let me say again what the Congressional Budget Office said:

       Premiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be 
     higher than the average premiums in the current-law 
     individual market

  When the 85 percent of Americans who already have health insurance 
hear the term ``health care reform,'' they want Washington to do 
something that lowers the cost of their health insurance premiums.
  Unfortunately, the bills Congress has developed will do the exact 
opposite. Our economy can't take the higher taxes, higher unemployment, 
and higher mandates these bills impose. Taken together, the new taxes, 
mandates, and regulations in these bills will cumulatively increase 
health insurance premiums for millions of Americans who currently have 
health insurance. These higher taxes, higher premiums, and higher costs 
are not the change the American people voted for. Unemployment is 
higher than it has been in decades. The housing market is in distress, 
and more and more middle-class Americans are feeling squeezed by 
irresponsible decisions being made in Washington. We all agree the 
health insurance market is broken and needs to be fixed. Everyone who 
wants health

[[Page S11013]]

insurance should be able to get it. They should not have to spend all 
of their hard-earned savings to do so. No American should be denied 
health insurance because they have cancer, diabetes, or some other 
preexisting condition. No one should be denied health insurance, 
period. These reforms are very important and long overdue.
  We also need to enact commonsense reforms similar to the reforms I 
advocated in 2006 with small business health plans and then in 2007 and 
2008 with my plan for 10 steps to transform health care in America. 
That was a step-by-step process that would get us to where all the 
promises are being made. It is on my Web site.
  I urge the Democratic leadership to go back to the drawing board to 
develop bipartisan health care solutions that will actually reduce 
costs and make health insurance more affordable for small businesses 
and most Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


            national Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009

  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I rise to give my colleagues a progress 
report on the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009, the 
goal of which is to create a blue ribbon national commission to take a 
long overdue and comprehensive look at our criminal justice system. 
This week the full Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider this 
bill, and the markup would not have taken place without the strong 
support of Chairman Leahy and Senators Hatch, Graham, Durbin, and 
Specter, all of whom have championed this bill. I express my 
appreciation to them and to other Members for all of the input and 
cooperation they have given.
  I wish to begin by revisiting the problem that drove this 
legislation. This is a chart that shows the incarceration rate in the 
United States compared to other countries. I don't think a lot of 
Americans are aware that we have 5 percent of the world's population 
but 25 percent of the world's known prison population. When I wrote 
about the Japanese prison system as a journalist 25 years ago, Japan, 
with half our population, had only 40,000 people in prison. At that 
time, we had 580,000. Today we have more than 2.38 million prisoners in 
our criminal justice system and another 5 million involved in the 
process either on probation or parole. That is 7 million Americans 
involved in the criminal justice process.
  It is important for us to understand, as we think about a way to fix 
it, that this is a relatively recent phenomenon in American history. We 
have not always had this type of incarceration rate. It stems from 
about 1980. Before that time--this chart goes all the way back to 
1925--we had a fairly consistent incarceration rate. In this period, 
for a number of reasons--one of them being the fact that as we changed 
a lot of our policies toward mandatory confinement of the mentally ill; 
our prisons have absorbed a tremendous population of mentally ill--we 
have four times as many people in prison in the United States who are 
mentally ill than we do in mental institutions today. They are not 
getting the care they need, and they are also clogging up the prison 
system. Also if we go back to 1980, when I showed on the chart the 
beginning of this dramatic escalation of people in prison, we only had 
41,000 people in our prison system for drug offenses. Today that number 
is up to 500,000. This is State prisons, a comparison from 1980 to 
today. These are local jails, and these are Federal prisons.
  At the same time--and it is important for us to say this--as we look 
at our criminal justice system, people don't feel any safer. This chart 
shows the percentage of Americans who believe crime is more prevalent 
than a year ago. In 2009, more than 70 percent in this country believe 
crime is more prevalent than it was a year ago. We have two phenomena 
here. We are locking up more people on a percentage basis than anyone 
else in the world. We have 7 million Americans involved in the criminal 
justice process, yet we don't feel any safer.
  I have two theories about why this fear is prevalent in America's 
neighborhoods. Both of them speak for the need for this type of 
commission. The first is that we have been locking up far too many 
people, people whose transgressions could have been dealt with in more 
creative ways. As a result, we have hundreds of thousands of people who 
have been released from prison each year and are reentering American 
society hardened by their prison experience and without the kind of 
structured programs that would allow them to become productive 
citizens. They become recidivists. So we have more people involved in 
the criminal process than we would otherwise, and they are threatening 
our neighborhoods.
  The second is that gangs have grown in size and impact, including 
sophisticated transnational drug cartels operating in cities across 
America. It is estimated that Mexican drug cartels alone are operating 
in at least 230 American cities and not simply along the border. 
Incidents on the border illuminate the severity of the problem, but 
clearly it is not a border problem. It is a national problem, and it is 
not simply a problem with Mexican gangs. In northern Virginia alone, it 
is estimated there are 4,000 members of MS-13, a Central American gang; 
4,000 members is about 3 battalions of marines. Gangs are estimated to 
commit 80 percent of the crime in some locations. They are in many 
cases the primary retail distributors of drugs. Gang violence that 
affects so many of our communities speaks to the need to make sure our 
law enforcement officials have the time and the energy to dedicate to 
going after the major problems that threaten communities--resources and 
the policies they need to go after violent crime.
  The hundreds of thousands of men and women leaving prisons and jails 
today to return to our communities speaks volumes about the need to 
reexamine the availability of and the support for community corrections 
programs, including reentry programs, probation, and parole policies.
  Once we started talking about these issues on my staff, as part of 
the Joint Economic Committee, holding hearings over the past more than 
2 years, we began receiving messages, communications, and having 
contact with people from all across the country, people from every 
different aspect of the political and philosophical arenas that come 
into play wherever we talk about criminal justice and incarceration. It 
is an emotional issue from across the philosophical spectrum. I heard 
personally from Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court, from prosecutors, 
judges, defense lawyers, former offenders, people in prison, police on 
the street. All of them agree we need an interrelated examination, a 
national commission to examine the criminal justice system and to come 
up with different types of approaches.
  As former Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton noted in his 
testimony in support of the commission:

       We cannot use arrests as our only tool to deal with the 
     crime problem . . . our problems are systemic, widespread, 
     and growing, and only a singularly focused blue ribbon 
     commission comprised of informed practitioners, scholars, 
     policymakers and civil rights activists can adequately 
     address the calculated formation of intervention and 
     prevention strategies. Formation of this important commission 
     is a major and essential step in the right direction.

  That was from Los Angeles police chief and one of the most highly 
respected law enforcement officials in the country, William Bratton.
  I introduced the National Criminal Justice Commission Act in March. 
The criminal justice commission would examine all of the elements 
involved in criminal justice in those specified areas which could then 
be voted on by the Congress. When this legislation becomes law, the 
first step for the commission will be to address a series of specific 
findings and to recommend policy changes. The commission will bring the 
greatest minds in the country together with a specific timeline to make 
specific findings and then give those recommendations regarding the 
entire gamut of the criminal justice system.

  Since I have introduced the bill, we have gained the support of 35 
Members of this body. We have also engaged in a dialog with more than 
100 organizations across the political and philosophical spectrum, as 
diverse as the Heritage Foundation, the Sentencing Project, the 
Fraternal Order of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, 
the Cato Institute, the

[[Page S11014]]

NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Correctional 
Association, the Prison Fellowship, the American Probation and Parole 
Association, and many others across the entire political spectrum. We 
have listened. We have learned. We have incorporated many suggestions 
and modifications to the bill.
  For example, in the initial findings of the bill, we incorporated 
suggestions that we include the number of crime victims, advances in 
policing policies, decreases in violent crime and property crime, and 
the protection of civil rights and liberties. We added an examination 
of changes in policing as a result of 9/11, the cost and benefits of 
prevention and diversion programs, and an examination of the 
availability of reentry programs. We also added requests that the 
commission identify effective practices in reducing crime and assisting 
victims; that it decrease, where possible, racial, ethnic, and gender 
disparities; and that it help law enforcement address the challenges 
stemming from combating terrorism and promoting homeland security.
  We also expanded, importantly, the number of commission members to 
ensure better representation of State and local government. I wish to 
spend a minute on this for the understanding of my colleagues. This 
commission is designed to be bipartisan. It is to be composed of 13 
members: the chairman, appointed by the President; four members coming 
from State and local governments, appointed by the President in 
agreement with the minority and majority leader and the Speaker of the 
House; 2 members appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, in 
consultation with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary; 2 
members appointed by the Speaker of the House with the same process; 2 
members appointed by the minority leader of the Senate; 2 members 
appointed by the minority leader of the House. It will be a 7-6 
commission.
  Through the course of many meetings, we found a solid consensus in 
support of a comprehensive review of the system. This represents our 
best effort to set politics aside and to find solutions that will allow 
us to ensure the safety of our communities while being smart about how 
we deal with crime in America.
  Again, I appreciate the chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
scheduling a markup on this bill. I commend it to my colleagues and 
hope we can all join together in passing it this year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Afghanistan

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, yesterday Afghanistan's Independent 
Election Committee announced that a runoff election is no longer 
necessary, which means Afghan President Hamid Karzai has secured a 
second term.
  Whatever your feelings about President Karzai, this peaceful 
resolution of Afghanistan's electoral mess should have brought a sigh 
of relief for anyone waiting with bated breath for our own 
administration's decision on whether to support General McChrystal's 
troop request, whether to support the President's plan for Afghanistan.
  After all, according to the White House, President Obama's decision 
was ``weeks away'' because he was waiting to announce a decision until 
after the Afghan election was decided. But yesterday I read in the New 
York Times that the White House Press Secretary said the President's 
announcement was, once again, ``weeks away.'' This is beginning to 
sound a little bit like Charlie Brown and the football, only the game 
the White House is playing has deadly consequences.
  While the White House continues to dither and delay in Washington, 
American heroes and our Afghan allies are dying on the battlefield.
  Last month was the bloodiest month in Afghanistan since the war 
started. As the people of Afghanistan see America's will waiver in 
Washington, the terrorists gain strength.
  General McChrystal said last July we have only about 12 months to get 
in the troops necessary to reverse the momentum the Taliban has gained 
because their forces overwhelm the number of ISAF and trained Afghan 
troops we have on the field.
  It is going to take some time, once a decision is made, to get the 
troops we need there to support General McChrystal's implementation of 
the President's plan.
  So I call on President Obama to end this deadly indecision. Mr. 
President, please recommit to the very strategy you announced in March. 
Recommit to the ``war of necessity,'' as you so eloquently--and 
rightly--called by name the conflict our troops are engaged in, in the 
villages and mountains of Afghanistan.
  In addition to calling on the President to end the delay, I call on 
the pundits here in Washington to abandon their excuses to justify 
further delay. We have heard excuse after excuse, constant attempts to 
justify delay by some in the media and some on the far left. The latest 
red herring was the Afghan elections. Now that the election is 
resolved, the next excuse is corruption in Kabul.
  Don't get me wrong. I agree that corruption must be tackled. In fact, 
I outlined the need to take on corruption in the ``Roadmap to Success'' 
for the region that I sent to then President-elect Obama, the Defense 
Department and the intelligence agencies and his national security team 
last November. But don't forget this critical truth: ``All politics is 
local,'' and so is security.
  Everyone in Washington is all too familiar with that truth, but it is 
undeniable in the mountains and villages in Afghanistan. The Taliban is 
not waiting for a Jeffersonian democracy to flourish in Kabul as they 
continue to kill our troops and attack the people of Afghanistan.
  Yes, we must tackle corruption at every level. There are lots of 
other challenges we must take. But security in Afghanistan will not 
come from Kabul. It has to be built village by village, valley by 
valley. The knowledgeable professionals who advise us in public and in 
classified sessions have told me, time and time again, that security 
must come first.
  I have spoken on this floor many times about the need for smart 
power. That is military power backed by economic development, better 
governance, the provision of basic services. But that additional 
element--all the other things besides military force--awaits the 
establishment of security so the people we are working with can feel 
secure and not be subject to intimidation by the Taliban.
  For too long, the international community has been too fixated on the 
machinations of Kabul and questions about various leaders who have been 
elected by the people of Afghanistan and not focused enough on the 
fights in the villages and the valleys.
  I am proud to say our brave American National Guard units in 
provinces in Afghanistan are showing what can be done when you provide 
security, along with the economic development tools to provide a better 
life and a way forward without the Taliban control over their 
communities.
  We will only succeed when the people of Afghanistan feel secure from 
the intimidation and violence of the Taliban, when Afghan forces can be 
developed to the point where they can protect the population for good, 
when local governance begins to deliver schools, wells, and fundamental 
institutions for economic development and justice.
  These institutions, from national security forces to economic 
development, to the institutions of justice--courts, jails, cops--will 
only stay if Kabul organizes itself to support them. But the progress 
we must commit to now is a necessary precondition. It is imperative in 
the rural areas now and all the regions to establish that security. 
Then it is important for them to work from the bottom up to secure the 
government they want in the capital.
  The time for excuses is over. Every day we delay, the enemy grows 
stronger. Our troops and allies, who are beginning to be dispirited by 
our delay, are essentially being told: Wait. We are not sure what you 
are doing is worthwhile. The people of Afghanistan whom we are counting 
on to side with us rather than the Taliban are beginning to wonder: Is 
the United States going to pull out again, like we have done too often 
in the past?
  The President and this Congress need to send a signal today to the 
Afghan people that America will not abandon them in this critical fight 
against terrorism. Our allies need to know we will remain by their 
sides to defeat this

[[Page S11015]]

enemy together. Our enemies need to know they cannot wait us out, that 
America will be strong.
  If we fail to deliver this message and to commit the troops General 
McChrystal has asked for, the dangers are very real. Let there be no 
doubt, from everything we have heard, everything we have learned, if we 
do not send the additional troops, if we try to stand off and use a 
fire-and-fallback policy--that failed in Iraq until we brought in the 
counterinsurgency strategy that our NATO allies tried without success 
in Afghanistan--not only will the Taliban come back in, they will come 
over the mountains, and Taliban rule will be established in 
Afghanistan. With Taliban rule comes their sometimes witting, sometimes 
unwitting allies--al-Qaida--which will use it to establish the same 
kind of base they had in Afghanistan prior to the 9/11 attacks. Failure 
will embolden the enemies of freedom who launched the attacks of 9/11 
from Afghanistan.
  I call on President Obama to end this indecision, commit to his own 
strategy--which he announced so powerfully last March and which I was 
proud to support on the floor--and show the American people and our 
allies the same resolve and determination I heard in his words this 
past spring. He said:

       Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot 
     outlast us, and we will defeat you.

  It is time we delivered on that promise.


                       Czech and Slovak Republics

  Madam President, I also have a statement in recognition of the 
tremendous success that has occurred in the Czech Republic and the 
Slovak Republic since 1989. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1989, 
the people of Czechoslovakia joined together to oust communism and 
adopt democracy.
  We have seen tremendous success in the past 20 years. Remarkable 
changes have taken place, as both the Czech Republic and the Slovak 
Republic have sought and achieved membership in NATO and moved to the 
kind of progress and peace we expected for them.
  In 1989 the former Soviet Union was in the final throes of a slow 
demise which concluded in 1991. Many of the former Soviet republics 
were in a state of uncertainty as the situation deteriorated further.
  In the fall and winter of 1989, the people of Czechoslovakia joined 
many other recently separated republics and chose to oust communism and 
adopt democracy through the Velvet Revolution. Twenty years ago the 
country then known as Czechoslovakia freed itself of communist control, 
instituted democratic elections, and set out to adapt its command 
economy to the free market.
  The remarkable swiftness which ushered out the former government 
while maintaining relative order and peace was inspiring to the world 
as we watched apprehensively the events unfolding. Czechoslovakia's 
move away from communism and toward greater political independence, led 
to the eventual separation of the country into the current Czech 
Republic and Slovak Republic.
  During the past 20 years, remarkable change has taken place as both 
the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic have sought and achieved 
membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. The Czech 
Republic was accepted as a member of NATO in 1999, as was the Slovak 
Republic in 2004. Both nations are now formal members of both NATO and 
the United Nations, and their military units now contribute to 
important missions throughout the globe and continue to play a 
strategic role in the region.
  Furthermore, the Czech Republic has a local tie near to my heart 
associated with its NATO admission. The documents of admission were 
signed at the Presidential library of Missouri's own President Truman 
in Independence, MO. As we work to pursue our mutual interests, I wish 
both the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic continued success and 
prosperity as we work toward mutual goals.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________