[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 25 (Thursday, February 25, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S766-S775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT
OF 2009--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Health Care Reform
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, right now there is a meeting at the
White House that is being covered extensively by the media live. There
has been much anticipation about the meeting between the President and
a number of Members of Congress, equally divided between the two
bodies, the House and Senate, and the two political parties. It is a
chance for both sides to listen to each other. The media has decided
that by and large this is going to be unproductive. I watched a good
bit of it today. At least people are
[[Page S767]]
being open with what they believe and what they want.
There clearly are major differences between the two parties when it
comes to health care. It goes back a couple, three generations. It
certainly goes back to the mid-1960s, to 1965 especially, when the
Senate and the House and President Johnson signed the Medicare bill. An
overwhelming number of Republicans opposed it and an overwhelming
number of Democrats supported it. It wasn't as partisanly charged as
this, but it had the same interest groups around it, including the same
insurance company opposition, the same accusations by--it was the John
Birch Society then. Today it is the tea parties who oppose it. They
didn't talk about death panels back then. Perhaps the John Birch
Society wasn't as creative as are the tea party people, but they said
it would be a takeover by big government of health care; the government
would stand between the patient and the doctor. None of that has
happened with Medicare. The kinds of accusations and charges and scare
tactics used by the insurance industry and mostly Republican opponents
in the 1960s to Medicare are very similar to the opponents to health
care today.
So I say, setting the table, that there are major differences between
the two parties. I was speaking to a couple of school groups recently,
one from Lakewood, OH, and one from the University of Miami in Oxford,
southwest Ohio. They asked about partisanship.
One woman said: I am neither a Republican nor Democrat--a young
person, a 19- or 20-year-old college student. She said: I don't
understand why they are blocking appointments, why you can't even agree
on that, to even have a vote.
So the partisanship is surely more charged today than it has been. I
explained to them it is not so much party as ideological differences;
that Democrats are believers by and large in things such as Medicare,
and the Republicans think: Let the insurance industry do it. That is
fine. That is a legitimate philosophical difference. The Republicans
side with the insurance industry, and the Democrats believe government
can play a positive role--not an overreach but a positive role in
people's lives by running programs such as Medicare, by running
programs such as Social Security, by running programs such as student
loans, agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency which has
made our country significantly safer and people's neighborhoods
significantly safer.
There are some people on the other side of the aisle who just want
President Obama to fail. I don't think that is a majority of
Republicans; I think it is some number. Let's ignore that for a moment
and just think there are philosophical differences between the two
parties. I say that because I think there is something more going on,
and that is that on a lot of these issues there has been bipartisanship
on this bill.
I sit on the Health Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. We did
our work on this bill back in May. Clearly, this hasn't been rushed
through the Congress or rushed through with reconciliation. The Bush
administration, on their big initiatives, pushed them through quickly
without nearly as much debate as we have had, but, nonetheless, we sat
in the HELP Committee and--the Presiding Officer knows this--we
accepted, I believe, 163 Republican amendments. I voted for probably
155 of them. I agreed with most of them.
At the same time, the Finance Committee had negotiations with three
Republican and three Democratic Senators. I think they took too long--
that is my opinion--but the fact is, they had negotiations for months.
There were discussions in May and June and July and August and
September. Finally, Chairman Baucus, in frustration, said: Let's move
forward. This doesn't seem to be working.
So there has been plenty of Republican input into this bill. There
has been plenty of bipartisanship. As I said, there have been
Republican amendments which have given the bill a Republican flavor and
certainly a bipartisan flavor. There were a couple of specific matters.
They wanted to allow health insurers to sell across State lines. We did
that in the bill. The bill has provisions that allow a company in
Indiana to sell insurance to residents of Ohio.
A company in Indiana can sell in Ohio, and a company in Ohio can sell
insurance to somebody across the line in Fort Wayne or in Richmond or
in Indianapolis or in Gary or anywhere else in that State.
So we listened to that, and we included that in the bill because that
is one the Republicans always talk about: If you would only let us sell
across State lines, that would be a great thing. That is what we did.
We agreed to that.
The second big issue the Republicans talk about is allowing
individuals and small businesses and trade associations to pool
together so they can acquire health insurance at lower prices, much the
way the large corporations and unions do. We did it. We set up
exchanges that are basically clearinghouses of companies so that
individuals can go into these exchanges and buy insurance and spread
the risk out among millions of people. Or small businesses can take
their employees--for a company that may have 25 employees, if one or
two of them get sick from cancer, let's say, that small business will
either--at best, that small business's premiums will go up and at worst
they will get their premiums canceled. If two or three or four
employees are sick and it costs tens of thousands or maybe hundreds of
thousands of dollars, you can be in a risk pool with millions so your
rates don't spike up. So the Republicans were right about that: Let
them go into pools, and we did that.
So my point is, there is Republican flavor to this bill. There is
Republican input--not just input, negotiations and successes--in this
bill. There are 160 Republican amendments out of the HELP Committee in
this bill. There have been almost unending discussions surrounding the
bill. Yet the Republicans, to a person, oppose the bill. The only
reason I can figure that out--not that it doesn't have bipartisanship
to it--the only reason I can figure it out is what my colleague,
Senator DeMint from South Carolina, said: If this bill goes down, it is
the President's waterloo.
I don't want to accuse my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
of wanting this to fail in order to have the Democrats fail or wanting
this to fail to damage Barack Obama's Presidency. I don't think that. I
am not accusing them of that. I just wonder.
I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Health Care
Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on the
issue of health care. Right now the leaders of this body, as well as
the House of Representatives, are meeting with the President of the
United States and members of his Cabinet at the Blair House to discuss
the current health care reform proposal and where we should go forward
to improve the health care of the people of this country.
I come to the floor today to talk about a specific portion of their
discussion concerning health care fraud prevention.
Today, my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, brought up with
the President of the United States the issue of health care fraud
prevention. As a Senator from Florida, this is something I have great
concern about because, unfortunately, we are the capital of health care
fraud for this country. I have put forward a proposal--S. 2128, the
Health Care Fraud Prevention Act--to go after this very problem. Today,
Senator Coburn brought up the fact that we believe that $1 out of every
$3 spent on health care through Medicare or Medicaid or other public
programs--$1 out of $3--is fraud, waste, or abuse--a shocking number.
In fact, the belief is that $60 billion a year in the Medicare system
alone--health care for seniors--is waste, fraud, and abuse.
Unfortunately, we don't have systems in place to go after and prevent
that waste, fraud, and abuse. What we do in the Federal system when we
think there is fraud is we send prosecutors and law enforcement folks
out to
[[Page S768]]
combat the fraud. These folks are doing a very good job, and there has
been a lot of good work done in my home State of Florida. But the truth
is, that is going after the fraud after it has already happened, and
oftentimes there is no money left to collect. What we need to do is
what I have proposed, and what the Health Care Fraud Prevention Act, S.
2128, accomplishes is it stops the fraud before it starts.
I was happy today that the President agreed we need to prevent health
care fraud. He said we have already incorporated all of the good ideas
on this. I hope that means we are going to pass S. 2128. It is a
bipartisan supported bill. It is a bill that will stop the fraud before
it starts. It is not, however, in the Senate bill we passed in
December. When I tried to bring this measure to the floor as an
amendment, it was objected to. Since that time, I have worked with my
colleagues on both the Democratic and Republican side of the aisle to
move this measure forward. Senator Baucus and I have spoken about it.
In the 11-page memo the President put forward, it references doing in
part what S. 2128 would accomplish. So I hope that in the new proposal,
we will put forward S. 2128 and pass it.
Quickly, what does the bill do? It does three things:
One, it creates a chief health care fraud prevention officer of the
United States. That person, appointed by the President, would work at
the agency for health and human services, and their only job would be
ferreting out fraud. When there is $60 billion in Medicare alone and
potentially that much in Medicaid and across the health care system--we
think $\1/4\ trillion a year in fraud, waste, or abuse--it is worth
having one person whose whole job is to try to prevent that fraud.
Remember, if this money is recovered, we can use it to provide health
care, we can improve the quality of care because there will be more
money going into actually helping our seniors, helping the poor,
helping our veterans.
The second thing the bill does is it takes a model from the private
sector--it borrows a page, if you will--because we have an industry in
this country that does an excellent job of preventing fraud, and it is
the credit card business. We have all had this experience. You go
somewhere and use your credit card, and you get a phone call or an e-
mail from your credit card company. They tell you some transaction has
just occurred and ask: Did you really mean to have that transaction?
Did you authorize that purchase? And you call them up and say either
yes or no.
I have a young family, Mr. President, as you know. When I got
appointed to the Senate, I brought my kids and my wife up here so we
could be close. I have three children 6 and under and a baby coming in
a month, so we are here in Washington, DC, most of the time. I had to
do what any good dad would have to do: I had to go out and buy a
television.
I went to Best Buy and bought a television. I live in Tallahassee, so
before I left the store, my credit card sent me an e-mail. You live in
Florida, is what this system is doing and thinking, and you are buying
a television, which is a highly suspicious purchase, and you are doing
it in Washington, DC. So I tell them yes, and the transaction goes
through. If I tell them no, they do not pay Best Buy. They do not pay
unless there is a verification on the front end.
We can use that same technology in health care to set up a predictive
modeling system to prevent the fraud before it starts. I called the
worldwide head of fraud prevention for MasterCard and asked him: Can we
do what you do in health care? He said: Sure you can, and I will help
you.
There is no reason we can't stop billions of dollars of waste, fraud,
and abuse.
Mr. President, before we go on to all the other issues in health care
that we can't agree upon, we should call up this bill and we should
pass it. We would get 100 votes, I bet, in the Senate, and we could
save what one group here in Washington thinks is $20 billion a year.
That is $20 billion we could use to maybe pay down the debt and the
deficit or put it back into Medicare, which is hurting and is going to
run out of money in a few years. We could do good things with that
money.
The third thing this bill does is it requires a background check for
every health care provider. Can you believe we don't check the criminal
records of people who claim they are providing health care to our
seniors? We don't check to see if they are felons. We had a guy in
Miami who was a convicted murderer who claimed to be a health care
provider. This would require we do a background check. And if you are a
criminal, guess what. You don't get to provide health care. You don't
get to dupe the system.
So I hope we will take up this bill. I am appreciative of Senator
Coburn. I am glad the President recognizes we can all agree on this. If
we can all agree, let's get something done. Let's call the bill up and
let's pass it.
Haiti
Mr. President, I had the opportunity to go on a congressional visit
to Haiti a couple of weeks ago--actually, 2 weeks from tomorrow. We
were there on the 1-month anniversary of the tragic earthquake that
killed more than 200,000 people. Two hundred thousand people died in
Haiti. Myself and the other Members of the Senate and the House who
went there were able to see some of the tragedy.
We visited the cathedral in Haiti. You often hear President Clinton
talk about this wonderful Catholic cathedral in Haiti that stood the
test of time but could not stand the test of this earthquake. In fact,
really the only prominent part of this cathedral that still stood,
unbelievably, was the cross.
We talked to the people who were there. They are a wonderful and
resilient people, and it is amazing that they could go on with the
tragedy they had experienced.
I had the great honor to visit the Gesco Ford Operating Hospital,
staffed mostly by American doctors and nurses, some of them from Miami,
some of them from Orlando, in my home State of Florida. They are doing
wonderful work.
We met with the President of the country and the Prime Minister and
Ministers of the President's Cabinet, and we talked about what are the
next steps.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a letter I authored to the President of the United States, to which I
will be referring.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510
February 18, 2010.
Hon. Barack Obama,
President of the United States,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr President: On Friday, February 12, we traveled to
Haiti with a bipartisan group of colleagues from the House
and Senate, led by Speaker Pelosi. The situation in Port-au-
Prince, Haiti is dire. While much good work has been done to
provide water and food, and to bury the dead, international
assistance will be required for years to come.
Although a disaster of historic proportions, this
earthquake provides great opportunity for renewal and rebirth
as tragedies of the past have for cities around the globe.
The goal must not be to return Haiti to where it was on
January 11, 2010, but to assist the Haitian people in
rebuilding a better, prosperous, and stable country.
We understand that in the coming weeks your administration
will put forth a funding proposal to provide further relief
to the Haitian people. For our efforts to be accomplished,
that funding must be pursuant to a long-term plan for the
success of Haiti's redevelopment. Accordingly, we suggest the
following:
With the aid of the international community, Haiti must
develop a long-term plan for investment. That plan must
include defined goals and accountability measures that ensure
both transparency and sustainable progress. Second, funds
must be provided in a significant way to the Haitian people
directly. Micro-loans for small businesses and similar
targeted programs that are directly linked to economic
performance will foster entrepreneurship and organic business
growth. Third, a priority of international assistance to
Haiti must be to ensure the well-being, safety, and security
of the thousands of orphans that are currently living in
Haiti. Fourth, long-term projects must focus on
infrastructure and job growth with a special attention on
developing centers of commerce outside the capital city, to
strengthen the economy and disperse the population. Finally,
a task force composed of Haitian-American leaders should be
convened to tap the energy and vigor of America's Haitian
community to sustain support for the relief effort.
In the short term, a joint effort must begin immediately to
move displaced Haitians to high ground before the rainy
season begins in the coming weeks. Thousands of Haitians are
living in low-lying camps, and tragedy will strike again when
the rain comes. We urge your administration to stress this
point
[[Page S769]]
with President Preval and Prime Minister Bellerive.
In the midst of the terrible disaster, we were all struck
by the strength and resiliency of the Haitian people. With a
long-term, measurable plan for redevelopment, the people of
Haiti can achieve an economy and a society worthy of our
investment and their tremendous sacrifice.
Sincerely,
George S. Lemieux,
Bill Nelson,
Amy Klobuchar,
Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senators.
Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, this letter is cosigned by myself,
Senator Nelson, my colleague from Florida, Senator Klobuchar, as well
as Senator Lautenberg, all of whom were on the trip with me. The letter
basically asks the President to do four things in trying to focus our
help and relief for this country.
We have been involved in trying to help the Haitian people for
decades, and the American people have opened their hearts and their
wallets to help the situation in Haiti, but the situation is dire. I
cannot think of a more complicated, difficult problem than trying to
bring Haiti forward to a sustainable place.
Haiti was already in bad shape, but it had a path forward and
progress was being made. Now, as you drive the streets of Port-au-
Prince, it looks like a bombed area. It looks like a war zone. You will
randomly see three buildings standing as if nothing had happened and
then a building that is completely and utterly destroyed. Right now,
thousands of people are huddled together in these makeshift camps in
low-lying areas. My great fear for the short-term is that when the
rains come, which they will in the next weeks in Haiti, there will be
another great tragedy. So we have to be focused in our help.
So I, along with my colleagues, sent this letter to the President and
asked the President to do four things:
First, create a long-term sustainable plan for Haiti and put in
charge of that plan, on behalf of our relief efforts, a trustee, along
with an inspector general, along with a board of advisers, to work in
partnership with the Haitian Government to make sure the money is spent
wisely. We cannot just send billions of dollars into Haiti and let the
money evaporate in short-term solutions. There needs to be a long-term
sustainable plan.
Second, we have to provide funds to the Haitian people directly.
Small businesses need microloans so they can provide jobs for the
people of Haiti. We can't just give the money to third-party
contractors.
Third, we have to be focused on this orphan issue. We have to make
sure it is done legally, and where it is done legally, we have to make
sure we get those children to their adoptive parents as quickly as
possible.
Fourth, we have to make sure Port-au-Prince is not the center of the
entire population for the country of Haiti. We are putting too many
people in one place when tragedy strikes. We need to encourage
development throughout the country.
I had the honor of having the President of Royal Caribbean cruise
lines in my office yesterday--a Floridian, Adam Goldstein--and we
talked about tourism to Haiti. There is a beautiful citadel in Haiti
that would be a wonderful attraction for cruise ship tourists. There
have been all sorts of difficulties building a road to it and making
sure it is safe and secure.
We need to find ways to create jobs outside of Port-au-Prince,
outside that city, so that fragile humanity is not all focused in one
place.
Finally, we need to make sure the Diaspora of Haiti, the Haitian-
American people--for example, we have about 250,000 Haitian Americans
in Florida--are involved in the rebuilding of Haiti. They need to be
welcomed. They are dying to get involved. They are hungry to get
involved in this process of rebuilding their home country.
So I hope the President will put together this commission, appoint a
strong leader--a Colin Powell or someone of that magnitude--as the
trustee to work with the Haitian people to rebuild the island of Haiti,
and I hope we can get effort and energy behind that proposal quickly so
we don't have any other significant challenges in the coming months
ahead for the Haitian people.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today because our economy is
struggling. Unemployment remains high, and the recession's hold on
cities across America is as strong as ever. My home State of Nevada has
been one of the hardest hit, and our tourism-dependent economy is
barely hanging on. Unfortunately, this is true for tourism-dependent
cities across our country.
During these difficult economic times, it simply isn't enough to try
to stimulate domestic spending by passing one massive spending bill
after another. We need to incentivize tourists from across the world to
visit the truly unique destinations across America. From one coast of
this country to the other, there are endless opportunities to tour
historic sights, take advantage of recreational opportunities, observe
great architecture, visit theme parks, dine in some of the finest
restaurants in the world, view natural and manmade miracles, and soak
up everything that is so uniquely found in America. We all know we live
in the best country in the world. Now is the time for people across the
world to enjoy all we have to offer while repairing our economy at the
same time.
My colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, understands the
importance of reasserting our tourism industry on the world stage.
Together, he and I have sponsored the Travel Promotion Act, which is
before us today. This bipartisan piece of legislation would help to
make our travel and tourism industry more successful and more
competitive internationally. So I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan,
for his great leadership on this important issue.
Tourism is our country's truest form of economic stimulus. The
average overseas visitor to the United States spends roughly $4,500 per
trip to pay for hotels, transportation, dining, shopping, and other
things. Unfortunately, tourism took a massive hit on 9/11, and it has
not yet recovered. This lost decade has only been made worse by last
year's recession.
If the United States had managed to keep pace with global travel
trends, 68 million more travelers would have visited the United States
between 2000 and 2009. These travelers would have generated an
estimated 250,000 new U.S. jobs in 2008 alone.
At a time when unemployment is at record-high numbers in this
country, we cannot afford to throw away anymore tourism-related job
creation. We could take a cue from Canada on successful ways to spur
this tourism that we need so badly. If you have been watching the
Olympics, you have seen these ads about British Columbia. I don't know
about the rest of you, but it has made me actually want to go up and
visit. But it is not just watching the Olympics. It is the ads that
have been the most successful part of making me want to go to that part
of the world. They have beautiful things to advertise, to show you:
Doesn't that look like an incredible place to go visit?
Think about all we have in America that we can advertise to the rest
of the world that may not have thought about it. I didn't think about
going up to Vancouver and British Columbia, but those ads spurred my
interest in it, and I am sure they have for many Americans and other
people around the world. Tourism-related jobs can be created simply by
spreading the word about the wonderful destinations that are literally
scattered across the United States of America, and we can do it without
raising taxes on hard-working American families or by digging ourselves
even further into debt.
Unfortunately, the United States has dropped the ball when it comes
to tourism and the industry has been virtually left behind. Declines in
visits to the United States since 2000 have cost our country an
estimated $500 billion in lost spending and at least $30 billion in
lost tax receipts.
My speech today is not all gloom and doom, however. Instead, I stand
here to offer a solution, a solution that can help get our hard-hit
tourism industry back on its feet. What we need is a comprehensive
strategy coordinated by public-private partnerships between the
Government and the expert leaders
[[Page S770]]
from our travel and tourism industry. This effort needs to center on a
major initiative that will make the wonderful destinations throughout
our great country known to foreign audiences. Actually, we do not want
them to just be aware of these magnificent places. We want them to feel
compelled to visit them.
September 11, 2001, forever changed our country and the security
measures along with it. But we need to teach potential visitors about
the new security policies of today so they can travel to and from our
country with ease.
The bottom line is, the United States stands to make great gains
economically and diplomatically if we strengthen our travel and tourism
industry. So how do we go about doing this? The Travel Promotion Act
which is before us today would create a public-private corporation for
travel promotion to promote the United States as a travel destination
to overseas travelers. This corporation would develop and execute a
plan to do the following: It would promote the United States to foreign
travelers by using coordinated advertising campaigns and other
promotional activities, similar to what we see in the Olympics with
Canada; the corporation would identify and correct misperceptions about
U.S. travel policies; it would also help provide travel information to
foreign visitors to the United States such as information about entry
requirements, fees, and documents; and last, the corporation would
focus its efforts to ensure that all 50 States benefit from overseas
tourism, including areas not traditionally visited by international
travelers.
Understand this, no taxpayer funds would be used to finance the
corporation for travel promotion. Let me repeat that. No taxpayer funds
would be used to finance the corporation for travel promotion. All the
funding would come from private industry and from user fees paid by
some international visitors. This would finally put the United States
on equal footing with many other developed countries.
This legislation would be a true lifeline to my home State of Nevada,
which depends so heavily on travel and tourism. I mentioned earlier my
State was one of the hardest hit. But I do not think that description
does the situation in Nevada justice. The tourism industry in Nevada,
especially Las Vegas, has truly been crippled by the economy. Nevadans
who were already struggling through home foreclosures have been forced
to carry the burden of the downturned economy. Taxicab drivers, valets,
housekeepers, waiters and waitresses and construction workers are
drowning in this recession because Americans are not traveling like
they used to. These workers are barely keeping their heads above water
and some are not even able to do that. They are losing their homes,
which has truly annihilated the housing market in my State.
Boosting overseas travel will provide for growth in an otherwise
shrinking segment of our economy, and it will help heal local economies
around our country. This will, in turn, greatly advance our overall
economy at a time when we cannot afford to turn away the potential of
hundreds of billions of dollars.
With domestic travel and convention travel down, overseas travel
could be the silver lining we all need. At a time when our country
faces record deficit and spending levels, I know this money may seem
like a lot. Believe me when I say to you that I take my pledge of
fiscal responsibility very seriously. I vote against spending bills
that come across this floor all the time because they simply are an
irresponsible waste of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. However, this bill
is a responsible use of dollars. It does not apply a government
spending bandaid to tough economic situations. It creates a solution
that will greatly benefit our economy, and it does it without taxpayer
dollars.
The Travel Promotion Act, which has the overwhelming support of
Democrats and Republicans alike, is a relatively small investment that
will significantly boost our economy, create jobs, and make us more
competitive in the world. The bill will not increase the deficit. This
bill does not increase the deficit. But it could spur billions in
additional economic activity, benefiting Americans all around the
country.
The Congressional Budget Office--nonpartisan, the official
scorekeeper around here--confirms it will not place any additional
burden on the taxpayer. People across my State and across the country
have had to make difficult decisions when it comes to their own
families' budgets. In fact, the legislature in my home State of Nevada
is coming to terms with steep spending cuts and slashing services
across the board as we speak, in a special session, because it is too
far in the hole to sustain the current spending spree. So Americans are
looking to us to boost the economy and so far we have not been able to
do that.
Yes, we have spent money--and a lot of money at that, in fact--but
our economic situation remains the same. I am asking that we look to
the tourism industry as a lifeline for our economy, as I know it will
be for my State and for so many others. The Travel Promotion Act will
be that lifeline. It will create jobs, create opportunity, and show the
world the beauty and the diversity of America.
Each one of us, who together represent all 50 States, knows we have
incredible places to show the rest of the world. My home State of
Nevada is actually the gateway to the Grand Canyon, which is located in
Arizona. We have Lake Tahoe. We have, obviously, Las Vegas. We have so
many other places to visit around our great State. But every single
Senator could tell those stories. What we need to do is tell them in a
way that makes foreign travelers want to come to America. The Travel
Promotion Act is going to help us do that.
Let me remind folks, if you watch the Olympics, ask yourself these
questions when those commercials about British Colombia come on: Does
that make you more or less likely to go, especially if you can afford
it? I think the answer is pretty obvious. They make an attractive case
to visit their country.
This is the United States of America, with some of the most
beautiful, incredible places to see. Are you telling me we cannot
advertise this in a way that makes people want to come here? Of course
we can. We can have tourism boosted like never before in this country
and all Americans will benefit by doing that because when foreign
travelers come here, they spend money, boost the economy, and boost
every single State in this country.
I encourage this Senate to pass this bill as quickly as possible and
get it over to the President for signature so we can get on with
boosting the economy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, may I ask what is the pending business
before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The travel promotion bill.
Mr. WEBB. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Kennan Nomination
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes on
behalf of Justice Barbara M. Kennan, who is the nominee to serve on the
Fourth Circuit Court. I respectfully request, in the name of good
governance and the proper functioning of our constitutional system,
that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle allow a prompt vote
on her nomination.
Justice Kennan was voted out of committee in October of last year by
a unanimous voice vote. Her nomination is noncontroversial. She has
been a dedicated public servant, a fair and balanced jurist, and her
nomination has had broad bipartisan support. I believe it is critical
that we move forward as quickly as possible to confirm her nomination.
There are currently four vacancies on the Fourth Circuit, more than
any other circuit. The seat that Justice Kennan would fill has been
vacant for more than 2 years. Justice Kennan is an extraordinary choice
to fill this vacancy. She has been a State supreme court justice since
1991. She has been a trailblazer for women in the law throughout her
career. At the age of 29, she was the first female general district
court judge in Virginia when she was selected for the Fairfax County
bench. That was in 1980. She became the first female circuit court
judge when she was promoted to that court in 1982.
[[Page S771]]
In 1985, she was 1 of 10 judges named to the First Virginia Court of
Appeals and the only woman when that court was created. She was
selected for the State Supreme Court, the second female justice ever to
serve there, in 1991. She was, in fact, the first judge to have served
on all four levels of Virginia's courts.
I also would like to point out when Governor McDonnell was recently
sworn into his office, he specifically requested that Justice Kennan
deliver him the oath of office. There is a wide bipartisan consensus
inside Virginia about the quality of this nominee, and I am very
hopeful we can move forward in an expeditious way.
I am mindful of the Senate's constitutional role in confirming
executive nominations. It is vitally important, and a robust vetting
process and debate is appropriate. We have conducted, inside Virginia
in our delegation, that kind of vetting process which resulted in
Justice Kennan's name being moved forward.
In the spirit of pragmatic bipartisanship and good governance, I
believe it is time to move past these procedural delays that seem to
infect us and get on with the business of governing.
I would like to point out that out of 876 Federal judgeships, there
are now 100 vacancies. These delays affect the administration of
justice. These vacancies delay the resolution of disputes and they
diminish our citizens' rights to a speedy trial. It is my understanding
that Justice Kennan has broad support in this body. The vote in the
Judiciary Committee is evidence of that. In fact, I will be very
surprised if any Senator were to vote against her confirmation. Again,
I am asking my colleagues on the other side of the aisle if they might
allow this nomination to advance in a timely way.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Thank you.
(The remarks of Mr. Kaufman pertaining to the introduction of S. 3043
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURRIS. 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. BURRIS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Health Care Reform
Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, as I address this Chamber, President
Obama is hosting the leaders of both political parties in a summit on
the issue of health care reform. He has asked for all serious proposals
to be brought to the table, once and for all, in an effort to bridge
the gap between the House and Senate legislation and pass a final bill.
He even provided his own proposal for how we can reconcile these bills
with one another.
I thank the President for his leadership on this issue and his
continued commitment to the issue of health care reform. I am glad he
has called Republicans and Democrats to the table once again in yet
another effort to reenergize this debate and move forward on behalf of
the American people. I remain confident that we can still get this work
done. That is why I have come to the floor today: to reaffirm my
commitment to comprehensive health care reform and to urge my
colleagues to join with our President and the leadership of our
respective parties to find a real solution. In fact, I recently joined
many of my colleagues in signing a letter urging this Senate to pass a
bill that includes a public option--something everyone in this room
knows I have supported since the beginning of this long debate. No
matter what comes out of this afternoon's summit, I will judge our
final proposal based on its ability to acknowledge three goals--the
same three goals I have called for time and again over the past several
months.
Our reform bill must restore competition to the insurance market, it
must give us the tools to hold insurance companies accountable, and it
must provide real cost savings to the American people. I am confident
we can pass a measure that is capable of meeting these goals. I remain
confident that after nearly a century of inaction, the American people
demand and deserve nothing less.
Every President, every Congress, every ordinary citizen in the past
97 years has had to wrestle with a health care system that is broken
and inadequate, a system that our predecessors consistently failed to
fix; a system that has deteriorated badly over the last few decades and
that remains unworthy of this great Nation. Today, 47 million Americans
are without health insurance and 88 million do not have stable
coverage. As a result of our broken system, 45 million Americans die
every single year because they had no health insurance. These shocking
facts should never be far from our minds as we debate these issues.
They are more than statistics; they are ordinary Americans who
desperately need our help.
As I address this Chamber today, we stand on the verge of correcting
the oversights of the past century and getting these people the help
they need. Legislation has been written, amended, and rewritten. We
have compromised and compromised again. Each Chamber of the Congress
has passed a comprehensive bill. Neither bill is perfect but both
represent significant progress. We are so close to doing this. Now is
the time to finish the journey.
Late last year, both the House and Senate voted for health care
reform with a strong voice and a clear majority. At this point, we have
only to reconcile the differences between these two bills. Just this
week, President Obama released his detailed proposal outlining exactly
how we can get this done. I urge my colleagues from both Chambers and
from both parties to strongly consider this option.
Regardless of how we choose to proceed after today's bipartisan
health care summit, let us come away with a definite plan of action.
Let us come away with a plan to get this done, a plan that includes
competition, cost savings, and accountability.
It is time to realize the promise of the last 100 years. I urge my
colleagues to finish the fight that Teddy Roosevelt first waged more
than a generation before any of us were born. Now is not the time to
lose our nerve. Now is the time to act with conviction. Let's not allow
the obstructionist tactics of a few to undermine legislation that
garnered 60 votes in this Chamber and 220 votes in the House. I refuse
to accept that a handful of ``no'' votes can invalidate 280 votes. I
refuse to accept that the minority party can stifle the voices of
millions of Americans and hundreds of Members of Congress who have
demanded that we win this fight. I call upon my colleagues in both
Chambers to look past our differences and carry out the will of the
American people. They sent Democrats to Congress with the largest
majority in decades. They elected a President who has pledged himself
to this cause.
As far as the American people are concerned, this debate was over a
long time ago. This issue has carried the day. This is the measure that
the American people voted for in 2008 and, my fellow Democrats, this is
what our party is all about. Now is not the time to shrink from the
fight but to engage in it. Now is not the time to falter or to second-
guess the wisdom of the folks who sent us here. Now is the time to take
bold action, to forge ahead, to carry forward the ideas and principles
of our party by delivering real results and delivering for the American
people a health care plan that will give them protection and not see
their premiums going up 39 percent and 40 percent.
Comprehensive health care reform will extend quality coverage to 31
million Americans. It will reduce premiums and prevent insurance
companies from abusing their customers or discriminating against people
who get
[[Page S772]]
sick. Can my colleagues imagine: You get sick and think you have
coverage today and then they cancel your policy and you have no
coverage. The majority leader stood on the floor yesterday and told the
story about the young kid with the cleft lip where the father paid
$90,000 because the insurance company canceled the policy because the
kid was born with a cleft lip. That is unconscionable. We in this
country should not tolerate it.
The Senate bill could even cut the Federal deficit by about $1
trillion over the next two decades. I ask my colleagues: What are we
waiting for? This is about values, not politics. Our country deserves
better, so let's make it happen.
In politics, it is easy to find excuses. It is easy to wait, to
delay, to place blame on another and throw up our hands. That is not
leadership. That is not what the American people have called upon us to
do and it is far less than they deserve. The American people have been
waiting for 100 years, and I, for one, think that is quite long enough.
I say to my colleagues: It is time for us to lead. It is time to take
up the mantle of Teddy Roosevelt and, yes, Teddy Kennedy, and everyone
in between. Because this isn't just about health care; it is about
creating jobs, helping small businesses, and keeping America on the
road to economic recovery. These issues are not separate as some would
have us believe. They are tied inextricably together. Fixing the
American health care system will reduce the deficit, make it easier for
small businesses to meet expenses, create jobs, and provide health
coverage to more Americans than ever before. The way I see it, we
cannot afford to wait any longer.
So let us act with a strong, united voice. I urge my colleagues to
join me in passing a final health care bill and sending it to President
Obama as soon as possible. Yesterday would have been all right. Let's
win this fight. Let's stand up for what we believe in and succeed where
our predecessors came up short. The stakes are too high to settle for
anything else.
I say to my colleagues, and to those who are meeting today with the
President, we must come up and out of this summit with a plan that is
going to give health insurance to the people of America not tomorrow,
not next week, but right now.
Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I note the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Nevada's tourism has been hit hard by the
slowing worldwide economy. And when tourism in Nevada hurts, the entire
State suffers.
Hardworking people have lost their jobs. The State's budget has taken
a major hit. Because that budget is largely funded by tourism, funding
for vital programs in our State are at risk.
But Nevada is not alone. Its problem is not unique. Tourism is one of
the top industries in nearly every State in the country and one of the
largest employers in America.
That is why this bill is so important. This is an opportunity not
only to give American tourism a boost, but it is one of the many ways
we are working to create jobs and help our economy recover.
The concept behind it is simple: It says, let's create jobs and
reduce the deficit. It is a win-win for the economy of every State and
our national economy alike.
And it is a bipartisan bill that take the strategies that have made
Las Vegas such a success and brings them to our entire Nation's tourism
industry.
This week, the U.S. Travel Association called the last 10 years a
``lost decade'' for tourism. It cost us half a million jobs and half a
billion dollars in lost spending. This bill will turn that around.
The travel promotion bill is a jobs bill. It is about creating jobs,
it is about growing our economy and it is about keeping the United
States competitive in the world travel business.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4691
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration
of H.R. 4691, which is a 30-day extension of provisions which expire on
Sunday, February 28--they are an unemployment insurance extension;
COBRA, health insurance for the unemployed; flood insurance; the
Satellite Home Viewer Act; highway funding; SBA business loans and
small business provisions of the American Recovery Act; SGR, which is
the so-called doctor fix; and poverty guidelines--received from the
House and at the desk; that the bill be read three times, passed, and
the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table.
This matter passed the House unanimously today. The reason it passed
the House unanimously today, if we don't do something about this, all
around America, about 1\1/2\ million people who will be watching TV
will no longer watch TV. This is mostly in rural areas of America,
rural areas of Nevada. I guess we could be hard-hearted and say they
don't need to watch TV, but in Nevada we have very harsh winters in
many parts of the State. For many of these people, the only way they
can get information is through television. It could lead to some very
serious problems. If we talk about flood insurance, even though Nevada
is a very dry State, this is something we need to do for States where
we have all kinds of problems with floods all the time. We, in northern
Nevada and in southern Nevada, have had some devastating floods, not
often but we have them. Highway funding, this costs nothing, what we
are doing here, the extension costs zero. SBA business loans, this
costs $60 million to allow the SBA to continue processing programs to
allow people who want to have a business to get a few dollars so they
can continue or start a new business. We are not going to be able to do
this because it expires at the end of this month; small business
provisions of the Recovery Act, the same thing; poverty guidelines,
these things cost nothing basically nothing; the SGR, it is my
understanding about $1 billion is being asked for here. I think it is
such a shame that we don't get this done. The big ones, though, from my
perspective, are the poor. We have people who weren't poor who are now
poor because they have been unemployed for so long. This will terminate
on Monday. I talked to the Presiding Officer. In just a matter of
weeks, 65,000 people in Illinois will no longer be able to draw these
benefits. In the State of Nevada, which is not as heavily populated as
Illinois, thousands of people who have been unemployed for long periods
of time--and I repeat, they started out in this business not being
poor; they are poor now--it would be a shame not to give them those
moneys.
My friend, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, is going to say:
Pay for all this. As I have gone through everything we have talked
about, it doesn't cost much money. Unemployment compensation does. It
costs a lot of money. We have millions of people who are unemployed. In
years past, when we wanted to extend unemployment benefits, it was an
emergency, a declared emergency historically in this body. Why? Because
it is an emergency. We have rules in effect, pay-go rules we have
passed. Of course, we can look to that as a step forward. But that
doesn't mean we don't have emergencies.
I would also say that COBRA--what is COBRA? It is a program to help
people who are out of work or who lose their jobs get insurance.
Anyway, I say to my friend from Kentucky, I would hope that for the
people I have described who are just wanting us to do our work, we can
get that done. I hope my friend would not object to this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). Is there objection?
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard from the Senator from
Kentucky, Mr. Bunning.
The majority leader.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4691
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to H.R.
4691 and that the Reid of Nevada substitute amendment which is the desk
be considered read; that the Republican leader or his designee be
recognized to offer a substitute amendment, and
[[Page S773]]
there be 60 minutes of debate with respect to that amendment, with the
time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their
designees; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, and if a
budget point of order is made against the amendment, a motion to waive
the relevant point of order be considered made, and the Senate then
vote on the motion to waive the point of order; that if the waiver is
successful, the amendment be agreed to and the Reid substitute, as
amended, be agreed to; that if the waiver fails, the amendment be
withdrawn; further, that there be 30 minutes for debate with respect to
the Reid substitute amendment, with the time equally divided and
controlled between the leaders or their designees; that upon the use or
yielding back of that time, and if a budget point of order is made
against the amendment, a motion to waive the relevant point of order be
considered made, and the Senate then vote on the motion to waive the
point of order; that if the waiver is successful, the Senate proceed to
vote on adoption of the Reid substitute amendment; further, that no
further amendments, motions, except a motion to reconsider a vote, or
debate be in order; that upon disposition of the Reid substitute
amendment, the bill, as amended, be read a third time; and following
the reading by the clerk of the budgetary effects of the pay-go
legislation with respect to H.R. 1586, the Senate proceed to vote on
passage of the bill, as amended; that upon passage, the title
amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to.
Before my friend from Kentucky makes his feelings known, let me say
this. This is something we worked out yesterday. When I say ``we,''
that means Democrats and Republicans, all except one Senator. What this
agreement allows is for all the provisions in this, these extensions be
paid for out of the stimulus or the economic recovery money. That is a
fair vote. Some people want to do that. Let's vote on it. We know what
the rules are. We are sent here to vote. We are not sent here to
object. When 99 Senators want something done, it is not right for one
Senator to hold it up. My friend has that right. But it is a real
problem for so many different people. I would hope we could have a
vote. We can do it tonight and move on to other things.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BUNNING. Reserving the right to object, I just wish to make sure
I am objecting to the right motion. In the third-to-last sentence, the
leader used, in my opinion, the wrong number. He used H.R. 1586.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky is right. I have
it written here.
Mr. BUNNING. It should be 4691.
Mr. REID. That was my mistake. I appreciate the Senator catching
that.
Mr. BUNNING. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard by the Senator from
Kentucky, Mr. Bunning.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, may I now speak and propose a unanimous
consent? First of all, let me say this to my good friend from Nevada. I
have worked all day trying to work out a compromise, anywhere from 2 to
4 weeks on this UC, trying to get it paid for, for the time of the
extension. We were very close. We tried to get agreement using
different pay-fors than what I am going to propose. But in the final
analysis, it came down to, when the White House summit adjourned, the
leader came back and it was going to be his way and no one else's way.
That is what it turned into. I am going to propose a 30-day extension
with an offset. So I am as anxious to get those same provisions he has
brought up--the COBRA, flood insurance, Satellite Home Viewer Act,
highway funding, SBA provisions, American Recovery Act, SGR, poverty
guidelines. I wish to get them renewed also.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4691
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
the immediate consideration of H.R. 4691; that the amendment at the
desk, which offers a full offset, be agreed to, the bill, as amended,
be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Is there objection?
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there
probably has never been a time in the history of our country when we
had economic conditions that are like they are today--unemployment all
over this country averaging some 10 percent; some States as high as 14
percent. If there were ever an emergency with our economy, it is
tonight, it is today. And to think we are not going to declare this an
emergency?
Millions of people are unemployed, millions of people have been
unemployed for long periods of time and their unemployment benefits are
running out. They are not able to buy their health insurance because
the program is going to expire on Monday.
The Senate has a history of treating unemployment benefits as an
emergency. No one, I repeat, can argue that the current economic
downturn does not represent a grave emergency. So, Mr. President, I am
forced to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on the motion to concur in
the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1299 occur at 7:50
p.m. tonight--3 minutes from now--that if cloture is invoked, then all
postcloture time be considered yielded back, Senator DeMint then be
recognized for up to 10 minutes to move to suspend the rules; that upon
the use of that time, the Senate then proceed to vote on the DeMint
motion; that if the DeMint motion is successful, then the amendment be
agreed to, and the motion to concur with the amendment be agreed to;
that if the DeMint motion fails, then no other motions or debate be in
order; that the motion to concur with an amendment be withdrawn, and
the Senate then proceed to vote on the Reid of Nevada motion to concur
in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1299.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we expect to have three votes here tonight.
As soon as those are done, we will not have another vote until Tuesday,
but it will be in the morning.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will state.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R.
1299, the United States Capitol Police Administrative
Technical Corrections Act.
Harry Reid, Byron L. Dorgan, Russell D. Feingold, Patrick
J. Leahy, Daniel K. Inouye, Kay R. Hagan, Jeff
Bingaman, Robert Menendez, Richard J. Durbin, Jack
Reed, Mark Begich, Patty Murray, Bernard Sanders,
Robert P. Casey, Jr., Barbara Boxer, Jon Tester, John
D. Rockefeller IV.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R.
1299, the United States Capitol Police Administrative Technical
Corrections Act, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 76, nays 20, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]
YEAS--76
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
[[Page S774]]
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--20
Barrasso
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Grassley
Gregg
Kyl
McCain
McConnell
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
NOT VOTING--4
Hutchison
Inhofe
Lautenberg
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 76, the nays are
20. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The majority leader is recognized.
Unanimous Consent Agreement
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
remarks of Senator DeMint, his vote and the next vote be 10 minutes in
duration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture having been invoked, the motion to refer falls.
Under the previous order, all postcloture time is yielded back.
The Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint, is recognized for up to
10 minutes.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I know many here are very anxious to start
a new government agency, and I won't hold you up for very long.
It is important that we recognize some things that are happening.
There is probably one good thing we can do tonight--maybe--to stop the
landslide of more government control. In the last year--a little over a
year--we have seen this Federal Government take over two of our largest
auto companies, our largest mortgage company, our largest insurance
company, and expand its control on America's domestic energy sources,
and, of course, we had the debate on trying to expand control of health
care.
We are expecting, very soon, a new financial reform package that will
expand Federal control everywhere from Wall Street to the local
pawnshop.
While these big things are coming in front of us, there are things
happening in the executive branch that are circumventing Congress, and
that should concern us. A lot of you have heard from industries back
home about what the EPA standards are doing. Businesses don't know what
to expect, nor do local communities. I had an engine company in my
office today that said orders were on hold until they find out what the
EPA is going to do. I have also had people in my office in the last
week talking about the FCC and the coming ruling on expanding control
over the Internet--one place in our economy that continues to boom with
innovation.
There is one thing that just leaked out that I want to bring to your
attention. We need to try to halt that tonight before it is too late. A
whistleblower at the Department of the Interior leaked a document that
shows they are considering using the Antiquities Act to grab over 10
million acres of land in nine Western States and basically take them
offline of jobs for mining, forestry, and energy. This includes Nevada,
Utah, Montana, New Mexico, California, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, and
Washington. It is important that we stop this and at least have some
Senate hearings on what they are trying to do.
This is a priority for what we are talking about today because the
President and the Congress have said our top priority is jobs. This
action by the Interior Department will hurt jobs. It will dry up tax
revenues in local communities and States. It will restrict energy
supplies in this country.
Mr. President, all I am asking is that we suspend the rules, which
require 67 votes, and vote on this amendment to stop the Department of
the Interior from taking over over 10 million acres of land and hurting
our economy and jobs.
I promised the leader I would keep it to less than 10 minutes. I
encourage everybody to support this motion I am getting ready to make.
Mr. President, I move to suspend the provisions of rule XXII,
including germaneness requirements, for the purpose of proposing and
considering my amendment, which is at the desk, and I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion of
the Senator from South Carolina to suspend rule XXII and offer an
amendment to prohibit the establishment of national monuments under the
Antiquities Act or any other law.
I understand that the proposed amendment is in response to
allegations that a portion of an internal planning memo at the
Department of the Interior identified several areas throughout the
country as areas that may be appropriate for potential national
monument consideration.
The Secretary of the Interior has stated that the document was simply
a brainstorming exercise to identify sites on public land that might
merit more serious consideration for possible management options, and
that no decisions have been made about which areas, if any, might merit
more serious review and consideration.
I don't think it makes sense to try to legislate every time an
article appears in a newspaper. I would observe that even the document
in question that was leaked to certain Members of Congress states that
``further evaluations should be completed prior to any decision,
including an assessment of public and Congressional support,'' and
Secretary Salazar has publicly stated his view that new designations
and conservation initiatives work best when they build on local
efforts. So I think that any attempt to legislate at this time is very
premature.
Apart from the substantive problems with the proposed DeMint
amendment, the travel promotion bill is not the appropriate legislation
to consider this issue, and waiving the Senate rules to allow for
consideration of an amendment that would not otherwise be in order is,
in my view, not appropriate.
For these reasons, I oppose the motion to suspend rule XXII.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 38, nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 27 Leg.]
YEAS--38
Barrasso
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker
NAYS--58
Akaka
Alexander
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
[[Page S775]]
NOT VOTING--4
Hutchison
Inhofe
Lautenberg
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 38, the nays are
58. Two-thirds of the Senate voting, a quorum being present, not having
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Under the previous order, the motion to concur with amendment No.
3326 is withdrawn.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in
support of H.R. 1299, the Capitol Police Administration bill, the
legislative vehicle for the Travel Promotion Act of 2009.
The Travel Promotion Act of 2009 will allow the United States to
remain competitive as a welcoming destination for foreign travelers.
Our ability to explain the processes and changes made by the United
States to gain entry for travel will help to ease fears about the entry
process. The proposed nonprofit, independent corporation charged with
this responsibility will be able to conduct the necessary outreach and
promote tourism in a way that the tourism industry cannot. In addition,
an Office of Travel Promotion will be able to work with the Department
of State and the Department of Homeland Security to improve the entry
process.
Promoting the United States as an attractive tourist destination for
both leisure and business with international visitors is of the utmost
importance to the many States that house destination resorts. Consider
the experience of my own home State of Hawaii. Hawaii's economy largely
relies on travel and travel related business. Visitors from around the
world come to see our islands' natural beauty, and experience the
spirit of ``Aloha.'' Our Nation's hospitality industry suffered a
severe setback following the events of September 11, 2001, and travel
from abroad to the United States fell dramatically.
It is not only the hospitality industry in Hawaii that suffers, but
our local businesses. The State of Hawaii boasts its beauty and
environment, but many travelers to our State come to do business, which
is sometimes obscured or overlooked because of Hawaii's label as a
tourist destination. The hospitality industry's employees rely on
vacationers and businessmen and women to provide for their families.
The economic activity generated by this industry continues to struggle
during these financially challenging times.
Hawaii's experience is not unique. The hospitality industry
nationwide continues to face similar challenges, and the economic
effects have rippled through the nation to impact all of our citizens.
The State of Hawaii's visitor statistics continue to reflect the
downward trend. Preliminary travel data for 2009 indicate that there
was an overall 3.5 percent decline in the number of international
visitors to the islands compared to the number of international
visitors in 2008. Nationwide, the number of international visitors
between January and November of 2009 fell by 7.2 percent compared to
the same period during 2008.
Both developing countries and industrialized economies around the
world have ministers and offices that promote travel to their
respective countries. However, the United States does not have an
office that promotes travel and tourism abroad. This legislation is an
important first step in the right direction. Establishing an Office of
Travel Promotion will help to attract foreign travelers to the United
States. This will not only sustain our tourism based industries, it
reinforces business relationships and promotes a better understanding
between Americans and our friends abroad. Interacting with the American
people is a valuable tool at our disposal to dispel international
travelers of misconceptions they may have about our country.
Approximately 74 percent of visitors have a more favorable opinion of
the United States after visiting our country.
The economic activity generated by international travel and its
promotion should be approached in the same manner we foster other
industries equally important to jobs and the economy. The Travel
Promotion Act of 2009 is vital to our travel and tourism industry's
ability to compete globally, and to restore confidence in the United
States' image as a country that is committed to welcoming our friends
from abroad. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and help
us ensure that international business and leisure travel to the United
States is given all of the tools necessary to succeed.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur in the House
amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1299.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 18, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 28 Leg.]
YEAS--78
Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--18
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Grassley
Gregg
Kyl
McCain
McConnell
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
NOT VOTING--4
Hutchison
Inhofe
Lautenberg
Warner
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have no real strong feelings about this
bill other than that I do not think this country needs to create
another corporation, a corporation that would be authorized to impose
an annual assessment on U.S. members of the travel and tourism industry
represented on a board of directors of the corporation established in
the Department of Commerce, Office of Travel Promotion. I do not
believe we need another office in this bureaucracy, so I will be voting
against this bill. I voted against it on June 22 of last year,
September 8 of last year, and September 9 of last year, so my vote
would have been the same this year.
____________________