[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 7 (Thursday, January 21, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S72-S105]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           INCREASING THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the

[[Page S73]]

Senate will resume consideration of H.J. Res. 45, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 45) increasing the statutory 
     limit on the public debt.

  Pending:

       Baucus (for Reid) amendment No. 3299, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Baucus amendment No. 3300 (to amendment No. 3299), to 
     protect Social Security.
       Thune amendment No. 3301 (to amendment No. 3299), to 
     terminate authority under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Landrieu.) The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. We are now on the debt limit legislation. In a second I 
will cease speaking so the Senator from Utah can address the Senate.
  I think we are making progress. Three amendments are now pending. The 
first is the substitute amendment raising the debt limit amount; 
second, an amendment by the Senator from South Dakota on TARP; and 
third, an amendment by this Senator to protect Social Security. We 
anticipate the Senators from North Dakota and New Hampshire will be 
offering their amendment to create a budget commission sometime midday 
today. I am hopeful the Senate can schedule votes on my Social Security 
amendment, the Conrad-Gregg commission amendment, and, perhaps, the 
pending Thune amendment as well early this afternoon. We are hopeful we 
can continue to process amendments, with the goal of wrapping up this 
legislation early next week.
  Before I take a few moments to describe the amendment I offered 
yesterday to protect Social Security, I yield the floor so the Senator 
from Utah may address the Senate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 3301

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the Finance 
Committee for his courtesy. He has always been most accommodating, even 
to those of us who disagree with him. That contributes to a sense of 
comity in the Senate. I am grateful to him.
  I am in favor of the Thune amendment, which will be voted on sometime 
this afternoon. I do not come to this brand new. This is an amendment I 
cosponsored with Senator Thune back in October 2009. It has to do with 
the question of the survival or continuation of TARP. My constituents 
are often confused as to what TARP is. There is an attempt many times 
to wrap the whole question of bailout together in any vote that has to 
do with the expenditure of Federal funds, in the face of the financial 
crisis we faced last year, as being called a bailout. So I explain to 
my constituents that there is a significant difference between TARP and 
stimulus funds or bailout funds that were spent outside TARP and take 
them back to the definition of what TARP stands for. We use so many 
acronyms around here that we sometimes confuse voters. Since I was part 
of the negotiations that produced the bill known as TARP, I wish to lay 
that predicate for a moment. TARP stands for Troubled Asset Relief 
Program. We were focusing, at the time that bill was passed, on the 
impact of troubled assets on the financial system.
  Those who were present when Chairman Bernanke and Treasury Secretary 
Paulson spoke to us will remember that they came to the Congress and 
said: We are facing a crisis, and we have 4 days before there is an 
entire meltdown worldwide. One of my colleagues made the comment: I 
feel as though I am in a ``James Bond'' movie with this kind of threat 
hanging over us.
  So a group of us who were members of the Banking Committee met under 
the leadership of Chairman Dodd and began the discussion. I will make 
it clear, the discussion was completely bipartisan. There was no 
attempt on the part of anybody, with maybe one or two exceptions, to do 
any kind of partisan gamesmanship. It was, we are focusing on the 
problem and what we have to do to deal with it. The proposal was made 
by the Secretary of the Treasury that he had to be equipped with the 
authority to stand before the entire world and say: I have authority 
from the Treasury to spend $700 billion to deal with this problem of 
troubled assets.
  I called an economist whose judgment I trust before I entered into 
those activities and said: Tell me if this is going to work.
  His first comment was: I am afraid $700 billion may not be enough. 
Because the crisis is so serious and the challenge to the confidence of 
the banking system so deep, we do need something very dramatic, and 
$700 billion might not be dramatic enough.
  But then he made a comment which I found very useful: But, in fact, 
Senator, the Treasury Department cannot shovel $700 billion out the 
door in any kind of rapid pattern. So this is more of a public 
relations kind of statement than it is a practical matter.
  I said: OK, how fast could the Treasury spend the money in an effort 
to start acquiring these troubled assets and deal with this problem?
  He said: $50 billion a month is probably the fastest people could 
spend the money, actually disburse the money.
  So when we got into the meeting and started discussing what became 
TARP, I made the proposal, instead of giving them $700 billion, since 
they can only disburse $50 billion a month, why don't we give them $250 
billion, which is 5 months' worth, and see if it works. The response 
that came back from Secretary Paulson's office was: $250 billion will 
not satisfy the marketplace as a whole that we are serious.
  I went back to the comment, again, of my economist friend who said 
even $700 billion might not be enough.
  Without going into any further details, we went through the situation 
and came up with a solution that was accepted in a bipartisan fashion. 
I said: All right. We will give Secretary Paulson his $700 billion 
headline. We will allow him to say the Congress has authorized the 
Treasury Department to spend $700 billion dealing with this problem of 
troubled assets. However, the fine print makes it clear, they are only 
going to have authority for $350 billion without coming back to 
Congress to get approval for the second $350 billion. So the headline 
was there. Secretary Paulson was able to get on the telephone and call 
all the central bankers all over the world and say: The Congress is 
going to approve $700 billion of authority. But the fine print said: 
You are going to break it up into two tranches, the first 350 for 
immediate disbursal--and, again, that will take months to do--and then 
come back for the second 350 after you see how it works.
  In the Senate, we approved that by a large margin and it went 
forward. I voted for that first tranche of 350 because I was convinced 
the challenge was there and the crisis was real.
  Looking back on it and having testimony from a wide range of 
economists and observers before the Banking Committee, I am convinced 
that first vote was the right vote. The crisis was there, and the $700 
billion headline did indeed avert the crisis.
  Then, the administration came back and said: We need the authority 
for the second $350 billion. At that point, I felt the crisis had 
passed, and I looked at the way the administration had handled the 
first 350, which was different than what we were told, and I said: I am 
not going to vote to approve the second 350. I don't think you can make 
a case for the second 350, in the face of the facts we have before us, 
that is, in any way, as compelling as the case for the first 350. So I 
voted against the second 350.
  Then, we saw this start to be used in ways that were never, ever 
discussed when we adopted that first tranche of 350. We saw it used for 
the auto bailout after the Congress refused to appropriate money for 
the auto bailout. We said: OK. These are not necessarily troubled 
assets of the kind that TARP was supposed to address, but it is 
something we are going to do. As a result of that, the auto companies 
got $25 billion and the U.S. Treasury got stock in two bankrupt 
companies--not my idea of a good deal for the taxpayers. Then we have 
seen stimulus packages and other bailout packages and other activities 
and the TARP money being used in a variety of different ways contrary 
to what we were told at the time we made the first decision.
  One of the issues that was important to understand about that first 
decision was, we were going to acquire assets and that when the crisis 
passed, those assets could be liquidated and money would come back into 
the Treasury. Yes, money would go out to the tune of $350 billion, but 
as the crisis passed,

[[Page S74]]

money would come back, we hoped, to the tune of $350 billion and maybe 
even more because there was interest to be paid on those areas where 
there were loans. There were warrants that were established on those 
areas where there were investments. The assets themselves were assumed 
to have more value than they might have when we acquired them. There 
were economic studies at the time that said the taxpayers will make 
money off TARP. We will get the money back with interest, with 
additional revenue.
  That has started to come to pass. At least of that first tranche of 
TARP, the money has started to come back. Over $100 billion has come 
back for a variety of reasons. In some cases, because the firms are 
capable now of paying it back; in some cases, because the firms want to 
get out from under the control of the Treasury, the control that goes 
with having a Treasury investment, the money is coming back in.
  In that meeting where we decided we would do the 350 rather than the 
full 700, we made another decision. It was very clear to all Senators 
in that meeting and who drafted that bill--and I was not one of the 
ones who drafted it; I am not a lawyer; that was handed over to 
others--when the money comes back, it can be used for only one purpose. 
That purpose is to pay down the national debt. If we are going to raise 
the national debt by $350 billion, when we get the $350 billion back, 
it should go solely to retire the debt that was created when the money 
went out. Everyone agreed to that. I believed that was written into the 
bill. So it came as a great surprise to me, as the money started to 
come back, that Secretary Geithner said: We are going to recycle it. We 
are going to use it for other kinds of rescues, other kinds of 
financial circumstances.
  Along with many of my colleagues who were privy to the original 
discussion, I said: Wait a minute. That is not what the law says. The 
law says, as it comes back, it has to go to pay down the national debt.
  No, said Secretary Geithner in the hearing, that is not the way our 
lawyers interpret it. Our lawyers look at this and say: You in the 
Congress gave us the authority to recycle this and spend it on other 
things, in addition to the original crisis.
  It is for that reason, among others, that I joined with Senator Thune 
in offering an amendment earlier last year, earlier in this Congress, 
saying, no, we are going to end TARP on December 31, which was the 
original date we set for this. We were unsuccessful in that amendment. 
Now we are going to try again. We are going to offer the amendment that 
says: All right. We feel there has been a bait and switch. We feel this 
administration has changed the rules from the way we thought we wrote 
them. There may even, indeed, be a lawsuit here, because if the law 
says what we believe it said, the administration is breaking the law. 
But let's deal with this in a congressional way. Let's simply end TARP 
right now, making it clear that the money, as it comes back, cannot be 
used for any other purpose.
  The underlying resolution to which this amendment is being offered is 
one to raise the national debt. This amendment is one that will take 
steps to lower the national debt. I think it is consistent with the 
history. It is certainly consistent with the history I have had on this 
issue trying to deal with the TARP problem right from the very 
beginning. I think it is the right thing to do.
  I am grateful to Senator Thune for offering this amendment. I am 
happy to be one of the lead cosponsors, as I was previously when we 
tried to sunset TARP on December 31. I will do everything I can to try 
to convince my colleagues that while the recession clearly continues, 
the crisis that spawned TARP is over. There is no international 
financial crisis of confidence in the banking system anymore. The 
crisis of the toxic assets that had us worried about having only 4 days 
to act has passed. Yet the instrument that was created to deal with 
that crisis lives on under a new heading being used for new purposes. 
It is, indeed, an example of bait and switch.
  For that reason, I urge my colleagues to get behind the Thune 
amendment, which we will vote on later today, recognize that a promise 
made to the taxpayers a little more than a year ago is a promise we 
need to keep. Responsible government says, when we are debating 
increasing the debt limit, a step that will reduce the national debt is 
clearly one we ought to take.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I thank my colleague, Senator Bennett 
from Utah, for his statement. He makes some very good points. Although 
I will not be able to support the amendment, I wish to say his 
presentation and the points he is making are quite good.


                           Amendment No. 3300

  Madam President, I have an amendment which I would like to explain. 
It is very simple. It will protect Social Security from cuts in the 
fast-track process proposed to be created in the Conrad-Gregg 
amendment.
  It is clear from the public statements of Senators Conrad and Gregg, 
they have painted a big red target on Social Security and Medicare. 
That is what this commission is all about. It is a big roll of the dice 
for Social Security and Medicare.
  Millions of American seniors rely on Social Security. Social Security 
is a commitment to America's seniors. I might say, if we did not have 
Social Security, as to estimates I have seen, about half of American 
seniors today would be living in poverty. Social Security basically has 
kept a lot of senior Americans from living in poverty. We should, 
therefore, prevent a fast-track process from reneging on Social 
Security's commitment to those people and putting a lot of people back 
in poor economic straits.
  Numerous groups representing seniors have called for excluding Social 
Security from this fast-track process.
  AARP, for one, recommends that Social Security be excluded from the 
commission's deliberations. This is what AARP says:

       [W]e urge that Social Security not be considered in the 
     context of debt reduction; this program does not contribute 
     to the annual deficit, and its long-term solvency can be 
     resolved by relatively modest adjustments if they are made 
     sooner rather than later.

  The National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare also 
focused on Social Security, arguing that it is inappropriate for such a 
commission. Here is what they wrote:

       Incorporating Social Security into such a commission would 
     signal to America's seniors that the President is willing, 
     and even eager, to cut Social Security benefits. Ultimately, 
     older Americans will accept changes in Social Security only 
     if they have a voice in the decision and feel confident that 
     changes are solely for the purpose of improving and 
     strengthening the program. For this reason, Social Security 
     solvency should not be taken up in the context of a fiscal 
     commission.

  A consortium of groups from the AFL-CIO to Common Cause, to NOW, once 
again, focused on the problems with allowing the budget commission to 
change Social Security. Here is what they wrote:

       [A]n American public that only recently rejected 
     privatization of Social Security will undoubtedly be 
     suspicious of a process that shuts them out of all decisions 
     regarding the future of a retirement system that's served 
     them well in the current financial crisis.

  The idea of excluding Social Security from fast-track processes is 
not new. Congress already excludes Social Security from the fast-track 
reconciliation process.
  The text of my amendment is very similar to a provision that appears 
right now in section 310(g) of the Congressional Budget Act. That 
Budget Act section prohibits using reconciliation to make cuts to 
Social Security. That is in the law today. My amendment would do the 
same for the fast-track procedures in the Conrad-Gregg amendment.
  The Senate added the Budget Act section on which my amendment is 
patterned to the law in 1985. Senator Hawkins of Florida offered the 
amendment, and the Senate adopted it by voice vote on October 8, 1985. 
It has been the law for nearly 25 years.
  Let me read from some of the debate that occurred that day in 1985. 
Much of that debate is directly relevant to the amendment I propose 
today.
  Senator Hawkins explained the purpose of her amendment. She said:

       This amendment states that changes in Social Security 
     cannot be made in reconciliation.

  Senator Hawkins continued:

       The whole idea behind removing Social Security from the 
     unified budget is to make

[[Page S75]]

     changes in the program based on the needs and constraints of 
     the program itself and not for short-term budgetary reasons. 
     Social Security is self-financed and has long-term goals. It 
     should not be subject to the same constraints of programs 
     competing for scarce general revenue funds. If my amendment 
     is . . . adopted, it does not mean that changes in Social 
     Security could never be made. It merely means that if and 
     when changes are made to Social Security, it would not be in 
     the context of the budget.

  Senator Heinz of Pennsylvania supported the Hawkins amendment. Here 
is what Senator Heinz said. This is 1985:

       I think we first do agree that the legislation needs 
     language that does what the Senator from Florida suggests 
     this does; namely, to put an extra lock on the door so no one 
     can say that Social Security is going to end up in 
     reconciliation. That is the intent.

  Senator Heinz continued:

       This language . . . does a very important job by making a 
     point of order in order against any reconciliation bill that 
     comes to the floor with Social Security cuts in it.

  Senator Heinz made clear that under the provision the Senate was 
adding to the Budget Act, Congress could still make changes to Social 
Security, just not in a fast-track vehicle. Senator Heinz went on to 
say:

       [T]he Finance Committee retains jurisdiction over the 
     programs involving the Social Security Act. And were it 
     required, for reasons having to do with solvency of Social 
     Security, reasons of equity, having to do with either the 
     taxes or the benefits involving Social Security, or any other 
     reason having to do with it that we might see fit, but not 
     having to do with reconciliation and the budget process, we 
     could work our will, as we have in the past, on the Social 
     Security Program. But not as part of the reconciliation.

  Senator Rudman of New Hampshire, a cosponsor of the Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings budget process, spoke in favor of the amendment. Here is what 
he said:

       [T]he language offered by the Senator from Florida has one 
     single effect. That effect is that any reconciliation taken 
     by the Senate Finance Committee would have to survive a point 
     of order if it dealt with anything that had to do with old 
     age assistance.

  Senator Domenici of New Mexico, then the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, also explained the Hawkins amendment in the same way. This 
is what Senator Domenici said:

       This amendment would with specificity say that any 
     reconciliation bill containing provisions with respect to 
     Social Security would be subject to a point of order. That is 
     what this amendment does.

  That is what Senators said when they adopted a prohibition on using 
the fast-track reconciliation process to make changes in Social 
Security. That is why all those Senators supported excluding Social 
Security from the fast-track reconciliation process, and I argue that 
all the same arguments apply today as well.
  Let us prevent Social Security from being cut in a fast-track 
commission process. Let us keep America's commitment to our seniors. I 
urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment to protect Social Security.
  I might also say, Social Security is not the cause of our deficit 
problem. Social Security is running surpluses. For years into the 
future, Social Security is going to run surpluses. Social Security, 
thus, reduces the current unified budget deficit. Social Security is 
not the reason for our fiscal problem.
  Furthermore, over the longer term, Social Security is growing with 
the rate of growth in the economy. Social Security is growing more 
slowly than health care expenditures. Social Security is not the 
primary source of long-term fiscal imbalance--all the more reason, I 
submit, why my amendment should be adopted.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 3301

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to strongly support an amendment 
on the floor that I have coauthored. I have joined Senator Thune, 
Senator Bennett, and many others on this amendment to immediately end 
TARP, the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program--to end that, to wind 
it down immediately, once and for all.
  Again, the amendment is very simple and straightforward. It 
terminates TARP immediately when this provision is signed into law. 
Just as importantly, the amendment ensures that all TARP money that is 
repaid to the Federal Government goes to debt reduction, as clearly 
intended under the law, under the original language for TARP.
  I have long fought for this termination. First of all, I had grave 
reservations about TARP from the beginning, and I voted against that 
proposal. Looking back, I do not think it is at all clear that was 
necessary to avert some impending disaster. Looking at the last year, I 
think it is perfectly clear TARP has become a slush fund and has led to 
all sorts of continuing spending abuses.
  Because of those concerns from the very beginning, I have been 
working to end TARP. On January 5 of last year, I offered the 
resolution of disapproval to try to block the release of the second 
half of TARP funds, the second $350 billion.
  On April 2, 2009, I offered an amendment to the budget to rescind 
unspent TARP funds and to end it then.
  On April 30 of last year, I offered an amendment to S. 896 to remove 
any obstacles to the repayment of TARP funds because, at that time, the 
bank regulators and the Department of Treasury were forcing, in some 
cases, financial institutions to actually keep their TARP money and not 
repay it back to the taxpayer sooner rather than later.
  On August 6 of last year, I offered an amendment to H.R. 3435, a bill 
which provided extra money for the Cash for Clunkers Program, to end 
TARP on a date certain; namely, the end of last year.
  Unfortunately, those efforts failed. But those efforts picked up 
steam and support every step of the way and certainly they helped 
illustrate--and recent discussion and debate and elections, I think, 
helped illustrate--the American people want to end TARP, want to end 
too big to fail, and get back to our normal economic rules grounded in 
the free market.
  Why should we end TARP? First of all, in the original bill, the end 
date to TARP was supposed to be December 31 of last year. That was the 
normal end date. Last December, the Secretary of the Treasury, under 
authority he had, on his own, under the language of the bill, extended 
TARP for almost another year. I believe that was the wrong decision, 
unjustified, and I believe we should act to stick by the original end 
date and end TARP immediately.
  I do not think there is anyone on this floor or around the country 
who can argue we need a continuation of TARP because our financial 
system is in some imminent danger. There is no imminent danger out 
there. Hopefully, that will not develop. But, clearly, it does not 
exist now.
  Secondly, the right response to future failures is not to pump 
taxpayer money without limit to individual institutions. The right 
response is to end too big to fail and to have an orderly resolution 
regime. That is exactly what I am working on with Democrats, with other 
Republicans on the Banking Committee, to pass regulatory reform, 
including an orderly resolution regime to end too big to fail.
  Then, the third reason we need to end TARP is it has become, in the 
last year, a purely political slush fund to spend on whatever the 
political whim of the moment is. It was never executed to achieve its 
original purpose. TARP stands for Troubled Asset Relief Program. Yet, 
ironically, that is about the only thing TARP funds have never been 
used for, the actual purchase of troubled assets.
  From the very beginning, just after it was named the Troubled Asset 
Relief Program, it has been used for everything else under the Sun--
first, pumping money directly into specific mega financial 
institutions, then pumping money directly into the auto companies. 
Clearly, the car companies are not banks, are not financial 
organizations. They were never intended to be included under TARP.

  Since then, during 2009, the proposals to use TARP as just a pot of 
money to spend at everyone's political whim have gone on and on. There 
have been proposals to use TARP money to fund highway projects. There 
are proposals right now to use TARP money for a new jobs program. There 
are proposals, at least on the House side, to start a brand new housing 
program funded by the TARP assets.
  Perhaps we should do new activity regarding highway construction, job 
creation, housing, but we should not use TARP as a political grab bag, 
a slush fund, to pay for that and whatever else is the whim of the 
majority in Congress. That is a clear abuse of the program, and it is a 
clear ongoing threat if TARP is allowed to exist.
  If we go back to the origination of TARP and discussions and talks 
made

[[Page S76]]

at the time, it is clear that then-Senator Obama, then-Presidential 
candidate Obama pledged to the American people that TARP would only be 
used for certain purposes, and every penny would be repaid to the 
taxpayer. On October 1, 2008, then-Senator Obama, then-Presidential 
candidate Obama, clearly spelled out his conditions that he required to 
support TARP. He said:

       If the American taxpayers are financing this solution, then 
     they have to be treated like investors. They should get every 
     penny of their tax dollars back once the economy recovers.

  I don't think there is any mistake in the law or the President's 
comments, but because he didn't want to be misunderstood, he didn't 
want to communicate in any sort of vague way, he reiterated that, and 
he said in addition, ``every penny of which will go directly back to 
the American people.''
  The problem is, that is not what is happening. Every month, every 
week, every day that TARP continues to exist, raids on the slush fund, 
raids on TARP, bright new ideas to spend the money so that it will 
never be returned to the taxpayer abound.
  Unfortunately, since he explained his initial conditions for 
supporting TARP, the President has acted in a wholesale different way. 
He supported TARP money going to the car companies which was never 
intended under the original bill. He supported these new ideas coming 
from liberals in the House and Senate to use TARP money for highway 
construction or a new jobs program or a new housing program, which was 
never intended under the original bill.
  We need to get back to the President's original promise: to treat the 
American taxpayers like the investors they are, to honor their wishes, 
to protect their funds, and to get all of that money returned to the 
American taxpayer.
  I find it pretty ironic that during the last few weeks the President 
has bashed big banks and proposed a big new tax against big financial 
institutions. Yet, at the same time, he wants to continue TARP, and he 
wants to continue the ability to give those same big financial 
institutions taxpayer dollars virtually without limit. Why don't we 
start on the path to fiscal responsibility by at least not showering 
those big financial institutions with more taxpayer dollars? We are out 
of the crisis. We don't need TARP. Let's end it, end it immediately, 
wind it down.
  So, again, I urge all of my colleagues--Democrats, Republicans--to 
honor the President's initial words back in the fall of 2008 about what 
TARP was supposed to be about and how all of the money should be repaid 
to the taxpayers. Let's honor those words. Let's honor the initial 
promises about TARP, and let's end it immediately since the crisis has 
passed and ensure that all of the money, as it is repaid over time, 
goes back to the American taxpayer by reducing debt. Let's stop this 
continuing threat that TARP is just used as a political slush fund to 
fund spending, programs, and ideas at the whim of the majority of 
Congress as it develops week to week. Let's return that money to the 
American taxpayer. Let's reduce the debt. Let's reduce the deficit.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I have further correspondence which I 
wish to read into the Record with respect to my amendment which is 
pending, as well as with respect to statements by organizations that 
essentially oppose the Conrad-Gregg amendment. The first is from the 
Leadership Council of Aging Organizations. It is entitled, ``Proposed 
Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action.''
  It says:

       Dear Representative: The Leadership Council of Aging 
     Organizations (LCAO) is a coalition of national not-for-
     profit organizations focused on the well-being of America's 
     87 million older adults. Today, we write to you and your 
     colleagues regarding recent efforts to create a commission 
     that would force changes to entitlement programs, among other 
     things, through the use of a Congressional fast-track 
     procedure. We firmly believe that Congress, through its 
     regular legislative process, is best suited to consider and 
     address any changes to these programs. While we have 
     additional concerns regarding the use of such a commission on 
     Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security income, community 
     service and Federal civilian military retirement programs, 
     this letter is directly focused on Social Security. The LCAO 
     will be sending, under separate cover, a letter devoted to 
     expressing its concerns with the impact a fast-tracked 
     commission would have on Medicare and Medicaid.
       Last month's Budget Committee hearing on Bipartisan Process 
     Proposals for Long-Term Fiscal Stability considered the 
     creation of a commission that would be tasked with addressing 
     rising Federal debt by ``closing the gap between tax revenue 
     coming in and the larger cost of paying for Social Security, 
     Medicare and Medicaid benefits.'' This is a weighty 
     responsibility, requiring careful review of these critical 
     social programs on which so many depend. But there is no 
     guarantee that the members of this commission would have the 
     necessary expertise to conduct such an intensive review.

  That is very valid. How would this commission know how to make those 
cuts? They don't have expertise on the programs. This would be an 
outfit that just cuts without having any sense as to how these programs 
operate and what changes might be made.
  Continuing to quote from the letter:

       Our concern is that their recommendations, nevertheless, 
     would be forced through Congress, without amendment(s), under 
     extremely short timelines and with no opportunity to debate 
     individual issues or consult with constituents.
       In addition to our objections about the proposed commission 
     process, we are concerned that its mission would imply that 
     Social Security has somehow contributed to the Nation's 
     economic woes. Social Security is not a part of the deficit 
     problem nor is it part of an ``entitlement crisis.'' Its cost 
     is projected to consume only 6.2% of GDP by 2030 and to 
     remain slightly below that level for 50 more years. In fact, 
     the 2009 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees pointed out 
     that Social Security ran a surplus of $180 billion last year 
     and had accumulated a reserve of $2.4 trillion.

  That is a reserve, a surplus, of $2.4 trillion.

       The most recent projections of the Congressional Budget 
     Office forecast that Social Security will continue to pay 
     full benefits until 2043.

  That is a surplus at least until the year 2043.

       Moreover, Social Security, with its dependable, guaranteed 
     benefits, is the very program that helped us most recently 
     avoid a 1930s-style depression.

  Again, I am reading from the letter from the Leadership Council of 
Aging Organizations. Continuing:

       Even as the banking and financial systems threatened to 
     collapse, Social Security continued to provide a reliable 
     economic lifeline to millions of children, disabled workers, 
     retired workers, and spouses (including widowed and divorced 
     spouses) dependent on those benefits. These benefits helped 
     to offset lost earnings and stimulated the economy by 
     maintaining purchasing power. According to a recent study 
     by the National Academy of Social Insurance and Benenson 
     Strategy Group, nearly nine in ten (88%) Americans say 
     that Social Security is more important than ever as a 
     result of today's economic crisis.
       Social Security remains the bedrock of retirement security 
     for over 33 million older Americans: On average, households 
     with Social Security beneficiaries aged 65 and older received 
     about 64 percent of their income from the program in 2006.

  It then gives a reference in parenthesis. The reference is in the 
letter.

       Additionally, Social Security provides a lifeline to 4.1 
     million children, 7.7 million disabled workers, 2.4 million 
     spouses or divorced spouses of retired workers and 4.4 
     million surviving spouses.
       The importance and value of Social Security to so many 
     Americans demands that proposals to change the program be 
     given the due weight, consideration and debate in Congress 
     that they deserve. With this in mind, the undersigned members 
     of the LCAO oppose the creation of a fast-track entitlements 
     commission.

  I am going to read some of the signatories to this letter:

       AFL-CIO, AFSCME Retirees, Alliance for Retired Americans, 
     the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, 
     American Society on Aging, Association of Jewish Aging 
     Services of North America, B'Nai B'Rrith International, 
     Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc., Gray Panthers, 
     International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & 
     Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW; Military 
     Officers Association of America, National Academy of Elder 
     Law Attorneys, National Active and Retired Federal Employees 
     Association, National Alliance for Caregiving, National Asian 
     Pacific Center on Aging, National Association of Area 
     Agencies on Aging, National Association of Professional 
     Geriatric Care Managers, National Caucus and Center on Black 
     Aged, Inc., National Committee to Preserve Social Security 
     and Medicare, National Council on Aging, National Senior 
     Citizens Law Center, National Consumer Voice for Quality 
     Long-Term Care, OWL,

[[Page S77]]

     The Voice of Midlife and Older Women, Service Employees 
     International Union, the Jewish Federations of North America, 
     Volunteers of America, Wider Opportunities For Women.

  I think that letter speaks for itself, but I ask unanimous consent 
that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       Leadership Council of Aging


                                                Organizations,

                                                 December 8, 2009.
     Re: Proposed Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal 
         Action
       Dear Representative: The Leadership Council of Aging 
     Organizations (LCAO) is a coalition of national not-for-
     profit organizations focused on the well-being of America's 
     87 million older adults. Today, we write to you and your 
     colleagues regarding recent efforts to create a commission 
     that would force changes to entitlement programs, among other 
     things, through the use of a Congressional fast-track 
     procedure. We firmly believe that Congress, through its 
     regular legislative process, is best suited to consider and 
     address any changes to these programs. While we have 
     additional concerns regarding the use of such a commission on 
     Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, community 
     service and federal civilian and military retirement 
     programs, this letter is directly focused on Social Security. 
     The LCAO will be sending, under separate cover, a letter 
     devoted to expressing its concerns with the impact a fast-
     tracked commission would have on Medicare and Medicaid.
       Last month's Budget Committee hearing on Bipartisan Process 
     Proposals for Long-Term Fiscal Stability considered the 
     creation of a commission that would be tasked with addressing 
     rising federal debt by ``closing the gap between tax revenue 
     coming in and the larger cost of paying for Social Security, 
     Medicare and Medicaid benefits.'' This is a weighty 
     responsibility, requiring careful review of these critical 
     social programs on which so many depend. But there is no 
     guarantee that the members of this commission would have the 
     necessary expertise to conduct such an intensive review. Our 
     concern is that their recommendations, nonetheless, would be 
     forced through Congress, without amendment(s), under 
     extremely short timelines and with no opportunity to debate 
     individual issues or consult with constituents.
       In addition to our objections about the proposed commission 
     process, we are concerned that its mission would imply that 
     Social Security has somehow contributed to the nation's 
     economic woes. Social Security is not a part of the deficit 
     problem nor is it part of an ``entitlement crisis.'' Its cost 
     is projected to consume only 6.2% of GDP by 2030 and to 
     remain slightly below that level for 50 more years. In fact, 
     the 2009 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees pointed out 
     that Social Security ran a surplus of $180 billion last year 
     and had accumulated a reserve of $2.4 trillion. The most 
     recent projections of the Congressional Budget Office 
     forecast that Social Security will continue to pay full 
     benefits until 2043.
       Moreover, Social Security, with its dependable, guaranteed 
     benefits, is the very program that helped us most recently 
     avoid a 1930s-style depression. Even as the banking and 
     financial systems threatened to collapse, Social Security 
     continued to provide a reliable economic lifeline to millions 
     of children, disabled workers, retired workers, and spouses 
     (including widowed and divorced spouses) dependent on those 
     benefits. These benefits helped to offset lost earnings and 
     stimulated the economy by maintaining purchasing power. 
     According to a recent study by the National Academy of Social 
     Insurance and the Benenson Strategy Group, nearly nine in 
     ten (88%) Americans say Social Security is more important 
     than ever as a result of today's economic crisis.
       Social Security remains the bedrock of retirement security 
     for over 33 million older Americans: On average, households 
     with Social Security beneficiaries age 65 and older received 
     about 64 percent of their income from the program in 2006 
     (Social Security Administration 2009b: Table 9.A1). 
     Additionally, Social Security provides a lifeline to 4.1 
     million children, 7.7 million disabled workers, 2.4 million 
     spouses or divorced spouses of retired workers and 4.4 
     million surviving spouses.
       The importance and value of Social Security to so many 
     Americans demands that proposals to change the program be 
     given the due weight, consideration and debate from Congress 
     that they deserve. With this in mind, the undersigned members 
     of the LCAO oppose the creation of a fast-track entitlements 
     commission.
           Sincerely,
         AFL-CIO; AFSCME Retirees; Alliance for Retired Americans; 
           American Association of Homes and Services for the 
           Aging; American Society on Aging; Association of Jewish 
           Aging Services of North America; B'Nai B'Rith 
           International; Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc.; Gray 
           Panthers; International Union, United Automobile, 
           Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 
           UAW; Military Officers Association of America; National 
           Academy of Elder Law Attorneys; National Active and 
           Retired Federal Employees Association; National 
           Alliance for Caregiving; National Asian Pacific Center 
           on Aging; National Association of Area Agencies on 
           Aging; National Association of Professional Geriatric 
           Care Managers; National Caucus and Center on Black 
           Aged, Inc.; National Committee to Preserve Social 
           Security and Medicare; National Council on Aging; 
           National Senior Citizens Law Center; NCCNHR: The 
           National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care; 
           OWL, The Voice of Midlife and Older Women; Service 
           Employees International Union; The Jewish Federations 
           of North America; Volunteers of America; Wider 
           Opportunities for Women.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I might also add that there is another 
letter I have. I have referred to this organization already, but I will 
read their letter. This is from OWL, the Voice of Midlife and Older 
Women:

       Dear President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority 
     Leader Reid:
       We, the undersigned, urge you to preserve and protect two 
     of the most important and successful government programs in 
     the history of the United States--Social Security and 
     Medicare. We ask that you resist the pressure by Wall Street 
     and conservative members of Congress to form an undemocratic 
     and unaccountable fast-track ``deficit commission'' that 
     would cut these programs that are so crucial to the well-
     being of the people of our country.
       Social Security is not responsible for any part of the 
     deficit. The 2009 Annual Report from the Board of Trustees 
     stated that Social Security ran a surplus of $180 billion 
     last year with a reserve of $2.4 trillion.

  That is a reserve of $2.4 trillion.

       The Congressional Budget Office, in its August 2009 
     forecast, said that full benefits can continue to be paid 
     until 2043. There is ample time to make the necessary 
     adjustments through the usual legislative process.
       The best way to get the cost of Medicare under control is 
     by reforming the health care system as you are currently 
     trying to do, not by cutting benefits to the millions of 
     people whose health is at stake.

  That is a very important point. Let me just read it again because it 
is so true:

       The best way to get the cost of Medicare under control is 
     by reforming the health care system . . . rather than by 
     cutting benefits to millions of people whose health is at 
     stake.

  Continuing in the letter:

       There are many ways to cut the deficit--once our economy 
     has recovered. In the meantime, Social Security and Medicare 
     provide a measure of economic stability during a time of 
     financial crisis in our communities. As Frances Perkins said 
     on the 25th anniversary of Social Security, ``We will go 
     forward into the future, a stronger nation because of the 
     fact that we have this basic rock of security under all our 
     people.''
       In 2010, we'll celebrate the 75th anniversary of Social 
     Security.
       We urge you to stand firm against the proposal for a fast-
     track commission that would diminish these programs that 
     speak so deeply of America's values.
       Respectfully yours.

  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3301

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of 
the Thune amendment, which I cosponsored. It would put the brakes on 
the TARP train wreck.
  TARP was originally conceived to purchase toxic assets from banks in 
order to clean up their balance sheets and provide them the capability 
and liquidity to begin lending again. At the time, Federal Reserve 
Chairman Ben Bernanke said that we were facing the most severe 
financial crisis in the post-World War II era. President Bush stated 
that the unprecedented challenges of such a financial crisis required 
unprecedented response and, without action, the American people would 
face massive job losses, significant erosion in the value of retirement 
accounts and home values, and a lack of credit availability. Treasury 
Secretary Hank Paulson said that unless Congress took action, the 
financial system of our Nation and the world would collapse in short 
order.

[[Page S78]]

  My constituents said at the time that they could not get loans to 
keep their businesses up and running. Something needed to be done. 
Secretary Paulson proposed an emergency plan to authorize as much as 
$700 billion to purchase toxic assets, such as devalued mortgage 
securities, from the financial institutions holding them. It was stated 
that the plan would restore consumer confidence in the economy as the 
Treasury would show faith in our financial system by purchasing these 
assets and managing them while the market stabilized, and selling them 
later. The proceeds from the sale of these assets would then go to pay 
down our national debt.
  In response, Congress proposed the Emergency Economic Stabilization 
Act, which created the Troubled Asset Relief Program, called TARP, and 
authorized $350 billion not $700 billion in Federal assistance.
  The Republican and Democratic Governors Associations wrote jointly to 
ask Congress to act immediately on the legislation to provide economic 
security to the financial system and stabilize the crisis. Congress did 
act in overwhelming majorities.
  Almost immediately, however, the Treasury Department deviated from 
the intent of the program and design they told Congress they would 
pursue. It did not purchase toxic assets as planned. Instead, the 
Treasury used TARP funds to take equity stakes in over 300 of our 
Nation's financial institutions. The program was further expanded to 
nonfinancial companies, pouring billions of dollars into AIG, GM, and 
Chrysler. When the administration asked for the second tranche of $350 
billion, I said no, and so did many of my colleagues.
  We have especially seen the misuse of TARP in capital repayments to 
the Treasury. Since the program began, the Treasury has received over 
$165 billion in paybacks, with interest. Under the Stabilization Act, 
proceeds from these paybacks were meant to be used to pay down our 
national debt. That was a key condition to its approval.
  In a hearing last November, before the Banking Committee, of which I 
am a member, I spoke with the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Herb 
Allison, regarding the State of the TARP program 1 year later. 
Secretary Allison told us that these repaid funds ``go directly into 
the general account of the U.S. Treasury to reduce the Treasury's 
funding need''--to reduce our debt. Yet, when I asked him to confirm 
that the money repaid was no longer part of the total authorization of 
$700 billion, Secretary Allison said that when TARP funds are repaid, 
headroom is created within the program to provide additional 
commitments to maintain the $700 billion funding level. Thus, as the 
Treasury puts repaid funds back into one pot, it reaches into another 
for more--basically recycling the $700 billion. This is not what was 
promised. It is not what was passed. It is not what was envisioned. I 
most certainly never voted to authorize a revolving fund to remain in 
our economy indefinitely. I didn't even vote for $350 billion of this 
$700 billion that is now becoming a revolving fund.
  According to the most recent TARP report from the Office of Financial 
Stability, approximately $545 billion in TARP funds has been committed. 
Repayments through TARP were over $165 billion. This leaves roughly, 
with the amount of the $545 billion which has been committed, about 
$374 billion being paid out with roughly $319 billion of unobligated 
TARP funds, or TARP authority.
  The recent report issued by the Congressional Oversight Panel for 
TARP stated that although TARP authority ends October 3, 2010, any 
funds committed by that date but not yet spent can still be spent under 
TARP past this deadline. This could create an indefinite time period 
for expenditures through TARP.
  The amendment offered by Senator Thune, me, and many others would 
allow us to truly put an end to TARP expansions, and it would put an 
end to it immediately. It would show taxpayers that Congress finally 
gets it, and that we are serious about reducing our Nation's 
skyrocketing debt. This would indeed be the first step in putting our 
financial house in order.
  Today, we can begin the process of lowering this huge debt that our 
country, which just in the last year, has increased exponentially. We 
are looking at a bill that would increase our debt to $14 trillion. If 
we pass the amendment before us today, we can cut that back instead of 
adding to the debt. That is what we ought to do.
  While we are at it, we need to stop the spending binge we are on. We 
need to stop the stimulus package, whatever is not authorized, because 
that, too, will add to our debt. We need to recommit to cut taxes. We 
need to say our financial house must get in order. It is time to 
reauthorize the tax cuts that were put into place that caused our 
financial stability after 9/11. It is the tax cuts that caused our 
financial stability. It is lowering the capital gains rate, lowering 
the dividends rate of taxation. This is what would open our markets and 
open our ability for businesses to hire people. It would restore 
consumer confidence. What about the death tax that will come back in 
full force next year? People don't know how to plan their giving to 
their children or giving to their employees and their businesses 
because they don't know what Congress is going to do. If there is 
anything Congress ought to do, it is stabilize our tax system and make 
the tax cuts permanent. We need to lower the capital gains and 
dividends rate permanently. These are funds that have already been 
taxed. They were taxed when they were earned. They should not be taxed 
for savings--dividends and capital gains are savings. That is how 
people plan for their future.
  We need to recommit today to reorder our financial priorities. We 
need to get our financial house in order. That means cutting down on 
the debt, not adding to it. It means cutting spending, and it means 
making our tax cuts permanent. Capital gains and dividends rates should 
be lowered permanently so that our stock market would be permanently 
stabilized. And we should lower the rate for everyone because the 
people who can hire others will be paying at the highest rates when the 
rates go up. That includes schedule C corporations. We need to lower 
capital gains rates. We need to lower the burden on businesses. We need 
to lower the burden on families. We need to help people, not hurt 
people, who are trying to plan for their financial retirement.
  Today, we have a chance to take the first step by saying that TARP is 
going to end, that we are not going to expand something that was 
authorized for an emergency purpose. This emergency purpose should be a 
commitment of Congress. We should not allow the expansion of TARP. We 
can take the first step by voting for the Thune amendment of which I am 
a cosponsor. We need to start the process today, and we can say to the 
American people that Congress is finally listening.
  Many on my side of the aisle have been making these points day after 
day. We were here almost every day in December, Saturdays and Sundays 
included, trying to make the point that people don't want a government 
takeover of their health care system. Now I think we have a clear 
message from the people of Massachusetts that they don't like this 
either. The exit polling showed that 48 percent of them voted to keep 
this health care bill from going forward. The rest of them voted to 
say: Stop all of this takeover by government of so much of our lives--
whether it is the cap and trade that will raise energy and fuel costs 
or whether it is letting the tax cuts lapse, which would give us more 
money for our own families to spend as we wish, not as government 
wishes; it is to stop the growth of big government; it is to stop the 
ending of the death tax for all intents and purposes so that we can 
pass on to our children the fruits of our labor.
  Most of all, we have a chance today to say we are not going to raise 
the cap on our debt limit and we are not going to $14 trillion, which 
is now above 17 percent of our gross domestic product. It is our debt 
burden. This is not healthy.
  The people of Massachusetts said: Get your house in order, Congress; 
get your house in order, Mr. President.
  Let's do it. We can take the step today to do it. It is time for 
Congress to hear the American people and act, to hear their cry that we 
must get our house in order for the future of every American and every 
American's child and every American's grandchild. That is what we owe 
them. I hope we will take the first step with the Thune amendment and 
then the rejection of

[[Page S79]]

the resolution to raise the debt ceiling. Then we can lower taxes 
permanently, and then we can take to the American people a new agenda 
that will really create jobs because the jobs will be in the private 
sector, not the government sector.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we anticipate the Senator from North 
Dakota will join us momentarily. Pending his arrival, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to discuss an 
amendment I am offering with Senator Gregg to create a bipartisan 
fiscal task force. The task force would be designed to develop a 
bipartisan legislative package to address the Nation's long-term fiscal 
imbalances. There would be a requirement that the package come before 
Congress for a vote.
  Under the rules of the Senate, our amendment requires 60 votes to 
pass. If we do not reach the 60-vote threshold, I will continue to push 
for the creation of a special process to deal with our debt, and I will 
fight to ensure any special process results in legislation that will 
get a vote in the Senate and in the House. We cannot afford another 
commission whose recommendations sit on a dusty shelf somewhere at the 
Library of Congress.
  I believe our country is at a critical juncture. We have seen in the 
previous administration the debt of the United States double. We are on 
course over the next 8 years for at least another doubling of the debt. 
And already we are reaching precarious levels, record levels--record 
levels that have never been seen before in this country.
  I believe nothing short of the economic future of the country is at 
stake. I point to this recent Newsweek cover from December 7 of last 
year entitled ``How Great Powers Fall; Steep Debt, Slow Growth, and 
High Spending Kill Empires--and America Could Be Next.''
  Here is what the article went on to say:

       This is how empires decline. It begins with a debt 
     explosion. It ends with an inexorable reduction in the 
     resources available for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. . . . 
     If the United States doesn't come up soon with a credible 
     plan to restore the Federal budget to balance over the next 
     five to 10 years, the danger is very real that a debt crisis 
     could lead to a major weakening of American power.

  The process has already begun. As I indicated, in the previous 
administration the debt doubled. Foreign holdings of U.S. debt more 
than doubled. We can see the track we are on. From 2001, at the 
beginning of the Bush administration, the debt skyrocketed, and it 
continues to grow with the economic downturn and the projections from 
the Congressional Budget Office for the future. In fact, we now 
estimate that the gross debt of the United States could reach 114 
percent of the gross domestic product of the United States. That has 
only been equaled in U.S. history after World War II. At that point, 
the debt came down very rapidly.
  There is no forecast that shows this debt coming down and certainly 
no projection and no forecast that it will come down rapidly. Instead, 
what we have is a forecast by the Congressional Budget Office that the 
debt will continue to explode. Instead of being 100 percent of the 
gross domestic product of the United States, the debt will rise to a 
level of more than 400 percent of the gross domestic product of the 
United States.
  By any account, that is an unsustainable course. We have had before 
the Budget Committee the testimony of the head of the Congressional 
Budget Office saying the course we are on is clearly unsustainable. We 
have had the testimony of the head of the General Accounting Office 
saying the current course is clearly unsustainable. We have had the 
testimony of the Secretary of the Treasury, both in the previous 
administration and this one, saying this trajectory is clearly 
unsustainable, and we have had the testimony, clear and compelling, by 
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve that this course is absolutely 
unsustainable.
  I have said to my colleagues repeatedly that the debt is the threat. 
It is something we must face up to. We have been through a very sharp 
economic downturn. In the midst of a sharp economic downturn, you do 
not raise taxes or cut spending. That would only deepen the recession. 
In fact, we could have seen this country plunge into a complete 
collapse, and we would not have been alone. I think many of us believe 
we just narrowly averted a global financial collapse. One reason it was 
averted is because of actions by this administration and the previous 
administration and this Congress--steps that were taken to provide 
liquidity to prevent a global collapse. But those steps also added to 
the deficit and debt. We have to acknowledge that. We have to be very 
straight with people that those steps were necessary to avert a 
collapse, but they also contribute to the long-term crisis we 
confront--a crisis of a debt growing too rapidly and forecasts to reach 
a level unprecedented in our national history, a debt level that could 
threaten the economic security of the United States.
  Many people have asked me: How does this threaten the economic 
security of the country? Very simply, this debt is increasingly 
financed from abroad. In fact, last year 68 percent of the new debt 
created by the United States was financed by foreign entities--68 
percent. China has now become our biggest creditor. They have signaled 
publicly and privately that they are increasingly concerned with the 
fiscal policy of the United States. They are increasingly concerned 
about the security of their loans to the United States. Other countries 
have expressed concern as well. If those countries decided they would 
no longer extend loans to the United States, we would then be very 
quickly in a serious situation. It would mean we would have to either 
cut spending sharply or raise taxes dramatically or raise interest 
rates in a significant way to attract new borrowing, new lenders. The 
consequences of a failure to address these issues goes right to the 
heart of the economic strength of the country.
  As I said, in the article in Newsweek, they say:

       If the United States doesn't come up soon with a credible 
     plan to restore the Federal budget to balance over the next 
     five to 10 years, the danger is very real that a debt crisis 
     could lead to a major weakening of American power.

  For those who believe there is no crisis and we can just stay with 
the status quo, this is a quote from the National Journal cover story 
in November. The article was titled ``The Debt Problem Is Worse Than 
You Think.'' It stated:

       Simply put, even alarmists may be underestimating the size 
     of the [debt] problem, how quickly it will become unbearable, 
     and how poorly prepared our political system is to deal with 
     it.

  I believe the National Journal got it about right. We are on a course 
that is clearly unsustainable. Virtually every expert says to us that 
this is so.
  The consequences of a failure to deal with the debt are enormous. 
They could go right to the heart of the economic strength of the 
country. So Senator Gregg and I have come to the floor with a proposal 
to have everything on the table, to have a bipartisan commission 
evaluate various options for dealing with our long-term debt threat and 
to come back with a proposal. But they can only come back if 14 of the 
18 members of that commission agree on a future course, a 
supermajority, a bipartisan majority. If 14 of the 18 agree, that plan 
comes to Congress for a vote. Members here will decide. This is not 
outsourcing the responsibility. This is giving an independent 
commission the responsibility to come up with a plan, but that plan 
would have to be voted on by Members of the Senate, Members of the 
House, and under our formulation it would require a supermajority in 
both Chambers to pass. Of course, the President would retain his veto 
powers. He would be able to veto any proposal passed by the Senate and 
the House. I believe the prerogatives of the Senate and the House are 
preserved. It will require a vote of supermajority here and in the 
House and, of course, signature by the President.

[[Page S80]]

  The former Chairman of the Federal Reserve has talked about the 
urgent need to address the long-term debt situation. This is what he 
said on December 17 of last year in testimony before the Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee:

       The challenge to contain this threat is more urgent than at 
     any time in our history. . . . . [Our] nation has never 
     before had to confront so formidable a fiscal crisis as is 
     now visible just over the horizon.

  I believe the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve has it right. We 
face an unprecedented threat. Never before in our Nation's history have 
we looked forward and seen the prospect, if we continue current 
policies, of a debt that would equal 400 percent of the gross domestic 
product of the United States. That has never, ever faced this country. 
That is a threat with which we are unfamiliar.
  The response Senator Gregg and I have crafted over 2 years of debate 
and discussion with many of our colleagues is one that is based on the 
principle of accountability. All of the task force members would be 
directly accountable to the American people. There would be 18 
members--10 Democrats, 2 from the administration, and 8 Republicans. So 
in terms of Members of Congress, it would be even: 8 Democrats, 8 
Republicans. They would have to be currently serving Members of 
Congress selected by the Democratic and Republican leaders. The 
Secretary of the Treasury and one other administration official would 
serve representing the administration, for a total of 18.
  The bipartisan fiscal task force would provide broad coverage. 
Everything would be on the table--entitlements, revenue, discretionary 
spending. Spending and revenues all would be before them for a judgment 
on how we deal with the debt threat.
  The work of the fiscal task force would enjoy expedited procedures--
procedures we have used before to bring especially difficult issues to 
both the Senate and the House. The recommendations would only be 
submitted after the 2010 election. There would be fast-track 
consideration of the proposal in the Senate and the House. There would 
be no amendments. It would be an up-or-down vote. The final vote would 
come before the end of the 111th Congress.
  Again, I wish to emphasize I am not proposing that we take action to 
raise revenue or cut spending in the midst of an economic downturn. 
That would be counterproductive. But we do need to face up to this 
long-term debt. The provisions that would come from any commission, I 
am sure, would be ones that would be put in place over time. They would 
be phased in. The Commission would be cognizant that our economy 
remains weak and, in fact, may require even additional debt in the 
short term.
  The bipartisan fiscal task force would ensure a bipartisan outcome. 
Fourteen of the eighteen task force members would have to agree to the 
recommendations for it to come to a vote, and final passage would 
require supermajorities--a three-fifths vote in both the Senate and the 
House. Also, the President must still sign off. As I indicated earlier, 
he would retain his full veto powers.
  This approach has been criticized by both the left and the right--the 
left, a group of organizations that have banded together to say this 
kind of approach could lead to reductions in Social Security and 
Medicare--cuts in Social Security and Medicare. I would simply say to 
them: Look at where we are. Look at where we are. Social Security and 
Medicare are both cash negative today. The trustees of Medicare say 
Medicare will go broke in 8 years. Social Security will take somewhat 
longer. But both are on a path to insolvency if we fail to act.
  It hasn't just been from the more liberal side of the spectrum that 
the criticism has come, but also on the right. The Wall Street Journal 
ran an editorial calling the debt reduction commission--or the deficit 
commission--a trap. They say it is a trap that will lead to higher 
taxes; to more revenue. So on the left and the right we have those 
complaining that if you move forward to deal with the debt, you are 
going to make reductions in programs and you are going to increase 
revenue. I think that is undeniably the case. If you are going to deal 
with this debt threat, we are going to have to make changes in the 
spending projections of the United States. We are going to have to make 
changes in the revenue base of the country.
  I would suggest to those who are concerned about tax increases, the 
first place to get more revenue is not with a tax increase. The first 
place to get more revenue is to collect what is actually owed. If you 
examine the revenue streams of the United States, it jumps out at you 
that we are collecting about 80 percent, or even somewhat less than 
that, of what is actually owed. If we were collecting the money that is 
actually owed under the current rates, we would be doing very well. But 
we have offshore tax havens, abusive tax shelters, a tax gap--the 
difference between what is owed and what is paid--and we also have a 
tax system that is completely out of date.
  We have a tax system that was designed at a time when we did not have 
to be worried about the competitive position of the United States. Now 
we do. The world has changed and our revenue system has not kept pace. 
Instead, it is hemorrhaging with offshore tax havens costing us, 
according to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, over $100 
billion a year in lost revenue.
  If anybody doubts the proliferation of offshore tax havens, I would 
urge them to Google offshore tax havens and see what you find. We did 
that last year and got over 1 million hits, including my favorite: live 
offshore tax free by putting your funds in offshore tax havens.
  The reality is this: We have a dramatic imbalance between spending 
and revenue. The revenue is the green line, the spending is the red 
line. Look what has happened with the economic downturn: Revenue is at 
its lowest point in 50 years as measured as a share of the economy. 
Revenue is less than 15 percent of the gross domestic product of the 
country. Spending has skyrocketed to 26 percent of the gross domestic 
product of the country. You can see that is far higher than it has been 
going back 30 years.
  Of course, we understand why, in the middle of a sharp economic 
downturn, the automatic stabilizers take effect--unemployment 
insurance, a whole series of other measures to try to prevent an even 
steeper downturn. So spending goes up, revenue goes down, the deficits 
widen, and the debt explodes. That would not be so troubling if the 
long-term trend didn't tell us the debt will continue to grow from 
these already high levels.
  The need for tax reform, I think, is clear: We have a tax system that 
is out of date and hurting U.S. competitiveness. As I mentioned, we are 
hemorrhaging revenue to tax havens and abusive tax shelters. The 
alternative minimum tax problem threatens millions of middle-class 
taxpayers--something that was never intended. That cries out for 
reform. These long-term imbalances must be addressed. Simplification 
and reform, we know from experience, can keep rates low and improve the 
efficiency of the system.
  The arguments I have advanced this morning are arguments that have 
now been endorsed by more and more budget experts as they look at the 
long-term threat to the country. Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of 
the Federal Reserve, said this:

       The recommendation of Senators Conrad and Gregg for a 
     bipartisan fiscal task force is an excellent idea. I hope 
     that you succeed.

  Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the chief economic adviser to Senator 
McCain in his Presidential bid, said this in testimony before the 
Senate Budget Committee just last year:

       I am a reluctant convert. I have always felt that this is 
     Congress' job, and, quite frankly, it ought to just do it. 
     And that attitude has earned me no friends and has gotten us 
     no action. So I have come around to the point where I'm in 
     favor of something that is a special legislative procedure to 
     get this legislation in front of Congress and passed.

  Mr. Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, said this in testimony 
before the Budget Committee last year:

       It is going to require a different approach if we're going 
     to solve the long-term fiscal imbalance. It's going to 
     require a fundamental change in approach, because I don't see 
     realistically how we're going to get there through the 
     existing mechanisms.

  Here is a quote from David Walker, the former head of the General 
Accounting Office.

       I think the regular order is dysfunctional as it relates to 
     these types of issues. And it's, quite frankly, 
     understandable, because you're talking about putting together 
     a

[[Page S81]]

     package that crosses many different jurisdictions. And the 
     idea that that would end up emerging from the regular order I 
     think is just totally unrealistic.

  That was testimony before the Budget Committee in 2007 by the 
Comptroller General.
  Leon Panetta, the former chairman of the House Budget Committee and 
the former Chief of Staff to President Clinton, now the Director of the 
CIA, said this in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee in 
response to the question: Shouldn't we rely on just the regular order; 
the normal committee process?

       It'll never happen. The committees of jurisdiction will 
     never take on the kind of challenges that are involved in 
     this kind of effort. If you just leave them under their own 
     jurisdictions, that will never happen.

  It hasn't happened, and I am chairman of one of the committees. I 
accept that the normal process is not going to deal with a threat of 
this magnitude. It is going to take all of us, Democrats, Republicans, 
Congress, and the administration, working together to fashion a plan 
that deals with the long-term debt threat; that also deals with the 
short-term need to restore jobs, to restore economic growth, and to 
build the economy.
  These things are not contradictory. They, in fact, are complementary. 
We must do both. We must restore economic growth and economic strength 
and, at the same time, we must deal with the long-term debt threat. 
That is the proposal Senator Gregg and I bring to the floor. We urge 
our colleagues to seriously consider what we have offered. It has 35 
cosponsors, about evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. I 
know it is a tall order to get to 60 votes in the Senate. It is 
especially hard when organizations on the left are opposing it and 
organizations on the right are opposing it for very different reasons. 
But this is a case of the challenge of the middle holding.
  That has been the great strength of America--our ability to take on 
tough challenges and meet them. Whether it was World War I or World War 
II, the Great Depression or all the other challenges this country has 
faced, over and over America has proven it is up to the challenge. I 
believe we are up to this challenge as well, and I believe people 
working together can come up with solutions that would be credible not 
only to markets in this country but markets around the world that are 
beginning to wonder: Does America have the ability to face up to the 
debt threat that overhangs the future economic strength of the country?
  I appreciate this time. I thank the chairman for allowing this time. 
I know Senator Gregg will be coming to the floor in about an hour for 
his presentation on the same subject. I thank the Chair, and I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota makes a very 
compelling case for fiscal discipline. He has been making this case for 
a good number of years. He has been on the forefront in urging us in 
the Congress and the country to be more disciplined, to get better 
control of these deficits, and I appreciate the work of the Senator 
from North Dakota.
  I might say we have no disagreement whatsoever that we need to 
address our fiscal challenge. We totally agree. I think most Members of 
the body would agree that is not the issue. Whether we must address the 
fiscal challenge or not is not the issue. So I wish to get that off the 
table. We all know we have a huge problem facing us, and it must be 
dealt with. What we do disagree about, though, is the process; that is, 
how we address it.
  I will have a lot more to say about that later today, but I see the 
Senator from Arizona on the floor, and he has been waiting patiently.
  Mr. CONRAD. May I call up the amendment before we move on?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Certainly.


                Amendment No. 3302 to Amendment No. 3299

 (Purpose: To establish a Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal 
Action, to assure the long-term fiscal stability and economic security 
 of the Federal Government of the United States, and to expand future 
                prosperity and growth for all Americans)

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I call up the Conrad-Gregg amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself and 
     Mr. Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 3302 to amendment 
     No. 3299.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, 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 printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleagues for this opportunity to present our 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 3301

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will have something to say about the 
amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota at a later time, but 
I wanted an opportunity to be sure to speak to the Thune amendment, 
which has also been pending and which I understand we may be voting on 
as early as this afternoon. I wish to make it clear I am in very strong 
support of the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota.
  The amendment of the Senator from South Dakota would immediately end 
the Treasury's authority to spend unobligated TARP funds; that is, 
those funds that have either been repaid or were never spent in the 
first place as part of the so-called TARP. The amendment would also use 
repaid TARP funds to lower the deficit, bring down the debt ceiling--
which is, of course, the amount of legal U.S. debt--and is the ultimate 
issue we are going to be voting on at the end of our exercise, 
presumably sometime next week.
  I initially supported both tranches of the TARP stabilization money 
because I was told by the Secretary of the Treasury and others, and I 
believed, that the money would be used to shore up banking, thus 
stabilizing the financial system in the United States, and that would 
permit lending to resume. My State of Arizona was hit particularly hard 
by the collapse of the housing bubble, so we needed more lending--for 
small businesses as well as for commercial lending and other things 
such as auto finance, real estate lending, and so on.
  Unfortunately, the promised flow of capital has not materialized. 
Today people in my State still struggle to refinance their homes and 
businesses, and businesses in particular are struggling to make 
payments on their property, rollover commitments that they already 
have, and even pay for things as basic as their inventories or their 
payroll. You have to ask how did this happen with all of this TARP 
money out there.
  Partly it is because TARP was perverted into a tool for increasing 
the scope of government. It has been used for purposes for which it was 
never intended. Some of the money has been used to bail out political 
interests such as auto companies and parts suppliers. That was never 
intended. I would never have supported the second tranche of TARP 
funding had I believed that was how the money would have been spent.
  Now it is becoming a piggy bank for the second stimulus bill recently 
passed by the House of Representatives, a bill that would cost 
taxpayers $260 billion more in deficit spending. By deficit spending, 
of course, I am referring to the fact that this is all borrowed money. 
This is not money that we have and are deciding to spend in a certain 
way. We have to go out and borrow the money in order to give it to 
these people.
  By law, the returned TARP funds are supposed to be used for deficit 
reduction. That is the way it was written into the bill. The Thune 
amendment would make sure this happens. Again, this is important 
because this is not money that we already had that the taxpayers had 
sent to Washington and we were just waiting to spend on something. We 
had to go out and borrow this money from folks such as the Chinese, and 
we have to pay them interest on the money.
  When we have to go out and borrow the money in order to provide it 
for one of these purposes, we have to recognize that when we pay it 
back, we ought not immediately spend it again. We ought to pay the 
money back to the government so the money then can

[[Page S82]]

repay the lender and get that obligation off our books. Returning the 
money to the Treasury is equivalent to paying the money back to our 
lenders. That, in turn, allows us to reduce our Federal debt.
  This also has the effect of reducing government borrowing so that the 
private sector is more able and more easily able to borrow money. That 
way, businesses can begin to invest more, and we can begin job 
creation.
  Frankly, that is why groups such as the National Federation of 
Independent Businesses support the Thune amendment. The whole idea is 
to repay the money that the Federal Government has borrowed so there is 
less pressure on the sources of lending so the private sector will be 
able to more easily borrow for their purpose.
  Here is what the NFIB said in a recent letter:

       Small business believes it is time to end TARP by passing 
     the Thune amendment. We appreciate Senator Thune's efforts to 
     create an exit strategy for the unprecedented level of 
     government ownership in American businesses. The full $700 
     billion that was originally allocated for TARP is no longer 
     needed and should not be used as a bucket of money for the 
     Treasury Department to create new Federal programs.

  I would add, or for the House of Representatives to create new 
Federal programs to the tune of $260 billion more.
  I think the American people could not be more clear in the message 
they have been sending in election after election: Stop spending so 
much money so we don't have to borrow so much money so it will be 
easier for our own families and businesses to borrow money. They have 
had it with massive spending and the culture of massive debt that has 
seized Washington. They are watching very closely because it is their 
money, after all, that will have to be used to pay the interest on the 
debt when we borrow this money from people such as the Chinese.
  Instead of turning right around and deciding we have some great idea 
on which to spend this money again when it is retired, let's retire the 
debt instead, thus reducing the amount we have to increase in the debt 
ceiling. I think this is what our constituents want us to do. It begins 
with ending TARP, and the Thune amendment puts us on the path to doing 
exactly that.
  I urge its passage.
  I suggest the absence a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3302

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I oppose the Conrad-Gregg amendment. This 
amendment would set up a new deficit reduction commission and have its 
recommendations considered and sent to the House under expedited 
parliamentary procedures. This amendment invites Congress to abdicate 
its responsibility. This amendment is fundamentally unfair to many of 
our constituents across the country. This amendment should be defeated.
  Under the Conrad-Gregg proposal, 18 people would make recommendations 
on how to reduce projected midterm and long-term Federal budget 
deficits. Of the 18 members, 16 would be Members of Congress, and two 
would be officials in the administration. I might add, if some think 
the Congress cannot do this, why is this composed almost entirely of 
Members of Congress? Recommendations of this 18-member commission would 
be made the subject of votes in both Chambers with no amendments 
allowed. Thus, the entire package of recommendations would be given to 
Congress on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
  If the Conrad-Gregg amendment were enacted, Members of Congress who 
were not on the commission would have no say in the development of the 
commission's recommendations. Members of Congress who were not on the 
commission would have no ability to change the recommendations. We 
would have to vote on the entire package on a take-it-or-leave-it 
basis.
  If Members of Congress not on the commission found that they favored 
most of the recommendations but positively abhorred a few of them, they 
would be given no opportunity to try to change the ones to which they 
objected. Their choice would be either to vote for no deficit reduction 
at all or vote for recommendations that they abhor with no way to 
change them.
  Members of Congress should not be put in that position. This 
amendment would disenfranchise the overwhelming majority of Members of 
Congress. It would disenfranchise their constituents. This would be 
fundamentally unfair to their constituents and to them. We should not 
allow it to happen.
  Let me say a few words about the effects of this commission on Social 
Security and Medicare. If we create this commission, what is to stop it 
from making further reductions in Medicare spending beyond the changes 
in the health care reform bill? Although the health care reform bill 
would reduce some reimbursements to providers, it would not cut 
Medicare benefits or eligibility one bit, but the commission could 
recommend cuts in Medicare benefits and eligibility.
  I might say, too, the Congressional Budget Office, I remind my 
colleagues, estimated that the health care reform bill that passed this 
body would reduce the budget deficit by $132 billion over 10 years and 
further reduce the budget deficit by between $650 billion to $1.3 
trillion in the next 10 years.
  What about Social Security? Some people talk as if Social Security is 
a major factor in the long-run budget deficits, but the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office's projections of the 75-year growth of 
spending on Medicare-Medicaid and Social Security tells a different 
story.
  As a share of the economy, the growth of Medicare and Medicaid 
spending before enactment of health care reform is more than seven 
times the growth of Social Security spending. If we are to reduce the 
projections of interim and long-term projections of deficit, we should 
use the regular order of Congress to do so, and for a good reason; that 
is, because the system is already working. The comprehensive health 
reform bill awaiting final approval by the House and Senate is solid 
evidence the system is working.

  Once again, the Congressional Budget Office projected--I made the 
point just a few moments ago--the Federal deficits would be reduced by 
$132 billion in the first 10 years and by $650 billion to $1.3 trillion 
in the second 10 years. That is a significant reduction.
  The deficit reduction will make a substantial dent in the deficits--
and it has been accomplished entirely through the regular order. We 
were able to cut deficits through the regular order. It would thus be 
ironic to give up on the regular order just when it has such a 
promising result.
  There is more work to be done to reduce deficits in the midterm and 
long term, but the regular order is up to the job of performing these 
tasks. We should not give up on it prematurely. We should vote against 
creating a commission that can take away many of the responsibilities 
the Constitution gave the Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  It has also been said on the Senate floor that one way to get revenue 
is to go after the so-called gap that exists between revenue that is 
owed the American taxpayers but not collected--the tax gap, it is 
sometimes called. I might say why not create a tax gap commission? It 
does not make sense for this outfit, if it does exist--I don't think it 
will because I think most Members of Congress will not want to do 
that--to cut Social Security, which is not the problem--Social Security 
is projected to be in surplus at least to the year 2043--or to make 
further cuts in Medicare beyond which we have already done in regular 
order. What is left? Discretionary spending.
  If the real effort is a tax gap, let's have a tax gap commission, not 
one that is going to cut Medicare and Medicaid. I might add, these 
people, if there were such a commission, are not qualified. They do not 
understand the health care system. They don't understand where to make 
cuts and not to make cuts. They don't understand Social Security that 
much. The committees of jurisdiction do. They don't understand some of 
the other programs where they might recommend cuts. They can just 
whack, whack, whack, or raise revenue. They don't understand the Tax 
Code. That is not their expertise. They are just going to try to find 
ways to raise, raise, raise taxes.

[[Page S83]]

  It is something on the surface that might sort of sound good--let 
somebody else do it. I cannot do it, so we will let somebody else do 
it. I think that is an abdication of responsibility. I think it is like 
it sounds--too good to be true--that somebody else is going to do it. 
It is like the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
  Why do we run for these jobs? Each of us ought to be a U.S. Senator 
because we wanted to take the responsibility to do what we thought was 
right for our people and our States. It is sometimes not very easy. It 
is sometimes quite difficult. That is why we ran. That is what goes 
with the territory: step up and make the right decisions and do what 
needs to be done in conjunction with the President.
  The President of the United States is going to make a budget 
recommendation to the Congress in just a matter of a few days, almost a 
week or so away. That is the job of the President, to make a 
recommendation to the Congress of what he thinks our budget should be, 
and it is up to the Congress to decide how to deal with that.
  We have used the regular order on health care to cut budget deficits 
by a large amount. As I indicated, it worked. I think we should just be 
courageous enough as Members of Congress to do what is right, step up 
and do what we have to do. If we do not do the job properly, our voters 
will get somebody else to do the job. That is their right, that is 
their privilege, and that is one of the strengths of the process: that 
they have an opportunity to get somebody else if we are not doing a 
good job.
  I strongly urge the defeat of the Conrad-Gregg amendment. It is just 
not a good thing to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 14 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            limits on banks' proprietary trading activities

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of President 
Obama's proposal to limit the proprietary trading activity of banks, 
ideas that have been developed by Paul Volcker, the former Federal 
Reserve Chairman and current chairman of President Obama's Economic 
Recovery Advisory Board.
  It has been well over a year now since the bursting of a massive 
speculative bubble, fueled by Wall Street greed and excess, brought our 
entire financial system to the brink of disaster.
  The resulting economic crisis, the worst since the Great Depression, 
has had profound effects on regular, working-class Americans in the 
form of millions of job losses and home foreclosures, to say nothing of 
the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars used to prop up failing 
institutions deemed ``too big to fail.''
  In the coming weeks, the Senate will begin consideration of landmark 
financial regulatory reform legislation.
  As it does, we owe it to the American people to ensure that never 
again will the risky behavior of some Wall Street firms pose a mortal 
threat to our entire financial system. The rest of us simply cannot 
afford to pay for the mistakes of the financial elite yet another time.
  As we look to build a better, more durable, more responsible 
financial system, we must reflect on the fateful decisions and mistakes 
made over the past decade that led us to this point.
  We can begin with Congress's repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Glass-
Steagall was adopted during the Great Depression primarily to build a 
firewall between commercial and investment banking activities.
  But the passage of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act of 1999 tore down that 
wall, paving the way for a brave new world of financial conglomerates.
  These institutions sought to bring traditional banking activities 
together with securities and insurance businesses, all under the roof 
of a single ``financial supermarket.''
  This was the end of an era of responsible regulation. It was the 
beginning of an emerging laissez-faire consensus in Washington and on 
Wall Street that markets could do no wrong.
  Not surprisingly, this zeitgeist of ``market fundamentalism'' 
pervaded regulatory decisions and inaction over the past decade.
  It allowed derivatives markets to remain unregulated, even after the 
Federal Reserve had to orchestrate a multibillion dollar bailout of the 
hedge fund Long Term Capital Management, which had used these contracts 
to leverage a relatively small amount of capital into trillions of 
dollars of exposure.
  It also provided a justification for the Federal Reserve and other 
banking regulators to ignore widespread instances of predatory lending 
and deteriorating mortgage origination standards.
  It prompted regulators to rely upon credit ratings and banks' own 
internal models, instead of their own audits and judgments, when 
determining how much capital banks needed to hold based upon the 
riskiness of their assets.
  Perhaps most importantly, this era of lax regulation allowed a small 
cadre of Wall Street firms to grow completely unchecked, without any 
regard to their size or the risks they took.
  In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission established a 
putative regulatory oversight structure of the major broker-dealers, 
including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch 
and Bear Stearns, that ultimately allowed these firms to leverage 
themselves more than 30 times to 1.
  Emboldened by the careless neglect of their regulator, these Wall 
Street institutions constructed an unsustainable model punctuated by 
increasingly risky behavior.
  For example, some firms used trillions of dollars of short-term 
liabilities to finance illiquid inventories of securities, engage in 
speculative trading activities and provide loans to hedge funds.
  When their toxic assets and investments went south, these highly 
leveraged institutions could no longer roll over their short-term 
loans, leading them, and all of us, down a vicious spiral that required 
a massive government bailout to stop.
  Despite this extremely painful experience, Wall Street has resumed 
business as usual. Only now, the business is even more lucrative.
  The financial crisis has led to the consolidation of Wall Street.
  The survivors face less competition than ever before, allowing them 
to charge customers higher fees on transactions, from equities to bonds 
to derivatives.
  In addition, in the wake of the financial crisis, markets remain 
volatile and choppy. Firms willing and able to step into the breach 
have generated higher returns.
  Until this Congress acts, there is no guarantee that the short-term 
trading profits being reaped by Wall Street today will not become 
losses borne by the rest of America down the road.
  As many of my colleagues know, I have come to the floor repeatedly to 
warn about the short-term mindset on Wall Street, embodied by the 
explosive growth in high frequency trading.
  In just a few short years, high-frequency trading has grown from 30 
percent of the daily trading volume in stocks to as high as 70 percent.
  It has been reported that some high-frequency firms and quantitative-
strategy hedge funds have business relationships with major banks, 
allowing them to use their services, credit lines, and market access to 
execute high-frequency trading strategies.
  Under some of these arrangements, these Wall Street banks are 
reportedly splitting the profits.
  In other cases, the major banks have built their own internal 
proprietary trading desks.
  These divisions often use their own capital to ``internalize,'' or 
trade against, customer order flow.
  Such a practice poses inherent conflicts of interest: brokers are 
bound by an obligation to seek the best prices for their clients' 
orders, but, in trading against those orders, firms also have a 
potential profit-motive to disadvantage their clients.
  Both of these arrangements are evidence of a greater problem: Wall 
Street has become heavily centered on leverage and trading.
  Undoubtedly, short-term strategies have paid off for banks. In fact, 
much of the profits earned by our Nation's largest financial 
institutions have been posted by their trading divisions.

[[Page S84]]

  But an emphasis on short-term trading is cause for concern, 
particularly if traders are taking leveraged positions in order to 
maximize their short-term earning potential.
  By doing so, such high frequency traders, who execute thousands of 
trades a second, could pose a systemic risk to the overall marketplace.
  In short, Wall Street once again has become fixated on short-term 
trading profits and has lost sight of its highest and best purposes: to 
serve the interests of long-term investors and to lend and raise 
capital for companies, large and small, so they can innovate, grow and 
create jobs.
  As I have spoken about on the Senate floor previously, the downward 
decline in initial public offerings for small companies over the past 
15 years has hurt our economy and its ability to create jobs.
  While calculated risk-taking is a fundamental part of finance, 
markets only work when investors not only benefit from their returns, 
but also bear the risk and the cost of failure.
  What is most troubling about our situation today is that on Wall 
Street, it is a game of heads I win, tails you bail me out.
  The size, scope, complexity and interconnectedness of many financial 
institutions have made them ``too big to fail.''
  Moreover, the popularity of the ``financial supermarket'' model 
further raises the risk that insured deposits of banks can be used to 
finance speculative proprietary trading operations.
  Unfortunately, these risks have only been heightened by recent 
decisions by the Federal Reserve: the first to grant bank holding 
company charters to Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley; the second to 
grant temporary exemptions to prudential regulations that limit loans 
banks can make to their securities affiliates.
  There are a number of ways we can address these problems.
  The major financial reform proposals being considered in Congress 
propose some entity for identifying systemically risky firms and 
subjecting them to heightened regulation and prudential standards, 
including leverage requirements.
  In addition, these proposals also include an orderly mechanism for 
the prompt corrective action and dissolution of troubled financial 
institutions of systemic importance that is typically based upon the 
one already in place for banks.
  Although both of these ideas are vital reforms, they are not 
sufficient ones.
  Instead, we must go further, heeding some of the sage advice, as 
President Obama has today, provided by Paul Volcker, the former Federal 
Reserve Chairman and current chairman of President Obama's Economic 
Recovery Advisory Board.
  Chairman Volcker has said: ``Commercial banking institutions should 
not engage in highly risky entrepreneurial activity. That's not their 
job because it brings into question the stability of the institution . 
. . It may encourage pursuit of a profit in the short run. But it is 
not consistent with the stability that those institutions should be 
about. It's not consistent at all with avoiding conflicts of 
interest.''
  I strongly support the ideas Chairman Volcker has recently put 
forward regarding the need to limit the proprietary trading activities 
of banks.
  Indeed, they get at the root cause of the financial meltdown by 
ensuring Wall Street's recklessness never again cripples our economy.
  We can reduce the moral hazard present in a model that allows banking 
to mix with securities activities by prohibiting banks from providing 
their securities affiliates with any loans or other forms of 
assistance.
  While commercial banks should be protected by the government in the 
form of deposit insurance and emergency lending, Chairman Volcker 
states, ``That protection, to the extent practical, should not be 
extended to broadly cover risky capital market activities removed from 
the core commercial banking functions.''
  Such a reform would completely eliminate the possibility of banks 
even indirectly using the insured deposits of their customers to 
finance the speculative trading operations of their securities 
affiliates.
  In addition, we can bar commercial banks from owning or sponsoring 
``hedge funds, private equity funds, and purely proprietary trading in 
securities, derivatives or commodity markets.''
  As Vice President Biden aptly and succinctly put it: ``Be a bank or 
be a hedge fund. But don't be a bank hedge fund.''
  That is why I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of the bill introduced by 
Senators Cantwell and McCain to reinstate Glass-Steagall, because I 
thought it was a start to this very important conversation.
  Separating commercial banking from merchant banking and proprietary 
trading operations is an important step toward addressing banks that 
are ``too big to fail.''
  Additionally, we need to impose restrictions on size and leverage, 
particularly on the reliance on short-term liabilities, and give 
regulators additional powers to break apart firms that pose serious 
threats to the stability of the financial system or others.
  Reducing the size and scope of individual entities will limit risky 
banking behavior, minimize the possibility of one institution's failure 
causing industry-wide panic and decrease the need to again rescue large 
failing institutions.
  Together, all of these reforms will create a financial system that is 
``safe against failure.''
  We cannot continue to leave the taxpayers vulnerable to future 
bailouts simply because some large banking institutions wish to pursue 
short-term trading profits.
  For that reason, as Congress works to pass financial regulatory 
reform in the coming weeks, reducing systemic risk by eliminating 
conflicts of interest and addressing banks deemed ``too big to fail'' 
should be some of our top priorities.
  Separating core banking franchise from speculative activities, 
imposing tighter leverage requirements and examining the complicated 
relationships between high-frequency traders and banks constitute 
critical steps toward ensuring our financial markets are strong and 
stable.
  By adopting these commonsense proposals, we can go a long way toward 
stabilizing our economy, restoring confidence in our markets and 
protecting the American people from a future bailout.
  America cannot afford another financial meltdown and the American 
people are looking to Congress to ensure that that does not happen.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, over the past 5 months, I have 
repeatedly expressed concerns about the Environmental Protection 
Agency's decision to issue backdoor climate regulations under the Clean 
Air Act. I spoke at length about this issue on the Senate floor in 
September and then again in December. I have also discussed it with 
dozens of groups from all across the political spectrum and found there 
is remarkably widespread agreement with my views on this issue. As the 
EPA moves closer and closer to issuing these regulations, I continue to 
believe that this command and control approach is our worst option for 
reducing emissions blamed for climate change. I also believe that with 
so much at stake, Congress must be given time to develop an appropriate 
and more responsible solution.
  Today, after consultation with the Parliamentarian, I have come to 
the floor to introduce a resolution of disapproval under the 
Congressional Review Act that would prevent the EPA from acting on its 
own. Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, and 
Senator Landrieu of Louisiana have joined me as cosponsors on this 
bipartisan resolution, along with 35 of my Republican colleagues.
  I have also come to reaffirm and reemphasize my previous remarks on 
this issue. Given what has been alleged about my intentions, I believe 
this debate needs to be directed back to its substance and away from 
the ad hominem attacks and red herrings thrown out in the past few 
weeks.
  There is a legitimate and a substantive debate to be had over whether 
the EPA should be allowed to issue command and control regulations. I 
welcome the debate. If there are any Senators who support the 
unprecedented regulatory intrusion the EPA is

[[Page S85]]

pursuing, I hope those Members will come to the floor and explain why. 
I strongly oppose that approach. I hope my colleagues will listen to my 
explanation as to why I feel as strongly about this as I do.
  Our bipartisan resolution deals with an incredibly important issue; 
that is, whether Members of this body are comfortable with actions EPA 
will take under its current interpretation of the Clean Air Act. I am 
not comfortable with those actions. Neither are the Senators who have 
already agreed to add their names to this effort. The Clean Air Act was 
written by Congress to regulate criteria pollutants, not greenhouse 
gases. Its implementation remains subject to oversight and guidance 
from elected representatives. We should continue our work to pass 
meaningful energy and climate legislation, but in the meantime, we 
cannot turn a blind eye to the EPA's efforts to impose backdoor climate 
regulations with no input from Congress.
  The decision to offer this resolution was brought about by what will 
happen in the wake of EPA's decision to issue the endangerment finding. 
It is not merely a finding; it is actually a floodgate. Under the guise 
of protecting the environment, it is set to unleash a wave of damaging 
new regulations that will wash over and further submerge our struggling 
economy. Make no mistake, if Congress allows this to happen, there will 
be severe consequences to our economy. Businesses will be forced to cut 
jobs, if not move outside our borders or close their doors for good, 
perhaps. Domestic energy production will be severely restricted, 
increasing our dependence on foreign suppliers and threatening our 
national security. Housing will become less affordable and consumer 
goods more expensive as the impact of the EPA's regulations are felt in 
towns, cities, and on farms all across America.
  My home State is a perfect example of why we must proceed with utmost 
caution. If these regulations are allowed, the consequences for Alaska 
will be devastating. Hundreds of facilities will be subject to much 
greater regulation, including large hospitals, hotels, fish processors, 
and mines. Energy-intensive businesses throughout the State will be 
forced to acquire, install, and operate new equipment and technologies. 
In many cases, this will prove impossible because the technologies are 
either too expensive or they simply do not exist.
  Because the EPA's proposed regulations are such a blunt tool, they 
will hit my State's energy sector particularly hard. The continued 
operation of existing businesses and future endeavors alike, including 
Alaska's three refineries, the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, TAPS, and 
the proposed Alaska natural gas pipeline, will all be jeopardized.
  Take for example the Flint Hills refinery. This is located just south 
of Fairbanks. This refinery purchases royalty oil out of the pipeline 
at premium rates, which is critically important to the continued 
operation of TAPS itself. That 800-mile-long pipeline has been 
challenged by decreasing throughput as lower volumes are taking longer 
to arrive from the North Slope. Oil is also arriving at the Flint Hills 
refinery at lower temperatures than it used to, which requires more 
energy to heat and craft the crude oil into the marketable fuels 
Alaskans depend upon. The Flint Hills refinery already struggles to 
keep its jet fuel output at competitive rates in order to maintain 
Anchorage's status as a major center for global air cargo. It also 
faces a relatively inelastic market in Alaska for its other fuel 
products. The EPA will likely be unable and unwilling to address these 
issues under its command and control climate regulations.
  I mentioned the Alaska natural gas pipeline--something we are working 
very hard to allow to come about. The construction and operation of an 
Alaska natural gas pipeline would be significantly hobbled by the EPA. 
The main reason for this relates to compressor stations which maintain 
a pipeline's pressures and enable movement of the gas. There is no 
known best available control technology, as would be required under the 
Clean Air Act, for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from compressors 
and no good options for compliance.
  I cannot overstate how important these facilities and these projects 
are to Alaska and to America. Our refineries help ensure the State's 
status as a transportation hub as well as a strategic base for military 
operations. The Trans Alaska Pipeline System delivers hundreds of 
thousands of barrels of oil to Americans each day and most of the 
revenue for Alaska's State budget. The proposed natural gas pipeline is 
a pillar of our future economy that will bring Americans billions of 
cubic feet of clean-burning natural gas. Collectively, these projects 
mean well-paying jobs for thousands of hard-working Alaskans. While the 
EPA's endangerment finding may be described as an effort to protect our 
environment, it would actually damage the very foundation of my State's 
economy.
  Alaska isn't the only State that would face dire economic 
consequences. My colleagues need to consider the ripple effect of this 
decision and the heavy economic burden it will place on those 
throughout the lower 48. This was foreshadowed in New Mexico back in 
September. In December, Kentucky faced the same situation; Arkansas, 
just last week. The EPA has ordered regulators in each of these States 
to go back to the drawing board on plans to build new powerplants. 
These decisions were all the result of this EPA's interpretation of the 
Clean Air Act and represent a fundamental departure from the permitting 
process Congress had envisioned for this statute. The implications are 
clear. The people who live in those States are already feeling the 
effects. Construction is being delayed. Jobs are not being created or, 
more importantly, being filled. Commerce is suffering. Depending on 
what becomes of these proposed plants, local residents may have to 
brace for a spike in energy prices as well.
  Seen in this light, the EPA's regulations will not only add a thick 
new layer of Federal bureaucracy, but they will also serve to depress 
economic activity, to slow it down, to make it more expensive, to 
render it less efficient. If you thought the recession made for good 
environmental policy, I expect you will love what the EPA has to offer. 
Obtaining Federal air permits is already an exercise in administrative 
agony that can take years and cost millions of dollars. That is before 
the existing system is overwhelmed by millions of new applicants.
  Instead of accepting that the Clean Air Act is not appropriate for 
this task, the EPA has proposed to lift its regulatory thresholds to 
25,000 tons per year for greenhouse gases. That represents a clear 
departure from the statute's explicit requirements and has opened the 
Agency to litigation--costly, time-consuming, and endlessly frustrating 
litigation. Lawsuits are already being prepared against the EPA's so-
called tailoring proposal. When the final rule is issued, it will be 
challenged. I expect the courts will then reject it, as it has no legal 
basis, and then restore the regulatory thresholds to 100 tons and 250 
tons per year. Before long, the Agency will find itself mired in the 
regulatory nightmare it has sought to avoid.

  Again, it is hard not to find this both surreal and deeply 
disturbing. The national unemployment rate has spiked to 10-plus 
percent. Yet here in Washington Federal bureaucrats are contemplating 
regulations that will destroy jobs, while millions of Americans are 
doing everything they can just to find one. Moreover, given the amount 
of time it has taken us in the Senate to consider health care and the 
list of many other bills waiting to be considered, it appears there 
will not be enough time for Congress to debate energy and climate 
legislation before the EPA takes action. That means the people of our 
States have no voice in this process. They will be subject to rules and 
regulations that affect their lives and their livelihoods without ever 
having had an opportunity to express their concerns through their 
representatives in Congress.
  Perhaps the most important question that needs to be answered is, Why 
would the EPA want to pursue these regulations right now when we should 
be focused on getting our economy back on track? Environmental 
advocates, senior Democrats, the administrator of the EPA, and even the 
President have repeatedly said they prefer congressional legislation. 
So with such

[[Page S86]]

widespread and high-level agreement, one would think it would be easy 
to suspend the Agency's efforts. Unfortunately, that is not the case. 
Many of those same individuals are somehow convinced that the threat of 
EPA regulations is somehow useful, somehow necessary. It is no secret 
that this is the centerpiece of a highly coercive strategy. It is the 
administration attempting to force the Congress to pass a climate bill 
more quickly than it otherwise would. For my part, that strategy has 
failed so far. It will continue to fail in the months ahead because 
Members of Congress will not enact bad legislation in order to stave 
off bad regulation. What the administration's strategy has done is to 
put Congress in a difficult position.
  It is apparent to almost all of us that more time is needed to 
develop a good climate policy that can draw the bipartisan support of a 
majority in the Senate. We are working on it. My staff is actively 
working to develop a wide range of approaches for reducing emissions. 
We know Senator Cantwell and Senator Collins have recently introduced a 
new approach. Senators Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman are hard at work on 
their tripartisan proposal. As the EPA proceeds with its greenhouse gas 
regulations, Congress remains far from completing its work, and we are 
left with no choice but to shift at least part of our focus to halting 
the EPA's efforts.
  As I have stated before, my goals here are twofold: to ensure that 
Congress has sufficient time to work on climate legislation and to 
ensure that the worst of options, which is a massive expansion of the 
Clean Air Act, does not occur before that task is finished.
  In addition to the Senators who have signed on as cosponsors of our 
bipartisan resolution, there are a variety of stakeholders who have 
expressed strong support for slowing or stopping the EPA from issuing 
its greenhouse gas regulations. Many of these comments have focused on 
the tailoring proposal, while others oppose the endangerment finding 
itself. Some at the outer edges of the environmental community, 
obviously, disagree. But I think much of the rest of America--including 
State officials, businesses, farmers, and taxpayer advocates--all share 
our belief that the Clean Air Act should not be used to regulate 
emissions.

  I would like to give you a few examples.
  The Governor of Alaska, Sean Parnell, has written:

       The fundamental question posed by the proposed rule is 
     whether greenhouse gases can be effectively regulated under 
     the Clean Air Act. We think not. Attempting to force fit the 
     Clean Air Act to the purpose of regulating greenhouse gases 
     will be ineffective and will negatively impact Alaska. . . . 
     The proposed rule would bury Alaska's businesses, 
     institutions, and the State's environmental agencies in 
     regulatory burden.

  The Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, has written:

       Regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act 
     will undoubtedly increase the cost of energy, increase the 
     cost of doing business, increase the cost of consumer 
     products, and jeopardize millions of jobs by putting U.S. 
     manufacturers at a disadvantage against foreign competitors.

  The Governor of West Virginia, Joe Manchin, commented:

       At a time when our state is fighting to save jobs and 
     stabilize the economy, we cannot afford to act carelessly. 
     EPA has taken a risky and unprecedented step in promulgating 
     this rule. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is a 
     matter that should be left to Congress, and EPA would be wise 
     to seek Congressional action instead of attempting to 
     regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

  Even the California Energy Commission, based in the State with the 
strictest environmental standards, felt compelled to weigh in because, 
as they state, ``EPA's proposed PSD tailoring threshold jeopardizes 
California's renewable energy strategy.'' So instead of speeding the 
transition to cleaner energy, California is actually worried that the 
EPA's proposals will actually slow down their progress.
  Dozens of State Governors and attorneys general have submitted 
comments opposing at least one of the EPA's regulations. But comments 
from our elected officials are not the half of it.
  The National Taxpayers Union has issued a press release that says, in 
part:

       At a time when taxpayers are feeling the biggest squeeze 
     since the Great Depression, it's unconscionable that Congress 
     is responding with regulatory and legislative proposals that 
     will only make matters worse.

  Then, in a letter that was delivered to me just yesterday, the 
American Farm Bureau Federation wrote that its delegates have 
unanimously adopted a resolution that ``strongly supports any 
legislative action that would suspend EPA's authority to regulate 
greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.''
  The letter goes on to assert that:

       How carbon emissions should be regulated is a matter to be 
     decided by elected officials; that debate is now ongoing on 
     Capitol Hill. It is there that these policy questions should 
     be answered.

  Finally, the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy has 
concluded that the EPA's greenhouse gas rules will likely have a 
``significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small 
entities. . . . Small businesses, small communities, and small non-
profit associations will be affected either immediately or in the near-
term.''
  As public awareness of our bipartisan disapproval resolution grows in 
the days ahead, I expect there will be many more statements that will 
be issued in support of its passage. While there is an extremely vocal 
minority that does not support it, I do hope my Senate colleagues will 
look at the broad coalition that does and join us to oppose the EPA's 
regulations.
  Before I wrap up, Mr. President, I would also like to address the 
criticisms and arguments that have been made by those who oppose my 
efforts. I would like to address four of the latest claims in hopes of 
putting them to rest.
  First of all, I would like to reiterate that our bipartisan 
disapproval resolution deals with the EPA's current interpretation of 
the Clean Air Act and has nothing to do with the science of global 
climate change. I would also remind my critics that I cosponsored a 
cap-and-trade bill in the last Congress and last year worked with the 
members of the Senate Energy Committee to craft a bipartisan clean 
energy bill. That bill, unfortunately, has been languishing on the 
Senate calendar for nearly 8 months now, just waiting to be called up 
and considered, which I think is a real shame because it would lead to 
significant emissions reductions and greater energy security for our 
country.
  I would also like to address a rather creative claim that has been 
made that somehow I am attempting to ``gut'' the Clean Air Act or 
subvert it into a ``Dirty Air Act.'' I have to admit, when I first saw 
this, it actually made me laugh because it is so wildly inaccurate. 
Neither my previous amendment nor this resolution would have any effect 
on pollution standards and controls. Neither would change a single word 
of the current statute. My resolution would simply prevent the massive, 
unwarranted expansion of this statute by halting the EPA's efforts to 
use it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions--a purpose for which it was 
never intended, and a role that it simply cannot fulfill without 
serious and detrimental consequences.
  It has also been stated that this resolution will somehow--somehow--
prevent Congress from working constructively on climate legislation 
this year. Not the case. My resolution will restrain the EPA's ability 
to issue greenhouse gas regulations, but it will have absolutely no 
bearing on Congress's ability to debate climate policy. It is 
especially ironic that these comments were made by the Senator who has 
complete control of the Senate calendar. So if climate legislation does 
not come up this year, it is abundantly clear to me who will have made 
that decision.
  The last claim I would like to address is the allegation about who 
helped draft my September amendment, which I might remind colleagues 
was never offered and is no longer on the table. Not only are those 
allegations categorically false, but they highlight--they highlight--
the unwillingness of opponents of this measure to engage in the real 
policy discussion we should be having. The question so many of the 
individuals and groups opposed to my efforts have failed entirely to 
answer is if they honestly think--if they honestly think--that EPA 
climate regulations under the Clean Air Act would be good or bad for 
America.
  I hope the debate over this resolution will stay rooted in substance. 
There is

[[Page S87]]

plenty of substance for us to debate. There is a legitimate and a 
substantive debate to be had about whether the EPA should be allowed to 
issue these regulations before Congress has had an opportunity to fully 
debate the issue of climate change. In my mind, the answer is no. 
Congress must be given the time it needs to develop a responsible 
policy that protects both the environment and the economy.
  We are not incapable or even unwilling to legislate on this topic. So 
far, this Congress has merely failed to develop a balanced measure that 
draws enough support to be signed into law. We can remedy that 
shortcoming, and I remain committed to playing a constructive role in 
that effort.
  I believe the looming specter of EPA regulations is actually a big 
part of the reason we have had difficulty moving forward on climate 
legislation. Even though we know that some approaches for reducing 
emissions are greatly inferior to others, there is inexplicable 
resistance to removing even our worst option from consideration.
  I have not heard one Member--one Member--say he or she prefers 
regulation over legislation. I have not heard one Member say that. Yet 
that option is not only still around, but it is also closer than ever 
to becoming reality. As long as it remains out there, it will be plan B 
for those who wish to address climate change at any cost. If this issue 
has become so politicized that some Members would support EPA 
regulation instead of a legislative effort aimed at passing a 
bipartisan bill, that would not only be a tragedy for our constituents 
but I believe also a sad day for us in the Senate.

  If we are serious about fulfilling our duty to our constituents and 
giving this issue the full debate it deserves, we should take the EPA 
regulations off the table. Without a backstop that says ``emissions 
will be reduced, one way or another, no matter how painful,'' supports 
of climate legislation would have to get serious about finding common 
ground and bipartisan cosponsors.
  Major environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean 
Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act all faced opposition at the 
outset. That is no secret or surprise. But Members worked together to 
resolve concerns instead of threatening to take a different and more 
damaging course.
  As Senator Ed Muskie would later write, the Clean Air Act ``was 
passed unanimously after just two days on the floor,'' which prompted 
Senator Eugene McCarthy to remark that he had ``finally found an issue 
better than motherhood--and some people are even against motherhood.'' 
The Clean Water Act passed by a vote of 86 to 0, and the Safe Drinking 
Water Act did not even require a rollcall vote. It was passed by voice 
vote.
  The Senate has a history of coming together to overwhelmingly support 
commonsense environmental legislation. But today, however, as we seek 
the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we are being presented 
with a false choice between unacceptable legislation and unacceptable 
regulations. We are being told--threatened really--to pass a bill now 
or the economy will suffer. A number of Senators are trying to develop 
bills that can be signed into law, but even as that work continues, the 
EPA's endangerment finding has opened the door to further economic 
damage.
  I believe Congress must take that option off the table, and we can do 
that by approving the bipartisan disapproval resolution that 39 
Senators have now submitted. Allowing the EPA to proceed will endanger 
jobs, our economy, and our global competitiveness. That should be an 
outcome we can all agree to avoid.
  If you truly believe that EPA climate regulations are good for the 
country, then you can vote to oppose our resolution. But if you share 
our concerns and you believe climate policy should be debated in 
Congress, then vote with us to support it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what we are about to debate is an 
unprecedented move by the Senator and her cosponsors to overturn a 
health finding made by health experts and scientific experts in order 
to stand with the special interests. Now that is clear to me, 
regardless of what is said on this floor. I listened to my colleague. I 
never heard her say we want to overturn the experts who found that 
carbon pollution is a danger to the health of our families.
  Now, look, it is very reasonable to debate the best way to clean up 
the air from carbon pollution. I have a way I think is the best that is 
supported by many in the environmental community, many in the business 
community. I have a letter signed--which I would ask to be printed in 
the Record--by 80 businesses that just took out an ad and said: Let's 
get on with it. They want to set up the type of system that I do, which 
would give maximum flexibility to business.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Dear President Obama and Members of Congress

       As you set the nation's legislative agenda and policy 
     priorities for the Second Session of the 111th Congress, we, 
     American business leaders from companies of all sizes and 
     sectors of our economy, call on you to move swiftly and 
     boldly to enact comprehensive energy and climate legislation. 
     This legislation will spur a new energy economy and with it 
     create 1.7 million new American jobs, many in struggling 
     communities across the country. At the same time, it will 
     enhance our national security by making America more energy 
     independent while also cutting carbon emissions.
       Today, the United States is falling behind in the global 
     race to lead the new energy economy. American businesses 
     recognize this challenge and have already begun to respond 
     and innovate. We are developing new technologies, launching 
     new companies, and introducing new business models that drive 
     economic growth, create new jobs and decrease our carbon 
     footprint. However, today's uncertainty surrounding energy 
     and climate regulation is hindering the large-scale actions 
     that American businesses are poised to make.
       We need strong policies and clear market signals that 
     support the transition to a low-carbon economy and reward 
     companies that innovate. With certainty, clear rules of the 
     road, and a level playing field, US businesses will deploy 
     capital, plan, build, innovate and compete successfully in 
     the global marketplace.
       For American business to unleash a new industrial 
     revolution in energy, we need cooperative and coordinated 
     action in the public policy and the business arenas. We are 
     ready to compete and we urge you to act so that we can win 
     the global race. It is time for the Administration and 
     Congress to embrace this policy as the promising economic 
     opportunity that will empower American workers to compete and 
     American entrepreneurship to lead the way. We stand ready to 
     work with you to create and grow this important economic 
     sector.
       Now is the time to act. Together we can lead.

  Mrs. BOXER. We have many mayors. We had our 1,000th mayor say: Get on 
with it. Let's get the job done.
  Senator Murkowski laid out various ways that we have people 
working. She left out one way. The House-passed bill. The Senate 
Environment and Public Works had an overwhelming majority in our 
committee for our approach. We have Senators Kerry, Graham, and 
Lieberman--and I support what they are doing--trying to find the 60 
votes so we can have the kind of bipartisanship Senator Murkowski 
lauds. We have Senators Cantwell and Collins coming together--and I am 
very excited about that--on a new approach on how to deal with carbon 
pollution, and that debate is appropriate. Let me tell my colleagues 
what is not appropriate: to repeal a finding that was made by 
scientists and health experts that carbon pollution is a danger to the 
health of our children, to our families, to our communities. That is 
inappropriate, and it has never, ever been done before.

  I wish to say where I stand on this. My No. 1 job as a Senator is to 
protect the health and safety of the people of my great State of 
California and the people of America. I believe that is our highest 
calling. The Murkowski resolution is a direct assault on the health of 
the American people. Make no mistake about it. You can cover it up with 
lots of words. You can say a lot of things about how proud you are of 
all the work that is going on to control carbon pollution. But when you 
get up here and you offer a resolution--and I have it in my hands--that 
clearly says overturn the endangerment finding that, simply stated, in 
accordance with the Supreme Court ruling, carbon is, in fact, a danger 
to the health of our families, to do this is unprecedented. What

[[Page S88]]

would have happened if a Senator came to the floor the year we found 
out nicotine and cigarettes are addictive and cause cancer--what would 
have happened if a Senator came down here and said, Oh, no, no. We want 
to overturn that rule that regulates how much nicotine can go in there. 
That is something we know better about because we are politicians and, 
suddenly, we become doctors.
  What would have happened if a Senator came down to the floor and 
said: We don't like the finding by the EPA that lead is a danger to our 
children and causes brain development issues and we don't want them to 
act on that. We don't want them to control that. It is OK if they suck 
it up when they are little babies. Thank God no Senator did that. I 
don't recall any Senator coming to the floor of this Senate and saying: 
Asbestos? Well, maybe it is OK if people breathe it in, so let's repeal 
the rule that says we need to protect our workers from asbestos. No 
Senator ever did that, thank God, so our agencies could move forward 
and protect our communities and our people.
  Black lung disease, that was a long time ago. There was a connection 
made between the coal dust and our miners. I don't remember--or I 
didn't read about--anybody coming to the floor and saying we need to 
repeal the health finding on this. Because we didn't have any Senators 
who did that, frankly, and because we had enough respect for health 
officials, public health officials, scientists, doctors, we let them do 
their job. Yes, we might have fought it out here: Gee, how much should 
we spend to protect our workers from black lung disease? How much 
should we spend to protect our workers from asbestos? How much should 
we spend as a society to take the lead out of paint? We never, ever had 
a Senator come down to the floor to try and overturn a finding that was 
made by the health community.
  This is a new low, in my humble opinion. The reason I say that is 
because, to me, I am here for one reason: to make life better for the 
people I represent. Repealing scientific health expert findings is not 
what I should be doing. I should be working to make sure, after I know 
the fact that there is a danger, what is the best way to get the carbon 
pollution out of the air. That is totally fair. I can tell my 
colleagues right now, I am not going to get my way on the best way to 
do it because we don't have 60 votes for that. I understand that. That 
is why I am supporting all my colleagues who are working so hard to try 
and come up with the 60 votes so we don't repeal an endangerment 
finding. What would have happened to our families if we had Senators 
who did this? We didn't do that in the past. We listened to the science 
and the health experts. We took action that saved countless lives. This 
amendment would harm our families.
  If I saw someone coming down the street about to attack my family, I 
would do exactly what my colleague would do. We would fight back. 
Whatever it took, we would fight back. Well, this is about the public 
health. This is about the health of the planet. This is about the 
future of America. This is about jobs in America. There is lots of 
debate we can have. But, my goodness, talk about picking a battle over 
a scientific fact. That is what my colleague is doing.
  She says she is standing with the American people. Let me tell my 
colleagues a few of the American people who strongly oppose what she is 
doing. The American Public Health Association says: ``We strongly urge 
you to oppose any resolution that would repeal the public health 
findings.'' The Association of Public Health Laboratories, the National 
Association of County and City Health Officials, the National 
Environmental Health Association, the Physicians for Social 
Responsibility, the Trust for America's Health, the Centers for Disease 
Control which, under the administration of George W. Bush, started the 
scientific work that lead to this endangerment finding. Let's be clear. 
Ninety percent of the work on this endangerment finding was done by the 
Bush administration. This is such a radical amendment, it throws out 
all their work too.
  Our families come first, and if our families come first in all our 
minds, then we can battle about how to get the carbon out of the air, 
but we should not be repealing a finding that clearly states that our 
family's health would suffer if we don't get this carbon out of the 
air.
  My colleague says she wants to get the carbon out of the air. She is 
looking forward to working with all the colleagues I mentioned and 
more. That is great. Believe me, she and I have talked about this, and 
I hope she comes to the table. It would be wonderful if we got her help 
and she went on a bill. So far that hasn't happened and that is her 
choice. Maybe she will write her own bill, and that would be wonderful 
too. But that doesn't mean because we haven't found the 60 votes that 
we can afford to come down here and repeal a finding that is very clear 
about the health of our people.
  There are health effects of doing nothing. My colleague says: You 
know what. It may take us a while to fix this problem, maybe a year. It 
may take 5 years, by the way. What she wants to do is state that nobody 
can take action to protect our families from carbon pollution while we 
dither around here. I am happy we are working. It could take us a long 
time to get this. Do my colleagues know how long it took to get the 
Clean Air Act amendments? A long time. It took years. I am not willing 
to put my family and my State--my families in my State and my State in 
jeopardy, nor the American people. Because if we take away this 
endangerment finding and we decide we know better than all the health 
experts and all the scientific experts, EPA cannot do anything.
  My colleague complains about the command and control of the EPA. I 
wish to talk about that--the command and control of the EPA. These are 
words that are meant to frighten people. I never heard her come down 
and say: We want to take away the command and control of the EPA under 
the Clean Air Act to make sure we don't have smog in the air. I never 
heard her come down here and say: We don't need to have the command and 
control of the EPA in making sure that arsenic in the water isn't 
overwhelming or mercury in the fish. I don't hear her doing that. So 
all of a sudden, command and control of the EPA is an issue. We have an 
Environmental Protection Agency to protect our people. If we wind up 
overturning the health issues that are necessary before they can act, 
what are we doing here? Playing doctor? That is not why I came here.
  We have the EPA every day going out there and controlling hazardous 
air pollutants: carbon tetrachloride known to cause cancer. Does my 
friend want to come down and say: Gee, that is command and control; 
let's take away the ability of the EPA to protect our families from 
carbon tetrachloride. Naphthalene, another known toxin that causes 
cancer. Yes, the EPA is out there, command and control, getting it out 
of the environment. Vinyl chloride, known to cause cancer; cadmium, 
known to cause cancer and harm the reproductive system. They are all 
toxins the EPA is working on to make sure our families are protected.
  One day I suppose the Senator could come down here and say: Let's 
repeal the scientific finding that said these toxins cause cancer and 
then the EPA will not have the ability to use their command and control 
to protect our families. This is the type of precedent we are setting 
today, at a time when we know there are more and more chemicals and 
toxins that are, in fact, impacting our families. Cyanide is another 
one. Cyanide. The scientists told us it is extremely toxic to people. 
It harms the nervous system. It harms the cardiovascular system and the 
respiratory system. We control it through command and control and the 
EPA because it is a danger. The Supreme Court said, in very clear 
language, to the Bush EPA: You wasted 8 years. This is a danger to 
society. In the Supreme Court decision, this conservative court said to 
the EPA: You better make this endangerment finding.
  Here is what we know about the endangerment finding my colleague 
wants to overturn. There is evidence--this is what the EPA found--that 
the number of extremely hot days is increasing. Severe heat waves are 
projected to intensify, which result in heat-related mortality and 
sickness. It goes on to talk about air quality, and this is important: 
Climate change is expected to worsen regional ground-level ozone 
pollution. Exposure to ground-level ozone has been linked to 
respiratory health problems ranging

[[Page S89]]

from decreased lung function and aggravated asthma to increased 
emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and even premature 
death. It goes on and talks about the elderly, people in already poor 
health, the disabled, people living alone, and the extreme events that 
are anticipated which, by the way, some people feel are already 
happening: extreme events such as extreme cold, extreme snow, extreme 
flooding, extreme drought; some of the things that are already 
happening.
  Why on Earth would the Senate get into the business of repealing 
science, repealing the work of health experts? There is only one 
answer. There is only one answer, to me: That is what the special 
interests want to have happen now because they are desperate, because 
they know the Clean Air Act does, in fact, cover carbon pollution. The 
Supreme Court found that. They have nowhere else to turn. The only way 
to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting our 
families, the way they protect them from lead and arsenic and smog and 
naphthalene and vinyl chloride and cyanide and others, is to begin to 
act.
  We know the EPA is very aware we are working on legislation. They 
have told us, and I think they would tell anyone who would call them, 
they are not interested in doing some draconian measures now. They are 
just getting ready. They are just getting started because the science 
has told us this is a problem. So people can stand here and say: Oh, 
all we are doing is we are just giving a little time for the Senators 
to get their 60 votes. Hey, that may not happen in a year or two or 
three or five or six or eight or ten. Maybe it will happen tomorrow. 
Believe me, I am working on it.
  I am very hopeful that it will work. When you get 80 businesses 
writing us and telling us in a letter--a new organization called We Can 
Lead, and these are very, very important businesses all across our 
Nation--maybe that will help us act.
  Until that time, there is only one thing that is available to protect 
our people, to protect their families and their children and the 
planet, and that is the Environmental Protection Agency. Maybe if you 
don't like the Environmental Protection Agency, you can get up here and 
offer an amendment to do away with the EPA, just do away with it, or 
try to change the Clean Air Act and say it should not cover carbon--if 
that is what you want to do. By the way, we would debate that very 
soundly. It would be a good debate. Don't come here and try to repeal a 
very important scientific and health finding, because that sets a whole 
new precedent. Lord knows where it could lead.
  We have more letters. My colleague says she stands on the side of the 
people. OK. That is her judgment. I tell you, if you went out and said 
to people: Should the Senate repeal a scientific finding that has been 
signed off on by the Bush administration, the current administration, 
and health care experts all over the country, they would say: No. What 
are they doing? Why are they meddling in our health?
  That is not how the Senator is explaining her amendment, her 
resolution. She says: Oh, it is just a little moratorium and it will 
just stop this for a little while. Not true. It repeals the 
endangerment finding.
  Let me tell you about some other letters we received. There are 195 
undersigned endorsers--remember, you heard from my colleague that the 
people stand with her. We have a letter from 195 signers saying: We 
urge you to oppose the imminent attack on the Clean Air Act that would 
undermine public health and prevent action on global warming. This 
attack comes in the form of an amendment by Senator Murkowski to the 
debt bill. They thought it was coming in that form. It is now coming in 
a different form, which is to reverse the endangerment finding.
  They go on to say:

       The EPA's ``endangerment finding'' is based on an 
     exhaustive review of the massive body of scientific research 
     showing a clear threat from climate change.

  They go on and they say that their organization has a 40-year track 
record of protecting the public health.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator be willing to yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, as long as I don't lose the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
after the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure the 
speaker after that is from our side. With that understanding, I will 
not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to put into the Record a letter 
from 195 doctors and scientists who are alarmed at this Murkowski 
amendment to repeal the endangerment finding. I ask unanimous consent 
to have this letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 January 19, 2010.
       Dear Senators: We--the 195 undersigned endorsers--urge you 
     to oppose an imminent attack on the Clean Air Act (CAA) that 
     would undermine public health and prevent action on global 
     warming. This attack comes in the form of an amendment by 
     Senator Murkowski to the debt limit bill (H.J. Res. 45) that 
     would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 
     acting on its finding that global warming endangers public 
     health and welfare. Because the EPA's finding is based on 
     solid science, this amendment also represents a rejection of 
     that science.
       The EPA's ``endangerment finding'' is based on an 
     exhaustive review of the massive body of scientific research 
     showing a clear threat from climate change. The 2007 Fourth 
     Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
     Change (IPCC) found that global warming will cause water 
     shortages, loss of species, hazards to coasts from sea level 
     rise, and an increase in the severity of extreme weather 
     events. The most recent science includes findings that sea 
     level rise may be more pronounced then the IPCC report 
     predicted and that oceans will absorb less of our future 
     emissions. Recently, 18 American scientific societies sent a 
     letter to the U.S. Senate confirming the consensus view on 
     climate science and calling from action to reduce greenhouse 
     gases ``if we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate 
     change.'' The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and 10 
     international scientific academies have also released such 
     statements. Unfortunately, the Murkowski amendment would 
     force the EPA to ignore these scientific findings and 
     statements.
       The CAA is a law with a nearly 40-year track record of 
     protecting public health and the environment and spurring 
     innovation by cutting dangerous pollution. This effective 
     policy can help address the threat of climate change--but 
     only if the EPA retains its ability to respond to scientific 
     findings. Instead of standing in the way of climate action, 
     the Senate should move quickly to enact climate and energy 
     legislation that will curb global warming, save consumers 
     money, and create jobs. In the meantime, we urge you to 
     respect the scientific integrity of the EPA's endangerment 
     finding by opposing Senator Murkowski's attack on the Clean 
     Air Act.

  Mrs. BOXER. These doctors and scientists are so alarmed at this 
Murkowski amendment to repeal an endangerment finding that they have 
written a letter, and here is who they are. I am going to take the time 
to read all of these people.


                                ALABAMA

       David Campbell, Ph.D., Tuscaloosa, AL.


                                ARIZONA

       James Gessaman, Ph.D., Tucson, AZ; Trevor Hare, M.S., 
     Tucson, AZ; Helen Unland, M.S., Gilbert, AZ.


                                ARKANSAS

       Stephen Manning, Ph.D., Beebe, AR.


                               CALIFORNIA

       Richard Ambrose, Ph.D., Los Angeles, CA; Linda Anderson, 
     Ph.D., Felton, CA; Stephen Asztalos, Ph.D., Oakland, CA; 
     Lawrence Badash, Ph.D., Santa Barbara, CA; Holger Brix, 
     Ph.D., Los Angeles, CA; Stephen Brooks, M.S., Carmel, CA; 
     Clifford Bunton, Ph.D., Santa Barbara, CA; Paul Chestnut, 
     Ph.D., Palo Alto, CA; David Cleveland, Ph.D., Santa Barbara, 
     CA; Bernard Cleyet, Ph.D., Salinas, CA; Mary Coker, M.S., 
     Morgan Hill, CA; Alan Cunningham, Ph.D., Carmel Valley, CA; 
     George Ellison, M.D., San Diego, CA; Shannon Fowler, Ph.D., 
     Davis, CA; Jed Fuhrman, Ph.D., Topanga, CA; Daniel 
     Gluesenkamp, Ph.D., San Francisco, CA; Andrew Gunther, Ph.D., 
     Oakland, CA; Karen Holl, Ph.D., Santa Cruz, CA; Jeff 
     Holmquist, Ph.D., Bishop, CA; John Holtzclaw, Ph.D., San 
     Francisco, CA; Joseph Illick, Ph.D., San Francisco, CA; 
     Burton Kallman, Torrance, CA; Richard Kranzdorf, Ph.D., San 
     Luis Obispo, CA; Arielle Levine, Ph.D., Berkeley, CA; William 
     Lidicker, Ph.D., Berkeley, CA; Ics Lindsey, M.S., Santa 
     Cruz, CA; Robert Meese, Ph.D., Davis, CA; Richard 
     Mielbrecht, M.S., Stockton, CA; Susanne Moser, Ph.D., 
     Santa Cruz, CA; Michael Nelson, M.S., candidate, Redwood 
     City, CA; Roger Pierno, M.S., Palo Alto, CA; James 
     Provenzano, Ph.D. candidate, Los Angeles, CA; Paul 
     Rosenberger, B.S., Manhattan Beach, CA;

[[Page S90]]

     Dale Sartor, M.B.A., Oakland, CA; Robert Siebert, PE, 
     M.S., Orange, CA; David Smernoff, Ph.D., Portola Valley, 
     CA; Raymond Smith, Ph.D., Santa Barbara, CA; Glenn R. 
     Stewart, Ph.D., La Verne, CA; Laszlo J Szijj, Ph.D., 
     Claremont, CA; Mathias van Thiel, Ph.D., Hayward, CA; Ray 
     Weiss, Ph.D., La Jolla, CA; Stephen Weitz, Ph.D., Oakland, 
     CA.


                                COLORADO

       Ron Alberty, Ph.D., Boulder, CO; Albert Bartlett, J.D., 
     Boulder, CO; Robert Cifelli, Ph.D., Fort Collins, CO; Eric 
     Hintsa, Ph.D., Boulder, CO; Jose-Luis Jimenez, Ph.D., 
     Boulder, CO; Marni Koopman, Ph.D., Fort Collins, CO; Nan 
     Rosenbloom, Ph.D., Boulder, CO; Patrick Ryan, Ph.D., 
     Thornton, CO; Thomas Schlatter, Ph.D., Boulder, CO; Len 
     Shepard, M.S., Westminster, CO; Jerry Unruh, Ph.D., Manitou 
     Springs, CO; A. Wyckoff, Ph.D. candidate, Fort Collins, CO.


                              CONNECTICUT

       Robin Chazdon, Ph.D., Storrs, CT; Chandrasekhar 
     Roychoudhuri, Ph.D., Storrs Mansfield, CT.


                                FLORIDA

       James Angelo, M.S. candidate, Orlando, FL; Hillary Cherry, 
     M.S., Hobe Sound, FL; Walter R. Courtenay, Jr., Ph.D., 
     Gainesville, FL; Jack Fell, Ph.D., Key Biscayne, FL; Chris 
     Hardy, B.S., Miami, FL; Ross McCluney, Ph.D., Cape Canaveral, 
     FL; John Parker, Ph.D., Miami, FL; Milton Theaman, Ph.D., 
     Sarasota, FL.


                                GEORGIA

       Shelly Krueger, M.S. candidate, Tybee Island, GA; Andrea 
     Lowrance, M.S., Gainesville, GA; Donald McCormick, Ph.D., 
     Stone Mt., GA.


                                 HAWAII

       William Mokahi Steiner, Ph.D., Hilo, HI.


                                ILLINOIS

       Evan De Lucia, Ph.D., Urbana, IL; Karen Glennemeier, Ph.D., 
     Glenview, IL; Scott Harper, M.S., Arlington Heights, IL; 
     Caroline Herzenberg, Ph.D., Chicago, IL; Martin Jaffe, J.D., 
     Chicago, IL; Edmond Zaborski, Ph.D., Mahomet, IL.


                                INDIANA

       Novem Auyeung, Ph.D. candidate, West Lafayette, IN; Edward 
     Bachta, M.S., Fishers, IN; Mai Kuha, Ph.D., Muncie, IN; 
     Joseph Pachut, Ph.D., Indianapolis, IN; Eliot Smith, Ph.D., 
     Bloomington, IN.


                                  IOWA

       Richard Baker, Ph.D., Atalissa, IA; Margot Tollefson/
     Conard, Ph.D., Stratford, IA.


                                KENTUCKY

       Eugene Bruce, Ph.D., Lexington, KY.


                                LOUSIANA

       Torbjorn Tornqvist, Ph.D., New Orleans, LA.


                                 MAINE

       Frances Perlman, M.A., West Paris, ME.


                                MARYLAND

       DJ Manalo, Ph.D., Rockville, MD; Judith McGuire, Ph.D., 
     Chevy Chase, MD; Louis Potash, Ph.D., Bethesda, MD; Arthur 
     Tsien, Ph.D., Chevy Chase, MD.


                             MASSACHUSETTS

       William Dale, Ph.D., East Longmeadow, MA; Eric Davidson, 
     Ph.D., East Falmouth, MA; Allison Dunn, Ph.D., Boston, MA; 
     Robert Gamache, Ph.D., Lowell, MA; Timothy Havel, Ph.D., 
     Boston, MA; Charles Kolb, Ph.D., Bedford, MA; Dianne 
     Rocheleau, Ph.D., Worcester, MA; Daniel Scholten, M.S., 
     Carlisle, MA; Elske Smith, Ph.D., Lenox, MA; Frank Streeter, 
     M.B.A., Lancaster, MA; John Terrell, Ph.D., Lincoln, MA; 
     Nicholas White, Ph.D., Manchester, MA; Frank Wilczek, Ph.D., 
     Cambridge, MA; Jeremy Winick, Ph.D., Acton, MA.


                                MICHIGAN

       Peter Albers, Ph.D., Traverse City, MI; Norman Andresen, 
     Ph.D., Ypsilanti, MI; Mick DeGraeve, Ph.D., Traverse City, 
     MI; Ray Frodey, M.S., Fremont, MI; Gerald Gardner, Ph.D., Ann 
     Arbor, MI; John Lorand, Ph.D., Mount Pleasant, MI; Stella 
     Papasavva, Ph.D., Royal Oak, MI.


                               MINNESOTA

       Dragoljub Bilanovic, Ph.D., Bemidji, MN; Jason Dahl, Ph.D., 
     candidate, Bemidji, MN; Evan Hazard, Ph.D., Bemidji, MN.


                              MISSISSIPPI

       James Lazell, Ph.D., Jackson, MS.


                                MISSOURI

       David Pollack, M.A., Saint Louis, MO.


                             NEW HAMPSHIRE

       Patrick Eggleston, Ph.D., Keene, NH; Michael Letendre, 
     B.A., Portsmouth, NH.


                               NEW JERSEY

       Robert Mason, Ph.D., Lambertville, NJ; Howard Mead, M.S., 
     Cinnaminson, NJ; James Miller, Ph.D., New Brunswick, NJ.


                               NEW MEXICO

       Siri Atma Khalsa, M.D., Espanola, NM.


                                NEW YORK

       Caren Cooper, Ph.D., Ithaca, NY; Kurt Gottfried, Ph.D., 
     Ithaca, NY; Karlene Gunter, Ph.D., Rochester, NY; Joel 
     Huberman, Ph.D., Buffalo, NY; Richard Ostfeld, Ph.D., Tivoli, 
     NY; George Profous, M.S. New Paltz, NY; Susan Riblett, Ph.D., 
     Rochester, NY; C.S. Russell, Ph.D., New York, NY; David 
     Straus, Ph.D., Gardiner, NY; James Wang, Ph.D., New York, NY; 
     Ruth Yanai, Ph.D., Syracuse, NY.


                             NORTH CAROLINA

       Daniel Graham, Ph.D., Chapel Hill, NC; Richard Gray, Ph.D., 
     Boone, NC; Peter Reynolds, Ph.D., Durham, NC; Don Richardson, 
     M.D. Brevard, NC; Brett Taubman, Ph.D., Boone, NC.


                                  OHIO

       James Andrews, Ph.D., Youngstown, OH; Steven Federman, 
     Ph.D., Ottawa Hills, OH; Donald Geiger, Ph.D., Dayton, OH; 
     Ben Lindenberger, B.S., Cincinnati, OH; David Modarelli, 
     Ph.D., Akron, OH; Dan Petersen, Ph.D., Cincinnati, OH; 
     Benjamin Segall, Ph.D., Cleveland Heights, OH; Gerald Sgro, 
     Ph.D., Cleveland Hts., OH; Nicholas Sperelakis, Ph.D., 
     Cincinnati, OH.


                                OKLAHOMA

       Howard Baer, Ph.D., Norman, OK.


                                 OREGON

       Kenneth Bergman, Ph.D., Ashland, OR; Paul Harcombe, Ph.D., 
     Albany, OR; Marilyn Harlin, Ph.D., Portland, OR; James Moore 
     Jr., M.S., Ashland, OR; Paul Torrence, Ph.D., Williams, OR; 
     Pepper Trail, Ph.D., Ashland, OR.


                              PENNSYLVANIA

       John Cooper, Ph.D., Lewisburg, PA; James Kasting, Ph.D., 
     University Park, PA; Tim Pearce, Ph.D., Pittsburgh, PA; Fred 
     Wuertele, M.B.A., Allentown, PA.


                              RHODE ISLAND

       Rainer Lohmann, Ph.D., Narragansett, RI; Dorothy Read, 
     Ph.D., Kingston, RI.


                               TENNESSEE

       Mark Heald, Ph.D., Pleasant Hill, TN; Dennis Walsh, Ph.D., 
     Murfreesboro, TN.


                                 TEXAS

       Gerald Fowler, Ph.D., Houston, TX; Thomas La Point, Ph.D., 
     Denton, TX; Troy Ladine, Ph.D., Marshall, TX; John Langan, 
     M.S., San Antonio, TX; Rafael Lopez-Mobilia, Ph.D., San 
     Antonio, TX.


                                  UTAH

       Brett Adams, Ph.D., Logan, UT; William Newmark, Ph.D., Salt 
     Lake City, UT; Andrew Schoenberg, Ph.D., Salt Lake City, UT; 
     Jack Sites, Jr., Ph.D., Orem, UT.


                                VERMONT

       Alan Betts, Ph.D., Pittsford, VT; Becky Herbig, M.S., S 
     Burlington, VT.


                                VIRGINIA

       Bruce Collette, Ph.D., Casanova, VA; Ken Gigliello, M.S., 
     Centreville, VA; Judith Lang, Ph.D., Ophelia, VA; Christopher 
     Peloso, J.D., Arlington, VA.


                               WASHINGTON

       Robert Briggs, M.A., Pullman, WA; Robert Brown, Ph.D., 
     Seattle, WA; Richard Gammon, Ph.D., Shoreline, WA; Vivian 
     Johnston, B.S., Oakville, WA; Conway Leovy, Ph.D., Seattle, 
     WA; Scott Luchessa, M.S., Seattle, WA; Bob Vocke, Ph.D., 
     Husum, WA.


                             WEST VIRGINIA

       Paula Hunt, M.S., Morgantown, WV; James Kotcon, Ph.D., 
     Morgantown, WV.


                               WISCONSIN

       James Boulter, Ph.D., Strum, WI; Tracy Feldman, Ph.D., 
     Stevens Point, WI; Larry Reiter, B.S., Sobieski, WI; Peter 
     Sigmann, M.D., Sturgeon Bay, WI; Richard Steeves, Ph.D., 
     Madison, WI; John Stewart, Ph.D., Washburn, WI.

  These are doctors and scientists from all over the country who heard 
about this resolution. Believe me, this is very quick that they got 
these signatures. So when Senator Murkowski says she stands with the 
people, I want to point out that I do not believe for one moment that 
the people of this country want to go against the doctors and 
scientists who are signing this letter and the health community that 
says it is important that we note the dangers of carbon pollution to 
our families.
  I think it is important, when a Senator takes to the floor and says 
the people want to see this endangerment finding overturned, that we 
make sure we lay out the facts about some very important people who 
lead us on these health issues, and in the course of a few days they 
put together 195 doctors and scientists saying: Vote no against the 
resolution.
  Mr. President, I will reiterate why I am down here on the floor. 
Senator Murkowski is announcing today that she seeks to overturn the 
scientific finding that carbon pollution is harmful to the health of 
our families. I think this is radical. I think this has never been 
done. If Senators had done it in the past, we could not have protected 
our families from tobacco, arsenic, lead, ozone, smog, or cadmium, and 
the list goes on. She doesn't want EPA to be able to take any action to 
protect our families. This is a very radical way to go about it.
  We have a letter from the attorneys general of Rhode Island, 
California, Connecticut, Delaware, New Mexico, Vermont, and the 
corporation counsel for the city of New York. I ask unanimous consent 
to have this letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S91]]


                                                 January 19, 2010.
     Re Senator Murkowski's anticipated Amendment to H.J. Res. 45; 
         also, any Congressional Review Act Resolution Relating to 
         EPA's Endangerment Finding.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitchell McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: We are writing to urge 
     you to oppose Senator Murkowski's anticipated amendment to 
     the debt limit bill (H.J. Res. 45), which is expected to 
     embody a Congressional limitation on actions by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin to regulate 
     carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants. We refer 
     to Senator Murkowski's widely-reported attempt to introduce a 
     floor amendment to restrict or void the EPA's recent 
     (December 15, 2009) endangerment finding (found at 74 Fed. 
     Reg. 66496) or to block EPA from limiting emissions from 
     power plants or other sources of carbon pollution. That 
     amendment will probably be offered on January 20, or shortly 
     thereafter, as an extraneous addition to the debt limit bill.
       We also oppose, whether introduced by this means, at this 
     time, or otherwise, any Congressional Review Act (CRA) 
     resolution relating to the endangerment finding. Thus, this 
     letter also applies to any attempt, in the coming months, at 
     a Congressional veto of the EPA's above-referenced action.
       The time is long overdue for the federal government to take 
     action to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to 
     prevent disruptive climate change. The anticipated Murkowski 
     amendment and/or the CRA resolution would be not only giant 
     steps backwards, but would needlessly delay reductions in 
     greenhouse gas emissions that we can and should begin making 
     today.
       EPA's endangerment finding is compelled by the Supreme 
     Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 528-
     29 (2007), ruling that the Clean Air Act covers global 
     warming pollutants. The finding is the basis for President 
     Obama's issuance of landmark greenhouse gas emission vehicle 
     standards--with the support of auto companies, auto workers, 
     states, and environmentalists--that will save consumers money 
     at the pump, cut global warming pollution, reduce America's 
     oil dependence and lay the groundwork for the new clean 
     energy economy. This amendment would eviscerate the important 
     progress EPA, partly at the behest of the States, has made in 
     this area.
       The amendment also would undermine EPA's important efforts 
     to use the Clean Air Act to ensure that the nation's largest 
     power plants and factories use modern technology to reduce 
     their global warming pollution, as they already must do for 
     other pollutants. EPA has proposed to tailor those rules to 
     exempt small carbon emitters.
       In sum, we support EPA's actions as a start towards holding 
     the biggest polluters accountable, reducing America's oil 
     dependence and jump-starting a vibrant clean energy economy. 
     A vote for the Murkowski amendment would be a step backwards. 
     Instead of standing in the way of progress, Congress should 
     defeat the promised floor amendment and any measures of that 
     nature.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, they say:

       In sum, we support EPA's actions as a start towards holding 
     the biggest polluters accountable, reducing America's oil 
     dependence and jump-starting a vibrant clean energy economy. 
     A vote for the Murkowski amendment would be a step backwards. 
     Instead of standing in the way of progress, Congress should 
     defeat [this resolution].

  Communities of faith--I think it is very important when the Senator 
from Alaska says she stands with the people--let's see where the 
communities of faith come down. They are saying vote no on the 
Murkowski amendment. They include the Church World Service; the 
Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life; the Episcopal Church; the 
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; the Jewish Council for Public 
Affairs; the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; the National Council 
of Churches USA; the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns; the 
Presbyterian Church, USA, Washington office; the Missionary Oblates, 
Justice, Peace/Integrity of Creation Office; the Union for Reformed 
Judaism; the Unitarian Universalist Ministry for Earth; the Unitarian 
Universalist Association of Congregations; the United Church of Christ, 
Justice and Witness Ministries; the United Methodist Church General 
Board of Church and Society; and United Methodist Women.
  I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,
                                 Washington, DC, January 19, 2010.
       Dear Senator: As communities and people of faith, we are 
     called to protect and serve God's great Creation and work for 
     justice for all of God's people. We believe that the United 
     States must take all appropriate and available actions to 
     prevent the worst impacts of climate change; we therefore 
     urge you to oppose any efforts to undermine the authority of 
     the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In 
     particular, we urge you to work for the defeat of Senator 
     Murkowski's (AK) proposed amendment to the upcoming debt 
     limit bill (H.J. Res 45) that would prevent the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) from going forward with greenhouse 
     gas regulations under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
       The CAA has a strong history of reducing pollution and 
     protecting God's children and God's Creation, successfully 
     decreasing the prevalence of acid rain, responding to health 
     threatening smog and ozone problems faced in our major urban 
     areas, and generally improving the air quality of our nation 
     in the decades since its passage. It is only appropriate that 
     the CAA continue to oversee any and all air-related 
     challenges that we face. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled 
     that greenhouse gas emissions, the leading cause of climate 
     change are, in fact, covered under the CAA and could be 
     regulated by the EPA. New CAA regulations limiting greenhouse 
     gas emissions will also ensure that the largest emitters, 
     such as power plants and factories, use the best available 
     technologies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and 
     begin to shift to sustainable forms of energy.
       The EPA, in its efforts to implement the CAA in an 
     appropriate manner, has already proposed to tailor the CAA to 
     exempt small carbon emitters and apply them only to large 
     sources that have long been subject to similar standards for 
     other pollutants. However, Senator Murkowski's proposed 
     amendment would prevent these regulations from moving 
     forward, allowing our nation's substantial contribution to 
     global climate change to continue unchecked and exposing 
     vulnerable communities to the impacts of climate change. In 
     addition, this attempt to undermine the authority of the EPA 
     and the CAA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions will 
     interfere with an effective U.S. response to this global 
     crisis.
       Senator Murkowski's amendment threatens the well being of 
     at risk communities, undermines efforts to shift to a 
     sustainable energy future, and inevitably will impact the 
     right of all of God's children to live in a healthy world. 
     Congress should instead focus its efforts on passing 
     comprehensive climate legislation, a complementary path to 
     the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases, as a means to 
     ensure a just and sustainable future for God's Creation.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we also have another letter opposing the 
efforts of the Senator from Alaska to overturn the endangerment 
finding. That letter is signed by many members of the business 
community. I will name just a few, and then I will ask that this letter 
be printed in the Record. The signers include the CEO of Lucesco 
Lighting; the president of Cross River Pictures; George Bailey of IBM; 
physicist Tony Bernhardt from the Lawrence Livermore National Lab; a 
professor of physics at MIT, Aaron Bernstein. This goes on and on. I am 
also picking out the Theological Seminary in San Francisco; doctoral 
students from Stanford; financial adviser, UBS Financial Services; the 
president of Investment Marketing, Inc. It goes on and on. Seattle 
University Law School, an assistant professor there. I don't even know, 
there are so many names. Cofounder of Sybase, New Resource Bank, 
Environmental Entrepreneurs, Bob Epstein; General Partner of Trinity 
Ventures; Lakeside Enterprises, Granite Ventures, Tymphany; the former 
vice president of Oracle; the former executive vice president of 
Oracle. And on and on. The Sexton Company; ClearEdge Power. It goes on 
and on. Data Robotics, Inc.; a freelance journalist. This is quite a 
list of people. It shows the breadth of our great Nation. The Green 
Energy Czar at Google is involved here; Cisco Systems, Jeff Weinberger, 
the sustainability lead; Amanda Weitman, senior vice president, Wells 
Fargo private bank; Solar Project Developers, and on and on.

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  Environmental Entrepreneurs,

                                                 January 15, 2010.
       Dear Senator: As members of Environmental Entrepreneurs 
     (E2), we urge you to oppose Senator Murkowski's amendment to 
     the debt limit bill (H.J. Res. 45). This amendment would 
     diminish incentives to the private sector to invest in low 
     carbon technologies, retarding much needed economic growth 
     and job creation in the clean energy sector.
       E2 represents a national community of 850 business leaders 
     who promote strong environmental policy to grow the economy. 
     We are entrepreneurs, investors and professionals who 
     collectively manage over $20 billion of venture capital and 
     private equity, and have started well over 800 businesses 
     which in turn have created over 400,000 jobs.

[[Page S92]]

       The Clean Air Act is an example of how sensible policy can 
     benefit both our environment and our economy. While improving 
     air quality in our cities, reducing acid rain, and protecting 
     the ozone layer, the law has also driven innovation in 
     pollution control and industrial efficiency, minimizing cost 
     to business. According to the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA), the health benefits of the Clean Air Act outweigh the 
     costs by as much as a 40:1 ratio.
       In 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that global warming 
     pollutants are covered under the Clean Air Act, and President 
     Obama is carrying out the law by issuing clean vehicle 
     standards and taking steps to ensure that large polluters use 
     the best-available technology to reduce their global warming 
     pollution. EPA is already working to ensure that these rules 
     apply only to major emitters.
       The growing clean energy sector represents our greatest 
     opportunity to restore a robust economy and create new jobs. 
     Investors and entrepreneurs in this sector are seeking to 
     commercialize the innovations and technologies that will 
     secure America's competitive position in the global economy. 
     The Murkowski amendment sends the wrong market signal at the 
     wrong time, undermining investor confidence in this critical 
     industry.
       Instead of blocking the administration's efforts to curb 
     carbon pollution, the Senate should enact strong climate and 
     energy legislation to deploy America's workforce, encourage 
     business innovation, and promote U.S. leadership in 21st 
     century clean technologies. We urge you to oppose Senator 
     Murkowski's amendment.
           Sincerely,
                               (273 E2 members signed this letter)

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is very clear that Senator Murkowski's 
amendment is causing a ripple throughout the country. It is causing a 
firestorm of protests among doctors, scientists, and business leaders 
who believe it is a bad precedent to overturn science. It is hard for 
me to believe in this century that is what we would be doing.
  I wish to have printed in the Record some editorials from various 
newspapers. One is from the New York Times dated 2 days ago, ``Ms. 
Murkowski's Mischief.'' They are basically saying, which I thought was 
interesting:

       Senator Lisa Murkowski's home State of Alaska is ever so 
     slowly melting away, courtesy of a warming planet. Yet few 
     elected officials seem more determined than she to throw sand 
     in the Obama administration's efforts to do something about 
     climate change.

  It is unbelievable. They go on to say if she chooses to overturn this 
endangerment finding, ``rescinding the finding would repudiate years of 
work by America's scientists and public health experts.''
  I think this is important. The work that has been done leading up to 
this endangerment finding was done by Republican and Democratic 
administrations alike. To just throw it out with this resolution makes 
no sense at all. I know Senator Baucus is on the Senate floor. He 
served as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. He 
took a very important role in framing a letter where we lay out why 
this is a very bad idea. I thank him for that.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter 
that Senator Baucus worked so hard on with his staff. Here is what we 
say--I think it is important--and then I will have the letter printed 
in the Record:

       The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently 
     issued a finding that greenhouse gas pollution endangers 
     public health and public welfare. In April 2007, the U.S. 
     Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gas emissions were 
     covered under the Clean Air Act and the EPA had a duty to 
     determine whether the endangerment finding was warranted by 
     science.

  Then we go on to say:

       Debating policy choices regarding the appropriate response 
     to unchecked climate change is fair, and the Senate will 
     continue to evaluate the best tools for addressing greenhouse 
     gas emissions, but repealing an endangerment finding based 
     upon years of work by America's scientists and public health 
     experts is not appropriate.

  We urge a ``no'' vote.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                 Washington, DC, January 11, 2010.
       Dear Colleague: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) recently issued a finding that greenhouse gas pollution 
     endangers public health and public welfare. In April 2007, 
     the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gas emissions 
     were covered under the Clean Air Act and the EPA had a duty 
     to determine whether the endangerment finding was warranted 
     by the science. A ``Resolution of Disapproval'' using 
     expedited procedures under the Congressional Review Act or 
     other similar amendment is expected to be introduced in the 
     Senate to overturn EPA's global warming endangerment finding.
       Debating policy choices regarding the appropriate response 
     to unchecked climate change is fair, and the Senate will 
     continue to evaluate the best tools for addressing greenhouse 
     gas emissions, but repealing an endangerment finding based 
     upon years of work by America's scientists and public health 
     experts is not appropriate.
       The independent work of scientists and public health 
     experts from both the Bush and Obama administrations should 
     stand on its own. We strongly urge you to vote ``no'' when a 
     Resolution of Disapproval or a similar amendment comes before 
     the Senate.
           Sincerely,
         Barbara Boxer, Chairman; Thomas R. Carper; Frank R. 
           Lautenberg; Benjamin L. Cardin; Bernard Sanders; Amy 
           Klobuchar; Sheldon Whitehouse; Tom Udall; Max Baucus; 
           Jeff Merkley; Kirsten Gillibrand; Arlen Specter.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Washington Post said about the 
Murkowski amendment that hobbling the EPA is not the right course. The 
correct response is to provide a better alternative. Obviously, they 
are not in favor of overturning an endangerment finding.
  The Scranton Times-Tribune--a very important, I think, editorial, 
says:

       There should be little debate on . . . the premise that 
     cleaner air is healthier. . . .

  I think that is really what we are saying. The scientists are saying 
let's clean up the carbon and have healthier air.
  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has a very good editorial. They also come 
out against this kind of a move by Senator Murkowski and big oil and 
big coal. They believe this vote is a very important vote.
  I ask unanimous consent to have these editorials printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 19, 2010]

                        Ms. Murkowski's Mischief

       Senator Lisa Murkowski's home state of Alaska is ever so 
     slowly melting away, courtesy of a warming planet. Yet few 
     elected officials seem more determined than she to throw sand 
     in the Obama administration's efforts to do something about 
     climate change.
       As part of an agreement that allowed the Senate to get out 
     of town before Christmas, Democratic leaders gave Ms. 
     Murkowski and several other Republicans the chance to offer 
     amendments to a must-pass bill lifting the debt ceiling. 
     Voting on that bill begins this week. Although she has not 
     showed her hand, Ms. Murkowski has been considering various 
     proposals related to climate change--all mischievous.
       One would block for one year any effort by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases 
     like carbon dioxide. This would prevent the administration 
     from finalizing its new and much-needed standards for cars 
     and light trucks and prevent it from regulating greenhouse 
     gases from stationary sources.
       Ms. Murkowski also is mulling a ``resolution of 
     disapproval'' that would ask the Senate to overturn the 
     E.P.A.'s recent ``endangerment finding'' that carbon dioxide 
     and other global warming gases threaten human health and the 
     environment. This finding flowed from a 2007 Supreme Court 
     decision and is an essential precondition to any regulation 
     governing greenhouse gases. Rescinding the finding would 
     repudiate years of work by America's scientists and public 
     health experts.
       Ms. Murkowski says she's concerned about global warming but 
     worries even more about what she fears would be a 
     bureaucratic nightmare if the E.P.A. were allowed to regulate 
     greenhouse gases. She says she would prefer a broad 
     legislative solution. So would President Obama. But unlike 
     Ms. Murkowski, he would not unilaterally disarm the E.P.A. 
     before Congress has passed a bill.
       Judging by the latest and daffiest idea to waft from Ms. 
     Murkowski's office, she may not want a bill at all. Last 
     fall, the Senate environment committee approved a cap-and-
     trade scheme that seeks to limit greenhouse gas emissions by 
     putting a price on them. The Democratic leadership's plan is 
     to combine the bill with other energy-related measures to 
     broaden the base of support; by itself, it cannot pass.
       Knowing that the bill is not ripe, Ms. Murkowski may bring 
     it up for a vote anyway as an amendment to the debt bill. 
     Why? To shoot it down. The tactic would give us a 
     ``barometric reading'' of where the Senate stands on cap-and-
     trade, one Murkowski staffer said recently. What it really 
     gives us is a reading on how little the senator--or for that 
     matter, her party--has to offer.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 20, 2010]

                   Avoiding a Trap on Climate Change

       Ever since his inauguration a year ago, President Obama has 
     tried to motivate Congress with a strong ultimatum: Pass 
     climate-change legislation, or the Environmental

[[Page S93]]

     Protection Agency (EPA) will use its authority under the 
     Clean Air Act to curb carbon emissions without your input.
       Instead of accepting this as a prod toward useful action, 
     Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) apparently wants to disarm the 
     administration. This week she is set to offer a measure, 
     perhaps as an amendment to a bill raising the federal debt 
     ceiling, that would, one way or another, strip the EPA of its 
     power to regulate carbon emissions as pollutants, perhaps for 
     a year, perhaps forever. We aren't fans of the EPA-only 
     route. The country would be better off if Congress 
     established market-based, economy-wide emissions curbs. But 
     hobbling the agency isn't the right course, either.
       If Congress fails to act, carefully administered EPA 
     regulation of carbon emissions could ensure that America 
     makes some real reductions, if not necessarily in an 
     optimally efficient manner. If Congress passes climate 
     legislation, the EPA's role, if any, could be tailored to 
     work with a legislated emissions-reduction regime. So 
     removing the EPA's authority now is at least premature. The 
     correct response to the prospect of large-scale EPA 
     regulation is not to waste lawmakers' energy in a probably 
     futile attempt to weaken the agency. Instead, the Senate 
     should provide a better alternative.
       That effort is already fraught. The best policies--a simple 
     carbon tax or cap-and-trade scheme -aren't gaining steam. 
     Instead, the House passed a leviathan bill, and the Senate is 
     stalled. Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) indicated 
     last week that he fears Ms. Murkowski's measure will diminish 
     chances of producing a bipartisan climate-change bill. Ms. 
     Murkowski would do better by helping end the Senate's 
     paralysis than by seeking to condemn the rest of government 
     to the same inaction.
                                  ____


            [From the Scranton Times-Tribune, Jan. 19, 2010]

                       Win Fight for Cleaner Air

       Most of the debate about the human contribution to global 
     warming is about politics and economics rather than science. 
     The vast preponderance of scientific evidence points to a 
     human contribution to global warming. For the most part, the 
     debate truly is about how to bear the costs of remedial 
     action.
       There should be little debate on any basis, however, on the 
     premise that cleaner air is healthier air, regardless of the 
     global warming stalemate.
       Yet a move is afoot in the Senate, based upon the global 
     warming debate, to thwart use of the Clean Air Act for its 
     intended purpose--to improve air quality and, therefore, 
     public health.
       The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a finding 
     last year that greenhouse gas emissions are pollution that 
     endangers public health. The EPA undertook the analysis after 
     the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the emissions were 
     covered by the Clean Air Act.
       In the 40 years since the Clean Air Act's passage, it has 
     been responsible for substantial improvements in air quality. 
     Cleaner fuels, higher-mileage vehicles, reduced industrial 
     emissions and related measures have helped to clean the air--
     and water, since airborne pollution falls into waterways.
       The Senate could vote as early as Wednesday on a proposal, 
     by Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, that in effect would 
     exclude greenhouse gases from EPA regulation.
       America's direction since the passage of the Clean Air Act 
     has been toward, rather than away from, cleaner air. Sen. 
     Arlen Specter has committed to voting against the Murkowski 
     gambit; Sen. Bob Casey should join him.
                                  ____


           [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 19, 2010]

                       The Dirty Air Act of 2010

                          (By Melissa K. Hope)

       Big Oil and dirty coal are spending hundreds of millions of 
     dollars to stop Congress from passing new clean energy 
     legislation and now they are trying to gut one of our 
     nation's most important environmental laws, the Clean Air 
     Act.
       Just last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
     moved to enforce the Clean Air Act. The EPA declared that 
     global warming pollution endangers human health and welfare 
     and announced plans to limit emissions from the biggest 
     polluters. Now this plan is under attack in Congress by Sen. 
     Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and other friends of Big Coal and 
     Big Oil, and faces a crucial vote this week.
       Sen. Murkowski wants to bail out big polluters by blocking 
     President Barack Obama and the EPA from taking action to 
     limit emissions. She is proposing an amendment to the 
     Senate's national debt ceiling bill. Her amendment would 
     dismantle the Clean Air Act and put the public's health and 
     safety at risk to global warming. Her ``Dirty Air Act of 
     2010'' would block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide 
     emissions.
       After years of research, scientific debate, court cases, 
     public hearings and comments, Senator Murkowski is suggesting 
     that we simply choose to ``un-learn'' that global warming is 
     happening and that it will be dangerous to human health and 
     welfare.
       The EPA merely is doing what the Clean Air Act already 
     requires--and what it was ordered to do almost three years 
     ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. And last month, more than 
     400,000 Americans submitted comments in favor of the EPA's 
     proposal to limit pollution from the biggest global warming 
     polluters, among the highest number of comments ever 
     submitted in favor of any proposal.
       The EPA plans to limit the new common sense, economically 
     feasible regulations to the largest polluters only. 
     Suggestions that the EPA plans to regulate farms, schools, 
     hospitals, cows and Dunkin' Donuts are simply false. EPA 
     Administrator Lisa Jackson has said as much on numerous 
     occasions. Such statements, which are an attempt to scare 
     small businesses, merely are misleading smears designed to 
     derail any limits on polluters.
       Sen. Murkowski might say her amendment is just a one-year 
     time-out, but we've already had a nearly decade-long ``time-
     out'' as pundits for big oil and coal had their way. The 
     clean-energy economy and action to curb global warming no 
     longer can be held hostage by petty politics and partisan 
     obstructionism. We can't choose to deny that this pollution 
     is harmful any longer.
       Instead of looking for ways to delay action, Congress needs 
     to finalize comprehensive clean energy and climate 
     legislation as soon as soon possible. Missouri's senators--
     Republican Christopher ``Kit'' Bond and Democrat Claire 
     McCaskill--must say no to this fast-approaching amendment 
     that would block EPA action on climate-changing emissions 
     from the largest polluters. More important, it is time 
     Missouri's senators strongly support clean energy and climate 
     legislation that will mean less pollution, new industries, 
     more jobs and greater security right here at home.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in summary, I will say this: I do not want 
the American people to misunderstand what is before us in this 
resolution that will be coming up for a vote at a time determined by 
Senator Murkowski, as I understand it, under the rules. She is using 
the rules to be able to do this.
  I do not think the American people should be misled into thinking 
this is about postponing action on cleaning up carbon pollution. It is 
about something much deeper than that. If her resolution passes and if 
it does become the law of the land--and I hope and I do not believe it 
will at the end of the day--what she is doing is something 
unprecedented.
  That unprecedented move is to overturn a finding made by the 
scientists and the health experts on the impacts of carbon pollution. 
This has never been done before. Senators play the role of Senators; 
they do not play the role of doctors. They do not play the role of 
scientists. I will tell you, if we start doing that, there is no end to 
what we could do. We could overturn action on controlling the nicotine 
in cigarettes. We could overturn action to control the lead allowed in 
paints. We could overturn the science based on limits for arsenic in 
water. I could go on and list all the toxins--cadmium, carbon 
tetrachloride, naphthalene, toluene, and it goes on. That is why this 
is such a dangerous turn of events.
  I am very much up for a debate on the best way to solve this problem 
of too much carbon pollution in the air. We differ. Some of us have one 
idea, some have another. That is why I am so hopeful that Senators 
Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman, with all of us working in the background, 
can come up with the 60 votes necessary. But make no mistake about it, 
we should not start down the path of overturning a health finding. That 
is not why we were elected.
  I can just speak for my constituents. My constituents sent me here. 
They want me to protect the health and safety of the people, and that 
is what I intend to do.
  I am very proud of the doctors who have come forward today. I met 
with one in my office just about an hour ago. They are going to stand 
with us, and they are going to tell the truth about this. The American 
people will judge who is on their side. That is up to them. They will 
make that decision.
  Mr. President, I am so grateful for your patience. I have put many 
things into the Record. I have spoken much longer than I normally do, I 
am sure to the chagrin of a few people on the other side, which I 
understand how they feel. But I felt it important to lay out how 
serious I think this is. Not that I think at the end of the day it will 
become the law but because I love serving in the Senate. I love the 
work we do. And one of the things we should not do is overturn science 
and public health experts. That is exactly what the Murkowski 
resolution does.
  Mr. President, I know Senator Gregg will be speaking, and we have a 
slot reserved for a Democrat after that conclusion.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S94]]

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak against the 
proposed amendment from the Senator from Alaska.
  This resolution of disapproval goes against good public health policy 
and poses a serious threat to my constituents in New York--and all 
Americans--undermining our ability to advance efforts to clean our air 
and water and leave our world a better, healthier place.
  This assault on the Clean Air Act would handcuff the Environmental 
Protection Agency, stripping it of its authority to regulate dangerous 
greenhouse gases. This amendment would let large scale polluters off 
the hook by scrapping requirements for electric generation facilities 
to use modern technology to reduce emissions and produce cleaner 
energy.
  If passed, this amendment would send a message that the United States 
will remain reliant on outdated and inefficient energy technologies and 
delay investment in new, clean technologies that would spur innovation 
and create good-paying, American jobs, all across this great Nation.
  For my constituents in New York, this amendment stands for more air 
pollution in our communities, more acid rain devastating natural 
treasures like the Adirondacks, ever-increasing asthma rates for our 
children, and a failure to take action when action is long overdue.
  Regulatory uncertainty is undermining our national interests and 
giving countries like China and India, the ability to eclipse our 
Nation in developing the next generation of energy technologies--that 
we, the United States, should be leading the way on.
  Supporters of this amendment are essentially saying that they do not 
believe the worldwide scientific consensus regarding climate change, 
and that they don't believe greenhouse gases pose a threat to human 
health--despite decades of world-class science that predate it, and the 
clarion call from public health advocates across the country.
  A vote for this amendment would be a vote for more pollution and 
increase protection of those polluters.
  It would encourage a regression in the environmental progress that 
has been made over the last 40 years, and represents a denial of the 
need to create jobs and revitalize our economy with clean, renewable, 
American power.
  We need to pass comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation 
that will create jobs by spurring investment and innovation, enhance 
our national security by moving our Nation forward on a path to energy 
independence, protect our air and water by reducing pollution, and 
decrease energy costs for American families.
  The science is clear and we cannot afford to wait.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this attempt to 
undermine action to tackle climate change and urge this body to move 
forward with comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Under the previous order, I believe the Senator from New 
Hampshire is to have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3302

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by 
Senator Conrad, of which I am a primary sponsor, to address what is the 
second biggest threat our Nation faces. Clearly, the largest threat our 
Nation faces is the fact that terrorists who wish to do us harm might 
get their hands on a weapon of mass destruction and use it against us. 
That is our Nation's greatest threat. But after that, the biggest 
threat to this country is our fiscal situation and the fact that we are 
on a path where our Nation will go into bankruptcy because we will not 
be able to pay the debts we are running up.
  You do not have to believe me on that point. This is not exaggeration 
any longer. This is not hyperbole for the purpose of political events. 
This is just the way the numbers work.
  By the end of this year, our public debt will exceed 60 percent of 
GDP. That is known as a tipping point, when you owe that much money 
compared to how much you produce as a nation. Sixty percent is 
considered the tipping point toward an unsustainable situation.
  Within 10 years--I actually think it will occur sooner--our public 
debt will cross the 90-percent threshold. When you get into those 
ranges, you are basically in a situation like a dog chasing its tail. 
There is no way to catch yourself. There is no way to catch up with the 
amount of debt you are putting on the books. The cost of bearing that 
debt eats up your resources as a nation. It takes away from your 
productivity and your prosperity.
  This is not hyperbole, as I said. This is just real, honest 
projections on numbers which we already know exist. The proposal from 
the President in the last budget, under which we are now functioning, 
projects $1 trillion of deficit every year for the next 10 years.
  Today we are taking up a debt ceiling increase which is proposed to 
be $1.9 trillion--that is the increase--taking the debt of our Nation 
up to $14 trillion. And it is not the end of these requests for debt 
ceiling increases because we know the debt is going to continue to jump 
by over $1 trillion a year every year as we move forward.
  This chart reflects the severity of the situation. Historically, the 
Federal Government has used about 20 percent of the gross national 
product of what we cost the American people as a government. Just three 
programs--Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid--by the year about 
2030 will represent spending that exceeds 20 percent of the gross 
national product. Everything else in the Federal Government, if we were 
to maintain our usual spending level, could not be done. Our national 
defense, education, building roads--all those sorts of things could not 
be done. But that does not stop there. With those three programs, the 
costs go up astronomically as we go out into the future.
  To pay for those costs, we have to run up the debt of the United 
States at a rate that we have never seen. It will double in 5 years. It 
will triple in 10 years. Those are hard numbers. Our debt, as I said, 
will pass the 60-percent threshold.
  Why is that considered a tipping point? Because to get into the 
European Union, which is a group of industrialized states, they have a 
threshold which a nation cannot have a public debt that exceeds 60 
percent of GDP. It cannot have deficits that exceed 3 percent of GDP. 
Our deficits for the next 10 years will be between 4.5 percent and 5.5 
percent of GDP and, as I said, the public debt will be up around 90 
percent of GDP by 2019.
  We know we are on an unsustainable course. What is the effect of 
that? What happens when we get our debt up so high? There are only two 
scenarios for our Nation. One, we devalue the currency. That means 
inflation. That is a terrible thing to do to a nation. It takes 
everybody's savings and basically cuts them by whatever the inflation 
rate is. It means your currency cannot buy as much as it used to. It 
means you cannot be as productive as a nation because you have an 
inflationary problem. Or, alternatively, you have to raise taxes at a 
rate that you essentially suffocate people's willingness to go out and 
create jobs, to be productive, take risk. And you take the money that 
should have been used for the purposes of taking risk and building that 
local restaurant or that small business and creating jobs and you move 
it over to pay debt.
  Where do you send it? You send it to China because they own most of 
our debt or you send it to Saudi Arabia because they are the second 
biggest owner of our debt, instead of investing in the United States to 
make us more productive. Either scenario--a massive increase in tax 
burden to pay debt or inflation--leads to a lower standard of living 
for our children.

  So as a very practical matter, what is going to happen to our Nation, 
under the facts which we know already exist, is that we will, for the 
first time, pass on to the next generation a nation which is less 
prosperous, where there is less opportunity for our children, and where 
the standard of living goes down rather than up. That is not 
acceptable. It is not fair and it is not right for one generation to do 
that to another. So we have to get our fiscal house in order.
  Many would argue: Well, that is your job. That is why we sent you to 
Congress. Do your job. Get the fiscal house

[[Page S95]]

in order, limit spending. That would be the position of our side. The 
other side's position would be to raise taxes. But we know that doesn't 
work. We know regular order does not work. Why? Because we have seen it 
doesn't work. We know that when you make proposals around here on these 
big issues of public policy, specifically entitlement programs or tax 
reform, you are immediately attacked. If you make them on entitlement 
issues and if you are a Republican, you are attacked from the left as 
trying to savage senior citizens. If you make a proposal on tax reform, 
you are attacked from the right as trying to increase taxes on working 
Americans.
  Usually, those attacks are filled with hyperbole and gross 
misrepresentations, in many instances. People send out these 
fundraising letters. If you ever say anything about Social Security as 
a Republican--as to how it should be reformed and made more solvent--
immediately, it seems, there is a letter that goes out from this group 
called Citizens to Protect Social Security--or some other 
``motherhood'' name--that looks like a Social Security check, and it 
goes to all these Social Security recipients. It says: If you don't 
send us $25 today, Senator Gregg is going to savage your Social 
Security payments. So that little group here in Washington takes in a 
lot of money. It doesn't do anything to affect Social Security policy, 
but they sure have a good time wandering around the city with all that 
money. In the process, of course, the well gets poisoned and nothing 
can happen around here. That is what happens. Nothing happens.
  Well, that was maybe manageable for a while, but it is not manageable 
any longer. We are headed toward a wall as a nation. We are headed 
toward an event where we will essentially be insolvent as a country. We 
will become a banana republic type of situation, where we simply can't 
meet the obligations of our debt, or, alternatively, the people who 
lend us our money--many of them are Americans but a lot of them are 
Chinese--are going to say: I am not going to lend you any more money, 
America, or if I do, I am going to charge you an outrageous interest 
rate because I don't think you can pay it back because you have too 
much debt.
  That is where we are headed, and we know it is there. It used to be 
over the horizon, so the Congress never worried about it and so nothing 
ever happened. It is not over the horizon anymore. It is well inside 
the horizon and it is closing fast. As I said, we passed the 60 percent 
threshold just this year. We will pass it this year, and we will hit 90 
percent within this 10-year budget cycle. So regular order has not 
worked.
  Some may argue: Well, the health care bill was regular order. That 
sure didn't work. Folks, that didn't work. It sent the cost curve up. 
It took resources which should have been used to address the Medicare 
insolvency situation and moved them over to create a new entitlement. 
It didn't work. Regular order has not worked around here because the 
politics don't allow it to work. The intensity of the community that 
defends these various issues will not allow constructive activity to 
occur under regular order.
  So Senator Conrad and I came to a conclusion that, since regular 
order doesn't work and since we know we are headed toward this cliff, 
we should do something. We asked ourselves: Shouldn't we try some other 
approach, think outside the box? The conclusion Senator Conrad and I 
came to, in a bipartisan way--obviously, because he is the chairman of 
the Budget Committee and I am ranking--was let's set up a procedure 
which leads to policy, which leads to a vote, and guarantee that 
procedure is absolutely fair, absolutely bipartisan in its execution so 
nobody can game the other. I can't game Members of the Democratic side 
and Democratic Members can't game the Republican side. So the American 
people will look at the product of this commission and say: That is 
fair. That is bipartisan. I have some confidence in that.
  So this commission, which is proposed in this amendment, does exactly 
that. It sets up a fair, bipartisan process, requiring supermajorities 
to produce policy and get a vote on those policies under fast track. 
Let me get into a couple specifics.
  There are 18 members on this commission. They all have their fingers 
of responsibility on the buttons around here. There will be 16 people 
from the Congress and two people from the administration--10 Democrats 
and 8 Republicans. The Republicans will be appointed by the Republican 
leadership, the Democrats by the Democratic leadership. So the 
membership of this commission, everybody knows, will be people who 
reflect the philosophical views of the leadership of the two parties. 
That group will meet and have public hearings, and they will have an 
advisory group that has all the different constituencies who want to be 
heard on that, and who will give them input, and there will be a lot of 
public input. Then the group will have to come to a conclusion on the 
big issues that affect fiscal policy in this country.
  The point is, neither side is going to come to the table on this 
unless everything is on the table. Let's be honest. If I say no taxes 
on the table, why would anybody on the other side come to the table? If 
they say no entitlement reform on the table, why would anybody on our 
side come to the table? So everything is on the table. But, of course, 
the interests of the different parties on issues such as taxes and 
entitlements are protected by the way the membership of the commission 
is appointed. Obviously, the Republican leader isn't going to appoint 
to this commission people who are going to go off on some tangent on 
tax policy which would be unacceptable to Republicans, and the same is 
true of the Democratic leader relative to entitlement reform.
  So the commission is made up of a balanced and fair approach, and 
when it reports, 14 of the 18 people have to vote for it--14 of the 18. 
So neither side can game the other because the majority of both sides 
have to be for whatever the report is. Then it comes to the Congress, 
and 60 percent of the Congress has to vote on it. So neither side can 
be gamed. It has to be balanced and it is an up-or-down vote on the 
proposal. No amendments.
  Why no amendments? That has been a point of controversy. People say: 
Well, you have to be able to amend it. No amendments. Because we all 
know what amendments are for on an issue such as this. They are for 
hiding in the corners. That is what Members do with amendments. They 
offer their amendment, and if it doesn't pass, they say: Oh, I can't 
vote for this; my amendment didn't pass. It is called a hide-in-the-
corner approach.
  Well, that is why we don't have amendments. It is up or down. The 
theory, of course, is the membership of this commission is going to be 
balanced, which it will be. That is not theory, that is reality. It 
will be balanced and bipartisan players who will understand these 
issues in a very substantive way. Two of those Members are on the floor 
right now, who I am sure will be members of the commission--and I am 
not one of them.
  As a very practical matter, the result will be something that is 
politically doable. Will it be a magic wand that corrects the whole 
issue of this pending outyear insolvency of our country? No, absolutely 
not. But it will be a significant statement by the Congress of the 
United States that we recognize the seriousness of the situation we are 
in as a nation; that we recognize it is not fair for one generation to 
do this to another generation; that we recognize we will be unable to 
sell our debt as a nation--or sell it at a reasonable price in the 
fairly near future unless we take action. It will be a message on all 
those points, and it will be a positive message. The markets will react 
by saying: They are trying. The American people will react by saying: 
Thank God, there is finally a bipartisan effort to try to do something 
around here on this issue. Sure, it will not be the magic wand or the 
magic bullet that solves everything, but it will be a significant step, 
I suspect. I have confidence the people who will serve on this 
commission will be committed to that.

  I realize this is a process that affronts many because it is outside 
the regular order. But the simple fact is, if we stand on regular order 
around here, we are going to go through a trapdoor as a nation because 
we are not going to stand up to the issues that are critical to putting 
us back on the road to solvency. So this is a proposal that is serious, 
it is bipartisan, and it has a fair amount of support--34 cosponsors. 
It is very unusual to have that many cosponsors around here on 
anything, and they are bipartisan. It is about half and half. Well, I 
think it is 14-20.

[[Page S96]]

  So I would hope my colleagues would vote for this. I understand my 
colleagues are hearing, on our side of the aisle, from a number of very 
credible people who oppose this because they are concerned or worried 
about the tax side. I understand the other side of the aisle is hearing 
from a considerable number of constituency groups of theirs who oppose 
it because they are concerned about the impact on entitlements. Maybe 
that means we have it right, that we have all these interest group-
driven folks who are opposing it. I think it means we have it right, 
and I believe this is pretty much coming to be our last clear chance of 
getting something done; that the course we are on now is coming to the 
point of being irreversible, unless we do something such as this.
  I don't believe it is correct, as I said, for one generation of 
political leaders to pass on to the next generation a country that will 
be in total fiscal disarray. We have a responsibility to act, and this 
is a way to act.
  I appreciate the courtesy of the Members on the floor, and I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would say we are expecting the Senator 
from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, to arrive shortly, and when he does, I will 
yield to him.
  I wish to also respond, briefly, to the Senator from New Hampshire 
and start by talking about where we agree. I think it is almost always 
good, when discussing something, for people to look at where there is 
agreement. Where there is agreement, it builds trust and understanding 
and, therefore, when possible, there can be even greater agreement. We, 
clearly, agree it is unhealthy for the government to be running these 
huge deficits. I think everyone in this body agrees on that point. It 
is unsustainable, as many have said. But why are we running these big 
deficits? We are doing so, frankly, because of mistakes made during the 
financial crisis prompted by the subprime mortgage crisis and also 
because we have been in a fairly deep recession. That is why these 
deficits are so large. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure 
that out. It was something, unfortunately, that had to be done.
  We had to come up with some money to help provide some economic 
stability for this country. After that, as we know, when we are in a 
recession, unemployment payments are higher and Medicaid payments are 
higher and a lot of other programs are automatically higher because we 
enact programs on top of that to help the economy. That is why we are 
facing these huge deficits. They have grown very significantly in the 
last several years for those reasons.
  So there is no disagreement that, A, we have large deficits, and, B, 
we have to begin to reduce those deficits. I think there is agreement 
as to why we came to this place and have these deficits, which are for 
the reasons I suggested. We also very much agree that we have to reduce 
these deficits in future years. There is tremendous agreement on that 
point. We also agree it would be better for the government to reduce 
our annual deficits to below 3 percent of gross domestic product. There 
is agreement on that.
  Most economic observers and experts think that once our deficits 
reach 3 percent of gross domestic product, that is not so bad. It is 
going to take a little effort to get there. But, again, we are where we 
are because of the recession and because of the financial crisis that 
occurred in the last several years.
  Where we disagree, though, is over the way we respond. We disagree 
over the powers the Senator from New Hampshire wishes to turn over to 
somebody else--over to a commission. We disagree on that point. I don't 
think we should turn the power that Senators and House Members have 
over to some other body to do something called an entitlements 
commission.
  The Senator from New Hampshire proposes to create such a procedure to 
protect Senators, frankly, from being attacked for the decisions they 
make. That is what this is all about, in some respects, to turn this 
decisionmaking over to somebody else so Senators can say: They did it. 
They made me do it. He and the Senator from North Dakota proposed a 
commission, for example, with a fast-track process that would absolve 
Senators from responsibility for any amendments. Senators could then 
throw up their hands and say: The commission made me do it.
  It sounds as if all of us parents heard something similar from our 
kids: Daddy, Mommy, something made me do it. I will never forget that 
many years ago, my son said: Daddy, it just seemed so good. Somebody 
else suggested the idea, and that made me do it. I couldn't say no.
  But on matters as important as Social Security for seniors, on 
matters as important as Medicare and Medicaid for Americans that have 
health concerns, on matters as important as the tax rates the 
government will impose on American families--on those important 
matters, I think we need an open process where Senators and House 
Members participate and offer suggestions and offer amendments. On 
things that important, I do not think we need a procedural shortcut.
  Sometimes the most important things are difficult to do. I think most 
Members of Congress and the Senate who ran for these jobs expected 
there would be some tough choices, there would be some tough times. I 
don't think they want procedural shortcuts because with procedural 
shortcuts, often there are unintended consequences. With procedural 
shortcuts, often bad things happen, when it is not thought through in 
advance. Rather, we should have full and open debate. There are fewer 
surprises with full and open debate when Senators can amend and improve 
the product, and that is why I believe the Conrad-Gregg commission is a 
bad idea.
  There are alternatives to that proposal. One is that we do it 
ourselves, we do what we should do, and we do it the right way. But 
there is also another alternative, an alternative which the President 
and Vice President--especially the Vice President is working on that 
sets up an executive commission, not a statutory commission as outlined 
by the Senators from New Hampshire and North Dakota but, rather, one on 
which the Vice President has convened a series of discussions, and in 
that proposal the Vice President has proposed an Executive order where 
the President would create a commission to consider our fiscal 
situation. It would also have similar composition, similar powers. It 
is similar to the statutory commission offered by Senators Conrad and 
Gregg, but there is only one difference, and that difference is in the 
process. The Vice President's proposal, which I think the President 
will announce fairly shortly, would preserve the rules of the Senate. 
The Gregg-Conrad amendment would not. And it is preserving the rules of 
the Senate that I think makes all the difference.
  Under the proposal that I think will be offered by the President, 
that is, the executive commission, again, I think it is 18 members, all 
subjects are considered, and they will report back to the Congress, I 
think after the election. So everything is very similar, if not exactly 
the same. The only difference is, under the executive commission, if it 
is proposed--I think it will be--there is no requirement of a fast-
track process as required by the statutory commission.
  I tell my colleagues there are other alternatives, there are other 
ways to address our huge budget deficits. I urge my colleagues to join 
in support for the Vice President's efforts and oppose the Conrad-Gregg 
amendment.
  I understand the Senator from Connecticut is not here. Maybe the 
Senator wants to proceed? Oh, he is here. Does the Senator from South 
Dakota wish to proceed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3301

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today the Senate will have an opportunity 
to indicate to the American people whether they are listening to the 
American people because we are going to have an opportunity to vote on 
a debt limit bill later, but earlier, before that, on a series of 
amendments. The first amendment is an amendment I am offering along 
with Senator Vitter from Louisiana and Senator Bennett from Utah. They 
have worked extensively on this. They have already been down here and 
they spoke on this this morning, as have a number of my colleagues.
  What is important about this amendment is it will give an indication 
to the

[[Page S97]]

American people about whether their voices are being heard here in 
Washington as expressed by the voters of Massachusetts. I think what 
they were saying in that vote a couple of days ago was: We are 
frustrated. We are concerned about the level at which Washington is 
spending and taxing and borrowing. We want the brakes put on that.
  I have an amendment that I offer to the debt limit today that will 
end TARP. It is a very straightforward way in which we can signal to 
the American people that we are serious about fiscal responsibility.
  Just by way of context, if you look at what is being proposed here 
with this debt limit increase, it is to add $1.9 trillion to the debt 
limit of our country--$1.9 trillion. Remember, we already raised the 
debt limit before we left for the Christmas holiday by $290 billion, so 
if you add that to the $1.9 trillion, you are talking about well over 
$2 trillion that we will have added to the debt limit in the last 30 
days. Bear in mind that the entire Federal budget a decade ago did not 
exceed that amount of money. We are going to add more to the debt limit 
in this vote, coupled with the vote we made about 30 days ago, than was 
spent in the entire Federal budget a decade ago. That is remarkable. It 
speaks to the whole issue of the amount of spending and the growth of 
government here in Washington, DC, which I believe has the American 
taxpayer very concerned--and with good reason.
  If you look at what has happened in the last several years, starting 
in 2008 and up through 2010, this year--if you take the end of 2008, 
the amount of money spent in the appropriations bills here in 
Washington, and then go to the 2009 appropriations bills and the 2010 
appropriations bills, over that time period the entire government grew 
by 16.8 percent, over a 2-year period. That is excluding the defense 
and veterans funding, so that is other nondefense discretionary 
spending. All these increases outpace both inflation and the growth in 
our economy.
  To put it in perspective, inflation during that same period, 2008 to 
2010, was 3.5 percent. We grew government spending by 16.8 percent. 
That is stunning. How does any American taxpayer out there in this 
recession, trying to figure out how to make their budget, how to pay 
their bills, and having to go about the process of tightening their 
belts, understand how a Federal Government can grow its size here in 
Washington, DC, by 16.8 percent when inflation in the country over that 
same time period was 3.5 percent? These are some remarkable and 
stunning numbers. That is why we are seeing all this angst at the 
grassroots level around this country about the direction the country is 
heading and the peril it is putting future generations in if we 
continue on this path unabated and we don't do something about spending 
and we don't do something about the massive amount of borrowing and 
expansion of government.
  I also think people are reacting to the process by which Congress 
conducts its business. The idea that you would have to pass legislation 
by including special provisions for individual Senators--the so-called 
cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana purchase, all these other things 
where individual deals were made in back rooms to get the support of 
individual Senators to vote in this case for the big health care bill--
is something the American people find very objectionable. I think they 
are reacting to that too. I think what they are voicing is their 
disgust with the way Washington operates.
  One of the reasons we are here today asking for a $1.9 trillion 
increase in the debt limit and the reason we have a debt that next year 
will exceed 60 percent of our gross domestic product--which, by the 
way, would keep us from getting into the European Union--is because we 
continue to spend and spend and borrow and borrow and frankly use a lot 
of accounting gimmicks here in Washington, DC, to disguise and shield 
the amount of borrowing and spending that is going on here.
  A good example of that was the health care bill which we have been 
debating now for the last several months. It passed the House of 
Representatives, it passed the Senate, and it is now in discussions. 
Negotiations are going on between the leaders in the House and Senate. 
I am not sure--we have not been privy to those, either--what the state 
of play is with regard to the health care bill.
  I think it is important to know that there were a lot of things in 
that bill designed to understate its true cost. They said it would only 
cost $1 trillion over the first 10 years, but if you look at the fully 
implemented cost, because it front-end-loaded some of the increases and 
back-loaded some of the spending, because it used various accounting 
gimmicks to understate the true cost of it, if you look at the fully 
implemented cost over 10 years, it was in fact $2.5 trillion. I think 
those numbers are starting to sink in with the American people.
  One of the things that was done in the health care bill--and I think 
this is an example of some of the things that happen, processes, 
procedures that happen here in Washington, DC, that defy logic and are 
very difficult to explain to the American people--one example of that 
is the way the Medicare issue was debated and handled with regard to 
the health care debate. About $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts was 
proposed, along with a Medicare tax increase of .9 percent, all used to 
finance this new health care entitlement program, to pay for the new 
$2.5 trillion in spending. The argument was made by the other side that 
this, in fact, extended the lifespan of Medicare because it was--the 
cuts to Medicare and the revenue increases were somehow going to expand 
the lifespan of Medicare.
  What I thought was interesting about that was the Senator from 
Alabama asked a question of the Congressional Budget Office toward the 
end of that debate about, how can you count this as paying for the new 
entitlement program, the new health care program, and still say you are 
extending the lifespan of Medicare because obviously you can't use the 
money twice. In response to that question, the Congressional Budget 
Office issued a statement and said that the key point is that the 
savings to the HI trust fund, the Medicare trust fund, under the health 
care bill would be received by the government only once, so they cannot 
be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and at the same time 
pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other 
programs.
  They went on to say:

       The unified budget accounting showed that the majority of 
     the HI savings [the trust fund savings] would be used to pay 
     for other spending under the health care bill and would not 
     enhance the ability of the government to redeem the bonds 
     credited to the trust fund, the Medicare trust fund, to pay 
     for future Medicare benefits. To describe the full amount of 
     HI trust fund savings as both improving the government's 
     ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new 
     spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a 
     large share of those savings and thus overstate the 
     improvement in the government's fiscal position.

  That is just an example of one of the unique accounting mechanisms 
used by the Federal Government in Washington, DC.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield for a question at that point?
  Mr. THUNE. I would say to the chairman, I will yield in a moment 
after I make some remarks, but I want to speak to the TARP amendment 
before I do that. I will be happy to yield at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  I want to say that I know what the chairman is going to say. He is 
going to say the CBO came back and said it would extend the lifespan of 
Medicare, and they did, and it would under the mechanisms used in the 
unified budget when it comes to trust fund accounting.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Would the Senator yield on that point since he is raising 
the subject?
  Mr. THUNE. As long as we are not on any time limitation, all right, I 
will.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Didn't that same CBO letter also say the health care bill 
that passed the Senate would reduce the budget deficit? The Senator is 
throwing out these huge figures--it is going to cost $2 trillion and so 
on and so forth. I don't know where the Senator got that figure because 
the Congressional Budget Office, in that same letter or a similar 
letter--either that letter, in an earlier letter, or in a subsequent 
letter--reaffirmed that the bill passed in the Senate cuts the budget 
deficit by $132 billion the first 10 years and cuts the budget deficit 
by between

[[Page S98]]

$650 billion and $1.3 trillion in the next 10 years. That is what the 
letter says. The Actuary said the bill extends the life of the Medicare 
trust fund I think 5 or 6 more years--maybe more than that.
  Isn't it true that CBO letter said that the Senate bill reduces the 
budget deficit by $132 billion in the first 10 years and reduces it in 
the second 10 years by between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion? Isn't 
that true?
  Mr. THUNE. The CBO number, as the Senator from Montana knows, has 
been a moving target because at the end of that debate, they adjusted 
by about $\1/2\ trillion the amount they considered the deficit would 
be reduced. But I point out to the Senator from Montana that, yes, the 
CBO came out and said that because they are using the trust fund 
accounting conventions we use here in Washington DC, and that is my 
whole point. I am not disputing what the CBO has said because legally 
they are correct because of the way we do it under a unified budget 
accounting in the trust funds.
  But as a practical matter, as an economic matter, what the CBO is 
saying in the statement they issued is, you cannot double-count the 
money. It is spending the same money twice. You are creating a new 
entitlement program, which is, under the CBO's estimate, $1 trillion 
over 10 years but when it is fully implemented, $2.5 trillion.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield? This double-counting, frankly, is 
a bogus issue. It kind of sounds good on its face, but it is meant to 
confuse people.
  But even subsequent to that statement about the double-counting, even 
subsequent to that, is it not true that CBO came out with a subsequent 
letter that said still the budget deficit is reduced by $132 billion in 
the first 10 years and $650 billion to $1.3 trillion in the next 10 
years?
  Mr. THUNE. The CBO came out and said that the budget deficit would be 
reduced by $132 billion over the first 10 years. But the point I made 
earlier is that included, of course, a lot of gimmicks that were used, 
including taxes began immediately, spending that does not occur until 4 
years later, counting revenue from--for example, not taking care of the 
physician fee increase, which we know is a $250 billion to $350 billion 
cost which at some point the government is going to have to deal with, 
as well as creating a new entitlement program called the CLASS Act, 
under which the CBO assumed about $72 billion of savings in the first 
10 years, which they also said would generate deficits in the outyears.
  So the Senator from Montana may be correct legally under the 
conventions that are used in trust funds under a unified budget, but as 
a practical matter, and this is what I think the American people 
understand and what as an economic matter I understand, you cannot use 
the same revenue twice. And if you have revenues coming in from 
Medicare cuts and Medicare payroll tax increases, and you are saying we 
are going to use those to finance this expansion, this new health care 
entitlement, and at the same time we are going to use those to preserve 
and extend the lifespan of Medicare, most people would say you cannot 
do that.
  What the CBO said in this statement is, it is double-counting. It is 
spending the same revenue twice. That is the practical implication of 
this, notwithstanding the weird gimmicks and the way Washington, DC, 
goes about accounting for revenues in a unified budget that go into 
trust funds because essentially what is happening is, you are issuing 
an IOU to the Medicare trust fund and also taking those revenues and 
saying we are going to spend them to finance the new health care 
entitlement. You cannot spend the same money twice.
  People in South Dakota know that. I think people in Montana know 
that. But that is why they are so frustrated about this process. They 
see this dragging on and all of this debate going on and all of these 
different numbers being thrown out. But the fact is, we are creating a 
massive new government entitlement program under health care with all 
kinds of new spending financed with tax increases and Medicare cuts 
that are supposed to be used to finance the new health care entitlement 
but are also being credited to the Medicare trust fund, and thereby 
being used for two purposes. You cannot do that.
  But I think that point is one of the reasons that most persons become 
so cynical about Washington, DC. They get very frustrated with what 
they see as all of this Washington, DC, talk and accounting gimmicks 
and budgetary techniques that are used to disguise this amount of 
spending, which has led us to where we are having to raise the debt 
limit by $1.9 trillion.
  Face it. That is the reality we are going to face today. We are going 
to have a vote, if not this week then next week, on this legislation 
which would increase the amount of the debt limit in this country by 
$1.9 trillion.
  My amendment to this legislation, as I said before, is fairly 
straightforward. It would end TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, 
which was created toward the end of 2008 that was designed specifically 
to bring financial stability to the country at a time when we were 
worried about imminent financial collapse. There was a concern at the 
time that there was great systemic risk to our financial system.
  As a consequence of that, action was taken, authority was given to 
the Treasury to acquire the distressed nonperforming assets on the 
balance sheets of many of our banks. What has happened since that time, 
it has morphed into something entirely different. It has been used now 
to take equity positions, to take ownership stakes in more and more 
companies in this country, whether they are financial service 
companies, insurance companies, auto manufacturers. We have gotten very 
far afield from what the purpose of the TARP was in the first place.
  As to where we are today, we have, out of that $700 billion in 
authority--I have a pie chart that shows what has been spent and what 
is left.
  The blue represents the amount of the program, $700 billion, that has 
been committed or spent already. That is about $545 billion. That is 
what the blue represents. The other side of the chart, the line part 
and the orange part, represent the amount that has not been spent or 
has been paid back. The amount that has not been spent is about $155 
billion. The amount that has been paid back is about $165 billion. So 
you have roughly $320 billion that to date is unobligated balances in 
the TARP account.
  What my amendment would do is say that amount, that $320 billion, 
cannot be spent. It ends. The reason for that is because we are 
concerned this fund is going to be used for all types of purposes for 
which it was not intended.
  Most recently, the House of Representatives passed the stimulus 2 
bill, the second stimulus bill, which is going to use as an offset this 
authority right here. What we are simply saying is, this is $320 
billion that we can save the taxpayers of this country, that we can 
keep from piling on debt to future generations, and keep from adding to 
the total amount of borrowing we are doing.
  So let's stop. Let's end this program today and not allow this $320 
billion to be spent and further stipulate that anything here in the 
blue, the $545 billion that is currently spent or committed, if paid 
back, would go to reduce the Federal debt rather than be recycled and 
respent and reused again.
  It is a very straightforward, very simple amendment, but I think it 
is very important in terms of the message that it sends to the American 
people about whether we are serious about what this TARP was created 
for in the first place, its specific statutory purpose, and whether we 
are going to deviate from that and use it for all other types of 
spending and ideas that people in Washington, DC, might come up with.
  So I hope my colleagues today will support this amendment. I happen 
to believe the TARP has served its purpose. The Treasury had an 
opportunity to extend it at the end of last year, the end of December 
of last year. They chose not to let it expire. They chose to extend it. 
So now this program runs until October of this year. My fear is that 
this amount of money, this $320 billion, is going to get spent, but it 
is not going to get spent for the purpose it was intended to be spent 
for under the TARP authority but, rather, for all kinds of other things 
that people, politicians in Washington, might come up with.
  Also, this blue amount here, those funds that are already committed, 
are

[[Page S99]]

spent, when they are paid back, and we hope they will be, although 
there are some questions now about whether we are going to see a lot of 
that money being paid back, but assuming it is, that money not be 
recycled or respent but it be used to retire the Federal debt. That 
would reduce the total amount by which we would have to raise the debt 
limit.
  We are serious about getting this debt under control. We are serious 
about getting spending under control. This is a very straightforward 
way to do that. So we are going to have this vote, hopefully, later 
today, sometime this afternoon. We can save the American taxpayers $320 
billion by not spending this amount of money here. We can, hopefully, 
as these are paid back, save a whole lot more for the American 
taxpayers.
  I would urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this amendment 
and to restore some sense of fiscal discipline to the way we do 
business in Washington.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer. I have two 
subject matters I wish to address. One is the amendment of my friend 
and colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, that he has just 
addressed in his remarks, and a second set of remarks regarding Haiti 
that I also want to address.
  I chair the subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee dealing 
with the Western Hemisphere and, obviously, includes the nation of 
Haiti, as well as served as a Peace Corps volunteer some 40 years ago 
on the island of Hispaniola on the border between Haiti and the 
Dominican Republic. So aside from the interest we all have in what has 
happened to the thousands of Haitians as a result of this catastrophic 
earthquake that has occurred, I have many friends in that country, some 
of whom I have not heard from in the last week or so, who are lost at 
this point. I want to address some thoughts on that subject matter as 
well.
  But I want to, first of all, if I can, address the subject matter of 
the Thune amendment which will be voted on, I gather, at some point 
either today or tomorrow, whenever that is going to be dealt with here.
  Let me begin by, first of all, thanking my colleague from South 
Dakota. I applaud him for saying that while it was a controversial 
debate a year ago last fall on whether to have an emergency economic 
stabilization program, I remember the night that we all gathered here 
and sat at our desks in this Chamber and voted 75 to 24 on whether to 
commit as much as potentially $700 billion in order to stabilize our 
financial institutions and move forward.
  It was a courageous vote that a number of our colleagues took that 
day, many of whom were up for reelection within a matter of days after 
that vote, and yet cast ballots in favor of it despite the tremendous 
outpouring of anger over the fact that we were in those economic 
circumstances to begin with, and that, secondly, we might be committing 
as much of American taxpayer money to stabilize our financial 
institutions.
  I happen to believe, and I think history is proving to be so, that we 
made the right choice that evening; that even though it was a painful 
vote, had we not stabilized those financial institutions, I firmly 
believe we would be looking at a far more catastrophic set of economic 
problems both here and around the globe had we not acted.
  So while those resources have gone to large financial institutions 
and to major organizations because that is what was needed to be done, 
there is an understandable degree of anger and frustration being 
expressed by our fellow citizenry because people on Main Street, 
average citizens, have suffered terribly during this process.
  There was a point not many months ago where 20,000 jobs a day were 
being lost in our Nation; 14,000 people a day were losing their health 
care; 10,000 people a day were losing their homes in the United States 
to foreclosure. So the American people have suffered terribly as a 
result of this economic crisis.
  But we needed to take those steps. As a result, today, while the news 
is still far from good, in most corners of this country we are 
stabilizing an economic crisis. We avoided a depression which we were 
on the brink of falling into had we not taken that action. So I want to 
commend my colleague from South Dakota for recognizing the value of 
that decision.
  Now he points out with a chart--it is not up here any longer--the 
fact that there is about $320 billion which remains unexpended as a 
result of that decision. The good news is that we crafted that bill 
that required two separate votes--an initial one for the $350 billion, 
and then around January of this year--or last year, excuse me--the 
additional $350 billion would be appropriated and spent. As a result of 
the good news we have avoided having to expend all of those resources. 
As a result, there is actually money coming back in.
  We have now recouped about $165 billion of the original money that 
was spent, including over $13 billion in fees and interest payments 
that were earned back by the Federal Government as a result of those 
decisions. We all hope the full amount will be recovered. There will be 
an opportunity in the coming days for all of us to vote on whether we 
ought to ask those large financial institutions, which were the 
beneficiary of taxpayer assistance, whether they are going to vote for 
a fee or a tax, if you will, over a limited number of years on those 
recipients of billions of dollars of American taxpayer money, to pay 
that back through fees and taxes.
  I hope my colleagues will be supportive of the initiative offered by 
President Obama in recent days. But the issue before us is whether we 
ought to shut all of this program down, the remaining $320 billion that 
is there. I want to remind my colleagues what the administration has 
suggested, and I believe all of us have embraced, is that small 
businesses and our community banks in this country are struggling. I do 
not recall a day over the last number of months when I have not heard a 
speech on the Senate floor of this Chamber where a Member has not 
gotten up and talked about what is happening in the absence of credit 
flowing to smaller businesses in their States, or that community banks 
in their States are failing because the economy has not reached them, 
the improving economy.
  What the administration has suggested, and I strongly support, as I 
believe most of us do, is that we need to get assistance and support to 
these smaller businesses and to these community banks in order that 
they can survive and get on their feet, and credit will flow where it 
is not flowing today.
  The administration has sent a letter committing to limit the use of 
these dollars to mitigating foreclosures, which is still serious; 
support for small banks so they can lend to their communities; 
facilitate small business lending; and address the deepening crisis in 
the commercial mortgage banks. Those are the four obligations we are 
talking about. It is not unlimited. It is not all for ideas that may be 
floating around here that have little or no merit. It is specifically 
the areas in which we all know we need to provide help.
  We can do this one of two ways. We can do it by appropriating 
additional money, which goes right to the heart of the argument of my 
colleague and friend from South Dakota. We cannot afford to do that. 
Again, the deficits are growing larger by the hour, and to appropriate 
additional money at a time like this would be very difficult if not 
unwise in many cases. Or we can take resources we have already 
appropriated that are not being spent, that could be used exactly for 
the purposes that are needed for our economy to get moving again. In a 
sense it is a catch-22. Our economy is only going to improve if small 
business starts hiring again, community banks start flowing credit 
again, and we minimize the foreclosure problem.
  How do you do it? It doesn't happen magically. It happens because we 
make intelligent decisions. A year and a half ago, when we voted for 
the economic stabilization bill, the problem in front of us was the 
stabilization of financial institutions. So the resources were going to 
be limited for that purpose. We thought we might need $700 billion. The 
good news is, we haven't needed that amount and a substantial amount of 
the money is coming back in. There remains this pool of $320 billion in 
that fund. Wouldn't it make sense if, in fact,

[[Page S100]]

we are trying to get this economy moving again, to take some of those 
resources and make it available to small businesses, to community banks 
to flow credit so they can actually hire people and grow again, to 
minimize foreclosures? That is what is needed to be done.
  We can do it one way or the other, but we can't do it by just talking 
about it. I beseech my colleagues at this juncture not to vote in favor 
of this amendment which would deprive us of resources in order to do 
the things that all of us agree need to be done. I know my friends, 
most of them here, are not going to be voting for a program that 
requires additional appropriations for the very argument the author of 
the amendment has made. We can't afford to do it. If we are not going 
to do that--and yet we are simultaneously saying we need to do these 
things in order to get us out of this hole, where average businesses 
and workers on Main Street in the country can be the beneficiary of 
some of this help to get our economy moving--where does it come from? 
Where are the resources going to come from? Why not take some of these 
resources and dedicate them to exactly the purposes that have been 
identified by the administration and recommended by Members of this 
body, both Republicans and Democrats?
  If you support the Thune amendment, you deprive us of that 
opportunity. That is it. The only alternative left, then, is to go 
through an appropriations process, which we are being told by our 
friends over here they will not support. Again, what happens is a lot 
of rhetoric, a lot of talk. After all the help that has gone to the 
major Wall Street institutions, at the very hour we ought to be trying 
to help Main Street institutions, these smaller banks, smaller 
businesses, we will not have the resources to do it. I urge my 
colleagues to think long and hard about this. While this program has 
been terribly unpopular for all the reasons we have heard from others, 
at this critical moment, at a time when we could make such a 
difference, when falling back into a recession again could happen very 
easily, a deeper recession, at this very hour to deprive the 
administration, the Congress, the people who care so much about 
community banks and small businesses, I think would be a huge mistake.
  I urge colleagues to reject the Thune amendment. Again, the 
commitments have been made. These resources go to one of four areas, 
primarily to community banks to get credit flowing and to small 
business but also to mitigate foreclosures and to address the deepening 
crisis in commercial mortgage loans which is there. We have a pool of 
resources to respond to it.
  My hope is, all these dollars will be paid back with interest, as I 
think there is some evidence as we have seen already may, in fact, 
occur. But we need to continue on this path, if we are going to succeed 
in our efforts, watching optimism and confidence be restored to Main 
Street in America. This is one opportunity for us to do it, to get this 
job done.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Thune amendment for all the 
reasons we have in the past. This is not a new amendment. It has been 
offered in the past. It has been rejected by colleagues for many of the 
same reasons I have tried to articulate this afternoon. The arguments 
haven't changed. What has is the dedication of these resources exactly 
to the areas that so many of us have talked about over the last number 
of months. I urge rejection of that amendment.


                                 Haiti

  Mr. President, I wish to speak to the subject matter of Haiti and the 
events of the last week that have occurred in that country. My interest 
in the subject matter is not any different than that of every single 
person who has watched with horror the photographs and pictures, the 
stories of the tragedy that has afflicted that poor, desperate country 
that occupies one-third of the island of Hispaniola. I bring an added 
personal attention to it because I have many friends, many of them I 
have known for 40 years, in the island nation of Haiti. I have been 
there on numerous occasions over the years, in addition to my first 
introduction to Haiti at 22 years of age as a Peace Corps volunteer, 
when I was sent to a small village on the border of Haiti and the 
Dominican Republic, in 1966, some 40 years ago. My interest and my 
friendships go back a long time. I am deeply concerned and worried 
about what is occurring there and what steps we might take as a nation, 
in conjunction with others, to provide some help to a people who are in 
desperate need.
  I rise to discuss the tragic situation, the humanitarian disaster 
that has occurred in the wake of last week's earthquake, and the U.S.-
led response to this crisis. Last Tuesday, as we all know, as the world 
knows, one of the largest earthquakes recorded in the area hit about 15 
miles from the capital city of Port-au-Prince in Haiti. This massive 
earthquake brought immediate destruction to Port-au-Prince and 
surrounding areas and communities, instantly crumbling houses and 
buildings, destroying roads, seaports, cutting power and water lines 
throughout the country.
  Most tragically, the earthquake has killed tens of thousands of 
Haitians who, at the time the quake struck, were simply going about 
their daily lives--desperate lives, I might add, but daily lives. The 
Government of Haiti has indicated they believe 70,000 of their fellow 
citizens have been killed in this earthquake. Other officials fear the 
death toll may be as high or more than 200,000 people as a result of 
those brief moments that caused that nation state to crumble. These 
heart-wrenching numbers do not even account for those injured who are 
homeless, the orphaned without food, water, shelter or any kind of 
medicine.
  The losses extend well beyond Haitians. The United States also lost a 
dedicated public servant named Victoria DeLong, who was serving as 
cultural affairs officer at our Embassy in Port-au-Prince. Several more 
Americans have been killed and many more remain unaccounted for a week 
later. The United Nations, no stranger to dangerous and difficult 
missions, has suffered its single greatest loss of life in the history 
of the United Nations. Over 100 United Nations staffers and 
peacekeepers remain unaccounted for. The special representative for 
Haiti, Hedi Annibi, also lost his life.
  On behalf of my colleagues in the Senate, I extend our heartfelt 
condolences to the friends and the families of those who lost their 
lives in Haiti. They should know they are in our thoughts and prayers 
every single minute of every day.
  This earthquake has been called a disaster of epic proportions. When 
such a disaster strikes one of our neighbors, a country so close to 
many of us, our Nation responds, as have others. I applaud President 
Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Administrator Shah for their immediate, 
robust, and coordinated efforts, which has truly been a whole-of-
government response, utilizing resources, skills, expertise of our 
State Department, USAID, and the Defense Department. Secretary Gates 
deserves great commendation. Our forces in uniform that poured into the 
area on a moment's notice to help out, as they always do, deserve 
particular recognition in this effort. We have deployed thousands of 
troops to Haiti who are supporting operations at the Port-au-Prince 
airport, working to provide logistical support, open the port. The 
United States has sent an aircraft carrier with numerous helicopters to 
deliver aid to otherwise hard-to-reach places in and around Port-au-
Prince, a hospital ship to provide lifesaving medical care, and urban 
search and rescue teams and doctors to help rescue those trapped and 
treat those who are injured.
  In addition to manpower, the United States has pledged money and 
supplies, including water, ready-to-eat meals, and medicine to help 
those in need. This response has demonstrated the generosity and spirit 
of the American people, especially when it comes to helping others who 
are in desperate need, as clearly Haiti is. The American people have 
also responded, as we always do. It is a source of great pride to all 
of us to watch our fellow citizens, people whose names we will never 
know, the donations which they have given may not sound like much; but 
for people who have lost a job, lost a home, as I talked about a moment 
ago, during this economic crisis, to reach deep into these almost empty 
pockets to send that $1 or $5 or $10 to help out some family they will 
never know, some child they will never meet in a place

[[Page S101]]

they may never go to, may never have known about before is, once again, 
a demonstration of the spirit and heart of our fellow citizens in the 
United States.

  Aid agencies and NGOs have reported an outpouring of support as our 
fellow citizens have donated money, clothing, and supplies to hundreds 
of organizations that operate in Haiti today. These donations are 
absolutely critical at this time. At a time when we can't seem to 
decide on a bipartisan basis what day of the week it is, to watch 
President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush, two people who 
have been political opposites, have very different points of view, 
sitting down together as two former leaders of our Nation to head the 
effort to provide relief to Haiti is a demonstration of what we ought 
to be doing together here on occasions that affect our own citizenry. 
If two former combatants in the Presidential field can sit down and 
become a team in responding to a crisis in Haiti, it ought to be a 
lesson about what we need to be doing when it comes to our own crises 
here at home.
  I commend President Clinton and President George W. Bush for their 
tremendous work. I commend President Bush's father, who joined with 
President Clinton back when the tsunami crisis hit Southeast Asia. The 
Bush family has always responded at times such as this. Both father and 
son deserve our thanks and commendation for what they have done. Of 
course, Bill Clinton has dedicated his post-Presidency period to a 
global initiative to help out every single day in places that are not 
the subject of news stories, as Haiti is. He, of course, deserves our 
expression of gratitude as well.
  The international community has responded. Over 27 international 
search-and-rescue teams, with some 1,500 rescuers from around the 
world, are already on the ground in Port-au-Prince and neighboring 
communities, searching through the rubble to find those who may have 
survived. I know all of us sit in absolute stunned admiration for those 
who have survived 6 and 7 days, living in the midst of rubble, to be 
discovered alive and be extracted by rescue workers. Our only hope in 
these waning hours, is that we will find additional people who have 
somehow miraculously have survived this disaster.
  It has been unbelievable. Relief workers, doctors, supplies have 
arrived from China, Israel, Iceland, Brazil, France, more countries 
than I can enumerate. The European Union has pledged over $\1/2\ 
billion in assistance already, and I suspect more will be forthcoming. 
Despite its own tragic losses, the United Nations has come to the 
rescue of the Haitian people. The United Nations Stabilization Mission 
in Haiti has responded heroically to this disaster, organizing supply 
convoys, conducting search-and-rescue missions, and providing security. 
On Saturday, the World Food Program fed 40,000 people. Within the next 
week or two, that number will increase to 2 million. Private 
organizations are also doing heroic and valued work, including the Red 
Cross, Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children, Partners in Health.
  Let me say, particularly on Partners in Health, my great friend, Paul 
Farmer, who spent years in Haiti as he has in other nations working 
with HIV/AIDS and other issues, is there, as you might expect, in 
Haiti. I have spoken to him. He has many needs, as you might 
imagination. He needs orthopedic surgeons, trauma specialists, skilled 
nurses, supplies. My hope is, in these coming days, coming hours, we 
will be able to get those resources to him.
  On the ground, the Obama administration and the international 
community are working as quickly as possible to distribute aid to those 
in need and to help clear the jam of supplies arriving in Port-au-
Prince and Cape Haitian, in some cases, in the northern part of the 
country. It is critical that aid gets distributed beyond the immediate 
confines of the airport. Those who survived the quake are now trying to 
survive, once again, without food and water and medicine and shelter.
  At the same time, we must work as quickly as possible to ensure that 
violence does not break out as people become desperate to survive, as 
one might expect under these circumstances. The people of Haiti are our 
neighbors, and it is our duty to help them weather this storm, as 
others are doing as well.
  I strongly agree with Secretary Clinton who, during her trip to Haiti 
this past Saturday, affirmed to the Haitian people that ``we will be 
here today, tomorrow, and for the time ahead'' as well.
  I wish to take a few minutes to describe what I believe needs to 
happen at this ``time ahead'' of us that Secretary Clinton referred to. 
These are not all the suggestions. I know many others are coming in, 
and we need to think about how we can intelligently respond to this. We 
can't do it all alone. We need help from the international community, 
obviously. But there are some steps we can take that I think would make 
some difference in all this. In order to do that, we must understand 
where Haiti was the day before the earthquake struck. Despite its 
location only a few hundred miles from the wealthiest Nation in the 
history of mankind, Haiti is one of the poorest nations on the face of 
this Earth. It ranks as the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, 
with 80 percent of the population living under the poverty lines of 
this hemisphere.

  While recent years showed some positive trends in economic growth, 
the 2008 hurricanes devastated that country, causing widespread 
destruction and severely damaging the agriculture sector, upon which 
two-thirds of all Haitians depend. Remittances to Haiti represented 
more than twice the earnings from exports and accounted for one-quarter 
of the gross domestic product of that nation. Haiti has also one of the 
lowest life expectancies in the world. The average Haitian income is 
less than $1 a day. In terms of income, less than $1 a day.
  Clearly, Haiti had a lot of ground to cover before this earthquake 
struck, and rebuilding Haiti is not going to be easy for anyone. Many 
have debated why Haiti remains so poor and what can be done to 
alleviate poverty, improve public health outcomes, and help that nation 
develop a sustainable and equitable way forward. This debate is all the 
more important and necessary as we move forward.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and as 
an American who knows and cares about Haiti, having worked with the 
people of Haiti and its leaders for much of my career, I am committed 
to finding the best solutions to these vexing problems and to working 
in close coordination with the administration, the United Nations, and 
our neighbors in the region, including Brazil, Mexico, and others who 
are already there helping to rebuild Haiti.
  I might mention, there are 400 physicians from the island of Cuba who 
are operating in Haiti today, down there trying to make a difference. 
Whatever thoughts people have about the Government of Cuba, the fact 
is, there are doctors there now from that nation that is only a few 
miles from the northern parts of Haiti who are now trying to save 
lives.
  As we begin to transition from a rescue mission to a medium- and 
long-term recovery mission, we must think creatively and allocate 
resources to the most effective and efficient methods for sustainable 
reconstruction and development. We must find ways to make Haitian 
agriculture better equipped to feed the people of Haiti, and we must 
work to forgive Haitian debt.
  In April of this past year, Haiti was added to the IMF and World 
Bank's list of what is called the Heavily Indebted Poor Country 
Initiative making them eligible for special assistance with debt 
relief. This is an auspicious start, and one we must build upon.
  Public insecurity has long been a systemic problem, hampering 
economic growth. Therefore, it is critical we work with the Haitian 
authorities in that nation and others to build and reform the 
institutions to bolster the rule of law in Haiti that will be necessary 
to lift Haitians out of poverty, rebuild the country and attract and 
maintain foreign direct investment to jump-start that nation's economy.
  Throughout this process, we must not get bogged down by old formulas 
and hardened ways of doing business as usual. We must think outside the 
box, as the expression goes, marshal the necessary resources and 
creativity of our friends in the region, and the Haitian people must 
devise and be a part of a medium- and long-term strategy for this 
effort.

[[Page S102]]

  To that end, Senator Lugar of Indiana, the former chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, and I will be introducing legislation 
shortly that will help to speed Haiti's recovery by instructing the 
Secretary of the Treasury to work with other nations to totally relieve 
Haiti of their outstanding international debt, including the debt 
incurred through 2011. That ought to be something every nation agrees 
to do; in the absence of which, I do not know how you can ever talk 
about economic recovery if you are willing to require a country that 
does not even have a fully functioning government today to meet those 
obligations.
  Additionally, our legislation will help to spur economic activity, 
which is absolutely essential if we are going to have any kind of 
recovery process. We will do so by promoting trade between the United 
States and Haiti and lifting restrictions that would be barriers to 
trade being able to flow between Haiti and the United States, putting 
people to work.
  The Haitian people have endured immeasurable suffering in recent 
days, but their spirit is indomitable. On Sunday, countless ordinary 
Haitians came together to observe Mass amid the bleak ruins of Port-au-
Prince. Their faith in each other and their future may have been 
tested, but it is far from broken. I stand committed--as I am sure our 
colleagues throughout this Chamber are as well--to working with them, 
our fellow citizens here at home, and the international community, not 
just today but in the weeks and months and even years ahead, to ensure 
that our commitment to helping Haiti recover is meaningful, 
sustainable, and rises to the great challenge we face.
  With that, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. 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. 3301

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to a vote in relation to the Thune amendment No. 3301 and 
that the provisions of the order of December 22 regarding the vote 
threshold remain in effect and no intervening amendment be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Hagan) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 2 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Hagan
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 
45. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3302

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Gregg-Conrad 
amendment that I hope we will vote on later this evening or tomorrow. I 
know everybody in this body is concerned greatly about the long-term 
issues we have to deal with as relates to our deficits. I think 
everybody in this body has concerns about that.
  I know there has been a lot of discussion, especially by members of 
the Finance Committee, that we need to deal with the long-term deficits 
in this body through regular order. The fact is, this is the 
responsibility of the committee. I respect members of the Finance 
Committee. Someday, I would like to serve on that committee. They do 
outstanding work.
  I think all of us realize that there is no way we are going to deal 
with the long-term issues relating to Social Security and Medicare 
without doing something that causes us to have to take a vote.
  A lot of people criticize the Gregg-Conrad amendment, saying that 
there is a possibility that one of the recommendations that may come 
forth from this commission that would actually make a report and call 
us to vote after November of this year is that there may be a tax 
increase that is recommended in this legislation. The Gregg-Conrad 
amendment would get Republicans and Democrats to agree on a way to deal 
with long-term issues. It does not commit people to vote for those 
recommendations. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in this 
amendment that speaks to tax increases.
  I know on the other side of this issue we have some more liberal 
groups, if you will, that are saying: We do not want you to deal with 
entitlements because the only way to make entitlements whole may mean 
making some reforms, and we do not want any changes.
  We have people on both ends of the spectrum who are saying do not 
support Gregg-Conrad when everybody in this body knows we cannot 
continue as we are today. We all know that.
  The Finance Committee, which I respect greatly, just in this last 
health care bill--and I am not trying to touch a subject that may be 
hard for all of us after the last couple of weeks, but the fact is, the 
Finance Committee proposed taking $464 billion in savings from Medicare 
to use to create a new entitlement. What that means is the Finance 
Committee has no notion whatsoever of doing things that make Medicare 
more solvent over the long haul. If we are going to take savings such 
as that, we ought to make Medicare more solvent. By the way, we can 
debate those kinds of issues, but the fact is, the Finance Committee 
has had decades to deal with the long-term entitlement issues. I 
respect their work.
  The fact is, during regular order, it is very difficult for this body 
to make the tough decisions that call us to make sure we are not 
pushing huge amounts of debt onto future generations.
  I cannot imagine why anybody in this body would oppose setting up a 
bipartisan group--they do not have to vote for the recommendations--
that will spend a year looking at these issues in an intelligent 
fashion, hopefully, and then come back and report. And you can vote yes 
or not. You may or may not like it.
  I see the Senator from Missouri. Let me say one more thing. The way I 
understand it is the majority leader would appoint the Democrats and 
the minority leader is going to appoint the Republicans. That alone 
ought to give people some sense that they are not going to appoint 
people who are out in

[[Page S103]]

left field, if you will, or out in right field as it relates to fiscal 
issues. They are going to appoint people who want to look at this 
generally along the lines of the philosophy of each of the two parties.
  I cannot understand how any of us cannot support putting in place a 
mechanism to deal with the long-term liabilities of this country. Mr. 
President, I know you join me in those concerns. You have to. The 
Senator from Missouri has to join me in those concerns.
  I hope we will set aside politics and the groups that are calling in 
and lobbying against this issue because we might have to make a tough 
decision--which, by the way, would benefit future generations--trying 
to keep us from doing something that would make sense. Again, if the 
things they recommend are not good, vote against them. But let's put 
some process in place to deal appropriately, to make sure seniors down 
the road are going to have Medicare, that seniors down the road are 
going to have Social Security, and that those young people we talk 
about so much and care so much about are not burdened with huge amounts 
of debt because we do not have the courage in this body to make the 
decisions we need to make to put this country on a solid footing. We 
all know that. We see it every day. We do not want to make those tough 
decisions. This gives us a mechanism to at least consider making some 
difficult decisions and putting this country on a strong footing.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his request for a 
quorum call?
  Mr. CORKER. I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I had no intention of speaking today, 
but this place has been a little strange over the last few months in 
terms of our ability to come together.
  When I heard my friend from Tennessee talking about the Conrad-Gregg 
amendment, I realized we had a moment of bipartisan agreement. I wanted 
to stop and recognize that it is not completely gone. There are 
Republicans and Democrats who agree on issues.
  I could not agree more with my friend from Tennessee. I think this 
statutory commission is our best hope at restoring fiscal sanity in 
this country. It is important that we adopt it. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of the amendment. There are a number of us on this side of 
the aisle who are cosponsors of the amendment. There are a number of 
Republicans who are cosponsors. But I am beginning to sense that there 
may be some political game-playing that is going to occur here, and it 
worries me.
  The leader, with all due respect--in a bipartisan moment, I am going 
to backtrack a little bit. I remember the Republican Party announcing 
that this was one of their priorities. Now all of a sudden we are 
hearing that the leader of the Republican Party is opposed to it. Think 
about that for a minute. Before the shores got rocky for Democrats 
politically, this was a great idea.
  Everybody here knows we are not going to fix this problem in the 
regular order. Everybody knows it. It is not going to happen. So we are 
going to talk deficits, we are going to continue to say deficits 
matter, and we are not going to do the things we have to do to fix it. 
Until people begin to put aside politics and think about the policy 
that is really involved here and what it means for the future of this 
country, we are in deep trouble.

  I implore my friend from Tennessee to restore this as one of the 
priorities of the Republican caucus, to prevail upon his leader to 
not--I hope this is not the case, but the rumors are floating around 
that they have backed off this as a priority because if the Democrats 
do this, it is going to make them look good. We have to quit making the 
failure of the other guys our success. This place cannot be about that. 
By the way, it happens on both sides. I am not saying this is just a 
problem on the Republican side of the aisle. But we really do have a 
place where the way politics are played today makes it very difficult 
for us to come together in a bipartisan fashion.
  This is a moment in time that this could happen. I implore my friend 
from Tennessee--and he is my friend. We have been here the same amount 
of time. We have watched all of this sometimes with our eyes bugging 
out and our jaws slack as to what goes on around here and how things 
work. This is a time we can come together and do something that is 
responsible for this country.
  I am going to work very hard on my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle. I hope my friend from Tennessee does the same thing on his side 
of the aisle. I think we will have a vote on this amendment sometime in 
the next week or so. It is very important that we stand up and be 
counted as people who are more worried about our grandchildren than the 
next election.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri and I have 
worked on a number of issues together. I so much appreciate her 
comments.
  While I certainly cannot speak to what the position may be of 
leadership of whatever party on this particular issue, I will tell the 
Senator that I am absolutely a cosponsor and I absolutely agree that 
political winds are blowing, I might add, on both sides of the aisle.
  The President tried to announce something yesterday that we all know 
is not as strong as this amendment. It was an attempt, in fairness, to 
keep this amendment from gaining support because this is, as you 
mentioned, statutory. So it happens on both sides of the aisle.
  I am proud of the fact that the Senator from Missouri is standing up 
today supporting this legislation. I support it proudly. Again, the 
winds are blowing on both sides. I know there are liberal groups 
calling in trying to get folks on the other side not to vote for it. We 
have conservative groups on our side calling trying to get people not 
to vote for it.
  Again, all we are putting in place is a mechanism to try to solve 
this problem. People can vote against the recommendations. At the very 
least, we would benefit from some deep thought and a lot of work on 
data to see where we sit as it relates to the deficit issues.
  One of the things I think the election the other night said to both 
of us is that regardless of the outcome, regardless of some of the 
issues we are focused on, the American people would like for us to hit 
issues head-on. They do not want trickery. They do not want doubletalk. 
The American people would like for us to address the serious issues of 
this country as adults and try to come forth with real solutions to 
everyday problems and long-term problems.
  I think this legislation, which, by the way, is bipartisan--and as 
the Senator from Missouri mentioned, in the past it has had tremendous 
support. We almost had enough--I am probably exaggerating slightly--we 
almost had enough sponsors in the past to pass it in this body.
  As the Senator mentioned, the political winds are changing. Maybe one 
political party has advantage over the other for a day or two. Who 
knows. Instead of looking at this for the substance that is there and 
behind it, the Senator from Missouri is right, politics has come into 
play. I hope, just as the Senator has mentioned, that all of us can 
rise above that over this next week and support this very commonsense 
legislation that will at least get the ball rolling toward dealing with 
the issues that are going to affect these young people who are here 
helping us. We all know that political leadership at least for years--I 
am not talking just today--for years we have had the most selfish 
generation of political leadership this country has seen, kicking the 
can down the road on serious issues so that we can give people what 
they want without anybody having to pay for it except these young 
people.
  I am proud to stand with the Senator from Missouri. I thank her for 
her comments.
  Mr. President, thank you for the courtesy of time.
  Again, I suggest the absence of a quorum, but possibly the Senator 
from North Dakota may wish to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his request for a 
quorum call?
  Mr. CORKER. As always, yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I support the Conrad-Gregg fiscal action

[[Page S104]]

task force amendment. I am going to vote for it, and I do so not 
because I think it is the best solution. The best solution would be for 
us, year to year, to reconcile that which we spend and the amount of 
money we have to spend. But we don't do that, and we are now in a 
position where we have an unsustainable fiscal policy. It just is.
  I know people on that side want to blame this administration; people 
on this side want to blame the last 8 years. Whatever the blame might 
be, let me say that we are on an unsustainable course, and it is 
required, in my judgment, by Republicans and Democrats, to come 
together to find a way to address it. This is not the best way, but it 
is probably the only way we are ever going to get some control.
  I have heard so many people come to the floor of the Senate to say 
this administration is a socialist administration; it is going to spend 
this country into the ground. I have heard all of that. It is easy for 
me to stand here and go all the way back to a time when I stood on this 
floor--a time when we had the only budget surplus in several decades--
and say in response to a President's proposal to spend it before it 
even existed, and all we had was 10 years of projections, why not be 
conservative? These surpluses only exist this year, not for the next 10 
years. Let's be a little conservative. And the blowback was: Katey, bar 
the door. Let's do big tax cuts. Let's do all these things. Then 
immediately--and I didn't vote for it--but immediately we ran into a 
recession, then we ran into a terrorist attack, then a war in 
Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq--which, by the way, we never paid a 
penny for. We just sent men and women to go to war and said: We won't 
pay for it except with emergency supplementals every year.
  So there is plenty of blame to go around. This current President, 
President Obama, has been in office just 1 year. There are things with 
which I disagree with this administration, for sure. But, look, he 
inherited the biggest mess in the history of a Presidency, in my 
judgment. So let's try to figure out how we can get the best of what 
both parties have to offer in this country rather than the worst of 
each.
  I have often quoted Ogden Nash's four lines that I think captures 
this the best when he was talking about a guy who drinks too much and a 
woman who scolds.

       He drinks because she scolds, he thinks. She scolds because 
     he drinks, she thinks. Neither will admit what's true. He's a 
     drunk and she's a shrew.

  So it is perhaps with the political parties. Neither will admit what 
is really true. Both have some responsibility, and both have a 
responsibility to lead. We are not leading year to year in the normal 
budget process and in the normal appropriations process to reconcile 
the amount of money we have and the needs that exist. We are not 
reconciling that. We are offering a level of government that exceeds 
the amount of money we have, exceeds the American people's willingness 
or ability to pay for it, and that is not sustainable in the long term 
for this country.
  So the question is, What do we do? Some say, Well, you can never 
increase any taxes. I say: Why not, if you have people who aren't 
paying their fair share? How about increasing taxes on them? Some of 
the biggest folks in the country, who are running hedge funds, are 
paying the lowest tax rates in America. How would you like to make $3 
billion a year?
  By the way, when somebody comes home and says: Honey, how are you 
doing?
  That person says: Well, I'm doing pretty well--$3 billion a year. 
That is almost $250 million a month salary. Doing pretty well. By the 
way, I don't know whether you know it, sweetheart, but I get to pay the 
lowest taxes in the country. I get to pay, on carried interest, a tax 
rate of 15 percent.
  So if somebody says: What is the solution to this? Cutting spending? 
Yes, I think so, in areas where we are spending money we shouldn't--
such as beaming television signals into the country of Cuba. We have 
spent $\1/4\ billion sending television signals to the Cuban people in 
TV Marti. Yes, we have spent that, and there are television signals 
beamed from 3 a.m. to 7 a.m. and blocked by the Cuban Government so 
nobody can see them. So we have spent $\1/4\ billion sending television 
signals no one can see. I guess some people here feel better about 
that. I have been trying to shut that down for 10 years and can't even 
shut down that kind of insanity.
  So cutting spending, yes. How about asking those who aren't paying 
their fair share of taxes? Yes. Let's do all of that. Perhaps we are 
requiring that be done if we set up this mechanism. Perhaps that is 
what will happen. I wish we didn't have to do this, but with the choice 
of yes or no, which is a very simple choice on should we do something 
or should we just continue down this bumpy road that leads to a 
destination none of us wants and none of our children will like, my 
answer is let's vote yes on this amendment. Let's decide to do 
something that maybe can put this country back on track, help us 
restart this economic engine and give the American people confidence 
again.
  I used to teach a little economics in college, and I used to teach 
that it didn't matter what the supply and demand curve and all those 
issues dealt with, with the graphs. What really matters is do people 
have confidence about the future--about themselves, their family, and 
their future. If they do, they do the things that expand the economy. 
They take a trip, buy a suit of clothes, buy a car, buy a home. That is 
what expands the economy. If they are not confident, they do exactly 
the opposite, and they contract this economy.
  Let's do some things that give people some confidence in the future. 
Let's give them confidence that finally, at last--at long last--we are 
going to grab these issues, look them square in the eye, and say: We 
will fix them. Why? Because our kids and grandkids deserve that, and 
this country deserves that leadership.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 2943 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I rise to speak on the budget deficit and a mechanism 
this body has embraced in two prior budget agreements that I think it 
is time to put in place now. It is called the CARFA mechanism, the 
Committee on Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies. It is a 
BRAC process on spending. We passed it in the budget resolution twice, 
with votes on both sides of the aisle for it. What it does is it 
basically says: OK, we have to look at all of the Federal Government. 
Places that aren't working, we need to eliminate, and the rest, then, 
we can use to pay down our debt and deficit. If there were ever a time 
to do this, this is the time. I have argued for a decade that we need 
to do this, and I put this bill forward for a decade. This is my last 
year in the Senate, and I hope we can get it done this year. It has 
received bipartisan votes, as I mentioned, two times before in the 
budget.
  It is a simple mechanism. What it does, it is an eight-member 
commission, four appointed by each side of the House and the Senate. It 
has to pass by--six of the members, of the eight have to vote to put 
forward the recommendations of the commission. It takes a fourth of the 
Federal Government each year and it recommends spending cuts in that 
fourth. That is then referred to the appropriate committees, and then 
within 30 days after the commission reports out, it is subject to a 
privileged motion, that the actual recommendation of the commission 
must be voted on by Congress. It then has a limited timeframe for 
debate without amendment, and you get a vote up or down--very similar 
to the BRAC process that we have followed

[[Page S105]]

for many years on base closing and realignment.
  I might remind my colleagues, that BRAC process, while creating 
consternation across the country, has now saved us $60 billion. We have 
had several places in Kansas that have been closed in that BRAC 
process, but we have also had consolidation of troops and operations 
at, say, Fort Riley that have gained by that, and we have an economy 
and we have a better aligned military.
  This is the same process. It is only on spending, it isn't on taxes, 
and it is applied now to the full breadth of the government, 
discretionary and mandatory spending. So it is everything included 
within a BRAC process. It is a supermajority within the commission 
itself. Six of eight members must sign on to it, so you cannot get it 
just gamed one way or the other. It is a simple majority once it gets 
to the body; it is under the privileged motion. It isn't a 60-vote 
point of order, it is a 50-plus-1 vote to be able to get it on through 
this body, and a majority in the House.
  This is a tried-and-true practice. It doesn't include tax increases, 
and my other colleagues are putting forward a commission process as 
well that does include tax increases which a number of people have a 
great deal of difficulty with and certainly people across the country 
have difficulty with. This is not the time nor the economy for us to be 
talking about tax increases. We have been pounding away at that for a 
long period of time, but clearly people are saying: No new tax 
increases. I think they certainly would say that prior to us going 
through our own spending. There is nothing that prevents this body from 
passing a tax increase. We can pass it at any point in time. But I 
think, to have any validity, you would have to go through the Federal 
spending first and say: Let's cut the spending before we even look at 
the tax increase side of this equation. That is what this does. This 
looks at the spending piece of the equation, not at the tax piece of 
the equation. We owe that to the American public. If there is going to 
be any credibility of saying we need to raise taxes, which I don't 
think we need to, but if there were to be any credibility, you would 
have to first go through Federal spending and say: We have cleaned out 
everything we can.
  I, frankly, believe there are a number of Federal agencies that could 
take a major reduction and that we could end up with better government.
  I want to point this chart out to you. This is a report card that the 
Federal Government does on itself on the effectiveness of its programs 
given the design they were based on in the Congress. The OMB does this. 
They do this on an annual basis. They take different agencies each year 
and rate them for total effectiveness of that program. And you can see 
we have a couple of agencies here. We have a 100-point scorecard. The 
best one is the State Department which gets a 79.47 grade average. We 
have the Education Department at 49.91. We have the Labor Department at 
58.14, of an average grade score of the programs reviewed within that 
agency, within Labor, 35, within Education, 93.
  My point in saying that is that my guess is that within the 35 
programs, we can find quite a few there that actually should be 
eliminated, that are not hitting the target, that are not getting the 
job done.
  This is the process we went through with military bases. For 
instance, in my State, we had a munitions plant that was closed down 
near Parsons, KS, and we had a munitions plant near the Kansas City 
area that was closed. These plants were providing services. They were 
doing legitimate functions for the military. But the military said: We 
can consolidate this in one place and save money and close these plants 
down, and then we will turn the land back over to private and public 
entities. That is what is taking place. We have done that across the 
country, creating a more efficient military installation process. It 
had a negative impact on a couple of my communities, but now we are 
kind of dealing with those issues and working hard on them. But we have 
a better structured military. What if we did that in the rest of the 
Federal Government? And we clearly should do that at this point in 
time. We are looking at a Federal deficit, a government-run Federal 
deficit of $1.472 trillion--116 percent greater than the 12-month 
period ending December 31, 2008.
  I have asked my colleagues to consider this amendment in the Federal 
debt limit ceiling, for us to go back to this process that has already 
passed this body in budget votes before, but we have never been able to 
get a vote that would take it all the way through the system. So my 
colleagues are very familiar with this process. It has worked. Let me 
repeat that. It has worked before for us. It will work again. We are 
not building from scratch. We already have some scorecards. And we have 
to start taking care of this. This is the legacy we are leaving our 
grandkids--deficits that are running in huge quantities.
  The first thing to do in a deficit is--if you are digging a hole, you 
have to stop digging--stop spending, stop spending in the wasteful 
areas. There is nothing that drives my constituents more crazy than 
wasteful government spending. People look at that, and it is just mind-
boggling to them. This is a legitimate process to get at wasteful 
spending in a process we have approved before, and it is clearly time 
for us to do it.
  With this sea of red ink, anybody in this body who has been a 
Governor has looked at these sorts of issues and said: OK, first, where 
can we cut our spending? And you would look at that. This does that 
process. The CARFA project and the CARFA bill and the CARFA structure 
go at spending first, and that is the first place you would look, and 
you would certainly look there before you would look toward any tax 
increases. I think this is something whose time has come and this is 
something this body really should support.
  I would also point out that the route we are going right now, with 
massive increases in spending and sharp drops in revenues--you talk 
about bending cost curves down, let's bend this cost curve down on 
spending by the Federal Government. That is what CARFA can do in a 
bipartisan, fair process, not just one side or the other saying, cut 
here, cut there. It is looking at all of the Federal Government, and it 
is then putting it in a process where we make recommendations--the 
commission makes recommendations on spending first. Address spending 
first. That is clearly what our constituents want us to do. They want 
us to look at spending. That is not a partisan statement, that is what 
the public wants us to do, and to get at the wasteful pieces of it 
first.
  So I would urge my colleagues, in this bill--I hope we are going to 
be able to get this up as a piece of it, an amendment, the CARFA bill 
that has been voted on previously, and that we will have a chance for 
people to say: Yes, let's go at spending, let's go at spending.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________