[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 40 (Thursday, March 18, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1693-S1736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAX ON BONUSES RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN TARP RECIPIENTS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1586, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1586) to impose an additional tax on bonuses
received from certain TARP recipients.
Pending:
Rockefeller amendment No. 3452, in the nature of a
substitute.
Sessions/McCaskilll modified amendment No. 3453 (to
amendment No. 3452), to reduce the deficit by establishing
discretionary spending caps.
McCain/Bayh amendment No. 3475 (to amendment No. 3452), to
prohibit earmarks in years in which there is a deficit.
McCain amendment No. 3527 (to amendment No. 3452), to
require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration to develop a financing proposal for fully
funding the development and implementation of technology for
the Next Generation Air Transportation System.
McCain amendment No. 3528 (to amendment No. 3452), to
provide standards for determining whether the substantial
restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the Grand
Canyon National Park has been achieved and to clarify
regulatory authority with respect to commercial air tours
operating over the Park.
Pryor amendment No. 3548 (to amendment 3452), to reduce the
deficit by establishing discretionary spending caps
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 11:30 a.m. will be divided equally between the Senator from
Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor, or
their designees.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, the title of the bill just reported is
the correct title. However, the legislation we are discussing inside
that bill does not relate so much to the title. This is the FAA
reauthorization bill, reauthorizing a wide range of programs in the
Federal Aviation Administration. This is the fifth day we have been on
the floor. Senator Rockefeller has been managing the legislation. He is
necessarily absent now and asked me, as chairman of the aviation panel,
to manage in his stead. He has said--and I agree--we have put together
a piece of legislation that has substantial modernization pieces in it
that will modernize the air traffic control system, provide substantial
improvements in safety, improvements in the airport improvement program
to invest in and expand the infrastructure in aviation. It contains a
lot of things that are so very important.
I worry now, on the fifth day on this legislation, that if we don't
get it done today, we may not get this bill done at all. That would be
a shame because this authorization has languished for a long time.
Rather than reauthorize the FAA with a new authorization, we have
extended it 11 straight times. That describes how difficult it is to
get things done.
Finally, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison have brought the
bill to the Senate floor. Senator DeMint and I, as chairman and ranking
member of the subcommittee, worked on the bill with them. We have now
been here 5 days. The question will be, between now and the end of
today, will we get this done or does this dissolve as unfinished work?
We made a good try, but we just didn't make it happen, so it gets
extended again and all of this work is for nought.
The fact is, every single Senator and every constituent of every
Member has a big stake in getting this done. Anybody who flies on
commercial airlines--and that is a lot of Americans--has a big stake in
the issue of air traffic control modernization, improvements to safety,
and the things that are included in this legislation. The failure to do
this would be a great disappointment, not only for us but for the
American people.
We have cleared a lot of amendments. As has been the case recently
with a lot of legislation, there has been a lot of delay. We have
worked on amendments en bloc that have been cleared. There is an
additional group of amendments we hope we will clear.
At 2 o'clock today there will be votes on two amendments side by
side, offered within the rules, although they do not relate to this
particular legislation. But we will vote on those and try to dispose of
those issues.
There is another issue, probably the last significant issue that is
there. That is the issue of the slots and the perimeter rule at
National Airport in Washington, DC. The slots and perimeter rule is
controversial, complex, difficult. We have a number of amendments filed
representing different interests of how many additional flights should
be added to Washington National, how many flights might be added that
would extend beyond what is a perimeter rule at Washington National. I
hope those who have filed those amendments will agree to stand down and
allow us to try to resolve that in some way in conference.
The House, in its legislation, does address in part the slot rule. If
we get to conference with the House, if we can pass a bill through the
Senate, it will be something we will need to resolve there.
What my great concern is, if this afternoon, following the votes, we
get into long, protracted debate about the various amendments that have
been
[[Page S1694]]
filed on the slot and perimeter rules, this bill will not get done. A
number of people who have offered amendments dealing with slots have
great interest in making certain this bill gets done. My fear is, if it
is not done today, it probably will not be done. We will probably not
complete this legislation.
I will be visiting and talking with those who have offered those
amendments, asking if we can work with them as we go into conference
and try to address the slot and perimeter rules with the House. It has
to be a part of our conference because the House has a number of
provisions in their legislation dealing with those issues.
The frustration for 200-plus years in the Senate is nothing moves
very quickly. That remains a frustration in 2010. Nothing here moves
very quickly. That is part of the charm of the Senate, perhaps, and
part of the abiding frustration of the Senate. At least on important
issues during important times things really should move. There are
certain things that are urgent to get done.
One year has now passed since the last commercial aviation accident
in Buffalo, NY. As a result of that accident and the investigation that
ensued, a number of new safety recommendations are included in this
legislation. It is important for us to understand the urgency of
passing legislation that will substantially improve aviation safety. To
ignore it is to shortchange the American people.
We are working through the amendments. I expect this afternoon we
will have these votes. I also hope we can work with our colleagues on
the slot or perimeter rule amendments that have been offered in order
to resolve them. My hope is we will resolve them not by protracted
debate, which will probably doom this bill because we will likely not
have additional time on the Senate floor after 5 full days, but resolve
them in a way that allows those who care about this to work with us as
we go into conference with the House on the slot and perimeter rules.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PRYOR. 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.
Amendment No. 3548
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak for 10 minutes on my amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I rise to talk about the Pryor amendment
we are going to take up this afternoon and have a vote on.
I wish to show my colleagues this chart I have in the Chamber that
talks about America's fiscal condition. This chart came out of the CQ
Today edition of Tuesday, February 2. As you can see, it takes the
fiscal year 2011 revenue estimates over here, with this pie chart on
the left, and it takes our proposed outlays with this other pie chart
on the right.
Of course, it is obvious to anyone who is paying attention, if you
look at these two numbers, it looks like we are taking in $2.5 trillion
but we are sending out $3.8 trillion. That is a big problem. That
means, once again, we are in deficit spending. We have to get our
fiscal house in order.
I do not know if my colleagues on both sides saw this reported this
week, but earlier there was a story in the New York Times--and it has
been reported in other publications--that Moody's is looking at the
possibility of downgrading America's credit from AAA down to something
lower than that because of the enormous national debt we have and the
persistent annual deficits.
This piece of the chart I think is very revealing, when you look at
the money that is going out through the Federal Government.
We see this purple slice. There are a couple of slices here of the
purple pie chart, and we see one is $671 billion. That is nondefense
discretionary spending. Then, on the national defense discretionary
spending, it shows $744 billion, but everything else in here is
mandatory spending or it is our interest on the national debt.
This little green sliver here--it may be hard to see on television--
is actually what we are paying on the national debt. It is $251 billion
in interest payments and paying back the national debt.
Nonetheless, we see that the majority of the money we are spending is
for mandatory spending. These are entitlements and various programs,
things such as Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement
programs and other mandatory spending.
The amendment I have been working on this week tries to address our
fiscal situation not merely by tapping into this discretionary
spending, which, depending on which part of discretionary spending we
are talking about, could be as little as 12 percent of the money we
have going out of the system or it could be as much as 25 or 30
percent. It depends on how you calculate and all we include. We can't
fix our fiscal house using discretionary spending only. I think one of
the advantages of the Pryor amendment is we want to take the whole
picture--all the mandatory spending, all the discretionary spending,
and all the revenues--and use them to try to get our fiscal house in
order.
One of the best things about this chart that was in CQ Today is this
graph. It shows where we start during the Carter years, and it goes all
the way through the Obama years. So we have Carter, Reagan, George
Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Obama, and we can see this
purple line. Unfortunately, most of these years it is below zero. The
line is our annual deficit. This yellowish-orangey line shows as a
percent of GDP what our deficit is.
One of the great things about this graph that gives me courage and
gives me hope is that during the Clinton years, we went above the line.
We actually went into surplus spending. We did it for the last 4 years
of his administration. The thing I get hope from is we can do it again.
We can do this. We can address this. If we do it in a bipartisan way,
if we do it in a smart way, if we put everything on the table as they
did during the Clinton years, we can address our deficit and our
national debt and we can do it in a way that will be good for the
country long term. Because every time we spend a dollar around here, we
are making our children and our grandchildren pay for that. At some
point down the road they will have to pay for it.
We need to stop the reckless course we are on, everybody agrees.
Whether it is the chairman or the ranking member of the Budget
Committee, whether it is outside economists, or whether it is people
such as those on Wall Street who analyze all of this, everybody agrees
that we are on an unsustainable course. So what the Pryor amendment
tries to do is address our deficit spending, not just the spending part
but our whole picture to look at our annual deficits.
One thing I wish to comment on is when I look at this graph, this is
a graph of political courage. Because the easiest thing in the world
for a politician to do--the easiest thing that any of us can do around
here--is to cut taxes and increase spending. That is what has happened
in recent years. That didn't happen during the Clinton years, but that
has happened in recent years. The easiest thing to do is to go into
deficit spending and push the problem down the road to somebody in the
future. The time is now for us to stop doing that. The time is now for
us to reverse these purple lines and get them going up, above zero.
The truth is, we can't do it in 1 year. We probably can't do it in 5
years given the economic and fiscal condition we are in right now, but
over a period of years, we can get this moving in the right direction.
I promise my colleagues the markets will love it. I promise my
colleagues the global economy will love it. They will love to see some
American leadership. Everybody in the world looks at how we spend money
around here and they shake their heads, because they know we are on an
unsustainable course.
This graph is a graph of political courage. Back during this time,
when they did this Balanced Budget Act, back in 1993--and I have a lot
of colleagues who were here and casting those hard votes back then--
those were
[[Page S1695]]
acts of courage. It wasn't always popular because they made some hard
choices, and that is what we have to do again. That is, hopefully, what
the Pryor amendment will get us on track toward doing.
Madam President, I know I just have a couple of minutes left. How
long do I have?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PRYOR. I will try to wind down. The Pryor amendment freezes all
discretionary spending caps at the level proposed by President Obama in
the year 2011. So it does have a discretionary freeze. It freezes all
discretionary spending caps for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 at 40
percent of the difference between President Obama's budget proposal and
last year's budget proposal.
The reason we are doing that is because Senator Sessions and Senator
McCaskill have worked very hard on their amendment--in fact, I voted
for their amendment a couple of times in its previous forms--but they
used some different numbers. I thought in order to be fair we need to
split the difference with their numbers, and these two freezes we are
talking about will reduce discretionary spending by at least $77
billion over 15 years. That is major. That is a big chunk out of
discretionary spending.
Where we make up the difference is then we ask the National
Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to find at least--at
least--an additional $77 billion of deficit reductions over the next 3
years to close the gap between projected revenues and entitlement
spending. So we pretty much give this to the commission and say: Look,
commission, you are set up. The President has put you together. We have
six or eight Members from the Senate on that commission, other Members
from the House. You all sit down and you all work through this. You
have a year to do it. You need to work through this and find the other
$77 billion worth of savings.
In comparing the two amendments, the Pryor amendment actually saves a
little bit more money over the next 3 years than the Sessions
amendment, but one of the reasons is because we are looking at deficit
reduction, not just spending. I think their amendment--again, which I
have supported in the past--focuses on spending, but ours is more about
deficit reduction and trying to take a full picture into account.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. PRYOR. I will be glad to.
Mr. DORGAN. First, let me say I support the Senator's amendment. Both
amendments have some merit. It is not unworthy to be talking about
trying to tighten belts in every area of public spending, but some
public spending is more important than others, and we ought to be
judicious as we deal with it.
The difference, as I understand, between these amendments is one
says, Let's cut spending in one area, which is domestic discretionary
spending, which is a rather small part of the budget, and it doesn't
address the other issues of the spending that goes on through the Tax
Code, the entitlement spending, and other larger issues as well. Even
as we vote on these issues--and I intend to vote in support of your
initiative, which I think is the right initiative--I have to say I
don't think this is complicated in terms of what has happened to our
country and what we have to do to put it back on track.
You can't send kids off to war and then say we are going to charge
all the costs of war. We have been involved now in the war against
terrorism, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and not paid for a
penny of it because throughout the last decade the President said we
are going to make all of this emergency spending. Some of us said,
Well, let's pay for it? And President Bush said, If you try to pay for
it, I will veto the bill.
So it is not particularly complicated to understand what has happened
here. Government has to pay its bills. Dealing with the entire area of
public spending here is very important, and I think the Senator has
offered a piece of legislation, an amendment, that has great merit and
I hope will get the substantial support of the Senate.
Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Senator.
Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
Amendment No. 3453
Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the
Pryor amendment and in favor of the Sessions-McCaskill amendment on us
trying to get our fiscal house in order.
Right now in America, most families are figuring out where they can
cut the budget. Most families are figuring out what the extras are that
even though we don't want to give them up, we have to give them up.
That is what America is doing right now. Most local governments are
doing the same thing. They are sitting around rooms trying to figure
out where they can cut budgets because their revenue is down.
In Missouri, the Governor has had to cut the budget significantly.
Even with the stimulus money we sent to Missouri to help them balance
their budget, they are cutting programs. They are cutting employees.
They are doing what they have to do to balance the budget. Then we get
to Washington. Everybody in America is cutting back except Washington.
We came very close a few weeks ago--59 votes--to a very modest baby
step. We are not talking about something that is earth shattering here.
We are talking about limiting the size of growth. We are not cutting
anything. The Sessions-McCaskill amendment cuts nothing. All it does is
limit the size of growth, of discretionary spending in both the defense
budget and the domestic budget. We had 59 votes to limit the growth of
discretionary spending.
Would it be great if we could do the same thing with mandatory right
now? I think it would be. I think it would be terrific if we could
limit the size of growth of mandatory spending right now. Could we, in
fact, roll back some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest? I would
be for that. The bottom line is we have 59 votes for a baby step.
So what happens around here when we have 59 votes for a baby step? We
come up with an amendment, frankly, that is more cover than substance.
It is time to take a hard look in the mirror. If we can't do Sessions-
McCaskill, what can we do around here? What can we do to show the
American people we understand that government can't continue to grow
when revenues aren't? We have done some big, bold things--and I have
been supportive of all of them--to bring us back from the brink of a
recession. They were very important. But I have been so discouraged by
what has been going on around here the last few days: the circling of
the wagons.
This amendment, with all due respect--and he is my friend; we have
worked together on many things--but 50 votes to waive, are you kidding?
You have to have 60 votes now to waive, and they are lowering it to 50.
The only changes we have made to the Sessions-McCaskill amendment since
that 59-vote margin we got a few weeks ago is we moved down how many
votes you have to have for emergency spending. It is no longer subject
to a 67-vote point of order. This was done to address the concerns that
some Members had about Congress's flexibility to respond to
emergencies, though it is very hard to find any emergency in history
that Congress hasn't addressed with more than 67 votes. We moved that
number down. Now the caps only cover 3 years. A 1-percent growth over
the next 3 years, when every other government in America is cutting? A
1-percent growth over 3 years. Is that so hard? There are no caps on
this year in this amendment and no caps for 2014. The Pryor amendment
only has 1 year of caps and it can be waived with 50 votes, and then it
purports to try to mandate that the fiscal commission do some things.
By the way, if the fiscal commission doesn't do it in time, then none
of this counts.
We are outsourcing our responsibilities here. I was for the fiscal
commission. I was a cosponsor. I think we have to be honest about what
this body is capable of doing and what it is not capable of doing. But
did I think this body was not capable of 1 percent of growth for 3
years in discretionary spending? I had no idea this body wasn't capable
of that. The pressure that is being put on Members as part of that 59
is depressing to me.
This is one of those moments where I separate from leadership of my
party. I am proud to separate from leadership
[[Page S1696]]
of my party, because this is the right thing to do right now. America
doesn't think we get it, and you know what. They are right. We don't. A
1-percent growth in government in discretionary spending for the next 3
years is a reasonable approach to what we are looking at in terms of
both our deficit and our debt.
I am sorry leadership does not agree with me on this. I am sorry
leadership does not think this is good public policy. But I have to
tell you, we worry around here about elections. I will tell you, the
folks who are thinking this side by side is somehow going to cover them
from the wrath of the American people when it sinks in that we are not
even willing to limit growth in a meaningful way in this country--when
I am in the grocery store when I go home on the weekends, that is what
I am constantly told when I run into people: It just doesn't feel like
you guys get it. If we end up with less than 59 votes today, if we go
backward rather than forward, do you know what I am going to have to
tell them when I see them in the grocery store this weekend? You are
right, the majority of my party does not get it.
By the way, I am willing to stand right now and cosponsor anything we
want to limit the growth in mandatory. I am for that too. I am for
doing whatever we need to do to make sure we look at the revenue side.
I am for that also.
But this is a baby step, and if we cannot take the baby step right
now at this moment in history with this mess we are facing in terms of
finances, then I think we are in a world of hurt, just a world of hurt.
I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to express my appreciation to
Senator McCaskill, who is a person of courage and conviction and made a
decision that we need to do better in our country about spending. As
she said, is a simple truth. Our amendment is a small but significant
step. It is a statement that we are going to take some action that will
have some benefit in containing the growth, not requiring cuts but
containing the growth of spending in our country.
Unfortunately, as we have gotten so close to having it passed, now an
organized effort appears to be underway to try to see if they can pull
back a growing number of votes that have been cast for it. We started
out with 56 votes, then went to 59 votes. Every Republican and 18
Democrats voted for it. We just need one more vote and we will be able
to take this significant step of having a statutory cap on spending.
The level of spending we are limiting it to is the level in the
Democratic budget that passed this year. The amount is not anything
other than what the budget already calls for that was passed by a
Democratic majority. It is the kind of numbers we probably could do
better on and we probably could and should cut some programs.
Regardless, what we are saying is, one of our big problems is we do
not stick to whatever budget we have. We constantly violate the budget.
Republicans have done this too. The debt now is spiraling out of
control to a degree we have never ever seen in the history of our
country. It is not responsible, and we have to stop it.
I say this about my colleague from Arkansas--we were celebrating a
bipartisan effort just last night when he and I and others worked on
balancing the crack and powder cocaine penalties so they are more fair
and more realistic. That was a good bipartisan step.
I think we are on the way to a bipartisan bill. I am disappointed we
now have what can only be referred to as a cover amendment that does
not have the teeth or the strength of the amendment we have offered. It
provides an opportunity for people to vote for it and say they have
voted to contain spending: I was all for it; I didn't vote on the
McCaskill-Sessions amendment, but I voted on this other amendment, and
it is just as good.
It is not just as good, and it does not have as much ability to
contain spending. It does not. It should not be substituted.
The American people are frustrated with us. The polling numbers for
Congress are perhaps as low as we have ever seen in this country. One
of the reasons is, they are tired of us manipulating and maneuvering to
try to make ourselves look good and the interest of the country takes
the hindmost. People are tired of that and in my view they are correct.
Some of our colleagues say that is populist; they are just angry;
they will go away. Americans have a right to be concerned about what we
are doing and how these activities are occurring on the floor of the
Senate.
The Democratic leadership obviously decided this amendment might be
in a position to pass. They didn't want it to pass. They conjured up
what we call a cover amendment. It should not be what we adopt.
I note the caps are higher in this amendment than the budget
resolution passed by Congress--the Democratic budget resolution just
last year. It would allow about $38 billion more in nondefense spending
over 3 years than what was in our fiscal year 2010 budget resolution.
The side by side, the cover amendment, does not follow the President's
proposal to freeze nondefense discretionary spending for 3 years. It
waives the fiscal 2012 and 2013 caps. It has only a 51-vote threshold.
I wish we could have talked some more about what Senator McCaskill
and I have offered. Maybe we could have made some changes to the plan
we have. Frankly, this will be the third time we made changes in the
legislation to try to assuage concerns Members had that we thought were
legitimate and worthy of putting in the bill. I would have liked to
have made those changes.
The American people are unhappy about this situation. I know polling
numbers are not supposed to be the end all in Congress, but we ought to
understand we work for our constituents; they do not work for us. That
is what I am hearing out there: You work for me, Sessions, and I am
concerned about what you are doing up there. We want a better response
from you guys.
This is a CNN opinion poll:
Which of the following comes closer to your view of the
budget deficit--the government should run a deficit if
necessary when the country is in a recession and at war, or
the government should balance the budget even when the
country is in a recession and is at war?
That is a pretty hard question. I think some people who are very
frugal might worry about how to answer that question. But look at the
numbers: 67 percent, two-thirds, of the American people said balance
the budget. Only 30 percent said run a deficit.
I tell you, the American people have it right. The threat to our
economy in the long run is one thing: debt--irresponsible, reckless,
unsustainable growth in debt. If we would get that under control, the
great American entrepreneurial spirit, the work ethic of our people,
the exceptional capabilities of our business leaders will allow us to
compete with anybody. But if we tax and spend ourselves into debt, we
are threatening our future.
How big a threat is it? Look at these numbers. This is the debt. In
2008, it was $5.8 trillion. Since the beginning of the American
Republic, we had accumulated $5.8 trillion in debt. It was projected by
CBO that in 2013, it will be $11.8 trillion. In a little over 3 years,
we will be doubling the total American public debt. Finally, by 2019,
based on the budget we are operating in today and the laws that are on
the books today, it will triple to $17.3 trillion. Consider the
interest on that debt--we have to borrow the money. Does anybody
understand that? We borrow the money. We are borrowing it on the world
market. Interest rates are sure to surge in the years to come. Right
now, with the economy shaky, people are willing to buy government
bonds, even if they pay low rates. We are getting a bargain on interest
rates right now. But this debt isn't going to be a bargain in the
future--not a bargain for the good of the country.
This chart shows the interest that will be paid. In 2009, last year,
we paid $187 billion in interest. In 2020, according to the President's
budget analysis that he submitted, it will be $840 billion--$840
billion in interest in 1 year. The Federal highway bill is $40 billion
a year. Does that give us some perspective? It is bigger than the
defense budget.
These are stunning numbers. That is why every economist, Republicans
and Democrats, the Heritage Foundation and Brookings Institution,
former CBO
[[Page S1697]]
Directors and OMB Directors of both parties all say repeatedly we are
on an unsustainable course.
The deficits continue to surge in the outyears. They are not coming
down. People say: When are we going to pay it back? We are not paying
it back. In these years, in the outyears, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, they
are projecting steady but lower growth--but growth every year, no
recessions. The deficits are going to be about $1 trillion a year. They
are not going down. We are still going into debt $1 trillion a year.
I guess what I am saying is, what we need to do is focus on
discretionary accounts, and this amendment is it. Some say only the
mandatory, only the entitlements count. That is not so. As of this
moment, this year, every penny of the surging debt--and this year's
deficit will be $1.5 trillion--every penny of that debt will be the
result of spending in the discretionary accounts, not Social Security
and not Medicare.
Some say: Oh, that can't be so. Social Security and Medicare together
are now still in net surplus. We take the money, that surplus, and we
spend it and we give a bond back to Social Security and Medicare.
I guess what I am saying is, don't think the discretionary problem is
not a big part of the problem. It is the problem today. In the future,
it will be an actuarial challenge of monumental proportions because the
expenses of Medicare and Social Security are going up and the revenue
is going down and we are going to be in serious trouble. We need to
deal with this now.
I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to share these remarks. I
urge my colleagues to take a good vote. Vote for the Sessions-McCaskill
amendment and oppose the Pryor amendment.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I wish about 3 minutes to respond to my
colleagues.
I commend both Senator Sessions and Senator McCaskill for the work on
their amendment. As I said, I voted for previous editions of it. I
think it has one major flaw, and that is it only deals with
discretionary spending. I know it does affect the deficit, and that is
very important. But it focuses just on the spending.
When we did multiyear discretionary spending caps--they were a key
part of the 1990, 1993, 1997 deficit reduction patches--they worked.
However, those deficit reduction patches looked at all spending--
mandatory and discretionary--as well as revenues. That is what our
amendment does. It takes the whole picture.
If we are going to walk the walk on having our fiscal house in order,
we need to look at the entire picture, and I think we need to do it in
a bipartisan way, as they did in previous Congresses when they made
serious efforts to get the deficit under control. It needs to be
bipartisan. One of the problems I have is, if we fix discretionary
spending, it will be difficult for us to reach a bipartisan agreement
on mandatory as well as the revenue pieces of our budget.
Senator McCaskill mentioned this is a baby step. I don't know if it
is a baby step. What they are proposing is a very solid first step to
try to get our fiscal house in order. I am just concerned it might
close the door.
I wish to make this point in closing. If we look at these purple
lines on this graph, we see these years are the Obama years. Certainly,
he inherited a lot of things the first year, so the first year probably
is not fair to give to him.
If you look to these years, to the President's credit, he says he
wants to freeze discretionary spending. He says he wants the purple
lines to get shorter. That is good, but it is not enough. It is not
enough. The President's budget, in his proposal, in my estimation, is
not enough. We need to get this moving back in the right direction.
If you look at just discretionary spending and throw in the military
discretionary spending as well, that is about 25 percent of the
budget--just discretionary alone. Domestic discretionary is only about
12 percent. But put those two together, and let's say it is about 25
percent. The real flaw in the McCaskill-Sessions is that we are using
25 percent of the budget to fix 100 percent of the budget. We need to
put 100 percent of everything on the table so we can then use our good
judgment and make those hard decisions to try to get us back to a
balanced budget.
We are not going to do this in 1 year. We are probably not going to
do it in 5 years. I wish we could do it in 5 years. But these numbers
are not enough, and we need to move it back in the right direction. My
approach actually helps this picture quite a bit more than their
pictures help.
With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Amendment No. 3475
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise in support of amendment No. 3475,
which I have introduced. As I have stated several times already, the
amendment is very simple. It would place a moratorium on all earmarks
in years in which there is a deficit. I am joined in this effort by my
good friend from Indiana, Senator Bayh, and I again thank him for his
leadership and courage on this issue.
Last year, I reminded my colleagues about the current fiscal
situation. I think it is important to again review the facts. The
Treasury Department, a week ago, announced the government racked up a
record-high monthly deficit of $220.9 billion. We now have a deficit of
over $1.4 trillion and a debt of $12.5 trillion, and unemployment
remains at close to 10 percent. The list goes on and on.
On Tuesday, the Senate rejected an amendment offered by Senator
DeMint. This amendment called for a moratorium on all earmarks for
fiscal years 2010 and 2011. There wasn't anything earth-shattering
about that amendment. It wouldn't have shaken the foundations of our
democracy. It is simply the political equivalent of calling a timeout.
Yet, sadly, 68 Senators voted against this modest proposal, including
15 from my own party.
So I have no illusions about the outcome of this amendment. I have
been around here long enough to see what goes on. But it doesn't mean I
will quit fighting, nor does it mean the American people will quit
fighting to eliminate the waste and abuse of this system, and indeed
the corruption that is part of this earmarking.
I have listened to the arguments some of my colleagues continue to
state; that eliminating the earmarks isn't necessary because they
account for such a small part of our annual budget. Is that a reason to
continue this practice?
I am aware that earmarks consume a small percentage of a budget
measured in the trillions, but given the seriousness of our current
situation and the problems that are confronting American families who
wake up every morning wondering if they are going to lose their job or
their house, or if they will still be able to afford their children's
education, it is deeply offensive to them. It is deeply offensive that
we in Congress can't exercise some fiscal discipline. It is all the
more offensive given that we have had in recent times all the evidence
we should require to understand that earmarks are so closely tied to
acts of official corruption.
In a report entitled ``Why Earmarks Matter,'' the Heritage Foundation
wrote:
They Invite Corruption: Congress does have a proper role in
determining the rules, eligibility and benefit criteria for
Federal grant programs. However, allowing lawmakers to select
exactly who receives government grants invites corruption.
Instead of entering a competitive application process within
a Federal agency, grant-seekers now often have to hire a
lobbyist to win the earmark auction. Encouraged by lobbyists
who saw a growth industry in the making, local governments
have become hooked on the earmark process for funding
improvement projects.
They Encourage Spending: While there may not be a causal
relationship between the two, the number of earmarks approved
each year tracks closely with growth in Federal spending.
They Distort Priorities: Many earmarks do not add new
spending by themselves, but instead redirect funds already
slated to be spent through competitive grant programs or by
States into specific projects favored by an individual
member. So, for example, if a member of the Nevada delegation
succeeded in getting a $2 million earmark to build a bicycle
trail in Elko in 2005, then that $2 million would be taken
out of the $254 million allocated to the Nevada Department of
Transportation for that year. So if Nevada had wanted to
spend that money fixing a highway and rapidly expanding Las
Vegas, thanks to the earmark, they would now be out of luck.
[[Page S1698]]
On March 17, a Roll Call editorial, ``Earmark Action,'' stated the
following:
Even though they represent just a small fraction of Federal
spending, earmarks have accounted for an outsized proportion
of Congressional embarrassment over recent years, so we are
pleased to see House Democrats and Republicans moving to
limit them. But until the Senate goes along, or until
President Barack Obama determines to veto earmarks when they
come his way, the spectacle of special interest spending
won't stop--nor, with it, the public's suspicion that many
earmark projects are bought with campaign contributions.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record the editorial from Roll Call from which I just quoted.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Roll Call, Mar. 17, 2010]
Editorial: Earmark Action
Even though they represent just a small fraction of federal
spending, earmarks have accounted for an outsized proportion
of Congressional embarrassment over recent years, so we are
pleased to see House Democrats and Republicans moving to
limit them.
But until the Senate goes along, or until President Barack
Obama determines to veto earmarks when they come his way, the
spectacle of special interest spending won't stop--nor, with
it, the public suspicion that many earmarked projects are
bought with campaign contributions.
After House Democrats announced that they would ban all
earmarks directed toward for-profit companies, Speaker Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.) issued a self-congratulatory statement that
``over the past three years, we fought to replace a culture
of corruption with a new direction of transparency and
accountability, including earmark reforms in the last
Congress.''
She added that the new ban would ``ensure good stewardship
of taxpayer dollars by the federal government across all
agencies.''
It's true, there has been improvement in transparency.
Members are now required to disclose each project they are
requesting, along with its beneficiary. The value of earmarks
has fallen from $29 billion in fiscal 2006 to $19.6 billion
in 2009 and an expected $14 billion to $16 billion for 2010,
according to the watchdog group Citizens Against Government
Waste.
Still, the ``culture of corruption'' has not been expunged.
As Roll Call reported last week, the House ethics committee
exonerated some of Congress' most prolific earmarkers
without--so far as anyone can tell--conducting a serious
investigation of their possible connection to campaign
contributions.
House Democrats have now announced there will be no more
appropriated earmarks to for-profit entities and have
directed federal inspectors general to audit 5 percent of all
earmarks directed to nonprofit entities to ensure they are
not providing cover for for-profit enterprises.
Watchdog groups have given qualified praise to those moves.
They've given even more plaudits to House Republicans, who
imposed a unilateral one-year moratorium on all of their
earmark requests, including those to nonprofits, plus special
interest tax and tariff breaks secured through the Ways and
Means Committee.
However, Senate Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-
Hawaii) has ruled out any similar limits on his side of the
Capitol, and it remains to be seen whether Sen. Jim DeMint's
(R-S.C.) move to ban earmarks will ever come to a vote.
As we've often said before, a Member of Congress is elected
to look after the welfare of his or her district or state as
well as that of the nation--and part of that involves
sponsoring economic development projects.
But those actions should take place through regular order--
approval in a federal agency competitive procedure or, if
that fails, authorization and appropriation by Congress.
In the absence of a Senate ban, it's up to Obama--a
declared foe of earmarks--to use his veto to stop special
interest spending. He has a mixed record. He used persuasion
to keep earmarks out of last year's stimulus bill, but he has
yet to veto anything. This year, the Senate will give him
opportunities to show he's serious.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record the following articles: the article in the Wall
Street Journal of March 17 entitled ``Earmarks in Reverse,'' the
Washington Post article of March 12 entitled ``All Earmarks Should Be
Banned in the House and Senate,'' the Steven and Cokie Roberts article
entitled ``A Bribe By Any Other Name,'' the editorial of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal entitled ``Going All In,'' and finally, the article of
Matthew Bandyk of March 15, 2010, entitled ``Why Earmark Reform Has Not
Changed Much In Congress.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 17, 2010]
Earmarks in Reverse
There's nothing like a 25% approval rating and the prospect
of an electoral rout to focus the Congressional mind. And so
it is that three years after vowing to clean up earmarks,
House Democrats are embracing some reform--and in the process
inspiring some healthy earmark one-upsmanship.
Alarmed by public dismay at their spending, House
Democratic leaders last week announced an indefinite ban on
budget earmarks to for-profit entities. Not to be outdone,
House Republicans surprised even themselves by pledging a
total one-year ban. In the Senate, South Carolina's Jim
DeMint jumped in with a proposal to require a one-year
moratorium for both parties. Senator John McCain--that long-
time scourge of pork--is preparing an amendment to ban all
earmarks until the federal deficit is eliminated. This is one
political rivalry worth applauding.
It's also long overdue. Nancy Pelosi became Speaker in 2006
in part because her party promised to clean up the earmark
excesses that had earned the GOP a reputation for corruption
and Bridges to Nowhere. Yet aside from a few stabs at
transparency, Democrats have practiced business as usual.
According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, fiscal 2010 spending
bills contained 9,499 earmarks worth $15.9 billion, an
increase over fiscal 2009's $15.6 billion.
The reluctance to change is rooted in the Congressional
belief that earmarks are the main guarantee of incumbency.
Earmarks were relatively rare until the rise of the Tom DeLay
Republicans in the late 1990s. By 2005, the high-water mark
of the earmark craze, both parties had linked arms to add
13,500 pet projects to spending bills. Legislators crow about
their largesse and use it to land campaign money from earmark
recipients.
This cash-for-votes mentality has become a symbol of
everything Americans hate about Washington. The recent
decision by the House ethics committee to put aside
allegations that seven House Members had awarded earmarks in
order to secure campaign donations was another sign that
Congress wasn't serious about changing this culture of
special favors.
So the Democratic turnabout is welcome, if incomplete. The
ban on for-profit earmarks will apply to a small portion of
pet projects. By the Appropriations Committee's estimate, the
for-profit ban would have eliminated about 1,000 earmarks,
worth about $1.7 billion, in fiscal 2010.
The ban would miss what Republican Jeff Flake of Arizona
has shown to be ``shadow'' nonprofits that exist to funnel
money to private contractors. House Appropriations Chairman
David Obey has mandated that federal inspectors spot-audit
some earmarks to check for this practice, which might deter
or uncover some funny business. The GOP moratorium--which
appears to encompass even tax and tariff earmarks--would be
better, but give Democrats credit for starting the bidding.
The obstacle now is in the Senate, where Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell is lukewarm and Thad Cochran of Mississippi
argues that such a ban interferes with Congress's power of
the purse and won't save much money in any case. In fact,
Congress still determines where nearly all federal money is
spent, whether or not Members shovel billions to parochial
projects.
As for spending restraint, it's true that ObamaCare's
subsidies will swamp even decades of earmark restraint. But
you have to start somewhere, and earmarks are often a gateway
drug to larger fiscal addictions.
____
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 12, 2010]
All Earmarks Should Be Banned in the House and Senate
Seven House members, including Northern Virginia Rep. James
P. Moran Jr. (D), collected more than $840,000 in political
contributions from employees and clients of a lobbying firm,
Paul Magliocchetti and Associates Group (PMA), during a two-
year span. In that same period, the lawmakers, strategically
situated on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, directed
more than $245 million in earmarks to clients of PMA.
If you think those two facts are unrelated, you are
qualified to be on the House ethics committee. The panel
recently found that ``simply because a member sponsors an
earmark for an entity that also happens to be a campaign
contributor does not, on these two facts alone, support a
claim that a member's actions are being influenced by
campaign contributions.''
The ethics committee acknowledged that ``there is a
widespread perception among corporations and lobbyists that
campaign contributions provide enhanced access to members or
a greater chance of obtaining earmarks.'' Gee, how could
anyone have gotten that impression? Maybe because the
lawmakers targeted those seeking earmarks for campaign
contributions? Sent their key appropriations staffers to
fundraisers?
For instance, in 2008, the appropriations director for Rep.
Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.) told corporations interested in
obtaining earmarks that they needed to submit requests by
Feb. 15. On Feb. 27, Mr. Visclosky's campaign manager sent a
letter to companies that had sought his help on defense
matters inviting them to a fundraiser on March 12. Mr.
Visclosky's political committees received $35,300 from
clients of PMA that month, plus another $12,000 from the
lobbying firm and its employees. A week after
[[Page S1699]]
the fundraiser, which was focused on defense contractors and
attended by his chief of staff and appropriations director,
Mr. Visclosky requested earmarks for six PMA clients,
totaling more than $14 million.
House leaders understand that voters may not be quite as
obtuse as the ethics committee seems to assume, and their
extreme embarrassment--over this and other scandals--may lead
to useful action. The House is right to ban lawmakers from
earmarking government funds for for-profit companies. It
should go further, and extend the prohibition to nonprofit
and educational institutions as well. Some nonprofit
institutions spend enormous sums on lobbyists, who dispense
campaign donations in hope of obtaining earmarks. More
important, the Senate must follow suit, as much as it appears
disinclined to do so. A system that aligns campaign cash and
earmarks is inherently unseemly, if not outright corrupt, and
the Senate is tainted by this setup as well.
We say this fully aware that the Constitution grants
Congress the power of the purse and that earmarks are not
close to the biggest reason for out-of-control spending. And
that lawmakers have taken steps in recent years to reduce the
number of earmarks and make the process more open. And that
eliminating earmarks would not end every instance in which
private interests lobby for--and make campaign contributions
in hope of obtaining--particular favors.
It would, however, eliminate the worst such abuse. The
House Ethics Manual cautions members ``to avoid even the
appearance that solicitations of campaign contributions are
connected in any way with an action taken or to be taken in
an official capacity.'' The ethics committee, dismissing that
caution and a recommendation by the newly created independent
Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate two of the
seven representatives, decided there was nothing to worry
about in the PMA case. With standards this lax, the only
reasonable choice is to end the earmarks that fuel this
sleazy process.
____
[From the Arizona Daily Sun, Mar. 11, 2010]
A Bribe by Any Other Name
(By Steve and Cokie Roberts)
An executive for the Sierra Nevada Corp., a defense
contractor based in Nevada, wanted to know why he should
contribute $20,000 to Rep. Peter Visclosky, an Indiana
Democrat. A colleague replied that Sierra Nevada was working
with PMA, a Washington, DC-based lobbying firm, to curry
favor with Visclosky, a key member of the subcommittee that
funded defense projects.
``That's what each of the companies working with PMA and
Visclosky have been asked to contribute,'' explained the
second official. ``He has been a good supporter of SNC. We
have gotten over 10M in adds from him.'' (``Adds'' refers to
earmarks, special amendments filed by a single legislator
that awards contracts to a specific firm with no competitive
bidding.)
``Bride'' is a hard term to define legally. But we know a
payoff when we see one. And that e-mail exchange could not
have been clearer: Sierra Nevada delivers for Visclosky
because Visclosky delivers for Sierra Nevada. And yet the
House Ethics Committee recently cleared Visclosky--and six
other lawmakers who had similar dealings with PMA clients--of
any ethical wrongdoing.
Here's what they said: ``The Standards Committee (the
panel's official name) found no evidence that members or
their official staff considered campaign contributions as a
factor when requesting earmarks.''
No evidence? The evidence of collusion was slapping them in
the face. Yet the committee chose the narrowest possible
standard of proof: If there's no smoking gun, no direct and
specific record of a quid pro quo, then cash-for-clout
transactions are entirely proper.
In the past, ethics panels have denounced the
``appearance'' of impropriety, even when the letter of the
law has not been breached. But that standard has apparently
now been jettisoned. Leave the money on the dresser, honey.
Just don't ask for a receipt.
Full disclosure: We have many friends and relatives who are
lobbyists. It's an honorable profession, and campaign
contributions are a legitimate expression of free speech. But
there should be reasonable limits on how campaign cash
affects public policy, and the House Ethics Committee has
just made those limits looser, not tighter. The door to
greater abuse of the system has been wrenched wide open.
``This will embolden members,'' Rep. Jeff Flake, an ardent
foe of earmarks, told the New York Times. ``In essence,
unless you're caught on the phone with a lobbyist saying,
`Contribute or else you don't get an earmark,' they you're
fine. That's the clear message here.''
That message is particularly untimely because the Supreme
Court ruled last January that corporations could spend their
own money directly on campaign advertising. As a result,
government contractors like Sierra Nevada are freer than ever
to buy influence in the political marketplace.
It's also untimely because President Obama campaigned
heavily against earmarks and vowed to curb their impact. But
the administration has not said a word about the ruling that
gutted House ethics rules. And Obama's goal of reducing the
role of earmarks remains largely unmet. In the last fiscal
year, Congress spent $15.9 billion on special-interest
projects, up from $15.6 billion the previous year.
Why should we care? That amount spent on earmarks accounts
for less than 2 percent of the federal budget. But the issue
is important for at least four reasons. First, that's the
taxpayer's money Congress is throwing around. As the
president himself said last year, ``On occasion, earmarks
have been used as a vehicle for waste, and fraud, and
abuse.'' And ``the context of a tight budget'' makes that
waste even more costly.
Second, the earmark system distorts national priorities and
violates principles of fairness. As Ryan Alexander, president
of Taxpayers for Common Sense, put it, ``Powerful lawmakers
are hoarding cash for their districts while the rest of the
Congress fights for table scraps.''
Third, appearances do matter. Earmarks reek of corruption
even if they do not violate bribery statutes. Just becaause a
practice is technically legal does not make it right or
ethical.
Most important, confidence in government has plummeted.
Americans believe that Washington rewards power and money
while ignoring the interest of ordinary people, and the
earmark system is a visible symbol of their disillusionment.
Obama himself has talked about ``the need for further reforms
to ensure that the budget process inspires trust and
confidence instead of cynicism.''
He's right about that. But the House Ethics Committee, run
by the president's own party, has taken a step back, not
forward. They have encouraged the triumph of cynicism over
confidence when that's the last thing we need.
____
[From the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Mar. 12, 2010]
Editorial: Going All In
Facing a monumental washout this November, House Democrats
underwent an election year conversion this week and announced
they'll ban earmarks to for-profit entities.
Republicans promptly called their bluff and went all in.
With a handful of Democrats encountering ethical
difficulties, and the recent investigation of several House
members over defense earmarks, House leaders clearly took
their step in order to seize an election-year issue from the
GOP.
But Republicans quickly grabbed it back, vowing not to lard
up any spending bills this year with any earmarks.
``We have a real possibility of regaining the majority, and
I think a lot of members realize that we have to regain the
voters trust somehow,'' said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.
``Earmarks are the most visible thing that we can do because
we abused it so badly in the past.''
Hear, hear.
Earmarking is the term used to describe it when a member of
Congress drops a pet project into a spending bill. These
grants or direct payments may benefit a local government, a
community organization or a profit-making entity. They have
come to symbolize congressional profligacy at a time when
many voters are now demanding fiscal restraint and
responsibility.
Rep. David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the
Appropriations Committee, said he hoped that banning the
practice when it comes to for-profit entities would result in
1,000 fewer earmarks and help Congress alter the perception
that members routinely hand out lucrative contracts and
grants to campaign contributors.
Taxpayers for Common Sense notes that last year's defense
appropriations legislation included 1,720 earmarks worth $4.2
billion. ``For-profit earmarks are really where the rubber
meets the road as far as corruption,'' Steve Ellis of the
watchdog group told The Associated Press.
That's great, as far as it goes. But add up all the
spending bills--not just defense--and Congress crammed
through 10,000 earmarks worth about $16 billion. If members
remain free to route the pork fat back home to nonprofit
entities, the problem has not been adequately addressed. Why
should the people of Nevada have to pay to remodel Lawrence
Welk's boyhood home in North Dakota?
``I've long said that earmarks are the gateway drug to
spending addiction in Washington,'' said Sen. Tom Coburn, the
Oklahoma Republican who has crusaded against the practice.
``Banning earmarks is a long overdue, common sense step that
will help Congress win back the trust of the public and
tackle our mounting fiscal challenges.
That's why House Republicans did the right thing this week
by going all in. Let's hope Sen. Coburn can convince GOP
senators to follow suit. And if the Democrats don't match the
pot, many of them may be out of the game come November.
____
[From U.S. News and World Report, Mar. 15, 2010]
Why Earmark Reform Has Not Changed Much in Congress
(By Matthew Bandyk)
Call it good timing. Shortly after an ethics investigation
concluded that several members of Congress did not trade
earmarks for campaign cash, both parties in the House
announced new moratoria on earmarks in spending bills.
Earmarks are provisions that members of Congress stick into
larger bills that direct federal dollars to specific
projects. This spending is often labeled ``pork barrel''
because of the perception that earmarks benefit only local
constituents and special interests. While the changes
announced by Congress last week substantially
[[Page S1700]]
alter the earmarking process, they do little to change
Congress's ability to pursue pork barrel spending.
Rep. David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat and chair of the
House Committee on Appropriations, announced that his
committee would no longer accept earmarks that fund private
for-profit entities. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denied that
this move was connected to the ethics investigations, calling
the timing a coincidence. ``It just had to do with the time
of the year, the beginning,'' she said at a news conference.
``Members are making their requests for earmarks, and we
thought it would be important to let them know that they
probably should not make a request for an earmark for a
business.''
Shortly after, House Republicans went a step further and
declared a unilateral moratorium on all earmarks. Minority
Leader John Boehner explicitly linked this move to the
perception that special interests have excessive influence in
Washington. ``For millions of Americans, the earmark process
in Congress has become a symbol of a broken Washington,'' he
said in a statement.
But even with both parties taking actions against earmarks,
there are a few reasons why pork barrel spending will
continue in many forms.
1. Every member of the House and senator could agree to
never put an earmark in another bill, but billions of
dollars' worth of projects for special interests could
continue. That's because there are many provisions in large
spending bills that resemble earmarks, but Congress does not
define them as such. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit
taxpayer watchdog group in Washington, estimates that there
were about 91 provisions worth about $5.9 billion in fiscal
year 2010 alone that TCS considers earmarks but Congress does
not. For example, in the fiscal year 2010 defense spending
bill, there was $2.5 billion to build 10 C-17 Globemaster
Strategic Airlift Aircraft, despite the fact that the Defense
Department said the 205 C-17s it already has are sufficient.
This spending is not considered an earmark by Congress, and
thus would not be affected by either the Democratic or
Republican earmark reform. ``They've decided that it's not an
earmark, even though it walks like an earmark and talks like
an earmark,'' says Steve Ellis, vice president of TCS.
2. As the majority in Congress, Democrats have the most
influence over earmarks at the moment. They have decided not
to allow earmarks ``directed to for-profit entities.'' But
evidence suggests that this move affects only a small
minority of earmarks. It can be difficult to find out which
percentage of earmarks are for private interests and which
fund nonprofit groups or state and local governments. Finding
out which is which is time-consuming. It requires combing
through the sometimes thousands of earmarks in a given bill
because ``Congress doesn't tell you right off the bat who the
beneficiary [of an earmark] is,'' says Ellis. According to
Representative Obey's announcement, the new earmark reform
would have affected about 1,000 earmarks for 2010 had it been
enacted last year. But according to TCS, there were about
9,000 earmarks in fiscal year 2010. Citizens Against
Government Waste, another watchdog group, counts 10,160
earmarks, of which the Democratic reform affects only 10
percent.
Furthermore, some of the earmarks that critics have cited
as particularly wasteful are directed to public entities, not
private companies. For example, last year, a federal spending
bill set aside $1.7 million for pig odor research at a
Department of Agriculture facility in Iowa.
3. Perhaps the most infamous earmark of all time is the
``Bridge to Nowhere,'' a $400 million proposed bridge for a
tiny Alaska town. The earmark was axed in 2005 but would not
have been canceled by Obey's recent move because the money
would have gone to a local government. But ``even if [the
money] was going to Alaska Construction Inc., it would not be
affected'' by the Democrats' earmark reform, says Ellis.
That's because the change only applies to bills that come
from the Appropriations Committee. The Bridge to Nowhere was
originally placed in legislation by Rep. Don Young, an Alaska
Republican who was chair of the Transportation Committee.
This committee passes highway bills, which tend to be some of
the most earmark-heavy. Citizens Against Government Waste
counted more than 6,000 earmarked projects in the 2005
highway bill.
Mr. McCAIN. The reason I add those to the Record is because it isn't
just my opinion, it is the opinion of the Wall Street Journal, the
Washington Post, and many other periodicals to this effect.
Also, we perhaps in the Congress might pay attention to the fact that
a poll in the last couple of days shows a 17-percent approval of
Congress. Our approval ratings are at an all-time low. There are a
variety of reasons. It isn't all because of earmarks. It is because of
the economic situation, it is because of the frustration, it is because
of the belief by many Americans that we are not responsive to their
problems and challenges they face, which are unprecedented in these
days, especially when we are spending $1 million to rehabilitate a
bathhouse at Hot Springs, AR, $1 million for a waterless urinal
initiative, $250,000 for turf grass research, $500,000 for a teapot
museum in North Carolina, $2 million for the Vulcan monument in Alabama
or $556,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute.
Some may argue these are small amounts of money. But Americans don't
understand when they can't stay in their homes or educate their kids or
they can't keep their jobs, why Congress continues to engage in this
practice.
Let me just say, in the interest of full disclosure, this problem was
exacerbated when Republicans took control of both Houses of Congress.
The Wall Street Journal says:
The reluctance to change is rooted in the Congressional
belief that earmarks are the main guarantee of incumbency.
Earmarks were relatively rare until the rise of the Tom DeLay
Republicans in the late 1990s. By 2005, the high-water mark
of the earmark craze, both parties had linked arms to add
13,500 pet projects to spending bills. Legislators crow about
their largesse and use it to land campaign money from earmark
recipients. This cash-for-votes mentality has become a symbol
of everything Americans hate about Washington. The recent
decision by the House ethics committee to put aside
allegations that seven House Members awarded earmarks in
order to secure campaign donations was another sign that
Congress wasn't serious about changing this culture of
special favors.
So I think, Madam President, we could take a major step in the
direction of restoring confidence in us if we would just stop using the
earmark process until the deficit is erased. I urge my colleagues to
consider this proposal and to reconsider their opposition to it.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today in support of the bill
that is before us--the FAA reauthorization legislation, which is
currently on the Senate floor. I thank Senator Dorgan, the neighboring
State to Minnesota, for his leadership on the committee and on the
subcommittee. I am proud to be a member of that subcommittee and to
have worked on this bill.
The air transportation system is important to all Americans and
certainly to the people of my State. Minnesota is the childhood home of
Charles Lindberg. Today, Minnesota is a major hub of Delta, which was
previously Northwest Airlines. It flies people literally all over the
world. We are also home to Cirrus Aircraft, which is one of the
manufacturers of smaller planes up in Duluth. We have thousands of
pilots and airline employees who fly each and every day, both for their
enjoyment as well as for their livelihood.
As anyone who has recently flown on an airplane knows, our airport
transportation system is strained and it is subject to increased
congestion and delay. Recent notable incidents have, in fact, called
into question the safety of our commercial aircraft as well as the
training of a few of the pilots who fly them. We know, for the most
part, that we have a very good air system, but we also know there must
be improvements, especially if we are going to compete on a global
basis with other countries that are working to update their air traffic
systems.
As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on
Aviation and someone who has worked hard to bring this legislation to
the floor of the Senate, I know this bill will address many of the
concerns of people around our country.
First, this legislation incorporates important safety improvements.
The tragedy of Colgan Air Flight No. 3407, which crashed outside of
Buffalo in February of last year, brought the safety of our airlines
back into the public eye and raised new questions about the safety of
regional aircraft and the training and experience of the pilots who fly
them.
We have had many hearings, thanks to Senator Dorgan, on this tragedy.
Every single time there were families of people who were killed in that
crash in the hearing room to remind us of the changes that need to be
made.
Pilots for these regional carriers are, in some cases, not trained as
well as for major carriers. They are overtired and underpaid. In fact,
some regional pilots earn so little that they take second and sometimes
third jobs. Many pilots live far away from their bases, leading to long
commutes and even longer hours spent waiting in airports.
The facts surrounding the Buffalo crash bear this out. The first
officer,
[[Page S1701]]
who earned around $20,000 a year, flew to Newark on a red-eye flight on
the day of the accident. She arrived at 6:30 a.m. and reports indicate
she spent the entire day in the Newark airport sending text messages to
her friends before her shift began. The evidence also suggests the
pilot was up for large parts of the night before the flight. Once on
the plane, the pilot and the first officer broke FAA policy by engaging
in nonessential banter and conversation during critical times of the
flight. And the flight data recorder indicated the crew was
inexperienced, poorly trained, and ill-prepared for the tough weather
conditions that night.
As the first officer told the pilot--and this is an exact quote--and
I will never forget this because being from Minnesota, we have a lot of
ice issues, and it is where, in fact, Senator Wellstone was killed in a
crash, in part because of poor pilot training and icing issues. This is
the quote of the first officer on that plane, before that plane went
down in Buffalo:
I've never seen icing conditions. I've never de-iced. I've
never experienced any of that.
Imagine the chilling effect of those words on the families of those
who died in that crash.
Many people in my State rely on regional jets to connect them to each
other and to the world. As I have said before, a passenger should be as
safe on a regional carrier going from Minneapolis to Duluth as they
would be on a Boeing 767 flying from Los Angeles to New York.
This legislation will help us do just that. In particular, the bill
will require the FAA to adopt new rules on pilot fatigue, rules that
have not been updated since the 1950s. And the bill will boost pilot
training requiring that the pilots meet certain standards before being
allowed in the cockpit so we will not have to hear those words again,
Senator Dorgan, ``I've never seen icing conditions. I've never de-iced
. . . I've never experienced any of that.''
In short, this legislation will help raise the safety standards for
regional jets and pilots and ensure one level of safety for all
commercial aircraft in this country. The thing I most remember is there
is an argument, in fact, that regional flights are even more difficult
than the big passenger planes. Why? They have to land and land and
land, have shorter flights, and they actually are more tiring and they
have a better chance of encountering difficult weather conditions, so
we should have one level of safety for all commercial aircraft in this
country.
Recent safety incidents have not only highlighted concerns with
regional airlines but with major carriers as well. In 2008 we learned
that some major carriers had kept flying aircraft in need of necessary
repairs and that the FAA may have actually known about it. The
disclosure of these safety lapses led to thousands of flight
cancellations, and these safety lapses and cancellations raised
questions about the FAA's ability to enforce our safety laws and
regulations.
What we learned is troubling. The Department of Transportation's
inspector general described an ``overly collaborative relationship''
between FAA management and the airlines they regulated.
To help recalibrate the balance between the FAA and the carriers,
Senator Snowe and I introduced the Aviation Safety Enhancement Act to
ensure that the FAA does more than just trust that the airlines comply
with all Federal safety regulations. In particular, the legislation,
which has been incorporated into the FAA reauthorization bill we are
now considering, puts a stop to the so-called revolving door between
the FAA and the carriers by requiring a cooling-off period for FAA
inspectors before they can work for the airlines and interact with the
FAA.
It also establishes a whistleblower office in the FAA and creates a
roving ``National Review Board'' that will travel around to various FAA
inspection offices to conduct safety reviews and unannounced audits.
These unannounced safety audits are important.
I tend to straighten up my house a bit before I know my mother-in-law
is coming over and that is why I know that if you have an unannounced
visit, you might have a different result than an announced visit. These
unannounced safety audits will be very important to make sure things
are in order, that facilities are in order, and help ensure that the
carriers remain focused on safety and that the FAA remains true to its
mission, to protect the American flying public.
We also need to pass this FAA reauthorization bill because it would
put a passenger bill of rights into law. The need for a passenger bill
of rights was made clear to me and other Minnesotans last summer. Just
ask Link Christin. On August 7, Link was aboard Continental Flight
2816, a flight from Houston Intercontinental Airport to Minneapolis-St.
Paul when it was redirected to the Rochester airport in Rochester, MN
due to severe weather. It landed in Rochester around midnight and the
passengers were not allowed off the plane until 6 a.m. the next day,
midnight to 6 am. The passengers aboard the flight described the
experience as a ``nightmare,'' saying they were not given any food or
drinks during the time waiting, things smelled, there were babies on
the plane. It is as if common sense had flown out the window, but the
windows were not open. No passengers should have to go through what
Link and the other passengers aboard Continental Flight 2816 went
through--forced to remain on the tarmac for 6 hours without food, in an
increasingly uncomfortable cabin atmosphere, and denied the opportunity
to deplane when the airport was only yards away. The FAA
reauthorization bill we are considering today helps ensure we don't
have any more stories such as Link Christin's. I appreciate Secretary
LaHood's leadership on this already, but we should be putting this into
law.
In particular, the bill requires that airlines provide passengers
with food, water, and adequate restrooms during a delay. The passenger
bill of rights would also require airplanes to return to the gate once
the plane has sat on the ground for 3 hours--or 3.5 hours if the pilot
thinks the plane will take off before then.
Finally, this bill helps upgrade our air traffic control system to
the next generation, the NextGen system of air traffic control
technology. We have focused a lot lately on roads and bridges which I
know, coming from Minnesota where the bridge fell down in the middle of
a summer day, are critically important parts of our Nation's
infrastructure, but our national aviation infrastructure is just as
important. The current air traffic control technology, developed in the
1950s and used by the FAA today, is based on outdated technology that
relies on ground-based radar systems, voice communications, and
fragmented weather forecasts. With NextGen, a system that uses
satellites rather than ground-based radar, both pilots and controllers
will have the benefit of virtual maps, up-to-date weather reports, and
other real-time information.
The result is a more efficient use of our airspace, safer skies, and
less congested airports. That is something we should all be able to
support.
In this bill we make sure that NextGen is a national priority by
giving it the resources and the attention it needs to get the program
up and running.
The aviation system is too crucial a part of our Nation's
infrastructure and too important to our Nation's economy to let the
problems go unaddressed. This bill modernizes our air traffic control
system, our air transport system, it puts in that passenger bill of
rights, it does something about pilot safety and training, and all the
things we know need to get done here. It helps to ensure that our
system is in fact the safest in the world. We have waited too long to
pass this bill. But now is the time when the rubber meets the runway.
It is time to pass the FAA reauthorization and I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to briefly comment about the
Pryor amendment that has been offered as an alternate, a side-by-side,
or cover amendment to the Sessions-McCaskill amendment that would take
the budget limits that were passed by this Congress and make those more
difficult to violate by creating a two-thirds vote for it. I would say
a couple of things about the Pryor amendment.
[[Page S1702]]
It is not good and we should not vote for it. It pretends to have
good motives, and maybe it does have good motives. But in fact it would
allow $62 billion more in spending over 3 years than the McCaskill-
Sessions amendment. It would instruct the deficit commission to propose
tax increases and entitlement cuts to pay for increases in
discretionary spending. The deficit commission was not meant for
raising taxes and cutting entitlements to pay for new discretionary
spending increases. The whole purpose of that was to figure out a way
to deal with the surging entitlements that are growing out of control
and to contain their growth.
How are we going to do that? We are going to do it two ways,
primarily. I suppose they will propose some sort of tax increases,
increase in Social Security withholding or increase in Medicare
withholding, and they will cut Medicare and Social Security benefits.
That is what real life is.
But this would instruct the commission to cut entitlement benefits,
Medicare, and Social Security, to increase taxes, and use it to fund
more discretionary spending. That is not good. People should not vote
for an amendment that would do that. We are going to have to wrestle
with the entitlement commission. It does not have binding authority, it
is a recommendation to us, and maybe they will have some
recommendations we can all support. But it is not going to be fun. It
is not going to be easy. There is no free lunch. Nothing comes from
nothing. Somebody must pay to fix the entitlements. They are at the
present time in surplus and the surplus they are producing from the
revenue from Social Security withholding and Medicare withholding is
being spent for discretionary spending. So to raise their income for
those accounts and to cut spending in those accounts to allow even more
spending on the discretionary side I think would be very unwise.
Perhaps that is not what was intended but that is what appears to me to
be pretty plainly what is going on in this amendment.
Second, the Republican counsel on the Budget Committee has advised
that the amendment would not only abandon the two-thirds requirement
that Senator McCaskill and I are proposing to violate the budget, but
it actually would eliminate the point of order that currently requires
60 votes to violate the budget. Currently, if somebody proposes a
spending amount that violates the budget, any Senator can object and it
would take 60 votes to waive the budget to allow this extra spending to
occur. The way we are reading this amendment is that it would
dramatically weaken the existing law and eliminate this point of order
that would even require 60 votes. That has not proven to be a very
effective tool. The two-thirds vote would be better.
I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to share these remarks and
urge my colleagues to resist the Democratic leadership's injunctions
and pressures to vote against the Sessions-McCaskill amendment. I know
18 Democrats have already voted for it. It is a bipartisan bill. We
worked at it together in a good way. It has the ability to take a
significant, though not dramatic, but a solid step in the right
direction. I am disappointed we are now proposing an alternative
amendment that will not be as effective and that the leadership on the
Democratic side is opposing. If Senator Reid and Senator Durbin said:
Fine, you can vote for this if you like or: We are going to vote for
it, do what you want, Senator, it would pass like that. But it is their
leadership decision that has put us in a difficult position and makes
it more difficult for us to get 60 votes. I hope we can, but it may not
occur.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise today to speak about this
critical legislation we have before us--The Federal Aviation
Administration Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement
Act.
I wish to thank Chairman Rockefeller, Chairman Dorgan, Ranking
Members Hutchison and DeMint for their hard work on this critical
legislation.
I share the concerns raised by Chairman Dorgan, as he spoke on the
floor about the need to advance this legislation, and implement a
number of vital improvements to the safety and security of our aviation
system
On the night of February 12, 2009, Continental flight 3407, operated
by Colgan Air, departed Newark Airport bound for Buffalo, NY.
The 45 passengers and 5 crewmembers were just miles from the airport
when a series of events resulted in the death of all aboard as well as
a father on the ground whose home was the unfortunate final resting
place of flight 3407.
Over this last year, I have gotten to know many of the families of
the victims very well. They are a constant presence here in Washington,
DC, working to improve safety conditions so that others are spared from
the horror and loss that they have experienced.
Sitting in my office last spring, as the NTSB began to release
information on the crash, I discussed with the families the tremendous
value of their advocacy. For decades the system has been slow to change
and in the mean time innocent lives have been lost.
We discussed the possibility of seizing on this very legislation as a
vehicle of change--to bring accountability and transparency to the
system--to strengthen the training requirements and push forward to
achieving not just ``one level of safety'' but a ``higher level of
safety''.
That conversation began a year-long campaign by the families who, on
their own dime, have been here at every aviation-safety hearing both in
the Senate and House and have frequented Senator's offices with the
steadfast determination to turn this tragedy into a clarion call for
change.
We must remember the people we lost in the Buffalo crash.
An expecting mother, a community health advocate, a young couple in
love, an international human rights leader, a second-year law student.
These were mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters,
taken suddenly, their passions and dreams left for those closest to
them to honor and pursue.
Beverly Eckert died in that crash. She was a national leader, who
took her personal tragedy of losing her husband on September 11, and
became a leading advocate for the 9/11 families. She was on her way to
Buffalo that night to celebrate her late husband's birthday with
family, and to honor a student at Canisius High School with a
scholarship named for her husband.
Gerry Niewood, was a noted jazz musician, Rochester native and
graduate of the Eastman School of Music and University at Buffalo.
Gerry was on his way to Buffalo to join his long-time friend and Grammy
winner Chuck Mangione in a concert with the Buffalo Philharmonic
Orchestra.
The details surrounding the tragedy of flight 3407 have been well-
documented.
We know that for the 2 days prior to that night, the captain, who had
a history of training failures, had not slept in a bed, commuting from
his home in Florida.
The copilot, who had complained of illness during the trip, had also
not slept in a bed the night before, commuting from her home in
Seattle, with a stop in Memphis, to her duty station at LaGuardia.
I don't know of many jobs, especially those where people's lives are
in your hands, that can be done under these circumstances.
Although not specifically addressed in this underlying bill, this
issue of commuting and duty time, is but one of many factors that came
together to result in this tragedy.
Working with my colleague, Senator Schumer, we advanced legislation
that would raise the minimum standards for new commercial pilots. A
version of this proposal, which was endorsed by the Families of Flight
3407, has been secured in this underlying legislation.
The new standards would increase the minimum flight hours for
commercial hires from the current 250 hours to 800 for copilots. Apart
from just more flight time experience, the new regulations would
increase the quality of that training, not just the quantity.
The proposal requires the Administrator of the FAA to engage in
rulemaking that requires that beyond the 800 hours minimum pilots must
demonstrate effective operation of aircraft in: multipilot conditions;
adverse weather conditions, including icing conditions, as was the case
with flight
[[Page S1703]]
3407; high altitude operations; and basic standards of cockpit
professionalism and operations in part of the airline industry.
A major concern that I share with the families, is that often times,
when left to their own, the FAA has a poor track record in acting on
updating regulations.
This legislation will give the FAA until end of next year to enact
these new regulations or a more stringent set of regulations will
become the across-the-board standard.
Also, included in this bill is the crux of the Flight 3407 Memorial
Act, my legislation that would require the FAA to report back to
Congress on all new safety recommendations issues by the National
Transportation Safety Board investigative reports.
Time and time again the FAA has failed to enhance training
requirements and other safety measures. The version of the reporting
requirements that I secured in the underlying bill will not only
require the FAA to respond to NTSB recommendations, but let the
American people know what actions they are taking, and the timeline by
which they will act on recommendations.
This will ensure that the voices of the families are not only heard,
but responded to.
Instituting this level of oversight is critical as we look to assure
the Families of Flight 3407, and all Americans who travel by air, that
those responsible for acting on the recommendations of safety experts,
are not simply filing those recommendations away in a filing cabinet,
never to see the light of day. They are listening and implementing
safer standards and procedures.
I am grateful for the hard work of the Commerce Committee and
leadership in bringing this important bill forward.
The steps taken in this legislation begin to address the culture of
inaction that helped contribute to the crash outside Buffalo.
It is time to learn the lessons of the past, change the culture of
inaction, and make air travel safer for all of us.
We owe it to those lost to never forget, and to continue our work to
address the serious concerns raised over the last year.
I look forward to seeing these improvements contained in this
critical legislation enacted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, before the Senator leaves the floor, let
me say that the families of the victims of the Colgan crash--the
tragedy that occurred just about a year ago now--have been unrelenting
in coming to the Congress, appearing at every single hearing, meeting
with Members of Congress, saying: We want these changes.
I just wanted to say I know the families know but New Yorkers should
know the work Senator Gillibrand has done, and Senator Schumer as well,
to try to include in this legislation, the FAA Reauthorization Act,
some very needed changes, safety changes, that resulted from what we
learned in investigating that accident.
Senator Gillibrand talked about the fact that 2 people entered the
cockpit of a commercial plane that evening, and then a number of
people--45 people--entered from another door and filled that commercial
airplane and set off at night, in bad weather, with icing conditions.
The two people in the cockpit--the person flying in the left seat, the
captain, had not slept in a bed for 2 nights, and the copilot had not
slept in a bed the night before. As Senator Gillibrand indicated, she
had deadheaded from Seattle, WA, which is where she lived, to go to
work, to a workstation in La Guardia. This is a young copilot who was
paid between $20,000 and $23,000 a year in salary deadheading across
the country to get to her duty station, not feeling particularly well,
sitting in the crew lounge, where there is no bed.
The point is, we have learned that is just the fatigue issue and the
commuting issue. We learned about training issues in that cockpit with
the stick pusher, the stick shaker, icing conditions, and other things.
So I want to say we have learned so much from that tragedy.
Our hearts go out to the victims of the crash, and, yes, the pilot
and copilot lost their lives as well, and our hearts go out to their
families. But it is important for us to learn from this. The diligence
of Senator Gillibrand and Senator Schumer, especially, and I would say
especially the witness exhibited by the families of the victims over
all of these months have been extraordinarily important in putting in
this bill some very needed safety changes. So I thank Senator
Gillibrand for her diligence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I would like to speak on my amendment
here for a few minutes, somewhat in response to Senator Sessions but
really more just to ask my colleagues to please consider voting for the
Pryor amendment.
This reminds me of a conversation I had a few years ago with a friend
of mine in Arkansas. He is kind of a member of the deficits-do-not-
matter club. This was probably 6 years ago. I was a pretty new Senator
here.
I said: Look, we have to start to get this thing turned around. Some
of the policies we have done here are not good, not sustainable for the
country.
He told me back then that deficits do not matter. And where I
disagree with him and others like him I said: Look, anytime any of us
walk into a bank or some other financial institution and want to borrow
money, the first question they ask is, How are you going to pay it
back? That is what they want to know: How are you going to pay it back?
The problem we have had around here for years now is that we have no
plan to pay this money back--none. We have no plan to pay this money
back, and that is why we are just pushing it off down the road to
where, you know, we do not have to make the hard decisions.
But I want to tell you right now, our children and grandchildren do
not appreciate what we are doing to them. We have to take
responsibility for us living beyond our means. The way I look at this
is that in America for too long, we have lived beyond our means. Our
government has done that. Corporate America has done that. There is too
much debt in corporate America. We have seen that over the last year
and a half. Also, individuals and families have done that. We have done
that on a personal basis with too much debt. And we all need to take
responsibility. We all need to manage that and manage our way out of
that situation.
My amendment basically, as much as anything, communicates to the
American public, it communicates to the global economy, it communicates
to all of the economists and all of those experts on Wall Street, all
other places all around the world, that we are capable of making these
difficult decisions and that we are willing to make the hard calls in
order to get this done.
I know one of the criticisms we are going to have on the Pryor
amendment is that it may lead to raising taxes. Certainly, I hope it
does not. But we have to be willing, in this Chamber and in that
Chamber down the hall and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we have to be
willing to make these hard choices, these hard calls. That is what we
call leadership and that is what we call democracy.
People elect us to come to Washington to make difficult calls. The
easiest thing we can do is to be fiscally irresponsible. It is like in
our own personal house. Hey, I would love to have a bass boat. I would
love to buy a new car every year. I would like to have a lake house.
But I cannot afford those things. In this Nation, we have gotten to the
point where we cannot afford to have it all.
The Pryor amendment really gets us back in the zone where we can
manage this fiscal picture we have, and hopefully what we can do, over
the next 10, 12, 15 years, however long it is going to take, we can
actually get back to a surplus and make a significant dent in paying
off the national debt. I think we have to do that. It is imperative
that we start now.
That is what the Pryor amendment is about and really the biggest
advantage over the Sessions-McCaskill amendment. Again, I have total
respect for these two Senators. They have spent a long time on this.
They have been working on this for a long time. But I think the
limitation of their amendment and really the big shortfall there is
that it only deals with discretionary spending. As I showed you earlier
in
[[Page S1704]]
the pie chart, that is a very small piece of the fiscal pie. We need to
put it all on the table, and we need to show the American public we are
serious. We need to show them that we are willing to take this on; that
we have the discipline it requires to restore fiscal responsibility
here in this government; that we can reduce the deficit, and that we
can return our Nation once again back to a fiscally sound path. That is
really what this issue is about today.
I very strongly encourage Members on both sides of the aisle to look
at the Pryor amendment. I encourage you to vote for mine. I think it is
a more comprehensive approach than Senator Sessions' and Senator
McCaskill's. As I said, I voted for that one twice before in previous
iterations of it. It has changed a little bit. I voted for it before.
But I have come to the conclusion that we need a comprehensive
solution. We need to put it all on the table. And we need to show the
leadership--this country is crying out for leadership. We need to show
some leadership on this issue and show people we are serious and
willing to do what it takes in order to get this done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. We are on the FAA reauthorization bill. I want to comment
on the discussion of my colleague from Arkansas, but I will do that
briefly.
I did want to say before that, however, that we really threaten to
lose this bill. We have been on the floor now 5 days. We have a number
of amendments. We are going to vote at 2 o'clock today on a couple of
amendments that are properly filed, but they have nothing to do with
the underlying bill. We have some other amendments still waiting that
have nothing to do with the underlying bill. And then we have this
issue of slot rules and perimeter rules with National Airport, which is
unbelievably complicated. I think we have eight amendments, and my hope
is that we can convince people not to offer those amendments. We will
try to deal with them in conference because the House has a couple of
provisions. But if we do not complete this bill today, after 5 days,
then I worry we will never get back to it and once again the issues of
aviation safety and airport improvement funds and all of those issues
will be left at the starting gate.
We have extended this 11 times. Rather than reauthorizing the FAA
bill, we have extended it 11 times.
Now we finally have legislation that deals with aviation safety,
which is so unbelievably important, a passengers' Bill of Rights, AIP
improvement funds. Let's get this done today. I urge colleagues, if
they have amendments to offer, offer them.
As to the vote at 2 o'clock, Senator Pryor has offered an amendment
that one of my colleagues described as a cover amendment, not very
serious. That is unfair to Senator Pryor. His amendment is not only
serious, it is so much better than an amendment described as a baby
step. It is OK to take baby steps, but we don't exactly face baby
challenges. We have unbelievable fiscal policy challenges. It should
not surprise anybody that we face these unbelievable challenges. Ten
years ago, we had a budget surplus. President George Bush said: I want
very large tax cuts, the bulk of which will go to the wealthiest
Americans. Some of us said no. I said no. Katy bar the door, it
happened. It accounts for about 50 percent of the current deficit, as a
matter of fact, going forward.
Then we had a recession. Then we had a 9/11 attack. We had a war
against terrorism, a war in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and now back in
Afghanistan. None of that was paid for. All paid for with emergency
money stuck on top of the Federal debt. This is unsustainable. There is
no question how serious it is. But when we do address it, let's address
it in a way that tends to grab this problem and begins to fix it. My
colleague seemed to suggest, let's clean house, and we will only do the
smallest room. That doesn't make any sense to me. Senator Pryor has
offered an amendment that says: Let's look at all areas. I know why it
is the smallest room. Because the minute you talk about taxes, some
people here have an apoplectic seizure. What about asking people who
aren't paying their fair share to do so. What about asking those
earning the highest incomes in the land and paying a 15-percent tax
rate to begin paying what the rest of the American people pay? How
about that? Is that a tax increase? I suppose for somebody who makes
$3.6 billion in a year, which is $300 million a month or $10 million a
day, and that person, who incidentally was the highest income earner
running a hedge fund in 2008, that person not only got $10 million a
day in income but, because of the generosity of this Chamber and
others, gets to pay a 15-percent rate, one of the lowest income tax
rates.
Warren Buffett wrote an op-ed piece some while ago. I like Warren
Buffett. I have known him for some years, one of the world's richest
men. They did a little survey in his office in Omaha. Of the people who
work in that office, if you take a look at the taxes paid, income taxes
and payroll, the lowest tax rate paid was by one of the world's richest
people. A higher tax rate is paid by his receptionist than by him.
Think of that. Warren Buffett is the first to say that is not fair. It
is not right. You need to straighten that out. Under what we are going
to vote on proposed by the Sessions-McCaskill amendment, you couldn't
do that. They want to keep that over here because that would be trouble
if you decided to ask those folks to pay their fair share.
It is not a tax increase to ask others to pay what most Americans
pay. If you want all the benefits America has to offer, how about
meeting the responsibilities to your country?
That is a lengthy way of saying, Senator Pryor has offered an
amendment that says: Let's look at everything. Let's ask those who are
not paying their share to pay. Let's look at discretionary spending but
not only that. Look at all of it: Defense, entitlements, do it all, and
do it in a serious way with the seriousness of purpose that says to the
people looking to the future, we are going to get this under control.
We are going to seize this deficit and debt problem and tame it. We
don't have a choice. If we don't reestablish some confidence in the
future among the American people, this economy will not recover.
I briefly taught economics in college. I used to teach that this is
all about confidence. If people are confident, they do things that are
expansive to the economy--buy a suit, a car, a home, take a trip. They
do things that expand the economy. When they are not confident about
their families, about the future, they do exactly the opposite. They
delay the purchase. That contracts the economy. We need to do some
things that will give the American people some confidence that we are
not going to stay on this path. This path is unsustainable. It requires
us to look at every aspect of fiscal policy and domestic policy and
find a way to tame these deficits.
I strongly support the amendment offered by the Senator from
Arkansas. I don't agree it deserves to be called a cover amendment. It
has a much greater seriousness of purpose than the Sessions-McCaskill
amendment. I hope the Senate will see fit to support the amendment
offered by Senator Pryor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Unless my colleague from Arkansas wants to respond, I will
proceed.
Let me comment on the suggestion by the Senator from North Dakota
that we need to move on with this legislation. I agree. It could be
concluded this week. On the other hand, the matter that relates to the
perimeter rule and slots at the airport, while every bit as complicated
as my colleague suggested, is also very much in need of resolution. One
way or another, we will have to get that resolved on this bill. I am
hoping that after a meeting we will convene in a little less than an
hour, a compromise can be achieved such that we can move forward and
get something adopted. But we will not finish that bill until that
important issue is dealt with.
I will refrain from talking further about that in the hopes that
there is a compromise we can support.
Mr. DORGAN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KYL. Surely.
Mr. DORGAN. Let me observe that we were able to get that bill out of
the Commerce Committee because we did not deal with the slot issue. I
understand there is an appetite for slots and perimeters. The only way
we will get an FAA reauthorization bill done is if
[[Page S1705]]
we get it out of the Senate and get into conference somehow. That is
the dilemma. If we get involved in a lengthy debate with multiple
amendments on slots and perimeters, we may never get the FAA
authorization off the floor. We will never have the opportunity to get
all the other things that relate to that bill.
It seems to me we could in conference, even as it goes to conference,
work on a solution that would resolve some of the issues the Senator
mentioned.
Mr. KYL. I certainly appreciate the sentiment of my colleague. The
underlying bill is important to get done. These perimeter rule
revisions are important too. Our fear is, unless there is some action,
it will not be resolved, as it hasn't been in the past. I don't think
it has to be a lot of amendments or a huge amount of debate. I do think
we need the opportunity to have a vote or two on a couple of these
amendments. If they don't prevail, then so be it. But that is an issue
we will have to deal with one way or the other.
What I would like to do is change the subject a little bit and talk
about the proposals made by Senators Sessions and Pryor in a different
context. We just got the word from the Congressional Budget Office that
the new cost of the legislation on health care is going to be over $940
billion. Each iteration of this bill has seen an increase in the cost.
This is striking because, as we know, even though the Congressional
Budget Office has had to take the legislative language as it has been
given to them in providing the pricetag and, therefore, alleges that it
will not put us in deficit, the truth is, it will. If you double count
savings, if you assume savings that will not exist and so on, then you
can project a budget-neutral bill. I think most objective observers
have acknowledged that the bill will be far out of balance and that the
$940 billion price tag will not be paid for by the various taxes and
spending reductions ostensibly a part of the bill.
There is nearly $\1/2\ trillion dollars in Medicare cuts. Most people
think that is unrealistic. We have never been able to find that much
waste, fraud, and abuse in the past. It is going to be hard to find it
in the future. You can't assume we will save all that money.
It is true this new bill will also raise taxes. There are 12 or 13
new taxes in the bill. It supposedly raises about $\1/2\ trillion in
taxes. That includes on seniors, the chronically ill, and on the very
drugs and devices that help us when we are sick. I wonder how long
those taxes are going to last.
The bottom line is, we will be adding to the deficit under this
legislation or paying a lot more in taxes than we do today. The irony
is, we are not even solving the core problem we started out to try to
solve, which was to reduce the cost of health care premiums. CBO
confirms over and over again that premiums will continue to rise. They
say, in the individual market, this bill will cause premiums to soar by
10 to 13 percent in the year 2016 because the government is going to
force patients to buy benefits packages with coverage they may not need
or want.
According to Lewin Associates, an objective observer, the premiums
will go up even more. A third study, Oliver Wyman & Associates, has
projected that prices will exceed a 50-percent increase--in my State of
Arizona, a 72-percent increase in premiums--as a result of this
legislation. That is almost incomprehensible and it is wrong. The irony
is, the increases will be paid by small businesses that we are asking
to hire more people. It is going to paid for by young families and
individuals forced to buy insurance they don't believe they need right
now. Right now they have relatively low premiums because they have
relatively low health care needs. The bill will raise the cost of
insurance for many Americans and then, through new mandates, force
everyone to buy a policy and not just any policy but one that has
actually been written in Washington.
It adds a new entitlement we can't afford. There are so many other
things wrong with it. My point was not to go through all the things
wrong with the health care bill but, because we now know or we believe
the bill will be voted on in the House perhaps as early as Sunday and
we now have the new score, the biggest score yet of almost $1 trillion,
it is worth talking about in the context of the amendments on the floor
to try to deal with escalating spending.
During his campaign, President Obama made almost a fetish out of
saying he would fix the way Washington works. There would be no more
business as usual. But from what we have seen on the health care
debate, there has been arm-twisting and backroom deals and sweetheart
deals that end up buying the votes they need to pass the legislation
but add dramatically to the cost, as well as the unfairness, because
certain provisions of the bill are made inapplicable to certain favored
constituencies.
I have always thought, if the bill is such a great idea, why would
Members exempt their own constituents from the application of the bill.
One of the areas in which this is done is the cuts to Medicare. About
half of that comes from reducing the benefits under Medicare Advantage.
Medicare Advantage is enjoyed by a great many seniors who are on
Medicare, about 330,000 in my State of Arizona. Their benefits will be
dramatically decreased under the bill. Our colleague from Florida heard
an earful from his constituents, senior citizens, who said: Don't cut
my benefits under Medicare Advantage. He said OK. We will grandfather
you, and we will grandfather some folks from other States. But my
constituents in Arizona don't get grandfathered. Their benefits are
going to be cut. How is that fair? How is that right?
Let me run through a couple of these other special deals.
Unfortunately, not everybody gets the advantage of these special deals.
There was the so-called ``Louisiana purchase,'' $300 million. I don't
know the page of the new bill, but in the old bill it is section 2006,
page 432, line 14. The ``Gator aid,'' which is the thing I was just
talking about, grandfathers Medicare Advantage patients to the tune of
about $25 to $30 billion from the cost of rather than from the effects
of reducing their Medicare Advantage benefit. There are some other
States that get specific benefits as a result of Medicaid patients who
are added to the rolls: Vermont, $600 million; Massachusetts, $500
million.
There are three targeted FMAP provisions: bonuses for Vermont,
Massachusetts, and Nebraska. Vermont gets a 2.2-percent FMAP increase
for 6 years for their entire program. Massachusetts gets a half-a-
percent increase for 3 years. Nebraska gets a 100-percent FMAP increase
for newly eligibles forever. That was this new particular deal.
Under the disproportionate payment section, Hawaii is alone among the
States that get an extension. Michigan and Connecticut get a special
benefit under section 508 so that their hospitals have an option to
benefit under that section if it means higher payments. This was also
done in previous legislation.
Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming get a special deal:
an amendment that adds 1 percent to the hospital wage index for those
States. There are other States that would qualify but would not benefit
because they are already above the 1-point wage index value. It also
establishes a 1.0-practice expense floor for physicians in those
particular States.
One of my colleagues got a benefit for his constituents in Libby, MT:
Medicare coverage for individuals. The EPA has announced there is a
public health emergency at a Superfund site there, so they get a
special advantage.
It is interesting that while the Nebraska ``Cornhusker kickback'' got
a lot of attention, two other benefits for Nebraska entities did not.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska and Michigan Blue Cross Blue
Shield and also Mutual of Omaha get special benefits--so two in
Nebraska and one in Michigan. They get a carve-out. One of them gets a
carve-out from the insurance fee for Medigap policies and the other the
insurance fee paid to these two particular companies.
Connecticut hospital--Senator Dodd from Connecticut took credit for
getting $100 million for a hospital in his State.
I could go on and on.
The point is, the process by which the legislation has been put
together, as well as its substance, is what has caused the American
people to have an extraordinarily low opinion of Congress. The latest
trick, this so-called
[[Page S1706]]
scheme to deem the legislation the Senate passed--passed without a
vote; in other words, passing a law without ever voting on it--is just
the latest of the chicanery that appears to be engaged in, in the House
of Representatives now, in order to get around the Senate bill, which,
as the Speaker said, her Members do not like and do not want to vote
on.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record an editorial from this morning from one of my hometown
newspapers, the Arizona Republic, which discusses what they call the
end run by Democrats as a travesty, and they discuss this so-called
scheme to deem in the editorial.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Arizona Republic, Mar. 18, 2010]
End Run by Dems Is a Travesty
Last Sunday, The Arizona Republic published a brief
editorial chiding Democrats in the U.S. House for considering
an elusive, patently preposterous method for passing their
epic health-care legislation.
In point of fact, we did not believe at the time they were
serious. We saw desperation. A grasping at straws. A
passionate willingness to consider any means necessary, even
something like ``deeming''--a sleight of hand that in theory
might leave no fingerprints.
But we did not truly believe the Congress of the United
States ever would attempt to pass a measure reconfiguring an
entire sector of the American economy by obscure
parliamentary trickery. Without a real vote on the measure at
hand.
We thought they would come to their senses. They have not.
Aghast, astonished and still agog at the brass on display, we
can only say . . . this . . . is . . . not . . . right.
In one of the more memorable acknowledgements in this
historic fight over health-care reform, House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi said Monday that ``nobody wanted to vote for the
Senate bill.'' That may be the case, but it does not justify
this end run.
The intent of the Democrats is to vote to pass a package of
amendments to the Senate legislation passed on Christmas Eve.
Once the amendments bill is passed, Pelosi intends to invoke
a ``self-executing rule'' to ``deem'' the legislation on
which the amendments is based--the Senate bill--passed, sans
vote.
Their mission is to throw a thick cloud of smoke over
events, thus giving (make that, attempting to give) reluctant
Democratic members of Congress plausible deniability
regarding their vote.
The Democrats' majority leader, Rep. Steny Hoyer, insists
the practice ``is consistent with the rules'' and is
``consistent with former practice.'' It is neither, if by
rules and ``former practice'' one means abandoning a clear
Constitutional expectation that a bill should pass by vote of
both houses of Congress, especially a bill costing trillions
and impacting one-sixth of the nation's economy.
The tactic has been employed by both parties but never
regarding anything nearly this substantive. Indeed,
Democrats, including Pelosi, took Republicans to court in
2005 to oppose its use. They said it was unconstitutional.
They were outraged. Really.
Any vote in support of an abomination like this ``self-
executing rule'' should be viewed for what it is: an
abdication of responsibility regarding the most significant
social legislation in 70 years. It will not provide the cover
Pelosi thinks. We will see the fingerprints.
The positions of Arizona's congressional delegation
regarding support for the Senate health-care bill and the
deeming procedure, as of Thursday:
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-District 1: Would vote in support
of the bill. Has not indicated whether she would support
deeming.
Rep. Trent Franks, R-District 2: Opposed to the bill and
deeming.
Rep. John Shadegg, R-District 3: Opposed to the bill and
deeming.
Rep. Ed Pastor, D-District 4: Officially uncommitted, but
support for the bill is considered likely. Position regarding
deeming unknown.
Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-District 5: Positions unknown.
Spokesman says it would be ``irresponsible to speculate on
hypothetical procedures, bills, votes.''
Rep. Jeff Flake, R-District 6: Opposed to the bill and
deeming.
Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-District 7: Officially uncommitted,
although many vote tallies consider Grijalva a likely
supporter of the bill. Position regarding deeming unknown.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-District 8: Has indicated
support for both the Senate bill and deeming.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, will the Senator from Arizona take a
question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. KYL. Yes, I will. I was about to get to the final point, which is
the matter on which my colleague from Tennessee is the expert, and that
is the latest item to try to flavor the legislation to get more votes;
namely, to have the Federal Government take over student loans. But,
yes, I will yield.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator, and I will sit down and listen to
his explanation on the other issue. But I heard the Senator mention the
news this morning, that the new bill--which we have not seen, and
which, suddenly, of course, as is usually the case, we have to rush and
pass over the weekend before we read it--is going to save the
government money. I do not think very many Americans believe that.
But my question is this: I wonder if the Senator knows whether this
comprehensive health care bill--which is going to ``save'' the
government money; not run up the deficit--includes the amount of money
it costs the government to pay doctors to serve Medicare patients. If
it does not include that amount--which I believe I heard the
Representative from Wisconsin say was $371 billion in the President's
budget over 10 years--would that not be like asking the Congressional
Budget Office to tell you the cost of a horse farm without the horses?
Can the Senator from Arizona imagine a comprehensive health care
program that does not include the cost of paying doctors to serve
Medicare patients? If it does not, does that not clearly mean that just
that one provision will guarantee that the bill will increase the
Federal deficit?
Mr. KYL. Madam President, my colleague from Tennessee is exactly
correct. Just that one item alone--of course it is part of Medicare;
you have to pay doctors to take care of you in Medicare--and if you do
not include the cost of that, then obviously you are not identifying
the true costs of the legislation, and just that item alone would be
enough to knock it out of balance.
I did not even get into all the double counting and the other ways in
which they try to game the system so it makes it look like you have
saved money, but you have not. One of our friends, Stephen Moore, I
heard, had this analogy. He said: This is a great deal: Gee, you cover
an additional 30 million people and you save money. Gee, at that rate,
we should cover everybody in China. We could really reduce the deficit.
Well, I think it makes the point. The American people have broken the
code here. We are not going to save money by adding more people to the
rolls. That may be a good idea. It may be that we should subsidize
people, but let's acknowledge the true cost, and that gets back to the
amendment of our colleague from Alabama, the amendment that is pending
on the floor. He says we have to stop spending so much, so let's do
something very modest. Let's put a cap using last year's budget. We are
not talking about cutting way back. We are not cutting into muscle or
bone or anything like that; we are just saying: OK, if it was good
enough for 2010, let's stop there. Let's have a little hold, let's have
a little pause here before we add a whole lot more money to the
deficit.
My State of Arizona has had to cut well over $1 billion out of its
budget. I think it is closer to $2 billion. They are cutting
significant elements that the State has paid for in the past. The city
representatives were in seeing us yesterday and last week the county
representatives. They are all having to dramatically cut what they
provide in the way of government services.
But we in the Federal Government, we keep right on going as if there
were no problem at all. That is why the amendment that is pending--I
guess we are going to vote on it in about an hour--the amendment by
Senators McCaskill and Sessions is one we need to support and to vote
against any other amendments that appear to try to provide savings but,
in fact, do not.
I will close here because I see my colleague on the floor. The last
thing I want to mention is the latest gimmick to get support for this
health care legislation: adding something that has nothing to do with
health. It is the Federal Government takeover of the student loan
program. A lot of folks in the country have gotten student loans for
their kids to go to college. It is a process that has worked. It is
federally guaranteed so banks are able to make those loans at a
relatively low rate of interest. It is a good deal for kids who want to
go to college.
Well, the Obama administration--which has taken over car companies,
taken over other insurance companies, now wants to take over health
care and has taken over, partially, banks--now
[[Page S1707]]
wants to take over student loans. It has made them part of this
legislation. We do not know for sure exactly how because we have not
seen the bill yet. But allegedly it is made a part of this legislation.
My colleague from Tennessee has been very good at pointing out that
actually it is going to cost people more money because the government
gets to borrow money at 2.8 percent interest, then it is going to loan
it out at 6.8 percent interest, and then take the difference in the two
and pay for additional government programs.
To me, though, one of the most pernicious things is that after July,
you are not going to be able to pick the lender that best fits your
needs or your kids' needs to go to college. You get to go to a Federal
bureaucrat who is going to decide that for you. Instead of something
like 3,000 different places where you can go to get this, I think there
are going to be four call centers. Good luck. If you think it is slow
down at the motor vehicle division or the Post Office, good luck trying
to get a loan for your kid now to go to college.
As my colleague, Senator Alexander, wrote in the Washington Post:
[Y]ou'll work longer to pay off your student loan to help
pay for someone else's education--and to help your U.S.
representative's reelection.
This is a bad idea. To try to fold this into the health care
legislation is a doubly bad idea. The bottom line is, our House
Democratic colleagues who are now being very strongly pressured to vote
for this health care legislation are not going to be able to fix any of
this. Because when the bill comes over to the Senate, and they
supposedly have put the fixes in it, the reality is that every one of
those things that is subject to a point of order will be stricken from
the bill on a point of order. Some things can be amended, of course. So
the House is going to have to deal with the bill at least one more time
if, in fact, they pass it this weekend. The Senate is not going to bail
them out, as some of them apparently think may be the case.
So I throw that note of caution to my colleagues in the House who may
be thinking of supporting this bill on the grounds that the Senate is
going to clean it up. In fact, that is not going to happen.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I say to Senator Kyl, you have worked on this issue for
many years. You are one of the Senate's leaders, the assistant
Republican leader, and a leader in the Finance Committee. Isn't it true
we have known for some time that we are losing doctors who are
declining to do Medicare work and that if we do not take action, they
will have a dramatic 20-plus percent cut in their pay? Every year we
have known that cannot happen, so we have found the money to put back
into it. One of the announced purposes for the President's health care
reform was to fix this problem.
First, I understand from your conversation with Senator Alexander
that this problem has not been fixed in the bill at all. Then of
course, when you figure out how much the bill costs, it does not
reflect that we need, under the new estimates, $300 billion more. So if
they are claiming the bill is going to create a surplus of $130
billion, you would have a $200 billion or so deficit on the doctor fix
alone; is that correct?
Mr. KYL. Yes. Madam President, my colleague is exactly correct, and
the math is correct as well. It is very disappointing to me because
most of the doctors with whom I have spoken are very afraid of this
legislation. They are afraid of what it will do in their practices in
the way they will be able to deal with their patients. They are also
afraid because they can see this continued downward pressure on
reimbursements they receive. Frankly, a lot of them are saying: We are
not going to be able to take Medicare patients in the future.
In my own State of Arizona, in fact, the Mayo Clinic has already
announced that at two or three of its facilities, it is not going to
take new Medicare patients. So that is one of the things that should be
fixed in the health care bill. It is not fixed.
It disappoints me that even though the medical association has urged
they take out a very pernicious amendment that deals with specialty
hospitals--basically, it cuts specialty hospitals off in the future;
and the AMA has fought very hard to allow specialty hospitals to exist,
but that is not going to get fixed in this bill--even though they have
sought to be excluded from the Medicare cuts that are in the Medicare
Commission here--that is supposedly going to save $250 billion or so;
that has not been fixed--and even though they need to have the basic
reimbursement section, the so-called SGR, fixed--and as my colleague
has just pointed out, it is not fixed in the legislation--what is
disappointing to me is--and those are three of the most critical
elements of this bill because of the effect it will have on the
treatment of their patients--the American Medical Association is still
toying with the idea of supporting the legislation, when the vast
majority of physicians in the country, in my opinion, do not support
the legislation. Again, it is primarily because of the effect they
think it will have on their patients.
I would close by saying, all of these----
Mr. SESSIONS. I have one more question of the distinguished Senator.
Mr. KYL. OK.
Mr. SESSIONS. The way this new benefit is funded, as I understand it,
is through a $500 billion cut to Medicare and increased Medicare taxes.
Wouldn't it be the correct thing for policymakers to take that money
first and strengthen Medicare and pay the doctors whom we owe instead
of starting an entirely new program, leaving the doctors unpaid, and
raiding Medicare benefits?
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I will conclude by saying, absolutely yes.
This is one of the good ideas Republicans had. Rather than creating a
new entitlement, taking money from Medicare to fund that new
entitlement, the savings we believe we can achieve in Medicare should
be applied to keeping Medicare solvent for another 17 years or whatever
amount of time this money could provide.
Then, if we are going to expend money, let's use it to pay the hard-
working physicians and all the other providers, the RNs, the folks in
the hospitals, and everybody else whom we want there to take care of us
when we get sick. Let's make sure that money is available there and
that we have some kind of permanent resolution of this problem so we do
not have to come back and try to fix it every year.
Those are just some of the things we believe should be done rather
than to scrap the whole system we have, replace it with this new
government-operated behemoth that takes over this big section of our
economy, pushes government bureaucrats between patients and their
physicians and ends up providing enormous new taxes, without cutting
the premiums--in fact, allowing premiums to go up even more than they
would have otherwise. Other than that, it is a nifty idea. Of course, I
am being facetious. The health care bill, in my opinion, is not a good
idea.
My last point is simply to urge my colleagues in the House to
appreciate the fact that the Senate is not going to bail them out by
cleaning up the Senate bill, which we already passed here, and they
should not be voting for this legislation under the false assumption
that somehow we are going to make all those changes in the Senate bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN Of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak
as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks
on health care, Senator Tester be permitted to take the floor to talk
about health care.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Health Care
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I don't know where to start. I
listened to Senator Kyl, whom I really do like personally, and respect,
but I just hear so much. Of course, it is not just Senator Kyl; it is
almost all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have
just engaged in scare tactics.
First, they try to scare the middle class and scare people who have
parents who are older by talking about
[[Page S1708]]
death panels. Well, that didn't work because nobody believed that. Some
people believed it, but most rational people didn't believe it. Then
they try to scare people who have health insurance by saying it is
going to be taken away. Then they try to scare senior citizens by
saying we are going to cut Medicare. Now--this is almost funny--they
are trying to scare House Members. These poor, innocent House Members
who can't figure things out on their own, we need Senate Republicans to
tell them all about these House rules and Senate rules and
reconciliation. It is a little bit funny but, again, it is not very
funny because it is standing in the way of what we need to do for the
American people.
I am particularly amused--again, probably a wrong choice of words--
when my Republican colleagues talk about cutting Medicare. Just look at
the history. They have built careers trying to destroy Medicare. I
haven't been around here since 1965 by a long shot, but I sure read
about 1965. The Presiding Officer knows this history. She has talked to
people in Charlotte and Winston-Salem. I have talked to people in
Dayton and in other areas of my State about it.
In 1965, Republicans used the same arguments. They thought that
Medicare might be a government takeover. Then, the John Birch Society
made all of these claims about Medicare, as the tea party is doing
today about this health care bill. It wasn't true. It didn't matter
that it wasn't true. They said government bureaucrats were going to get
between you and your doctor. That is what they predicted with Medicare,
and that is what they predict now. It didn't happen. In 1965, half of
America's seniors had no health insurance. Today, 1 percent of
America's seniors have no health insurance.
It didn't just end in 1965 when Republicans in large numbers and
these same insurance company interest groups--I might add, the
Republicans' most important benefactor is the insurance industry. That
is why they are coming to the floor acting as if they are defending
seniors, acting as if they are defending the middle class and the poor,
and health care. They are defending the insurance companies. That is
the way they do it. Just as they defend the oil companies on energy
legislation, and just as they help and defend the drug companies; just
as they defend the drug companies that send jobs overseas, that is why
they are against trade agreements. That is why they always support the
oil industry in climate change and everything else. That is why they
support the drug companies and insurance companies. They are their
biggest benefactors. That is who helped them get elected, although
don't say that on the floor: I am against this bill because the
insurance company is against it. No, they try to scare the Medicare
beneficiaries. They try to scare the middle class and rural
constituents and urban constituents and suburban constituents. But it
just doesn't wash.
Now they have brought in the student loan bill: We have to protect
middle class, working class students so they can get student loans. No,
they want to protect the banks. This is about: Should we give direct
loans to college students or should we let the banks skim off and leave
some of the money. Then they have the nerve to say the money we save in
this will be put back into the government bureaucracy. No, the money we
save by saying to the banks, no more skimming off student loans, no
more taking your cut, giving worse service at higher interest rates,
that money goes for Pell grants. So the money we take back from the
banks--the decade of George Bush subsidies for the banks--is, instead,
going to students so they can afford to go to college.
Back to the health care issue itself. I hear my colleagues so
liberally--if I could use that word to define them--quote Lowen &
Associates. Every time Lowen & Associates puts out a new study, they
come to the floor and they ponderously and seriously say: Lowen &
Associates says this bill--da, da, da.
Lowen & Associates is owned by United Health Care, which is one of
the biggest health insurance companies in the country. So quoting Lowen
& Associates on health care is like quoting the oil companies on energy
legislation or climate change or quoting the drug companies or the
Medicare giveaway to the drug companies bill. Just forget about Lowen &
Associates. If they want to comment on something that has nothing to do
with insurance, maybe they are reputable. They used to be reputable,
but then United Health Care got them. Sorry. That is just the way it
is.
With all of this, let's stop the scare tactics. Let's take a deep
breath. Let's look at what this bill is about.
What this bill is really about is helping people who have lost their
insurance, who have had insurance and found out it wasn't much good
because of what the insurance companies did to them, as Senator Tester
knows. He has people in Billings and in Helena and in White Fish who,
because of a preexisting condition, lost their insurance or they got
sick and then their illness was so expensive the insurance company
said: We don't want to insure them, we want to cut them off.
I wish to share a couple of letters, and then I will turn it over to
Senator Tester because this is what it is all about. They can talk
about tax increases. They are wrong about it. They kind of make up some
stuff. They can talk about budget-busting legislation. I am a little
curious about their saying that because the Congressional Budget
Office, which we kind of agree with--whether you are a moderate
Democrat such as Senator Carper or a conservative Republican such as
Senator Kyl or a progressive Democrat such as the Presiding Officer, we
all agree that the Congressional Budget Office is pretty much reliable.
They are not partisan. They don't cheat. They don't scam the system.
They don't lie to us. The Congressional Budget Office says this
actually pays for itself and then some. It will help to retire the
budget in the first 10 years and do even better in the second 10 years.
With all of that debate, why does this matter? This matters because
we have constituents in Wilmington, in Chicago, and in Butte, as I do
in Youngstown and Toledo, who thought they had good health insurance
and then they get sick and then they find out they didn't.
I have read letters on this floor since July from people who, a year
ago, if you asked them, they would say: My health insurance is pretty
good. Then they found out it wasn't because they really needed it. This
tells the story, to me, why this is important. Forget the political
side. Forget the accusations. Forget the charges. Forget the
countercharges. Forget the philosophy. We need to help people and this
bill does it.
Gwen is from Claremont County, a very conservative county. Her
daughter is a recent college graduate who has been denied insurance.
She writes:
My 22-year-old daughter is a recent college graduate. While
looking for a permanent job, she's working full time as a
waitress. Her employer will not give her health insurance,
and she can't stay on my policy because she is no longer in
college.
She takes no prescriptions and is one of the healthiest
young people you can find. One insurance company offered her
a policy for $750 a month.
I am a teacher and my husband has been unemployed for a
year, and even if he were working full time, we could not
afford $750 a month.
Our present insurance system decides who can have health
insurance at what price.
That's a moral and ethical decision no insurance company
should decide.
We know what this bill does. This bill says these pages sitting in
front of us--they are not yet in college. They come home, they can't
find a job with insurance, perhaps, when they are 23 years old--
although they are all so young and bright they will, but most people
can't at this age. They are 23, 24. They come home from college. They
have no insurance. Our bill says: You can go on your parents' insurance
plan until you are 26. That takes care of that problem. That is barely
debatable. That makes sense for Republicans and it makes sense for
Democrats.
The second letter is from Tammy from Preble County, another
conservative rural county. This one is; the other one is a conservative
suburban county. This story is much more tragic. Tammy writes about her
best friend who died in January at the age of 31 from cervical cancer.
She was a nursing assistant, a single mother of five children. She
worked her way out of low-income housing into her first home. When she
couldn't afford health insurance, she was able to roll her children
into Medicare. She writes:
[[Page S1709]]
By the time my best friend could afford health insurance
and went to a doctor, it was too late. She learned she had
cervical cancer and that it was spreading throughout her
body.
A woman with breast cancer in this country without insurance is 40
percent more likely to die than a woman with breast cancer with
insurance. People say: Well, conservatives seriously don't want
government involvement--whatever that means, even though Medicare works
for millions. Conservatives say: Well, they can just go to the
emergency room and get care.
If you have breast cancer, you don't go to the emergency room to get
care. They will only take care of you right before you die or right
before you have an episode. If you are a chronic asthmatic or have
chronic diabetes, they won't take care of you in the emergency room
unless you have an insulin attack or unless you have a terrible
situation with your asthma or you can't breathe. They are not going to
help you maintain your health so you don't end up in the emergency
room.
That is what this bill is all about. This bill will prevent
situations such as Tammy's friend. Pure and simple.
Thomas from Cincinnati is writing about his brother Jim who has been
in hospice care after being diagnosed with lung and brain cancer less
than a year ago. He doesn't have much longer to live. He wanted his
story told, as Jim said, to anyone who would listen. He doesn't have
health insurance and can't afford the cost of cancer treatment.
My dying brother is an example, and the countless stories
we hear from others are examples of why we need protection
from the insurance industry.
I have a lot of insurance companies in my State. I don't hate
insurance companies. I understand they are in a situation where to
compete with each other they have to have a business model. The
business model is--if Senator Carper and Senator Tester and I run an
insurance company, do you know what we all do? We hire a bunch of
bureaucrats to keep people from buying insurance that might be
expensive. If you are sick, and you are sick, and you are not, well, I
don't want to insure you because you are sick. You are going to cost
too much and affect my bottom line. Then they hire a bunch of
bureaucrats on the other end for people who actually have insurance
policies and get sick to deny their claims.
So this is a business model where you don't insure people who are
sick and you try to slough off people who get sick whom you insure, and
that is the way you make a lot of money. If you don't do that, you go
out of business.
So I don't have any problems with insurance executives. They are paid
too much, but I don't have any problems with what they do except their
business model forces them to do this. I think they should come to us
and say: Senator Carper, Senator Tester, Senator Brown, thank you for
bailing us out from doing bad things because you are going to set new
rules so we can't do that anymore.
It is outrageous that we have a system--we are the only country in
the world that does this. A lot of countries have private insurance
companies running their health care system, but they are private, not-
for-profit insurance companies. They are not Aetna and Cigna and all of
these companies that pay their executives an average of literally $11
million a year to the CEO. Why do we want a system where for-profit
insurance forces these companies to keep people from buying insurance
if they are sick, keeps them out if they might get sick, and denies
them care if they do get sick. It doesn't serve the public interests,
period. That is why this legislation is so important.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I was wondering if the Senator from Ohio
would yield for just a few questions.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Yes.
Mr. TESTER. One of the previous speakers spoke about President Obama
taking over our health care system with government health care. In the
Senate bill we passed and that the House is about to take up, is there
government health care in that bill?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, there is already Medicare, which
seems to work for a lot of people, and Medicaid, which seems to work
for a lot of people. You have military bases in your State, as I do,
one of the greatest Air Force bases in the country, and they have
something called TRICARE that works pretty darn good. This isn't a
takeover. This still allows lots and lots and lots of private
involvement. But we have some government involvement in the health care
system, I would say.
Mr. TESTER. Absolutely. We have Medicare and the VA and TRICARE and
those kinds of things.
As far as government taking over the health care system, is there
anything in the bill that would create anything different than we have
now?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Not that I see.
Mr. TESTER. How about health care costs overall in this country. Does
the Senator see those health care costs, if we do nothing, declining or
going up?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. They keep talking about our bill. Health care
costs will go up. Health care costs are going to go up a lot faster. It
doubled in the last 7 years, and it will double again, if we do
nothing, in the next 6 or 7 years. Who is going to pay for that?
Mr. TESTER. Exactly. How about insurance companies. If we do nothing,
is there going to be accountability for health insurance companies in
this country?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. If you count accountability, still allowing them
to cut people off for preexisting conditions, no. It allows them to
keep abusing the system the way they have.
Mr. TESTER. What happens to Medicare? If we do nothing, where is it
headed?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. It is more and more expensive. If you follow what
some of my colleagues want to do, they want to privatize it further.
Mr. TESTER. Isn't it a fair statement that doing nothing is not an
option here?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. To me it is. Clearly, if we do nothing, small
businesses are going to get creamed, taxpayers are going to get hurt
and, most importantly, patients.
Mr. TESTER. I thank the Senator for his comments.
I rise today with some startling news from the State of Montana. I do
not think it is singular to the State of Montana. It is news that
drives home the need to get a handle on America's health care problem.
Being a Senator is a tough job, but it is not the toughest job I ever
had. The toughest job I had was serving on a school board back in Big
Sandy, MT. I also am a former teacher. So as a former school board
member and a former teacher, I appreciate the long, hard, often
thankless hours teachers put in. To say they are not the highest paid
profession would be an understatement.
I was shocked when I heard about the bad news hitting teachers all
across Montana. This week, my staff and I spoke with folks such as the
ones in Elysian school district in Billings, MT. Employees there just
received word that their health insurance rates are going up, and I
mean way up. Normally, a big rate hike might be something like 10
percent or 20 percent. Sometimes we hear folks getting slammed for 30
percent or 40 percent. But the rates of the folks in Elysian are
skyrocketing this year by 69 percent.
And you think that is bad. Talk with the folks in Hinsdale or Saco,
MT. They just found out their rates are going up, too, by more than 70
percent. Then in the Nashua school district, rates are going up by 72
percent. The rate given to those employees who purchase family
insurance is going up by 83 percent.
Let me repeat that. Health insurance rates are going up by 83 percent
in 1 year. For those in Congress who think nothing is the best option
when it comes to health care, I have one question: How much more of
their paychecks are Montanans supposed to fork over before Congress
finally reforms our broken health care system?
The folks I am talking about do not belong to any big nationwide
corporate insurance system. They are not paying for anyone's big
million dollar salaries or lobbyists or advertisements. It is just the
cost of health care going through the roof that is breaking these
Montana families.
For those in Congress who say the American people do not want or need
reform, let them talk with the folks I
[[Page S1710]]
have talked with, such as the teachers seeing these rate increases,
such as the Montanans being forced to sell their family farms and
ranches because of medical bills, such as the Montana small business
owners who cannot afford to insure their employees.
On Christmas Eve, I stood in this Chamber and cast a vote to keep
government out of health care, to cut the national deficit, to hold
insurance companies accountable, to strengthen Medicare, and to slow
the rise of health care costs. I am very proud of that vote.
This week, after months of listening, debating, and voting, Congress
has a chance to work together to get something done. If Congress does
nothing, we know what will happen: Medicare will go bust. Costs will
continue to break Montana families and this country, and no one will
hold insurance companies accountable. And year after year, hard-working
Montanans will continue to see more of their hard-earned paychecks
eaten up by health care costs.
I am not in the do-nothing camp, especially when hard-working Montana
families are trying to make ends meet with 83-percent rate hikes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, we are in full mode on health care reform.
I am going to stick to that subject this afternoon. I have heard my
colleagues say a couple of things I am going to emphasize, but I am
going to have a different take on some of this as well.
It is not that I actually am writing down what some of my
constituents in Delaware have said to me about health care and concerns
about our legislation which may or may not pass, but among the things I
heard is: We have the best health care system in the world; why mess
with it?
I heard: What we are going to do will be government run, it will be
government funded and the government doesn't do anything well.
I heard concerns about the size of our budget deficits and how this
is going to add to those budget deficits and make them worse.
I heard folks who expressed concerns about whether we would be
robbing Medicare to provide health care to illegal aliens and other
folks and set up death panels.
I heard concerns about abortion on demand and using tax dollars to
pay for that.
I heard we are not going to do anything on medical malpractice
reform, and we ought to do something.
I heard a lot about process, how we are going to use the process of
reconciliation, the House might use a process called ``deeming'' in
order to pass health care reform legislation.
Let me take these one at a time.
Do we have the best health care system in the world? Sadly, we do
not. Did we ever? I am not sure we ever did. We do not have the best
today; we have the most expensive.
A couple weeks ago, I hosted exchange students from all over the
world, including Japan. We talked about a lot of issues. One of the
issues we talked about was the health care system, what ours is like
and what theirs is like. There were kids from Japan. In Japan, they
spend about half of what we do as a percentage of GDP. They spend about
8 percent of GDP for health care. We spend almost 16, 17 percent. They
get better results. It is not even close. By any objective measure,
they get better results. They cover everybody. We have 40 million or 45
million people whom we do not cover. Think about that. They spend 8
percent of GDP, we spend twice that much; they get better results than
we do and they cover everybody. We have a lot of people who are not
covered.
My thinking in reflecting on that, the Japanese are smart people but
they cannot be that smart and we cannot be that dumb. We can do a lot
better than we are doing.
Does it have to be government run or government funded? We actually
have a system in this country that is government run and government
funded, and it is called VA. I am a Navy veteran. The VA system is a
great system. It is not inexpensive, but it is a great system for our
veterans. The closest thing to a government-run system is VA.
Look around the world at other health care delivery systems. One that
is government run and government funded, where the government pays for
stuff and basically you show up and get care and are provided for by
government doctors and government nurses is Great Britain. We are not
interested in doing that here. We are not interested in making the rest
of our health care delivery system look like the VA.
What we are trying to do is borrow from something that works, and
that is creating large purchasing pools, much like we have for Federal
employees, including us, but it is a large purchasing pool of about 8
million people. We only get to choose from for-profit health insurance
products. A lot of companies want to sell their products to us. We have
very low administrative costs because when you have 8 million people in
a purchasing pool, you drive down the administrative costs.
The role of government I think is to row the boat, not steer the
boat. I think those are the words of David Osborne--row the boat, not
steer the boat. The role of government is as Lincoln said. Lincoln said
the government should do for the people what they cannot do for
themselves.
What we propose to do in our legislation is to replicate what works,
to take this idea of a large purchasing pool and say to every State: We
want you to create a large purchasing pool. We will call it an
exchange. In the military, if you go to an exchange, you go on base to
buy something. We talk about an exchange where people go over the
Internet to buy health insurance.
Who can do it? Small businesses, individuals, families, people with
coverage, without coverage. They will have a bunch of health insurance
products from which to choose. It will not be government funded or
government run, but they will have a lot of choices. The idea there is
to get the kind of competition in each of those State exchanges we
enjoy as Federal employees under the Federal health benefits plan.
Some would say we ought to be able to sell or buy health insurance
across State lines. I am sympathetic to that argument. What we do in
that legislation--use Delaware as an example. Our neighboring States
include Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Currently, we cannot
buy health insurance products that are sold in New Jersey, Maryland, or
Pennsylvania. But under this legislation, Delaware can enter into an
interstate compact with Maryland or New Jersey or Pennsylvania or all
of the above. We would create a large purchasing pool, a regional
purchasing pool with millions of people in it to help drive down
administrative costs, and the insurance sold in those four States could
be sold across State lines, increasing the number of options and
increasing consumer choice and competition that I think will benefit
not the insurance companies but consumers.
A side note here. The beauty of having a large purchasing pool, such
as the one we are in, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, is
that our administrative costs are 3 percent of premium dollars. If we
were to go on the outside and try to buy for a family or small
business, we would not pay 3 percent administrative costs--maybe 33
percent but not 3 percent.
What we want to do is replicate what works. Large pools work, the
ability to sell across State lines works, the idea of having a lot of
options for consumers works. In fact, to take it one step further,
among the health insurance plans that we can choose from as Members of
Congress or Federal employees, Federal retirees, or dependents are
multi-State plans, almost like national health insurance plans. They
will be offered on the exchanges so people who are buying their health
insurance in my State, Illinois, Alabama, or any State in the future
may be able to choose from amongst the same plans that Members of
Congress can choose.
Another concern that has been raised that has already been addressed
by previous speakers--and I want to mention it again--is that we are
going to further blow up the national debt. In the first 8 years in the
last decade, from 2001 to 2008, we literally ran up as much new debt as
we did in roughly the 208 years of our Nation's history. We are adding
to that every day. It is an enormous concern to me, and I know it is to
our Presiding Officer and to others.
As it turns out, the referee for us when we pass legislation, whether
it is
[[Page S1711]]
tax legislation or whether it is spending legislation, is the
Congressional Budget Office. It is not Democratic or Republican. If I
want to cut taxes or raise taxes, if I want to cut spending or raise
spending, I have to go to the Congressional Budget Office and ask them
to tell us what the estimate is, what it will actually do to the
deficit going forward.
Whenever we have tried to offer different approaches on health care
reform legislation, we had to go to the Congressional Budget Office and
say: What is going to be the impact on the budget and the deficits
going forward? They have dutifully, for months now, been scoring the
different approaches.
The approach we have already voted on in the Senate for the most
part--and in the House they will be taking up this weekend--the
Congressional Budget Office has announced this morning that the
legislation, when you put it all together, does not increase budget
deficits. They are saying it lowers budget deficits I think in the next
10 years by about almost $140 billion. It is a $140 billion deficit
reduction over the next 10 years.
The real question, though, in my mind, is: What does it do for the 10
years after that? For the 10 years after that, the CBO says the deficit
will be reduced over those 10 years by as much as $1.2 trillion. Think
about that. It is hard to estimate with any great accuracy what we are
going to do over the next 20 years. I would much rather be looking at
estimates that say deficits go down by $138 billion in the first 10
years and deficits down by another $1.2 trillion in the next 10 years.
I would rather be looking at the arrow going that way than the arrow
going the other way.
Think about it, though. I think what CBO is telling us is that the
budget savings in what will be this final combined legislation will
save more money, reduce the deficit by more than either the House or
Senate bill. This legislation will cover more people--95 percent of the
people in our country--than either the House or Senate bill. They also
add that it will make insurance more affordable for a lot of people and
better quality health care, better coverage for a lot of people.
Another concern we have had is what we are going to do will somehow
badly damage Medicare. Medicare, as we know, is running out of money.
It is estimated to run out of money in about 7 or 8 years. I believe
this legislation will pretty much double the life of the Medicare trust
fund; not forever, but it will double it. That is a pretty big step in
the right direction.
We need to do more, and we will be coming back to this later this
year when the Presidentially appointed and congressionally appointed
deficit panel comes back with a recommendation.
Some of my senior citizens said to me: I am concerned you will be
taking a lot of money out of the Medicare trust fund and reducing
services to us. What we are doing is we are trying to say to Medicare
Advantage Programs that are spending, in some cases, way more money
than I think can be substantiated or supported, that they are going to
be getting less money. And they do not like that. It is not for all
Medicare Advantage programs but the ones that get the highest premium
dollars and the most support from taxpayers that are going to get less
money in the future.
Another concern about Medicare, though--one of my concerns--is that
we don't do a very good job of primary care in this country. A lot of
people never get a physical in their life. They never get an annual
physical.
I became a Navy midshipman at Ohio State when I was 17 years old. I
think almost every year of my life since then I have gotten a physical.
I was in the Navy for about 27 years, so all those years and even now I
get an annual physical. I know my colleagues do as well. We have a lot
of people who never get a physical in their lives.
A few years ago, when we adopted the Medicare prescription drug
legislation, we said Medicare beneficiaries, Medicare recipients should
get at least one physical in their lives. Now, under current law, when
they turn 65 and join Medicare and are eligible, they get one physical
under the Medicare Program. That is it. If they live another 40 years,
they do not get another physical provided for by Medicare. This
legislation we will pass, every year a person who is eligible for
Medicare will be eligible for a physical. That is the kind of
preventive care and prevention we need to do.
The Medicare prescription drug program, if you happen to be poor, is
a really good program. If you happen to use a whole lot of expensive
medicines, it is a pretty good program. If you happen to be somewhere
in between, it is not such a good program because of the so-called
doughnut hole, where if a person's prescription drug costs exceed
$2,500 a year, up to about $5,500 a year, Medicare doesn't pay for any
of that. In the legislation that is before us, Medicare will
dramatically increase its participation and support for prescription
drug costs for people who run in that area between $2,500 and $5,500 on
their prescription drug costs. They call it filling the doughnut hole.
And over time, I hope we will fill it completely, but this will at
least get us started in the right direction.
Another problem I hear about with regard to our health care system is
that doctors are doing what we used to call in the naval aviation
trying to protect their 6 o'clock or cover their 6 o'clock, which means
protecting themselves from lawsuits. They provide more tests, more
visits, more MRIs, more everything--more lab tests, you name it--in
order to reduce the likelihood they will be sued. I don't blame them,
but it runs up the tab for health care. It is the cost of defensive
medicine, and we need to do something about that. We need to try to do
anything in terms of figuring out what works to reduce the incidence of
medical malpractice, what works to reduce the incidence of defensive
medicine, and what works to improve outcomes. While we reduce lawsuits,
reduce defensive medicine, how can we do that and improve outcomes?
There are some pretty good laboratories of democracy out there in the
States. As an old Governor, I like to look to the States to see what is
working.
Let's say the Presiding Officer is my doctor in Michigan. At the
University of Michigan, he performs a procedure I don't like. He
botches it, and the outcome is bad for me, and he knows he screwed up.
In Michigan, they provide an opportunity for the doctor and the patient
to have a chance to meet in private. The doctor will apologize, he will
offer a financial settlement to the patient, and the patient accepts
it--either they can or they can't--and that has reduced by 50 percent
the incidence of medical malpractice lawsuits. Most of the offers are
accepted, and most patients feel it is a pretty good thing. That
conversation that takes place between the doctor and the patient can
never be used in a court of law against the doctor. And that works.
We have what are called certification panels in a number of States.
They are a little different from State to State. For example, ``Dr.
Burris''--actually, Senator Burris--performs on ``patient Carper'', in
one approach, a procedure I don't like. I am unhappy with it, and I
want to sue him. Before I can go to court, I have to go to a
certification panel. Some have a right to say: You don't have a case.
That is it; you are out. Others can say: You can go forward, but if you
lose, you pay the doctor's legal fees. Others say: Well, bring the case
to the certification panel, and if they say you don't have a case, you
can still go forward. That is pretty much the approach in my State, and
it has literally cut by 40 percent the number of medical malpractice
lawsuits.
There are other ideas out there--health courts. We have bankruptcy
courts where the judges are lawyers. How about health courts where the
judges are medical specialists. Another idea which I think has a lot of
virtue is what we are calling safe harbors. Again, a doctor is working
with a patient and does everything he or she should have done--or a
nurse or hospital--given the symptoms and the medical history and all.
Everything is done by the book; everything that should have been done
is done. The idea is to provide the doctor a safe harbor from lawsuits,
allowing that doctor at least a rebuttable presumption.
Those are all ideas that are working in different places around the
country--maybe around the world but especially around the country.
Let's figure out which of those will work best to reduce medical
malpractice lawsuits, reduce the incidence of defensive medicine, and
improve outcomes. And there
[[Page S1712]]
is money in the legislation before us to robustly demonstrate and test
those approaches and figure out which ones work best and try to
replicate those all over the country.
There is a last point or two I want to make. One of those is that if
we can accept that we really don't have the best medical system in the
world, that we actually do have the most expensive and we don't get the
best outcomes--we can get by that argument; if we can sort of get by
the argument that what we are trying to do is to set up a government-
funded, government-run system; if we can get by the idea that not only
are we not exploding the deficits but that we will reduce them by $138
billion, roughly, in the next 10 years and maybe another $1.2 trillion
in the next 10 years after that; if we can get by the idea that we are
not stealing money out of the Medicare trust fund and paying for
abortions and health care for illegal aliens; if we get by the
arguments that we are not doing anything on medical malpractice or
reducing the incidence of defensive medicine, well, then, what are we
arguing about? Well, what we can argue about is process. We can argue
about process. And we are having a big argument about that today.
While I won't get into all the details of this process called
reconciliation, it is basically used at the end of the budget process
to reduce deficits. It pretty much focuses on deficits--either raising
revenues or reducing spending in order to reconcile the budget deficit
and make it smaller.
It sometimes is used to pass major legislation. When the Republicans
were in the majority here, we used it to pass welfare reform
legislation and to create the Children's Health Insurance Program. When
the Republicans were in the majority, we used it to provide for major
tax cuts adopted during the Presidency of George W. Bush. Those were
all adopted during reconciliation. I think maybe 20, 22 times, since
1980 or so, reconciliation has been used to pass significant
legislation, and 16 out of the 22 times were when our Republican
friends were in the majority--not Democrats but Republicans--and we
didn't hear criticism of using reconciliation as an approach during
those times.
Let me say that I objected when the idea was first raised about using
reconciliation to pass comprehensive health care. I have been vocal
about that. I didn't like that. It is the wrong thing to do. We end up
with legislative Swiss cheese because through the reconciliation
process it is hard to legislate prevention, primary care, insurance
reform, and those sorts of things. That process doesn't lend itself to
health care reform legislation. So we have proceeded along regular
order here and passed health care legislation, unfortunately on a
partisan basis--60 to 40--at Christmastime last year.
I must say that one of my great regrets here is that we didn't pass a
bipartisan bill. We would have had a better bill if we had a bipartisan
bill. But it is what it is.
Over in the House, they are trying to determine whether to deem the
legislation as passed, through some kind of process in the Rules
Committee. But where did they get that idea? Well, they got the idea
from when the Republicans were in majority in the previous Congresses.
It worked a number of times for them, so maybe the House Democrats will
use it as well. There is an old saying that imitation is the most
sincere form of flattery. In this case, for better or worse, I think we
are seeing the Democrats trying to emulate what our Republican
colleagues have done in past Congresses.
One last point on focusing on what works. I took a day and went to
Ohio State. I spent some wonderful years of my life in Ohio. I went to
Cleveland a time or two, but I went back to Cleveland last year to the
Cleveland Clinic.
I had been hearing a lot about Cleveland's clinic and the Mayo Clinic
and Geisinger Health Care from Pennsylvania and how Kaiser Permanente
in California and Intermountain in Utah and these big health care
delivery systems are able to deliver better health care and better
outcomes for less money. I was intrigued by that, so I went to the
Cleveland Clinic to spend a day with them. I found out that the health
care delivery systems in Cleveland and at the Mayo Clinic and Geisinger
and Intermountain are all pretty similar. They have a number of things
in common. First of all, their doctors and nurses are all on salary.
They are not out there as free agents, they are all on salary--for
example, at the Cleveland Clinic. Second, they focus on primary care.
Third, they focus on prevention. They focus on wellness. All the
patients have electronic health records. They coordinate their care.
They focus on diseases such as diabetes, cancer, heart, pulmonary, and
they treat them in a holistic way. They coordinate their care and the
delivery in those places, and they get a better result for less money.
They have been able to go to high-cost areas--for instance, Mayo went
down to Florida to provide health care down there in a high-cost area,
and they replicated what they do in Minnesota.
Part of what we try to do in this legislation is to incentivize other
health care delivery systems in the country--other than the ones I have
mentioned--to learn from what works to lower health care costs and
provide better outcomes in Minnesota through Mayo, at Geisinger in
Pennsylvania, and so forth.
Let me close with this, if I can. I was invited to attend the
Delaware annual agricultural dinner about a month ago in Dover. It is
an annual event. Probably those kinds of things happen in Illinois, in
North Dakota--I know they have them in North Dakota--and in Alabama as
well. People had already gone through the buffet line by the time I
arrived--I was a little late--but as I went through the line to get my
food, a guy came up to me and said: Don't vote for any health care.
Don't vote for any health care. I said: Why? And he mentioned some of
the arguments I have raised here before.
So I thought about that as I sat down and was eating my dinner, and
when I was announced and got up to speak to the audience that night, I
said: I know some of you aren't in favor of our doing anything on
health care because you have heard the argument that it is going to
blow up the deficit or you have heard about death panels and you name
it--all this stuff. Let me just ask you this. You raise food. You are
farmers. You feed us, and you are pretty good at it, too, because too
many people in this country are overweight. I said: Let me change this
from talking about health care to talking about food. Let's put it in a
food context. What if we lived in a country where we paid twice as much
for food as every other nation--twice as much. What if we lived in a
country where the food was not as good--in fact, it was so bad it was
unhealthy for us. What if we lived in a country where 40 million people
went to bed every night hungry. What if we lived in a country where
tens of thousands of people died every year because of starvation. What
if we lived in a country where our goods and services--the products we
are selling in marketplaces in the world--cost way more money, our cars
cost $15,000 or $20,000 more than cars they build in Japan because of
the cost of food in our country. What if the rest of us paid more money
for our food--maybe a thousand more for our food per year--to provide
food for other people who didn't have anything to eat. That is pretty
much the situation we are in in this country, but not with respect to
food, with respect to health care.
We can do better than this. The legislation we passed, that is before
the Congress--before the Senate and the House--if we pass it, will not
be perfect, but it is sure going to be better than our living in a
nation where we pay twice as much for health care as any other advanced
nation, where they get better results and they cover just about
everybody and we don't. They can't be that smart and we can't be that
dumb. Hopefully, not just with this legislation but with what may flow
from it, we will improve on it in years to come, and we will show just
how smart we have become.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. May I ask the Senator from Alabama a question. How much
time does he intend to use?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think 7 minutes.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I make a unanimous consent that
immediately after the Senator from Alabama speaks, I be recognized for
5 minutes.
[[Page S1713]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alabama.
Health Care
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was pleased to listen to the remarks
by my good friend and most respected Member of the Senate, Senator
Carper, about his analysis of the health care reform bill that is
before us. I would say I disagree on a number of areas.
First, I disagree that we do not have the best medical care in the
world. Yes, we have people who are overweight. We have a higher
homicide rate. We have other problems that affect health. But if you
are treated, you get the best health care all over. Even in rural areas
of Alabama you get well-trained physicians and nurses who can give you
first-rate care. I reject that. But I do agree we pay too much. I hoped
that would have been a basis for our bipartisan agreement as to how we
can execute some changes that would help bring down the cost and create
a more effective health care system. I certainly think we should go in
that direction.
I do think it is important that the American people believe the
process is legitimate. The President said--I suppose in his interview
yesterday; I saw it this morning--basically: I don't care what the
process is. Just do it, House. You can deem a piece of legislation that
is not a part of the bill, and just make it law by deeming it without
actually putting it up for a vote or amendment or a process. That is
historic. They say it has been done before.
I am hearing from my constituents: I do not care what you have been
doing before. We expect you guys to honestly bring up legislation,
honestly vote on it, and not sneak it through in the dead of night
without people having a chance to read it, without fully knowing what
it means.
That is a legitimate request and demand from the American people that
I am hearing. I think it is true all over the country. Even in
Massachusetts, Senator Brown said: This bill is no good, and I am
running against it. If you elect me as the Senator from Massachusetts,
I am going to vote no. He was elected by a big margin in a stunning
development. The American people are unhappy about this.
What I wanted to take a minute to talk about, and this is very
important, the Speaker today, just a few hours ago, reiterated that
this legislation would create a surplus. If it is going to ensure 30
million more Americans, if it is going to close the doughnut hole and
is going to do all these things, how can that be? The American people
are dubious at best about that claim. But they say the CBO says so.
With all due respect to my colleague from Delaware, that is not what
CBO said. They have misrepresented the CBO's statement in one of the
more dramatic flimflameries in history, I submit. I wrote the CBO.
Right before I voted on December 24 I got a letter back that explained
the details of how it could appear to be one thing when it is really
another. I want to point that out right now.
This was a subsequent letter from them on January 22 of this year
when asked about how to analyze the cost of this bill. I am quoting
from a letter to me, Jeff Sessions, from the Congressional Budget
Office, January 22, Doug Elmendorf, the Director--basically hired by
the Democratic majority in Congress. He says:
Thus, the act's effects on the rest of the budget--other
than the cash flows from the HI trust fund, the Medicare
trust fund--would amount to a net increase in the federal
deficits of $226 billion over the same period.
A net increase in the deficit.
He goes on to say:
Thus, the resources to redeem government bonds in the HI
trust fund and thereby pay for Medicare benefits in some
future year will have to be generated from taxes or other
government income, or government borrowing in that year.
He goes on to say:
Unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the HI
[Medicare] trust fund savings under the PPACA--
That is this health care reform bill--
would be used to pay for other spending and therefore would
not enhance the ability of the government to pay for future
Medicare benefits.
It goes on to say:
Therefore, enacting the PPACA--
The health care reform bill--
would increase debt held by government accounts more than it
would decrease debt held by the public and would thus
increase gross federal debt.
Here we have the Speaker of the House taking the floor again,
repeating what the President and other colleagues are saying, that
somehow this is creating a surplus. It is not. Let me tell you why and
how they do it. Hopefully, I can take just a minute to do that.
Right before I voted in the Senate on December 21, President Obama
said:
And Medicare will be stronger and its solvency extended by
nearly a decade.
Same statement, he says:
The Congressional Budget Office now reports that this bill
will reduce our deficit by $132 billion over the first
decade.
That is basically the number they were using this morning; basically
the number that has been referred to on the floor earlier today. This
is how it is done and why that is a total misrepresentation of the
ultimate significance of what we are doing. This chart does it.
What happens? With regard to the Medicare account, we are increasing
Medicare taxes. That brings more money into Medicare. If this passes,
everybody--upper income Medicare payers--will pay more money. So it is
going to increase taxes.
Second, there has been a substantial reduction in Medicare benefits
paid from this account. So, therefore, it creates a saving, right? You
increase taxes into Medicare, you cut Medicare expenses, Medicare looks
to be in better shape. That is true if we use the money to maintain
Medicare, if we use the money paid in by seniors all over this country
so when they retire they can have Medicare, and if we use that money to
strengthen Medicare. But we are not using it to strengthen Medicare.
What are we doing with it? We are shipping it over to the Treasury so
the Congress can spend it on a new health care bill. Obviously, we have
a problem there.
How do we get money out? You heard people refer to the Medicare trust
fund--and there really is one--and a Social Security trust fund--and
there is one. There are bonds out there that Social Security holds in
West Virginia. The surplus in Medicare is given to the Treasury. But
something else is not mentioned because it is an internal debt, an IOU
to Medicare, a bond back to Medicare. The U.S. Treasury owes Medicare
for the money they borrowed, and Medicare is heading into default.
So what is going to happen? They are going to call the notes, they
are going to call the IOUs, and take this money back.
What is going to happen to the U.S. Treasury when that happens?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to have 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous consent the other Senator
gets 5 minutes, and we will move at 2 o'clock to a vote, so----
Mr. SESSIONS. I am entitled to ask the Presiding Officer for it.
Mr. DORGAN. I am required to object. By a unanimous consent
previously ordered, we have a 2 o'clock vote, and the Senator from New
York has asked for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. SESSIONS. As a result of the conventions of accounting, it may
appear this money can be spent twice, as Mr. Elmendorf said is
happening. But the truth is, we cannot spend the money twice. It is
increasing the debt, and there is no doubt about it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would like to start by saying how much
I admire the family members of the victims of Colgan Air Flight 3407.
They are an amazing group of people. They have advocated tirelessly for
a year, making numerous trips to Capitol Hill, all in honor of the
beloved loved ones who tragically lost their lives on a Buffalo-bound
flight from Newark airport.
They have done this with intelligence, with focus, and, given their
overwhelming grief--at least as far as I witnessed--no anger, which was
amazing to me. I am sure when they go home at night there is a hole in
their
[[Page S1714]]
hearts, and it would be quite human for many of them to be angry, but
they have channeled all of that into an amazingly well-focused attempt
that now is on the edge of success: to make our commuter flights safer.
We all remember the night over a year ago now when flight 3407
crashed in Clarence, NY, and claimed 50 lives. It is a tragic reminder
that our Nation's aviation industry is not immune to tragic accidents.
Last month the NTSB issued its final conclusion on the cause of the
flight failure. The conclusion, though not surprising, based on the
reports we have heard for almost a year now, is still heartbreaking.
The NTSB determined the probable cause of the accident was ``the
captain's inappropriate response to the activation of the stick shaker,
which led to an aerodynamic stall from which the plane did not
recover.''
That is a heart-wrenching conclusion to hear because it means the
accident was entirely avoidable.
The Senate Commerce Committee has included numerous important
provisions, safety provisions, in the FAA bill. I am especially
grateful to all the members of the committee, particularly the chair,
Senator Rockefeller, and the subcommittee chair, Senator Dorgan, for
helping us obtain an amendment that I authored that will require all
flight crewmembers to have more flying experience before they can be
hired by an airline such as Colgan Air. The copilot can currently be
hired by a regional carrier with as little as 250 flight hours. That is
unacceptable.
The amendment will require the FAA to require that copilots have at
least 800 hours of flying experience, and that experience will have to
be performed in adverse flying conditions like those that flight 3407
met over a year ago on a cold, icy night outside of Buffalo.
Senator Dorgan, as I mentioned, was instrumental in helping to make
the safety goals of flight 3407 family members a reality. I thank him
and Senator Rockefeller and their staffs for their hard work and
leadership, not only on the crewmembers' experience but on the FAA bill
as a whole. I would also like to thank all the cosponsors of the
original bill for their support--Senators Gillibrand, Lieberman, Leahy,
Casey, Collins, Snowe, Kerry, Wyden, Scott Brown, Risch, Burris, and
Merkley.
We firmly believe everyone flying a plane, both pilot and copilot,
should have proper training and experience to handle adverse flying
conditions.
NTSB concluded that the pilot and copilot's poor training was evident
from the start of the flight when they incorrectly entered airspeeds in
the aircraft's computer system. When the Q400 airspeed dipped to a
dangerously low level, their reactions were of shock and confusion, not
of problem solving. When the stick-pusher activated so the pilot could
coax the aircraft out of a stall, he pulled back instead of pushing
forward. His copilot did not recognize or correct any of his mistakes.
It is unacceptable that a passenger on a regional carrier should fly
in less capable hands than a passenger on a larger commercial carrier,
where hiring standards are considerably higher. That is why passage of
the FAA bill is of utmost importance in the Senate. We need to bring
all commercial air travel to the same level of safety.
I have said this before. It bears repeating. The families of flight
3407's victims have been almost saintly, and I do not say it lightly.
They have taken this tragedy and turned it into this moment, a moment
where we are on the verge of making critical reforms in airline safety
that are long overdue.
If we pass this bill, we will make changes in airline safety that
will impact the country for decades to come. The journey that these
families have traveled has been too long and too hard to stop now.
In conclusion, I can never say enough about how humbled I am by the
work of all flight 3407 family members. It is a tribute to their loved
ones' lives that they continue to come to Washington to advocate for
aviation safety, and I am honored to help in their cause.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the body will consider two amendments
today that propose to limit some discretionary spending. Regrettably,
both amendments contain significant flaws, and I will oppose both of
them for that reason.
The amendment proposed by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and
the Senator from Missouri, Mrs. McCaskill, propose to limit some
discretionary spending over the next 5 fiscal years. However, those
limits include a giant loophole, as the proposal includes a complete
exemption for spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The proposal
in no way requires that such funding be offset, or be subject to the
usual supermajority thresholds that the Senate imposes on spending
beyond that for which the body budgets. Under the amendment, spending
on those wars is completely unrestrained, and would be added right onto
the government's budget deficits.
This is not a small matter. To date, spending for those wars has
totaled roughly $1 trillion and not one cent has been paid for. The
cost of those wars has been added directly to our budget deficits,
swelling our already mountainous public debt, and increasing the burden
we are leaving our children and grandchildren to bear. The question of
whether these wars are in the best interest of our national security
is, of course, a primary concern. Having made the decision to pursue
that course, though, we should not just shove the cost off on future
generations. But that is just what this amendment would do.
The amendment proposed by the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor, and
the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, also limits discretionary spending,
but it, too, carves out a loophole for the spending on these wars.
While it doesn't provide the unlimited exception included in the
Sessions-McCaskill proposal, it still permits another $150 billion to
be spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars over the next 3 years without
having to be offset.
Beyond the matter of pushing the cost of these wars on to our
children and grandchildren, the war-spending exceptions included in
these two amendments invite continued budget gaming that has been a
byproduct of the supplemental spending requests submitted on behalf of
war spending. Those supplemental bills have been used as a way to boost
defense spending unrelated to the wars, circumventing the budget caps
Congress has set as part of annual budget resolutions. Both of these
amendments risk inducing more of the same.
I support establishing discretionary spending limits in law, and have
done so in the past. But we should do so in a way that does not provide
a massive escape hatch for hundreds of billions in discretionary
spending.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas has made a good-
faith effort to address many of flaws in the Sessions amendment.
First, this amendment would require savings from discretionary
spending, mandatory taxes and revenues.
Second, it wisely eliminates the requirement for a two-thirds
majority to increase spending, leaving in place the supermajority 60-
vote requirement already included in the budget act.
And, it reduces the amount of discretionary savings from the Obama
request by more than half--to $77 billion over 3 years.
While it is a far better alternative to the Sessions amendment, I
must still oppose it.
The matter for determining how much deficit reduction the country
needs over the next three years should be left up to either the Budget
Committee or the Deficit Reduction Commission. It should not be
determined by an amendment on the Senate floor.
In addition, the burden of taking half the total cut from
discretionary spending is too great when the real deficit problem has
been caused by runaway mandatory spending and tax cuts for the rich.
The 3-year cuts of $77 billion in discretionary spending would still
be crippling to the Obama budget plan.
The Senate should debate this matter on the budget resolution which
the Senate is expected to consider next month, instead of on the FAA
Reauthorization Act that is before us today.
I very much appreciate the Senator's efforts to achieve a more
balanced amendment, but I regrettably must still oppose the amendment.
Mr. President, the amendment from the Senator from Alabama seeks to
constrain discretionary spending at the levels agreed to in last year's
budget resolution. He says his intent is to cap spending for the next 3
years. Now we all understand that discretionary
[[Page S1715]]
spending is likely to be frozen this year as the President has
proposed, but this proposal goes way beyond what the President has
recommended.
The President has proposed a modified spending freeze which caps
nonsecurity related spending.
The President allows growth in homeland security; this amendment does
not assume growth.
The President has requested more than $732 billion in his budget for
National Defense for fiscal year 2011 including the cost of war. This
amendment only allocates $614 billion.
Specifically, this amendment only allows $50 billion for the cost of
overseas deployments. As such it fails to fully cover the cost of the
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as estimated by DOD for fiscal year 2011
by $109 billion.
While the proponents of this amendment note that it waives the $50
billion war allowance if we are at war, why does the amendment not
support the full request? Some could interpret the provision to mean if
we want to support our men and women deployed overseas we would need to
get 60 votes. Does the Senate really want national defense to be
hostage to a 60-vote threshold?
This is not the same as President Obama's plan. Over the 3 years in
the Sessions amendment, the caps he would put into place are $141
billion below President Obama's 3-year plan--$50 billion below Defense,
not including the cost of war, and $91 billion below nondefense
spending.
If we adopt the Sessions caps we will have to gut the President's
agenda for discretionary spending--education, green jobs, and homeland
security.
The critical flaw in this amendment is it fails to do anything
serious about deficits. It fails to address the two principal reasons
why our fiscal house is out of balance.
It is a fact that the growth in the debt has resulted primarily from
unchecked mandatory spending and massive tax cuts for the rich. This
amendment fails to respond to either of those two problems. In short,
this amendment is shooting at the wrong target.
Moreover, this amendment also wants to raise the threshold on
discretionary spending increases to 67-vote approval allowing one-third
of the Senate to dictate to the majority.
We already have a threshold of 60 votes required to increase
discretionary spending above the budget resolution. I for one cannot
believe the Senate wants to let a mere one third of the Senate dictate
to the other two thirds whether there is a bona fide need for increased
spending.
This is the wrong direction for this institution. Mandatory spending
has increased substantially the last few years. Tax cuts for the rich
have constrained revenues, but neither tax cuts nor mandatory spending
increases would be subject to 67 votes.
The Senator from Alabama says this approach worked to help balance
the budget in the 1990s. Well, that is only partially correct and it is
critical that my colleagues understand the difference.
In the 1990s our budget summits produced an agreement to cap
discretionary spending, but they also decreased mandatory spending and
they increased revenues at the same time.
It was only by getting an agreement on all three areas of the budget
at the same time that we were able to achieve a balanced budget.
Now let's be clear, many of our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle are happy to put a cap on discretionary spending, but they don't
want to put policies in place to make sure we have enough revenues to
reduce the deficit.
Any honest budget analyst can tell you we will never achieve a
balanced budget just by freezing discretionary spending. We could
eliminate all discretionary spending increases for defense, other
security spending, and nondefense and still not balance the budget.
Moreover, if we cut discretionary spending without reaching an
agreement on mandatory spending and taxes we will find it very hard to
get those who do not want to address revenues to compromise.
I want to remind my colleagues that the administration has just
announced that it will create a Deficit Reduction Commission to help us
get our financial house in order. It will look at both revenue and
spending and find the right balance to restore fiscal discipline.
They will make their recommendations to the Congress and the majority
leader has committed that the recommendations of that Commission will
be brought to the Senate for a vote.
Rather than rushing to address only one small portion of the issue,
the Senate should await the judgment of the Deficit Reduction
Commission which will cover all aspects of the problem.
As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I agree that everyone
should tighten their belts. The problem with this amendment is that all
the tightening will be done on a small portion of spending, while
revenues and mandatory spending will still be unchecked.
The Senate has already rejected this flawed plan twice in the last 2
months. This amendment hasn't gotten any better in the intervening
period. It still is shooting at the wrong target. It still fails to
address the real causes of our deficits and national debt. It is far
less that the President has requested. I urge my colleagues once again
to vote no.
Amendment No. 3453
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to the Sessions-McCaskill amendment
No. 3453.
Who yields time?
Mr. INOUYE. 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. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, there are those in this body who will
say vote for the side-by-side because it does more.
It does not. It is cover. It is very weak; 50 votes to waive.
Everybody would love to go after mandatory spending. We do not have the
will to go after discretionary spending. It is a joke if anybody thinks
this body is ready to take on mandatory spending.
This is a very baby step to control growth by 1 percent beginning
next year for 3 years. When you look at what State governments are
doing and local governments are doing and what America's households are
doing, and we cannot control growth of 1 percent for 3 years? We are
cutting nothing. We are cutting nothing. Everyone in the country is
cutting but here, where we print money.
This is a reasonable approach. If we cannot take this baby step, then
we have got to admit to the American people we do not get what they are
going through; we are completely out of touch.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senate has already rejected this
flawed plan twice in the last 2 months, and this amendment has not
gotten any better in the intervening time.
If we adopt the Sessions caps, we will have to gut the President's
agenda for discretionary spending, including education, jobs, and
homeland security. This amendment still fails to address the real
causes of our deficit and national debt. It is far less than the
President has requested. I urge my colleagues to once again vote no.
I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section
306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time is left on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of
those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my
amendment and 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 motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
[[Page S1716]]
Byrd), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), and the Senator from
West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Bennett).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 57 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Cantwell
Carper
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Klobuchar
Kyl
LeMieux
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Wicker
NAYS--40
Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cardin
Casey
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Bennett
Byrd
Conrad
Rockefeller
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are
40. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is
sustained. The amendment falls.
Amendment No. 3548
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to the Pryor amendment No. 3548.
The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to look at my
amendment. It reduces discretionary spending caps by $77 billion
relative to President Obama's budget in 2011, 2012, and 2013. It also
requires the fiscal commission to find an additional $77 billion to
reduce the deficit. It moves the vote from 67 back to 60, as it is
under our normal Senate rules. It also increases the chances of a
bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction. We need that around here. We
need a bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction. This reduction could
potentially add $13 billion more in deficit reduction than what the
Sessions-McCaskill amendment does.
As much as I respect and appreciate all the work Senators Sessions
and McCaskill did, I certainly would appreciate people voting for the
Pryor amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we were within one vote of bipartisan
legislation to help constrain the growth in spending and allow for
growth but not quite as much. But Senator Pryor's amendment is
absolutely the wrong thing. It is a budget-busting amendment. It allows
the Congress or the appropriating committees to spend $62 billion more
than the present budget allows. It busts the budget. Second, it
instructs the deficit commission to propose tax increases and
entitlement cuts to fund increases in discretionary spending. That is
not what the commission is supposed to be about. It is to try to get
our entitlements back on sound footing, not to create money to spend on
a new program.
I urge colleagues to vote no. It is not the right thing to do.
I make a budget point of order that the pending amendment contains
matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget.
Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment under section
306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable
budget resolutions, and section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and
applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment,
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Bennett).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 70, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 58 Leg.]
YEAS--27
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Carper
Casey
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Hagan
Harkin
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Menendez
Merkley
Pryor
Specter
Tester
Wyden
NAYS--70
Alexander
Barrasso
Bingaman
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Klobuchar
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Bennett
Byrd
Rockefeller
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 27, the nays are
70. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is
sustained. The amendment falls.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to proceed for a few moments on
my leader time.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Health Care
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Democratic leaders in the House say
they are giddy because of CBO's latest estimate of their $1 trillion
health care spending bill. That is what you call trying to get out in
front of the news. Because if you look at the details, if you look
under the hood, you will see this latest bill is even more painful than
the Senate bill that Democrats over in the House are afraid to take a
vote on.
Democratic leaders are bragging about this bill's impact on the
deficit. They say it reduces the deficit by $130 billion over 10 years.
The more important question is: How do they get there? They get there
with even higher taxes and even deeper Medicare cuts than the first
Senate bill. Let me say that again. This second bill that is coming
along has even deeper Medicare cuts and even higher taxes than the
first Senate bill that over in the House they don't seem to want to
have a recorded vote on.
Let's start with the Medicare cuts. The Senate bill Speaker Pelosi
said Democrats are so afraid to take a vote on originally cut Medicare
by $465 billion. That is the original Senate-passed bill that passed on
Christmas Eve. The latest bill increases those cuts by $60 billion
more.
How about taxes? The Senate bill the Democrats over in the House are
so afraid to take a vote on raises taxes by $494 billion--$494 billion.
The second bill coming along increases taxes by at least $150 billion
on top--on top--of the $494 billion original tax increase.
[[Page S1717]]
So if you were worried about raising taxes in the middle of a
recession, this bill raises taxes even more. If you were worried about
cutting Medicare for seniors, this bill cuts it even more.
So here is how Washington works. Democrats want to spend trillions of
dollars on this bill in order to save $130 billion 1 week after voting
to add nearly that much to the deficit in a single vote. If Democrats
are giddy about this CBO score, then they must get a kick out of higher
taxes and Medicare cuts because that is what this bill will mean--even
higher taxes and deeper Medicare cuts than the original Senate bill.
If wavering Democrats needed any more evidence that this bill is
actually worse than the Senate bill, they got it from the chairman of
the Budget Committee just this afternoon. If our Democratic friends in
the House were counting on the Senate to fix the original Senate bill
they don't want to vote for because it is so bad, I wouldn't count on
the Senate. The Budget Committee chairman over here is already warning
that if that reconciliation bill comes over to the Senate, it will have
to go back to the House once again for changes. So don't count on us to
fix this bill for you, I would say to my Democratic friends in the
House. Don't count on us.
Republicans have been saying for nearly a year now that this bill is
unsalvageable. The latest CBO score proves our point.
I would suggest the President not scrap his trip to Indonesia. He
should scrap this bill and start over on a bill that Americans can
embrace and that lawmakers from both parties will actually be proud to
vote for.
Taking a bill that House Democrats are too embarrassed to vote for,
adding more than $150 billion in new taxes and slashing $60 billion
more from our seniors' Medicare and keeping sweetheart deals may make
some Washington Democrats giddy, but that is not reform.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the regular order is amendment No. 3475?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the regular order.
The Senator has the right to call the regular order.
Amendment No. 3549 to Amendment No. 3475
(Purpose: To reduce the deficit by establishing
discretionary spending caps for non-security spending)
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up a second-degree amendment No.
3459 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an
amendment numbered 3549 to amendment No. 3475.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of Wednesday, March 17,
2010.)
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is a fairly simple bill. I have
spoken on the floor several times about this bill. As I made very clear
before, and there is no sense debating it now, I have been opposed to
some of the moratoria we have been talking about on earmarks because,
No. 1, they don't save any more if you kill an earmark and, No. 2, it
is something I have serious problems with in terms of our oath of
office. We raise our hands, as the Senator from North Dakota knows, and
swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. We
don't say we are disenfranchising ourselves from article I, section 9
of the Constitution, which is very clearly the responsibility of the
legislative branch to pass or to introduce authorization bills and
appropriations bills.
This bill--I do have quite a few cosponsors on this--is a proposal
that would freeze discretionary spending at the 2008 level. Here is the
reason I am doing this. President Obama and some of the Democrats had
proposed that they would freeze the nonsecurity discretionary spending
at 2010 levels. The problem I have with that is, this is after it has
already been increased by 20 percent, so it is kind of a big deal. You
increase it by 20 percent and then you freeze it. What I am doing is
taking the same interpretation or the same definition of the
nonsecurity--this would exempt Defense, Homeland Security, State,
Veterans' Administration, and national security functions of Energy, so
it is the same language that is in the Obama proposal, but I am taking
it back to 2008. This would have the effect over a period of time, over
a 10-year budget cycle, of reducing the amount by about--just under $1
trillion, $900-some billion.
So I wish to have this considered. I would inquire of the Chair if I
am now in the queue or what is the status of this at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is now a pending amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. All right. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, that is the pending amendment. We have
other amendments that have been filed, properly filed, and we are
hoping to have additional votes this afternoon.
What we hope to do is complete this bill this afternoon. We have a
number of issues that I think are being resolved in meetings off the
floor. It is now 3 o'clock, and I know the majority leader would very
much like to complete this bill. This is the fifth day we have been on
the floor trying to pass an FAA reauthorization bill that should have
been passed 11 times previously but was extended 11 successive times.
This deals with commercial aviation safety, airport improvement,
infrastructure improvement, a passengers' bill of rights, so many very
important things. Some have said: Well, this will not get done this
year either. But after 5 days on the floor of the Senate, I remain with
some hope that we can get this done if we could get a bit of
cooperation from our colleagues who have amendments to come over and
offer them and we will have votes on them and the Senate will make
decisions and we will have a final vote on this bill.
This bill should not be controversial. It is bipartisan. It came out
of the Commerce Committee with support from Republicans and Democrats,
so we ought not have controversy on the floor of the Senate about when
we will get this bill completed.
I know one of the issues that remains unresolved at this point are
amendments dealing with what are called the slot rules at National
Airport and the perimeter rule, kind of a complicated set of rules with
respect to how many slots are allowed for takeoffs and landings at
National Airport per hour and also how far those airplanes can fly
because there have been some limitations with respect to the perimeter.
There are fewer nonstop flights from Washington National. Most of the
nonstop flights, particularly coast to coast, happen from Dulles
Airport in this region.
There are amendments on the slots and the perimeter rule with respect
to National Airport. I hope we can get this resolved. We decided not to
address that issue in the Commerce Committee because it is very
controversial and it is an open issue when we go to conference with the
House because the House does address it.
The best approach, in my judgment, would be for those who wish to
offer amendments on the slot and perimeter rules to withhold those
amendments here, and we will reach an agreement when we go to
conference on how we can create the Senate position in terms of what we
want to do on these issues. It is an open issue and, undoubtedly, we
can resolve it in conference. If we have eight amendments on slot rules
and perimeter rules and debate them for a few more days, this bill may
very well be a casualty of time.
After 5 days, I think the majority leader feels--appropriately--and I
feel and I know Senator Hutchison and others feel as well that we want
to get this bill done today. If people have amendments, come down and
offer them and debate them. If they do have amendments they want to
offer, I hope some epiphany will occur to suggest to them they do not
need to come down and offer them.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[[Page S1718]]
Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, while we are waiting for colleagues to
come and offer amendments to the underlying bill, let me speak in
morning business for as much time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. I will relinquish the floor if colleagues come and wish
to offer amendments to the FAA bill. That is what I prefer happen at
the moment.
Travel to Cuba
Mr. President, I wish to visit in morning business about legislation
that Senator Mike Enzi from Wyoming and I have worked on now for some
long while. It has 38 cosponsors, 38 Senators cosponsoring, Republicans
and Democrats. It deals with the question of travel to Cuba.
As you know, what we have at the moment and have had since 1962 is a
prohibition on the American people's ability to travel to the country
of Cuba. Cuba rests about 90 miles off our shore. We have, obviously,
had massive disagreements with the Castro regime for many years. In
order to punish the Castro regime, we have restricted the rights of the
American people to travel.
We can travel unimpeded to many other countries. We can travel to
Communist China. We can travel to Vietnam, a Communist country. We can
travel to North Korea, if you can get a visa to get in. No restrictions
there. The American people just cannot travel to Cuba.
Let me describe the absurdity of this which leads Senator Enzi and me
to offer this legislation. We have not offered it on the underlying
bill today, but we will offer it on an authorization bill in the near
future. With 38 cosponsors, we feel this bill would pass the Senate
with some ease.
Let me point out that the New York Philharmonic Orchestra is the
oldest symphony orchestra in America, founded in 1842. The New York
Philharmonic Orchestra is one of our most renowned cultural ambassadors
around the world. In 1959, the New York Philharmonic played in the
Soviet Union in Moscow. Last year, the New York Philharmonic has also
played music in Communist Vietnam. In 2008, the New York Philharmonic
played music in North Korea. By the way, if anyone has a chance to go
to YouTube and/or the Internet and look at the reaction of the North
Koreans to the New York Philharmonic playing music in Pyongyang, it is
extraordinary--quite a cultural experience for our country to send this
philharmonic orchestra to those countries.
The only place they were not able to play was Havana, Cuba, in
October 2009. Plans for those concerts had to be canceled. Think of
that: the New York Philharmonic was able to go and play music in Moscow
at the height of the Cold War, in North Korea, in Vietnam, but it
wasn't able to play in Havana, Cuba.
Why? Well, we have had now, through 10 Presidencies, an embargo in
place. An embargo has been in place that not only embargoes the
movement of goods to Cuba but also punishes the American people by
saying: You can't travel to Cuba. That is what Senator Enzi and I and
37 other Senators wish to say is inappropriate, and we want to lift
those travel restrictions.
I understand the Castro government has restricted the freedoms of the
Cuban people. I understand this country has no use for the Castro
government. I have no use for the Castro government. I want the Cuban
people to be free. I think the most likely approach to freedom for the
Cuban people is to allow them to hear other voices, other than just the
Castro government. Opening up Cuba to travel by Americans, it seems to
me, will provide those other voices.
Mr. President, this chart shows we have under the current U.S.
policy, criminal penalties for violating sanctions of travel to Cuba:
10 years in prison, $1 million in corporate fines, and $250,000 for
individuals.
Well, let me show a few people who have run afoul of the law against
traveling to Cuba. This is Joni Scott. Joni Scott went to Cuba. She
went to Cuba with a church group to distribute free bibles in the rural
areas--free bibles, distributing free bibles to Cuba. She got back to
our country and, guess what. Our country sent her a letter because she
was honest and said she had been in Cuba distributing bibles. She got a
letter saying: We are fining you $10,000.
So we fine an American citizen $10,000 for going to Cuba to
distribute free bibles? That is unbelievable.
But it is not just Joni Scott. Here is another Joan. This is Joan
Slote. I have met both these women, by the way. Joan Slote was in her
mid seventies when she went to Cuba. She was a Senior Olympian. She is
a bicyclist, and she joined a Canadian cycle group to go ride a bicycle
in Cuba. She came back and found out that her government was going to
levy a $10,000 fine. Then, by the way, they decided to try to attach
her Social Security payments because she hadn't responded. She hadn't
responded because she had gone to her son's side, who was suffering
from brain cancer, and she didn't get the mail. So this woman, for
cycling in Cuba, was told she should pay her government $10,000 in
fines.
This is Sergeant Lazo--SGT Carlos Lazo. We actually had a vote about
Carlos Lazo on the floor of the Senate on an amendment I offered one
day. He fled from Cuba on a raft, joined the U.S. Army and went to Iraq
to fight for our country. He won a Bronze Star Medal fighting for
America in Iraq. He came back to this country and discovered one of his
children--he has young children who, by the way, were still living in
Cuba--one of his children was sick. Sergeant Lazo wanted to go to Cuba
to visit his sick child. Having won a Bronze Star Medal on the
battlefield in Iraq, he was told by his government: You have no right
to see your sick child in Cuba. Unbelievable.
So that is what we have, this restriction on travel to Cuba. Senator
Enzi and I believe it is past the time, long past the time to eliminate
it; to stop punishing the American people by restricting their right to
travel.
The last chart I have is a photograph of an airplane that flies
around distributing television signals into the country of Cuba. We
have spent $\1/4\ billion in our country sending television signals
that the Cuban people can't receive because they are routinely blocked
by the Cuban Government. We send television signals to the Cuban people
to tell them how wonderful freedom is, when they know that by listening
to Miami radio stations. We have spent $\1/4\ billion doing it, and I
have tried to eliminate that expenditure time and time again and have
been unsuccessful.
Talk about government waste. Government waste even has cosponsorship
in the United States on this issue.
The point is very simple. Senator Enzi and I, and many other
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, believe we ought to stop
punishing the American people for the actions of the Cuban government.
Many years ago, we also had a complete embargo on all shipments and
goods to Cuba, which included food, which I felt was immoral. So I and
then-Senator Ashcroft sponsored a resolution that passed the Congress
and became law that opened up just a bit in the embargo to say: You can
sell food into the Cuban marketplace and ship medicine into the Cuban
marketplace. You can do that, but it has to be paid for in cash, and
you can't run the cash through an American bank. So running these
transactions through European banks for cash, our farmers now have sold
a substantial amount of commodities in the Cuban marketplace, just as
the Canadian farmers have always done, and just as the European farmers
have always done.
So just that little bit of change in the embargo, opening up
opportunities to sell food and medicine into the Cuban marketplace, was
a significant step. But I think this embargo has been an unbelievable
failure, through 10 Presidencies, and I think it is time for us to
decide the best way to promote freedom in Cuba--and I think 39 of us
believe this in the Senate, having cosponsored the legislation, and
many more would vote for it--is to stop punishing the American people,
to stop restricting travel.
The Castro government will have a very difficult time if an onslaught
of Americans go to travel in Cuba, and
[[Page S1719]]
Cubans hear other voices other than the Castro government. Again, we
have tried to address this issue of travel for a long while. I would
hope most who are engaged in this would hang their heads with some
shame that we are spending our time tracking down someone who is under
suspicion of taking a vacation to Cuba so we can levy a $10,000 fine.
What an absurd contradiction for a country that measures its health
and freedom. What an absurd contradiction.
We have something down at the Treasury Department called OFAC Office
of Foreign Assets Control. OFAC has the main mission of shutting down
the flow of money to terrorist organizations. That is what they are
supposed to be doing. The fact is, they have a Miami office, and for a
good part of the last decade they spent 60 percent of their money
trying to track American citizens who were suspected of vacationing in
Cuba. Again, are we daft? Have we lost all sense? That doesn't make any
sense to me at all.
We had a couple of colleagues from the Senate in the newspaper the
other day encouraging people not to go. There is a trip to Cuba
described in the paper--I believe they have a license to go--but some
colleagues were encouraging people not to go. Well, with respect to
China, for example, a Communist country, we have always said that
constructive engagement through trade and travel is what will lead to
greater human rights in China. That has always been the belief of this
country. It is the way we deal with China, the way we deal with
Vietnam, it is the way we would deal with North Korea if they would
allow Americans in because we don't restrict the American right to
travel to North Korea or Vietnam or China--only to Cuba.
Some of us believe it is an archaic, absurd contradiction for our
country to continue doing this. I hope, perhaps, in the name of
Sergeant Lazo or, perhaps, Joni Scott, or any number of others--and I
didn't mention the young man from the State of Washington whose father
died. His father had previously been a minister at a church in Cuba.
This young man, when his father died and was cremated, took his ashes
to Cuba to have the ashes placed on the grounds of the church his
father served in in Cuba. He did that. That was his father's last wish.
When he came back to this country, he was tracked by his government
and levied a fine. That is not what this government ought to be doing.
So if the Congress can and will pass the amendment Senator Enzi and I
have constructed, which has wide support in the Senate, I think we will
have done something that is important.
Having said all that, I expect there will be things written tomorrow
by those who watched these proceedings to say that this amendment is
somehow sympathetic to the Cuban government. It is not. That is an
absurd proposition. It is not sympathetic to anything except
sympathetic to freedom for the American people. Let's stop punishing
the American people for others' transgressions.
The fact is, the American people ought to have the right to travel
where they wish, where they choose--and they generally do, with this
exception. But what is happening now is that the Office of Foreign
Asset Control--which is supposed to be tracking Osama bin Laden and
other known terrorists and tracking their finances to try to shut down
the financing of terrorism--is diverting its attention to see if they
can't nab a couple of Americans who went to take a vacation in Cuba.
This country is better than that, and we can do better than that by
passing the legislation I and Senator Enzi have authored.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Financial Market Reform
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to take a couple of minutes, if I
can, this afternoon. I realize we are getting toward the close of the
end of the week, and Members will be heading off to their respective
districts and States for the weekend. We will be coming back on Monday
or Tuesday.
I want to take a couple of minutes, because next week we will be
having a markup in the Senate Banking Committee of the financial
regulatory reform effort that we have been involved in now for about 2
years.
It was 2 years ago this past weekend that the collapse of Bear
Stearns occurred in 2008. Not that that was the beginning of the
problems; that was merely the evidence of how deep the problems were.
Of course, the events that unfolded in 2008 only confirmed what was
happening in March was the beginning of a near total collapse of the
financial system in this country.
During those last 2 years, we have had countless hearings and
meetings, gathering information from all sorts of sources both here as
well as around the country to determine what best steps we could take
to see to it that the country would never again face that kind of near
collapse of our financial system; to see to it that the tools would be
there, so that when the next emergency arose, as it surely will to one
degree or another, that the next generation would have the tools
necessary to avoid the economic system sort of spinning out of control,
as it did over these last 2 years; and, thirdly, to make sure that in
our efforts to plug the gaps that created the problems in the first
instance, and the tools necessary to deal with future ones, we were not
going to strangle the financial system of our Nation so that we could
not create jobs, have credit flow, capital move, so that our Nation
could again prosper economically.
The interrelationship between our financial system and economic
growth is inseparable. Without a strong and dependable, secure, safe
financial system, the idea of economic growth in our country is, of
course, a fiction. So we have a deep and serious challenge, as we have
had over these past 2 years, to reform a system that has not been
reformed since the 1930s. There have been various new regulators who
have been added, additional restrictions imposed at one time or
another, but not the kind of comprehensive view that I think the
country expects in light of the events that have unfolded over the last
couple of years.
As chairman of the committee over the last 36 months, since I became
chairman in January of 2007, we have tried to respond to this issue,
first in 2007, by focusing on the root cause of the problem. That was,
of course, in the mortgage lending market, where mortgages were going
out the door from lending institutions that the borrowers did not
understand, and could never afford, and the lenders knew that at the
time. As a result, we began to see the collapse of our economy when
those mortgages were then securitized and sold to investors only to
discover that, of course, these mortgages were worth a lot less than
the rating agencies claimed they were. That was not a minor problem. We
have now had 7 million people in this country who have had their homes
in foreclosure. Many of them, if not most of them, will lose their
homes as a result of what happened.
The unemployment rate has cost 8\1/2\ million people their jobs in
this country, and in certain parts of the Nation unemployment rates
hover around 17 percent, on average a little less than 10 percent.
There are good signs that are occurring that indicate our economy may
be recovering at certain levels. But tell that to the person who lost
their job today, lost their retirement income, lost their homes, lost
that sense of self-worth and value that you can never put a pricetag on
but is essential for our Nation's sense of optimism and strength in
these difficult days.
For all of those reasons, we have tried to craft a bill here that
deals with those goals of plugging the loopholes, the gaps, providing
the tools for the future, and creating a system that will allow our
economy to grow and prosper once again.
There are four major areas of the bill I have talked about. One is
for once and all end the notion that any financial entity never can
become so complicated, so interconnected, so big, that it has an
implicit guarantee that the taxpayers of this country are going to bail
it out when it begins to fail, or fails.
[[Page S1720]]
The $700 billion paycheck the American people wrote in order to
stabilize our financial institutions in the fall of 2008 should never,
ever happen again. The bill I have crafted, along with my colleagues,
Democrats and Republicans, we believe achieves that goal. I owe a
special thanks, a very special thanks to two of our colleagues, a
Democrat and a Republican, who have worked over many weeks to try to do
exactly what I have described doing for you, and that is to shut down
the possibility that the American taxpayer will ever again be asked to
write that kind of a check. So my thanks to Mark Warner of Virginia, a
new Member of this body, one who, in his previous life, before being
the Governor of Virginia, worked in the financial services arena of our
country and knows it well. His partner in this was another member of
the Banking Committee, Bob Corker of Tennessee, another new Member of
this Chamber. He served as the mayor of Chattanooga, TN, a very
successful businessman in his own right, who also understands these
issues as well, if not better, than most Members who serve here, with
all due respect.
The two of them have worked along with the Treasury Department and
others. They have listened to an awful lot of people in crafting this
title I and title II of our bill dealing with systemic risk and with
``too big to fail.''
In November I offered a proposal, what I called a ``discussion
draft,'' for our consideration. Since that time we have modified that
bill substantially as a result of the input and suggestions of Senators
Warner and Corker--and others, I might add; not exclusively but they
have been the leaders on this issue.
Earlier we had an independent agency with rule writing authority to
address systemic risk. In our new version we created a Treasury-led
council with the ability to make recommendations and rule writing.
Senator Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican and former chairman
of the Banking Committee, made those suggestions. That is different
from what existed in November. It is a stronger provision; it makes
more sense.
Working with Senator Corker and Senator Warner, we have included his
and Senator Warner's ideas with respect to the power of the council to
act as an early warning signal, and the establishment of a new Office
of Financial Research at the Treasury Department to standardize,
collect, and analyze financial data, to inform the work of the council.
They were very worthwhile suggestions.
We have also taken Senator Corker's and Senator Warner's ideas on
ending, as I said, ``too big to fail.'' We have a process in place for
placing failing financial companies in receivership and liquidating
them, unless they can go into bankruptcy. At Senator Shelby's request,
we have this mechanism available for any failing financial firm, not
just those who were previously subject to heightened regulation.
The Fed's emergency lending authority has also been changed. At
Senator Shelby's request, we have significantly cut back on the Fed's
use of its emergency lending authority, the so-called 13(3) section
under the Fed rules.
No longer can the Federal Reserve Bank bail out a company such as
AIG, which is what they did. Instead, the Fed must create broad
programs subject to rulemaking and approval by the Treasury. Only then
can the Fed lend against good collateral.
We have made a host of other changes, including in the area of credit
rating agencies, audits of the Federal Reserve, Federal governance
changes, securitization, credentialed supervision to protect the dual
banking system, and on and on, of modifications to the November
discussion draft that I offered last Monday as this new proposal.
The last thing I would do is claim perfection. I am trying to put
together a bill that reflects the various ideas of our colleagues,
necessary to garner the necessary support in order to move from the
committee to the floor of this Chamber for further consideration. That
is not easy. What I have tried to do is to maintain these principles of
eliminating ``too big to fail,'' setting up that systemic risk radar
operation, so we have far more early warnings of the kinds of looming
problems that could threaten our economy and threaten the financial
system of this Nation and others.
This bill does that in a very strong way. Again, I thank my
colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, for their contributions
that are now reflected in the bill that I proposed on Monday, and it
will be the subject of our markup of that bill beginning on Monday,
late Monday afternoon, early Monday evening.
We made other changes as well. In November, I offered a proposal to
create a free-standing consumer protection agency. I thought it made
sense to do so. But there were suggestions that have come from my
colleagues here, both Democrats and Republicans, to place that agency,
renting space, nothing more than that, at the Federal Reserve.
There is a good reason for doing that, in my view, in terms of the
budgetary authority and how we fund the operations. But I insisted that
we have four major principles associated with consumer protection. I
would remind my colleagues, never, ever before have we had a focused
operation in this Nation that was dedicated to protecting the users of
financial services.
We have all read about Toyota and the problems with its braking
system. I am not here to characterize the legitimacy or the accuracy of
those complaints. But what is not in doubt is that there is an agency
of government today which exists which allows a consumer of a bad
product, such as an automobile, or an appliance, or food they eat, to
be able to register that complaint and get redress, so that other
consumers would not be adversely affected by a bad product, a consumer
product, something you buy, something you use, something you eat,
something you drive, something you manipulate.
What we have never had in this country is a counterpart to that kind
of protection when it comes to the mortgage you buy, the credit card
you engage in, the loan you make, the check you deposit, the insurance
policy you buy, or the stock you purchase.
This country deserves, in the 21st century, to be able to say to
consumers of financial products, there is a place where we can offer
some protection for those who might abuse you in the process, as
happened in this most recent crisis.
But we try to do it in a responsible way, because we recognize there
can be a conflict. I am not confident this happens as frequently as
some might suggest, but if there is a conflict between the safety and
soundness rules of a financial institution and the consumer protection
of those who are the purchasers or users of financial services, we have
now changed the proposal I offered on Monday.
This new proposal has our consumer protection agency renting space,
if you will, at the Federal Reserve, but it is independent in its
rulemaking, it is independent in its examination and its ability to
have an enforcement of those financial institutions that have assets,
particularly on examination enforcement above $10 billion, which means
it will go after the largest institutions and the marketers of these
financial products. But those principles of having a presidentially
appointed director, confirmed by the Senate, having an independent
source of funding, are now all reflected in this bill with the changes
we have made.
There are other changes as well. For the first time, large financial
companies will be subject to Federal examination enforcement as well.
This means that for the first time, community banks will see their
nonbank competitors examined and regulated on a level playing field as
well. Small banks have a legitimate complaint, that they have been
subject to regulation, but the nonbanks are not, and that is unfair.
Nonbanks also dispense financial products, and the users or the
purchasers of those products ought to have the same degree of
protection. Our bill that we presented on Monday does that.
There will be no assessments on small banks or large banks or
nonbanks. The Federal Reserve will pay the freight of this agency.
Concerns have been raised that somehow consumer protection will create
safety and soundness. I already suggested to you, we have a mechanism
here that I think will ease or eliminate any concerns people have about
any potential conflict that could possibly occur.
[[Page S1721]]
The point I wanted to make in these two areas, one on ``too big to
fail,'' systemic risk councils, looking at the consumer protection
area, I have been listening carefully to my colleagues, all 22
Democrats and Republicans on the committee. We had over 50 hearings
alone, I believe is the number, this past year on the subject matter.
Since November, it has been 4 months that have gone by with ideas
that have been brought to the table, and they are reflected in this
bill that I offered for consideration on Monday. Beginning on Monday of
next week, we will begin the process of doing what we do here in this
institution of the Senate, we will begin the so-called markup of a
bill, where we sit around, all 23 of us, and try to narrow the
differences that may exist as we try to come forth with a product for
the full consideration of the Senate.
I am looking forward to the amendments that will be filed by noon
tomorrow. It will give us the weekend to analyze those amendments, many
of which I hope we will be able to accept to improve this bill; in
others there may be differences that we cannot resolve in the markup of
the committee.
But I have assured my good friend from Alabama, the ranking
Republican on the committee, Senator Shelby, that I am determined to
get a bill, to do it in an orderly fashion, to have the markup of this
subject matter which is so important to all Americans be done in a
civil fashion, so we listen and respect each other as we craft these
ideas to try and make a difference and see to it that we never again
see our country face the kind of near brink of utter disaster that we
came close to accomplishing as a result of the gaps that have existed
in our financial regulatory system.
I thank my colleagues for indulging me these few minutes to kind of
share with you some of the changes that have occurred since November in
the draft we have offered. There are many more I have not gone into in
these few minutes that are reflected in the proposal.
But it is a balanced bill, one that is designed to be fair and clear,
one that will give us better lines of authority reflecting the changes
that have occurred in our country over many years, allowing for a
greater, I think, sense of confidence that certain things will be done.
One of the changes we made, my good friend from Alabama made the
suggestion and I have included it in the bill. Up to now, the New York
Fed, which is a very important regional Federal bank--the Chair of that
bank has always been chosen by the very banks the New York Fed
regulates. Under our proposal, the head of that New York Fed will be
chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate. That is a major
change. I know it may not seem like much to others, but imagine the
inherent potential contradiction that the very people you are charged
with regulating decide who the regulator is going to be. This bill
changes that, along with many other suggestions. Again, that one came
from my friend from Alabama. I thank him for it, along with many other
ideas reflected in the bill.
I know we have our differences. We have not resolved all of them, but
that is why we are here--to resolve differences and come forward. I am
confident we can do that and that we will end up in the next number of
weeks with a financial reform package that will enjoy broad-based
support in the Senate. We will work with our colleagues in the other
body and offer to the President for his signature the first major
comprehensive reform of financial services institutions since the Great
Depression. The task is a huge one. It is daunting in many ways. The
bill is almost 1,400 pages long. It is a reflection of weeks and months
of work. It is not something crafted over the last weekend and thrown
together. It is a reflection of hours and hours of consultation among
Democrats and Republicans, stakeholders, advisers, and other people who
bring a great deal of wealth and knowledge to this debate.
I felt the time had come to lay down a product and ask my colleagues
to react to it, to ask those knowledgeable about the issue to examine
it and then for us to get about the business we are sent here to do;
that is, to change laws where they need changing, to strengthen
regulators where they need strengthening, to create oversight and
regulation where it is missing so that we can have a renewed confidence
in our economic system. That was my goal at the outset. It is my goal
with the presentation of the bill. It is my confidence that my
colleagues will embrace this as well when we have a chance to cast
final votes in this body.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
until 4:15 p.m. be equally divided and controlled in the usual form and
that at 4:15 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the
following amendments in the order listed; that prior to each vote there
be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual
form; that the second vote in the sequence be a 10-minute vote and no
intervening amendments be in order: Inhofe amendment No. 3549; McCain
amendment No. 3475.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. We will be voting at 4:15 on two amendments. Following
that, we have 17 amendments en bloc that have been agreed to by both
sides. We can't get them here and have them voted on because of
objection, but by and large, they have been agreed on by both sides.
Following that, the issue of the slot rules and perimeter--if we can
find a way to resolve that, we should be able to finish the bill this
afternoon. If not, if there are some who insist they intend to offer
amendments, that will be problematic and we probably will not be able
to finish this bill. This bill is about aviation safety, modernization,
a passenger bill of rights. I hope that we will be able to have some
cooperation by Senators--this is the fifth day we have been on the
floor with this bill--to get this done today. I hope that will be the
case.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 3549
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, in 5 minutes we will be voting on an
amendment I have. I have explained the amendment several times. I first
introduced it as S. 3095, the Honest Expenditure and Limitation Program
Act of 2010. Let me say what it is. We will be voting, if this goes
down, on the McCain amendment and another amendment like we voted on
before. There is an honest difference of opinion.
What I thought would be appropriate is, since we will be voting, very
likely, on another earmark amendment and since I don't think anyone is
going to question the fact that defeating an earmark doesn't save a
nickel, if we have an alternative that really does mean something, this
would be our chance to vote on it.
What I would like to do is briefly explain what the amendment is that
we will be voting on in a few minutes.
Some time ago, President Obama came out with his program where he
said, during the State of the Union: I plan to freeze nondefense
discretionary spending at 2010 levels. A lot of people applauded,
believing that to be some type of a gesture that was a conservative
gesture that would reduce spending when, in fact, it didn't because he
was talking about the 2010 levels--that is after 1 year--and it has
been increased by 20 percent. What he was saying is we are going to
raise the nondefense discretionary spending by 20 percent and then
freeze it. Rather than raise it by 20 percent and freeze it, the
fiscally responsible thing to do is to go ahead and freeze it at the
previous level.
Quite often, we have heard President Obama say what he inherited from
the previous administration. I always hasten to say that, yes, there
were some
[[Page S1722]]
deficits during the Bush administration. But the deficit in the first
year of the Obama administration--about $1.5 trillion--is more than the
last 5 years collectively of President George W. Bush. It is important
for people to understand that.
We have an unsustainable debt. You are looking at someone who has 20
kids and grandkids. It is the next generation that is going to face it.
We can't continue to do this. Yes, it is a nice gesture. A lot of
people think you can eliminate earmarks and eliminate funding. That has
nothing to do with it. You don't save a nickel. But you do with this.
If we pass this amendment, we would be able to effectively reduce the
expenditures over a 10-year budget cycle of just under $1 trillion.
What we are trying to do is have a freeze on discretionary spending
at 2008 levels for all nonsecurity appropriations, worded the same way
President Obama's effort was worded. The only difference is that we use
the 2008 spending level. We have a lot of cosponsors. I hope people
will seriously consider this. If they really want to reduce spending,
this is their chance to do so.
I understand we have a vote that is coming at 15 after the hour; is
that correct?
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, in the name of reducing our national
debt, this amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma seeks to
freeze discretionary spending at fiscal year 2008 levels for the next
10 years.
While I understand and support the need to restrain discretionary
spending as a part of the solution to our debt problem, this draconian
approach is most certainly not the way to accomplish that task.
As I have said before, it is a fact that the growth in the debt has
resulted primarily from unchecked mandatory spending and massive tax
cuts for the rich. This amendment, as have several offered from the
other side of the aisle, fails to respond to either of those two
problems. For this reason alone, my colleagues should not support it.
We need a comprehensive solution to the national debt, one that
addresses spending, mandatory programs, and revenues. Any honest budget
analyst can tell you we will never achieve a balanced budget just by
freezing discretionary spending. We could eliminate all discretionary
spending increases for defense, other security spending, and non-
defense and still not balance the budget.
Again, I remind my colleagues if we cut discretionary spending
without reaching an agreement on mandatory spending and taxes we will
find it very hard to get those who do not want to address revenues to
compromise.
For exactly that reason, the administration has just announced that
it will create a Deficit Reduction Commission to help us get our
financial house in order. It will look at both revenue and spending and
find the right balance to restore fiscal discipline.
They will make their recommendations to the Congress and the majority
leader has committed that the recommendations of that Commission will
be brought to the Senate for a vote.
If we adopt the Inhofe caps we will have to effectively eliminate the
President's agenda for discretionary spending--education, green jobs,
and homeland security. And this amendment would keep the spending caps
in place for ten years. With one amendment, we would actually be tying
the hands of the next administration as well.
In my time as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I have
consistently advocated for regular order. Regular order allows all of
our colleagues to participate, debate and offer amendments to the
appropriations bills. It allows the budget committee to play the
essential role that it does. The Inhofe amendment turns regular order
on its head.
This amendment fails to do anything serious about deficits. It fails
to address the two principal reasons why our fiscal house is out of
balance.
As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I agree that everyone
should tighten their belts. The problem with this amendment is that all
the tightening will be done on a small portion of spending, while
revenues and mandatory spending will still be unchecked.
The Senate has already rejected a less draconian version of this plan
three times in the last 2 months. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes now evenly divided on the
Senator's amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. All right. Well, Madam President, I will go ahead and
take my minute.
This amendment is something that would reduce expenditures, do
something about the deficit. I know there are a lot of my Democratic
friends and Republican friends alike who would like a chance to do
this. I know there is a feel-good vote coming up on earmarks, but that
does not reduce anything in terms of the expenditures.
If you vote on an earmark, and you defeat the earmark, it does not
cut the amount of money, but the underlying bill will go back to some
bureaucracy. It can be the Department of the Interior. It can be the
Environmental Protection Agency. It can be any number of departments.
Then an unelected bureaucrat will be making that decision.
It was interesting the other day when, in a three-part series, Sean
Hannity had on his program 102 earmarks. When he was all through--and I
read all of these Monday on the floor--the interesting thing about it,
what they all had in common was not one of those earmarks was a
congressional earmark. They were all bureaucratic earmarks. That is
where the problem is, not the congressional earmarks. So I am going to
urge my friends to support a real effort, a sincere effort, and an
effective effort to reduce government spending by voting for my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I yield back the time.
I make a point that the pending amendment deals with matter within
the Budget Committee's jurisdiction.
I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section
306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(g)3 of the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of
those acts and applicable budget resolutions for the purposes of my
amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Bennett).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 59 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Alexander
Barrasso
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--56
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Bennett
Byrd
Rockefeller
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are
56.
[[Page S1723]]
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Amendment No. 3475
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes, evenly divided, before
a vote with respect to the McCain amendment.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this is a very complicated and complex,
difficult amendment to understand. It would place a moratorium on all
earmarks on years in which there is a deficit.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, the reason I proposed the previous
amendment is because it would do something about the runaway spending
and the deficit we have. It would have had the effect of reducing just
under $1 trillion in a 10-year period.
This doesn't work. I know everyone thinks they want to jump on the
bandwagon on earmark reform, but there is not any earmark that if you
kill it, it saves one nickel. To me, it is deceptive to the public. For
those people on this side of the aisle, I would only say that if you
want to give President Obama that much more money to deal with, this is
your opportunity to do it, because if you kill an earmark, it goes back
into the bureaucracy and that is where he will have the choice.
The other night when we had the 102 earmarks that the ``Sean Hannity
Show'' talked about, not one was a congressional earmark. So I don't
think the votes are going to change but, nonetheless, nothing will be
saved by this.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3475.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Viriginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from
West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Bennett).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 26, nays 70, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 60 Leg.]
YEAS--26
Barrasso
Bayh
Brownback
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
McCain
McCaskill
Risch
Sessions
Thune
Vitter
NAYS--70
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Bennett
Byrd
Murray
Rockefeller
The amendment (No. 3475) was rejected.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Sunshine Week
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, there is finally some sunshine on the
Capitol dome today, and it is a welcome change from all the snow we
have had this winter, so it is appropriate that this is Sunshine Week.
But that is not a reference to the weather. Sunshine Week is a
nonpartisan, open-government initiative led by the American Society of
News Editors.
It is a good time, then, to talk about congressional oversight and
the need for Congress to keep a watchful eye on the executive branch.
That is what oversight is all about--checks and balances in government.
I would like to refer to the President's inaugural address and use it
as a benchmark for measuring sunshine in government. President Obama
promised in the inaugural address to bring more sunshine to the Federal
Government, and I want to quote him.
Those of us who manage the public's dollar will be held to
account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our
business in the light of day, because only then can we
restore the vital trust between a people and their
government.
So let's just see how what has taken place in the last 15 months
measures against this very good standard the President set in the
inaugural address. I couldn't agree more with the President on what he
said. The government should do its business in the light of day.
Unfortunately, in my work, I have noticed no improvement in the
openness of the Federal Government.
One vital step the President could have taken to ensure greater
transparency would have been to order agencies to be more forthcoming
in responding to requests from Congress--not just from this Senator but
from any Senator. He could have instructed them to review and revise
some of the secretive policies that have developed over the years.
These policies are not required by law and simply serve to frustrate
the ability of Congress to gather information we need in order to act
as a check on the power and responsibilities of the executive branch.
However, the President has apparently not taken that step because the
agencies have been as aggressive as ever in withholding information
from Congress.
Throughout my career here in the Senate, I have actively conducted
oversight of the executive branch, regardless of who controls Congress
or the White House. So that means, for me, as a Republican, I feel I
have been just as aggressive, or more so, with a Republican President
as with a Democratic President because it is our constitutional duty as
legislators to do this.
These issues are typically about basic good government and
accountability. They are not about party politics, and they surely
aren't about ideology. The resistance is often fierce--resistance from
the bureaucracy, that is--protecting itself in what the bureaucracy
does best. It loves to protect itself from scrutiny, and it works
overtime to keep embarrassing facts from Congress and, in turn, from
public scrutiny.
When the agencies I am reviewing get defensive and refuse to respond
to my requests, you know what. It makes me simply wonder what they are
trying to hide. They act as if documents in government files belong to
them. These unelected officials seem to think they alone have the right
to decide who gets access to that information--collected, by the way,
at taxpayers' expense. Well, I have news for them. These documents in
the government files belong to the people, and the elected
representatives of the people have a right to see them. That right is
essential to carry out our oversight functions under the Constitution.
I had hoped President Obama's commitment to a more open government
would mean major changes that would enable more effective congressional
oversight. As he said in his inaugural address, those who manage public
dollars ought to be held to account and do business in the light of
day. But actions always speak louder than words. Given my experience in
trying to pry information out of the executive branch, I am
disappointed to report that the principles the President articulated so
well are not being put into practice.
The administration seems to act as if government officials ought to
be held
[[Page S1724]]
to account and do business in the light of the day except when they do
not want to. There are too many exceptions to count, and I am just
going to list a few. Let's contrast the President's words with the
agencies' actions. The President's words say that government should do
business in the light of day. The agencies' actions say except when it
comes to improper payment of Medicare.
As a part of my oversight function of Medicare, Congress reviews
annual reports that the administration is required to produce. One of
these reports is on improper Medicare payments. That was due last
November. Congress is still waiting to see the numbers for improper
payments made to specific types of health care providers and for
specific services. Improper payment rates vary widely among different
types of providers and, of course, services. So this information would
help us to determine where to focus our efforts. We have not received
such breakdowns of improper payments since the year 2007. We need these
numbers to evaluate how the Federal Government is addressing fraud,
waste, and abuse and to inform our discussions on legislation about
health care financing.
Let's go to another example because I want to repeat the President's
words: Government should do business in the light of day. Their actions
say: Except when it comes to potential Medicaid fraud. Overutilization
of health services and health care fraud play a significant role in the
rising cost of our health care system.
I wrote to the Department of Health and Human Services and the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 3 months ago about what they
are doing about overutilization of health care services. I specifically
asked about a Medicaid prescriber in south Florida who--now hear this--
who wrote over 96,000 prescriptions for mental health drugs, nearly
twice the number written by the second highest prescriber. It was just
a simple question about one Medicare prescriber, and I am still waiting
for a response.
On another example--his words would say government should do business
in the light of day. The actions of the administration say except when
it comes to protecting the privacy of an al-Qaida terrorist.
Listen to this. In preparation for a hearing on Christmas Day bombing
attempts, my Republican colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee
requested a copy of something very simple, a copy of the bomber's visa
application. We wanted to learn more about why he was given permission
to enter the United States in the first place, and why his visa wasn't
revoked after his father warned the U.S. officials that he might be
planning something.
The State Department first tried to withhold the document on grounds
that it might be evidence in a criminal proceeding. But after the
Justice Department said that was not an issue, you know what. The State
Department comes along and tries to not cooperate. The State Department
changed its position and claimed that a provision in the immigration
law required them to protect the al-Qaida terrorist's privacy by
withholding documents about how he was given permission to enter the
country.
After going through all that, all I can say is--transparency, on a
little simple visa application, and it cannot be given to us?
On another example, the President says: Government should do business
in the light of day. Their actions say: Except when it comes to
information about how Treasury officials allowed AIG executives to make
off with millions of taxpayer dollars. Since last December, I have
exchanged a series of letters with Treasury Secretary Geithner and his
staff. I have some detailed questions about exactly which executives
received which kind of payments under which contracts, and then why the
Treasury Department did not do more to stop those payments. I even
addressed the issue directly with Secretary Geithner at a Finance
Committee hearing. He promised that I would get the information I was
seeking. Yet Treasury Department lawyers are still withholding the
documents on the grounds that they have to protect the privacy of AIG
executives.
Is government doing its business in the light of day? No. They are
still refusing to answer questions about why Treasury regulators
allowed AIG to make large severance payments, even though the statute
provided the authority to stop those payments.
On another example, and to repeat the President's words: Government
should do business in the light of day. What do the actions show?
Except when it comes to allegations of misconduct in the Department of
Justice.
When Attorney General Eric Holder and I met during his confirmation
process, I provided him with a binder that thick full of unanswered
letters that I had written regarding the FBI and Justice Department
oversight issues in the Bush administration. I was trying to give the
Attorney General an opportunity to clear the deck so somehow it was not
mixed up with the new administration. I had promises of renewed efforts
to accommodate my information requests. The Department has not altered
its policies of withholding documents relating to personnel matters and
any other matter that might be the subject of internal reviews in the
Justice Department.
For years I have been seeking internal Justice Department e-mails
related to the FBI's use of so-called exigent letters, together with
telephone records of Americans, without a subpoena, and even when there
is no legitimate emergency. At first the excuse was that the Congress
had to wait for the inspector general to finish a review, but that
review is complete at long last. Yet the documents that were supposed
to be provided are still being withheld.
Congress is not the only one from whom the executive branch is
withholding information. I asked the Government Accountability Office
in September about its difficulties in obtaining access to records and
other information from the Federal agencies over the last year. As an
investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office
investigates how the Federal Government spends taxpayers' dollars, and
in order to do that work the GAO requires access to agency documents.
So what has been the record of the Government Accountability Office?
They have told me that it generally receives good cooperation, but it
has and continues to have access issues at certain agencies such as the
Department of Homeland Security. According to the Government
Accountability Office, Homeland Security has ``posed continual access
challenges for GAO since the department began operations in 2003.''
The Government Accountability Office also indicated that access to
information at the Justice Department and the FBI is also particularly
problematic. Despite a bipartisan request--get this--a bipartisan
request from both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to audit
the FBI's human capital management of its counterterrorism division,
the Government Accountability Office has been stonewalled by the
Justice Department with new and unprecedented claims that the FBI's
intelligence-related functions are off-limits for GAO review.
Understand this: This is the top Republican, top Democrat on the
House Judiciary Committee and counterparts on the Senate Judiciary
Committee. So it is bipartisan and it is bicameral. Even the Government
Accountability Office has trouble getting the information.
The public has also been stonewalled when making requests for records
under the Freedom of Information Act. When he first took office, the
President back-issued a memo on the Freedom of Information Act to the
heads of executive agencies. Listen as I quote. Who is not going to
agree with this? The President is doing what a President who campaigned
on openness and transparency in government and accountability should be
doing. He is doing what he said he was going to do in the campaign. But
having it come out the other end of the pipeline, it doesn't seem to
work that way.
The Government should not keep information confidential
merely because public officials might be embarrassed by
disclosure, because of errors and failures that might be
revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.
Then he goes on to instruct the executive agencies to:
. . . adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order
to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in the
Freedom of
[[Page S1725]]
Information Act, and to usher in a new era of open
government.
I compliment the President of the United States. Such a good
statement, and just what government ought to be standing for because
the public's business ought to be public.
The President may have issued a pledge of openness and transparent
government, but this week we had the National Security Archive release
findings of its Freedom of Information Act audit and found that the
administration ``has not conquered the challenge of communicating and
enforcing that message throughout the Executive Branch.''
Particularly, the organization found that requests as old as 18 years
still exist in the freedom of information system. Somebody made a
request 18 years ago, and it has not been granted? Probably the guy who
asked for it, or whoever asked for it, is dead and buried now. Why
can't something like that be done? It does not meet the commonsense
test that we are interested in bringing to Washington--Washington, an
island surrounded by reality. And only in the unreal world could there
be a freedom of information request 18 years old that has not yet been
granted.
This organization also found that five agencies appear to be
releasing less and withholding more information, even since this
President's Executive order has been in place. How can people thumb
their noses at the President of the United States if they are working
under his direction? The White House has said it is committed to more
open and transparent government. In his memo to the heads of the
executive agencies, the President said ``openness will strengthen our
democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government,'' and
that ``transparency promotes accountability.''
Again--extreme compliment to the President of the United States for
setting a standard. That is absolutely in the spirit of representative
government. But somehow the message has clearly not gotten through.
It comes back to us and our constitutional responsibilities of checks
and balances. It is our job in Congress to ensure that agencies are
more transparent and responsive to the people we represent. Congress is
not doing its job if we do not hold agencies accountable and ensure
that executive policies reflect the interests of our constituents. In
other words, the public's business ought to be public.
I will continue doing what I can to hold feet to the fire. It would
be helpful if the President would use his authority to require agencies
to change their actions to be consistent with his words.
I do not get a chance to compliment this President very much, but he
surely has set the standard here that we ought to have in our
Government. It just proves, if he really wants it to happen, even if
you are President of the United States, it is difficult to get people
down in the bowels of the bureaucracy to carry out what you want.
You wonder why people in this country are cynical. That is one
reason. But the President can do it. He ought to call all these birds
in that are frustrating his principles and look them in the eye and
tell them: Either do what I want or get out of government.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. LeMIEUX. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Health Care
Mr. LeMIEUX. Madam President, I have come to the floor to again talk
about the health care bill that is being worked on over in the House
that will potentially be voted on--we are hearing this weekend--and to
talk about the myths around this bill, what is being told to the
American people and what the facts are, so the American people can know
what this Congress is trying to get them into. In this past week, I
came to the floor and spoke about 10 myths about this health care bill.
I do not wish to go through in detail all those myths today, but we
have some new information about a couple of them that I wished to focus
on and go over the list of those myths.
Myth 1 was: You get to keep your health insurance if you like what
you have. The President has been saying this all around the country. We
know that is not true because, according to the Congressional Budget
Office, between 9 and 17 million people are going to lose their health
insurance from their employer when their employer is going to drop that
insurance and make their employees go into the new public system. So
you are not going to get to keep it.
We know folks on Medicare Advantage are not necessarily going to get
to keep their Medicare Advantage because we are going to cut Medicare
Advantage by $120 billion. To the more than 1 million people in Florida
who have Medicare Advantage, Medicare Part C, which offers them
wellness benefits, hearing benefits, eyesight benefits, programs they
like, we know over time they are not going to get to keep that in the
way they have it now.
We also know health insurance premiums are not going to go down. That
is myth No. 2. The very reason why this country wanted health care
reform, the No.1 reason: to lower the cost of health insurance. We know
health insurance has gone up more than 130 percent in the last 10
years. Yet this bill does little or nothing to lower the cost of health
insurance for the 159 million Americans who have health insurance.
Some may see their rates go down 3 percent--that is the best it
gets--while those in the individual market may see their rates go up 10
to 12 percent in the next 10 years. We are supposed to be about the
business of health care reform, and we are not going to lower the cost
of health insurance.
We talked about whether this would just lower the overall cost of
health care itself. That was the third myth we discussed. But we know
that Federal outlays for health care are going to increase by more than
$200 billion in the next 10 years.
This idea that this health care plan is going to reduce the deficit,
that is just funny math. We know this bill has 6 years of spending, 6
years of benefits, if you will, and 10 years of taxes. Only in
Washington could someone try to say you were going to spend $1 trillion
and save $100 billion.
We know it does not even take into account the fact that we have to
give doctors more money in the Medicare system. The Democrats put that
in a separate bill, so we do not score that $300 billion cost because,
if you did, there would be no deficit reduction. We also know emergency
rooms are not going to be less burdened. If we look at the example of
Massachusetts that instituted health care reform, they are seeing just
as many people crowd their emergency rooms because the folks there tell
them it is more convenient than to wait in line to see their doctor.
See, when you push more people into the system and do not provide
adequate funding for more health care providers, you do not change and
make the system more user friendly, so the folks still show up at the
emergency room.
Another myth we busted is that this plan takes on the insurance
companies, when, in fact, it is going to put millions of more people
into an insurance program. That is why the insurance companies like it.
We also busted the myth that this health care reform is going to
improve the doctor-patient relationship. It is not. There is still
going to be a third-party payer. We still fundamentally miss the
opportunity of getting you, the patient, back involved in the consumer
decision.
If we would have taken a page from what we proposed on our side of
the aisle and given you a tax credit to let you go in the market and
buy insurance yourself, we know that would have driven costs down
because you would have been a consumer.
Right now, my wife and I are about to have our fourth child any day
now. I remember getting those bills from the hospital on our previous
boys when they were born. Similar to most folks, you do not read it,
you just look at the bottom and see what you owe. You do not look at
all the line-by-line items. You would have to hire someone to help make
sense of all that. We have to put consumers back in the health care
game. We have to know what we are buying and what we are paying for
because we know as consumers we will make a good decision.
We do it in the car insurance market and guess what. The companies
that
[[Page S1726]]
compete nationally, unlike health care companies that compete only
within certain States, they are advertising to us on TV: ``So easy a
caveman can do it.'' ``Do you have 15 minutes? You can save 15 percent
on your car insurance.''
We know all these slogans because the market is working. The market
does not work in health care, and this legislation does nothing to fix
it.
We know that eventually under this program, the taxes will go up not
down because every government program we put together, certainly
entitlement programs, always cost more than we think. They always cost
our children and our grandchildren more as we have this ever-increasing
national debt, now $12 trillion, a debt our kids are going to have to
pay and our grandchildren, a debt that could make this country not the
same place of opportunity that we all have experienced and we all
enjoy.
But I wished to specifically talk about a couple of the myths that
there has been some recent information about. One thing I talked about
earlier this week is this idea about premiums. The President of the
United States, this week when he was campaigning, said that health care
overall, lower premiums will be achieved by this legislation and that
those premiums will go down double digits.
The fact is, that is not true. As we talked about before, the fact
is, the best it is--and I put this chart from the Congressional Budget
Office into the Congressional Record earlier this week--the best it is,
is 3 percent down.
I ask unanimous consent that this article from the Associated Press
called: ``Fact Check: Premiums would rise under Obama plan,'' by Mr.
Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Fact Check: Premiums Would Rise Under Obama Plan
(By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar)
Washington.--Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says
his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double
digits, but check the fine print.
Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health
care bill passes, experts say. If cost controls work as
advertised, annual increases would level off with time. But
don't look for a rollback. Instead, the main reason premiums
would be more affordable is that new government tax credits
would help cover the cost for millions of people.
Listening to Obama pitch his plan, you might not realize
that's how it works.
Visiting a Cleveland suburb this week, the president
described how individuals and small businesses will be able
to buy coverage in a new kind of health insurance
marketplace, gaining the same strength in numbers that
federal employees have.
``You'll be able to buy in, or a small business will be
able to buy into this pool,'' Obama said. ``And that will
lower rates, it's estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over
what you're currently getting. That's money out of pocket.''
And that's not all.
Obama asked his audience for a show of hands from people
with employer-provided coverage, what most Americans have.
``Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by
as much as 3,000 percent,'' said the president, ``which means
they could give you a raise.'
A White House press spokesman later said the president
misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by
$3,000.
It could be a long wait.
``There's no question premiums are still going to keep
going up,'' said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family
Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care
system. ``There are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep
them from going up as fast. But it would be miraculous if
premiums actually went down relative to where they are
today.''
The statistics Obama based his claims on come from two
sources. In both cases, the caveats got left out.
A report for the Business Roundtable, an association of big
company CEOs, was the source for the claim that employers
could save $3,000 per worker on health care costs, the White
House said.
Issued in November, the report looked generally at
proposals that Democrats were considering to curb health care
costs, concluding they had the potential to significantly
reduce future increases.
But the analysis didn't consider specific legislation, much
less the final language being tweaked this week. It's unclear
to what degree the bill that the House is expected to vote on
within days would reduce costs for employers.
An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of earlier
Senate legislation suggested savings could be fairly modest.
It found that large employers would see premium savings of
at most 3 percent compared with what their costs would have
been without the legislation. That would be more like a few
hundred dollars instead of several thousand.
The claim that people buying coverage individually would
save 14 percent to 20 percent comes from the same budget
office report, prepared in November for Sen. Evan Bayh, D-
Ind. But the presidential sound bite fails to convey the full
picture.
The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying
their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to
13 percent, compared with the levels they'd reach without the
legislation. That's mainly because policies in the individual
insurance market would provide more comprehensive benefits
than they do today.
For most households, those added costs would be more than
offset by the tax credits provided under the bill, and they
would pay significantly less than they have to now.
The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that
Obama cites would apply only to a portion of the people
buying coverage on their own--those who decide they want to
keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.
Their costs would go down because more young people would
be joining the risk pool and because insurance company
overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system
Obama wants to create.
The president usually alludes to that distinction in his
health care stump speech, saying the savings would accrue to
those people who continue to buy ``comparable'' coverage to
what they have today.
But many of his listeners may not pick up on it.
``People are likely to not buy the same low-value policies
they are buying now,'' said health economist Len Nichols of
George Mason University. ``If they did buy the same value
plans . . . the premium would be lower than it is now. This
makes the White House statement true. But is it possibly
misleading for some people? Sure.''
Mr. LeMIEUX. This article goes through specifically these points. The
President of the United States campaigned this week saying that:
You'll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able
to buy into this pool. And that will lower rates, it's
estimated by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you're
currently getting. That's money out of pocket.
Then he says:
Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by
as much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a
raise.
They later corrected the record to mean $3,000, your premiums could
fall $3,000. Well, with all due respect, there is no evidence of this
in an analysis of this bill. That is what the Associated Press says in
their fact check.
In fact, for those in the individual marketplace--and this is not the
Senator from Florida speaking, this is the Congressional Budget
Office--increases of up to 10 to 13 percent; for everybody else, either
stays the same, goes up a little or maybe goes down 3 percent, and that
is if they got it right.
So it is important to bust this myth. Your insurance is not going
down under this plan. If you thought we were going to enact health care
reform and you were going to have a lower cost of health insurance,
you, unfortunately, similar to many millions of Americans, were given
the wrong impression because this bill does nothing of the sort.
Let me talk a minute also, if I may, about what this is going to mean
and what sort of the future of health care is. The system does not work
now for the point I made a moment ago, which is that we as consumers
are not involved in the equation. I can't think of anything else in our
life where we have so little knowledge of what we are buying, and we
have so little knowledge of what the cost is.
Do we know what the cost of these procedures are that we undertake?
If we have to get an MRI or a CAT scan or a stent put in our heart, do
we know what the market price for that is? We do not. The reason why is
because the system has become so complex with a third-party payer. What
that means is either your insurance company pays or your government
pays through Medicare, Medicaid or the VA, and we as consumers do not
pay.
Because of that, we have broken what we know works in the
marketplace. You want to control costs, you have to put the consumer
back in the driver's seat. That is why our proposal on this side of the
aisle to give consumers who cannot afford health insurance now a tax
credit to let them go in the marketplace and to shop around and get
involved in their health care decisions, we know that would lower
costs. This plan is not going to lower costs. In fact, it is going to
raise costs.
But let me tell you where we are going with this new government plan.
I am an optimist about this country, so I hate to talk about something
that is pessimistic. But it is my responsibility to tell you facts. We
have three major
[[Page S1727]]
health care programs in this country: Veterans, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Medicare is health care for seniors. Medicaid is health care for the
poor. I wish to talk about the latter two. Those systems are not
working, and they are increasingly not working for more and more
Americans. The reason why is, they are not properly funded. There is no
way to control costs. So what are we finding? We are finding that
doctors are not taking Medicare and Medicaid anymore. If you want to
know what the future of Medicare is, which is health care for seniors,
take a look at Medicaid, which is in worse shape than Medicare.
We know both these programs are huge entitlement programs that, under
their current form, we cannot afford. We know there is going to be this
huge debt that our children are going to have to pay. It may not be our
children, it may be here in the next few years because we have not
properly funded these programs and we have not controlled costs.
I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
It is from the March 17, 2010, Seattle Times, an article by Janet Tu,
which is entitled: ``Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April
16.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Seattle Times, Mar. 17, 2010]
Walgreens: No New Medicaid Patients as of April 16
(By Janet I. Tu)
Effective April 16, Walgreens drugstores across the state
won't take any new Medicaid patients, saying that filling
their prescriptions is a money-losing proposition--the latest
development in an ongoing dispute over Medicaid
reimbursement.
The company, which operates 121 stores in the state, will
continue filling Medicaid prescriptions for current patients.
In a news release, Walgreens said its decision to not take
new Medicaid patients stemmed from a ``continued reduction in
reimbursement'' under the state's Medicaid program, which
reimburses it at less than the break-even point for 95
percent of brand-name medications dispensed to Medicaid
patents.
Walgreens follows Bartell Drugs, which stopped taking new
Medicaid patients last month at all 57 of its stores in
Washington, though it still fills Medicaid prescriptions for
existing customers at all but 15 of those stores.
Doug Porter, the state's director of Medicaid, said
Medicaid recipients should be able to readily find another
pharmacy because ``we have many more pharmacy providers in
our network than we need'' for the state's 1 million Medicaid
clients.
He said those who can't can contact the state's Medical
Assistance Customer Service Center at 1-800-562-3022 for help
in locating one.
Along with Walgreens and Bartell, the Ritzville Drug
Company in Adams County announced in November that it would
stop participating in Medicaid.
Fred Meyer and Safeway said their pharmacies would continue
to serve existing Medicaid patients and to take new ones,
though both expressed concern that the reimbursement rate is
too low for pharmacies to make a profit.
The amount private insurers and Medicaid pay pharmacies for
prescriptions isn't the actual cost of those drugs but rather
is based on what's called the drug's estimated average
wholesale price. But that figure is more like the sticker
price on a car than its actual wholesale cost.
Washington was reimbursing pharmacies 86 percent of a
drug's average wholesale price until July, when it began
paying them just 84 percent. While pharmacies weren't happy
about the reimbursement reduction, the Department of Social
and Health Services said that move was expected to save the
state about $10 million.
Then in September came another blow. The average wholesale
price is calculated by a private company, which was accused
in a Massachusetts lawsuit of fraudulently inflating its
figures. The company did not admit wrongdoing but agreed in a
court settlement to ratchet its figures down by about 4
percent.
That agreement took effect in September--and prompted a
lawsuit by a group of pharmacies and trade associations that
said Washington state didn't follow federal law in setting
its reimbursement rate, and that that rate is too low. The
lawsuit is pending.
``Washington state Medicaid is now reimbursing pharmacies
less than their cost of participation,'' said Jeff Rochon,
CEO of the Washington State Pharmacy Association.
Pharmacies that continue to fill Medicaid prescriptions at
the current state reimbursement rate are ``at risk of putting
themselves out of business altogether,'' he said.
Mr. LeMIEUX. So here we are. Walgreens, a major pharmacy in Seattle,
is not going to take Medicaid anymore. Why are they not going to take
Medicaid? They are not going to take Medicaid because the Federal
Government is not reimbursing enough for them to make any money.
Medicaid is a Federal-State match. But more and more we are seeing
the health care providers will not take Medicaid. We know that in major
metropolitan areas, if you are a new Medicaid patient and you are
looking for a specialist, that 50 percent of the doctors will not see
you.
There is another article here that came out this week in the New York
Times, March 15, 2010. It is an article by Kevin Sack: ``With Medicaid
Cuts, Doctors and Patients Drop Out.''
It is a story from Flint, MI. It talks about a lady by the name of
Carol Vliet, about her cancer. She has tumors metastasizing to her
brain, her liver, her kidneys, and her heart.
The President of the United States and my colleague on the other side
of the aisle like to give individual examples about people who are
suffering without health insurance. Here is a lady who has Medicaid, a
government-run program. The only solace she has is she has found a
doctor she likes, Dr. Sahouri.
He has given her a regimen of chemotherapy and radiation for the past
2 years that is giving her some relief, but she was devastated when she
found out from Dr. Sahouri a couple months ago that he could no longer
see her because, like a growing number of doctors, he had stopped
taking patients with Medicaid.
It is not just Medicaid; it is also now Medicare. We know that if you
are trying to get into Medicare, only about 78 percent of providers are
taking Medicare. Here we are, we are about to create a huge new
government entitlement program to put 31 million more Americans into a
health care system funded by the government. In the programs we have
now, doctors and health care providers are dropping the patients. These
programs are broken. Yet we are going to create a new one. We are going
to create a new one by taking money out of Medicare, a program where
the health care providers are increasingly more and more not seeing
patients. We are going to take more than $500 billion out of Medicare.
In fact, we have found out, from this new bill that came from the House
today, that the number has gone up, that it is now more than $500
billion that is going to be taken out of Medicare. We are going to take
money out of a program already having problems to start a new one. It
makes no sense.
This is why the American people are extremely upset with this health
care proposal. There isn't a Senator who doesn't want health care
reform. There isn't a Member of Congress today who doesn't want to
provide more access and lower the cost of health care insurance for
those who have it. But this plan does not do that, and it creates a
huge new entitlement program by robbing Peter to pay Paul. We are going
to jeopardize health care for seniors and turn Medicare into Medicaid,
a program where pharmacies and doctors are dropping patients.
I am new to the Senate. My experience is in State government and
business. There are men and women of good will in this body. I believe
if we could get together and work in a good faith fashion, we could
figure out how to do this in a step-by-step approach, to lower cost and
increase access without breaking the bank and putting a huge burden on
the children in a world where we already have a $12 trillion debt. But
the people of this Chamber and the one down the hall have to get about
the business of doing the people's work and remember they are the boss
and that we work for them. The time for partisanship is over. The time
for getting things done and being problem solvers is here. I am one
Senator--and I know there are many--who is willing to work with anyone
on the other side on any important issues facing the country who is
willing to work with me.
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. BURRIS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
[[Page S1728]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, in Washington there is a great deal of
talk about what health care reform will mean for various segments of
the population. In particular, many of us spend a lot of time talking
about 47 million Americans who do not currently have health insurance
and how they stand to benefit from our reform bill. This debate has
centered on these folks, especially the 31 million people who will gain
access to coverage under our proposal. In my opinion, this alone should
be reason enough to pass health care reform. Expanding access to
coverage will improve relative health outcomes and save money across
the board. It will shift our focus from sick care to preventive care
and will reduce wait time in emergency rooms. This will have a profound
effect on the lives of millions, and it speaks to the profound need for
comprehensive health care reform. But that is only a part of the story.
Many of my friends in this Chamber and many people across the country
recognize the need to expand health coverage. But they are also worried
about the effects that health reform will have on their insurance.
Middle-class Americans hear all this talk about helping people with no
insurance at all and they say: That is great, but I need help too. My
premiums are going up, and benefits are disappearing. I am worried that
I don't have stable coverage, or that I won't have access to care when
I need it. How will reform help me?
I think it is time to take a deeper look at these folks. It is time
to provide some answers to their questions. It is time to explain how
our proposal would affect their lives. I wish to talk about what our
reform bill will mean for the middle class and especially the minority
community that have felt the worst effect of our economic crisis.
As I address this Chamber today, there are 88 million people who lack
stable health coverage. That is almost a third of the total population
who live in fear that their coverage would vanish at any time.
Unfortunately, those fears reflect a harsh reality that it is
impossible for middle-class families to ignore. In Illinois alone,
there are some 612,000 people who have nongroup insurance. These folks
will see their premiums go up by as much as 60 percent this year. I am
sure my colleagues can agree, that is outrageous.
But it doesn't have to be this way. If we pass a final health care
bill and send it to President Obama, middle-class America will start to
see the benefits almost immediately. Our legislation would bring
unprecedented stability to the market. No one would have to fear that
their insurance providers would drop their coverage. No one could be
denied care because of a preexisting condition. Our bill will give the
American people more power and more choices. It will bring real
competition to the insurance market. It will create significant cost
savings, and it will restore accountability in the insurance industry.
For the average American, this means saving hundreds or even
thousands of dollars a year. It means more time with family doctors and
less paperwork and redtape. It means free preventive care and
discounted premiums for those who stay in shape, quit smoking, and
control their weight. It means no one can be denied coverage because of
a preexisting condition, and no one will be forced to pay higher
premiums because they get sick. If we pass a final health care bill,
1.8 million people in Illinois will be able to get coverage for the
very first time. The 612,000 people in the nongroup market will have an
option to buy affordable coverage on the insurance exchange. This will
reduce their premiums and improve the quality of their coverage almost
overnight.
But it doesn't stop there. One million additional Illinoisans could
qualify for tax credits that could make it easier to afford insurance
and perhaps, most importantly, 144,000 small businesses would benefit
from a tax credit designed to make coverage more affordable. This
strikes at the heart of the debate we have been having in recent weeks,
especially as it relates to the middle class.
My friends across the aisle are trying to stop us from passing
reform. They want us to focus on job creation instead. But what they
fail to realize is that these two problems go hand in hand. We can't
solve one problem without addressing the other. If we make health
insurance more affordable, American companies and especially small
businesses will be able to hire more workers. They will be able to
afford full coverage for their employees, and there will no longer be
any incentives to lay off older workers or to save on premiums. This
will make a profound difference in the lives of ordinary folks in my
home State and across the country.
About 75 percent of Illinois businesses are small businesses. Under
the current system, only 41 percent of them have been able to offer
health benefits. But if we pass comprehensive reform--if we will extend
a tax credit to 144,000 Illinois small businesses and millions of
businesses nationwide--it will reduce the burden on working families.
It will help businesses recover from the recession, and even start to
expand again. It will help create jobs.
That is what our health care reform bill will mean for middle-class
Americans: stability, security, better coverage; freedom to shop around
and find a good price; competition in the market; renewed
accountability. That is what health care reform will do for millions of
ordinary folks across the country.
For minority communities, these effects will be even more pronounced.
In Illinois, more than 21 percent of minorities do not have health
insurance, compared with 12 percent of Whites. This places them at a
greater risk for problems down the road--problems ranging from higher
infant mortality to increased rates of chronic diseases in later life.
Combine these risks with a higher property rate, and you have a recipe
for disaster.
But our bill will help to change all of this. It will change that.
Our bill will expand coverage, invest in preventive care, and help spur
job creation. It will have a dramatic effect on the hard-hit
communities and minority areas that need the help the most.
So on behalf of middle-class Americans and minority individuals and
small businesses, on behalf of millions of ordinary folks in Illinois
and across the country, I call upon my colleagues to pass this bill
without further delay.
Our reform proposals will ensure that everyone is part of the
solution to America's health care crisis. So let's seize this
opportunity. Let's move forward together. Let's extend the benefits of
health reform to the middle class. That way, America can move forward
in this 21st century.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business and to be followed by Senators Casey and Kaufman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
START Follow-On Treaty
Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about arms
control and the President's negotiations with Russia over a replacement
to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START. This new treaty will
be an important enhancement to American national security, and I look
forward to considering it on the Senate floor once it has been signed.
As you may recall, the original START treaty was ratified by the
Senate in 1992 by a bipartisan vote of 93 to 6. It went into force in
late 1994, with a predetermined life of 15 years, causing it to expire
this past December.
Soon after taking office, the Obama administration began careful and
diligent work to negotiate a successor treaty with Russia. As START was
expiring in early December, President Obama and President Medvedev of
Russia issued a joint statement making clear that our two countries
would effectively abide by the expiring treaty until the new one comes
into force.
I think we can all agree that the original START was a landmark
achievement. It brought about historic reductions in nuclear weapons.
Its verification measures and the communication between the United
States and Russia that they fostered served to build confidence between
the two countries at an uncertain moment. It helped our nations to move
toward a post-Cold-War mentality, providing strategic stability between
the world's two greatest nuclear powers.
[[Page S1729]]
I am confident the successor to START will be equally historic. The
world has changed, and this will be a new treaty for a new world with a
new set of nuclear challenges. But the bottom line for the new treaty
remains the same as it was for the original START: The treaty must--and
it will--advance our national security interests.
When the new treaty is signed and presented to the Senate, there will
be plenty of opportunity to discuss and debate in detail the specific
numerical limitations on strategic offensive arms. President Obama and
President Medvedev determined these would be in the range of 500 to
1,100 for strategic delivery vehicles, and in the range of 1,500 to
1,675 for their associated warheads. Likewise, we will carefully
examine the counting rules for those limitations, the monitoring and
verification measures for implementing the agreement, and all its other
provisions.
I look forward to discussing all these specific matters when the
Senate fulfills our responsibility to offer our advice and, as
appropriate, our consent. But the core reasons this treaty will make us
safer are already clear.
The verifiable reduction of nuclear weapons by the United States and
Russia will provide us with strategic stability and mutual confidence.
In other words, it ensures transparency and predictability between the
two countries that possess 95 percent of the world's nuclear weapons.
The new treaty will do this while streamlining the elaborate and, in
some cases, outdated and unnecessarily burdensome verification measures
from the original treaty. The new treaty will also reduce the risk of
nuclear theft or loss from our countries, and we know just how
important this last point is in a world where terrorist groups would
give anything to obtain a nuclear weapon.
This new treaty will also allow us to lead by example in arms
reduction, and this will in turn greatly aid our vital nonproliferation
efforts. Indeed, while the arms reductions in the treaty will be
relatively modest, entering into the treaty will be a significant step
in the renewal of our arms control and nonproliferation agenda for the
21st century. It will put us on firmer ground as we confront the
dangers of nuclear weapons in this new world.
I want to dwell briefly on this last point. The centerpiece of the
global nonproliferation framework is aptly named the Non-Proliferation
Treaty. This treaty requires that states without nuclear weapons pledge
not to acquire them. But it also imposes a responsibility on nuclear
states which must pursue reductions in weapons.
When we fulfill that responsibility, it strengthens the global
nonproliferation framework that centers on the Non-Proliferation
Treaty. It strengthens our hand in dealing with nonnuclear states,
whether they are allies pursuing civilian nuclear power or adversaries
with unclear nuclear intentions.
The point is not that untrustworthy adversaries will suddenly be
transparent about their intentions or fulfill their obligations under
the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Rather, we can negotiate with and
pressure adversaries more effectively when we are meeting our own
responsibilities. Likewise, we can work more effectively with our
friends--and rely on them for multilateral support--when we ourselves
lead by example. In other words, arms control agreements like the new
START follow-on treaty are themselves powerful tools in our
nonproliferation efforts.
The START follow-on treaty is only one element of President Obama's
ambitious nonproliferation and arms control agenda to reduce and
ultimately eliminate the threat from nuclear weapons. But until we are
able to realize this end goal, it remains important to maintain an
effective deterrent. This treaty will in no way--in no way--take away
that deterrent.
Likewise, it is critical for us to support the administration's
increased budget request for ensuring the safety and reliability of the
nuclear stockpile and the complex and experts who maintain it. Such a
commitment to a safe and reliable nuclear arsenal goes hand in hand
with minimizing the danger from nuclear weapons through arms control
and nonproliferation. We must pursue the limitation of nuclear weapons
while maintaining an effective deterrent. And that is just what the
START follow-on treaty will do. It will make us safer without
jeopardizing our effective deterrent.
I look forward to a robust discussion and ultimately, I hope, to
bipartisan consent to the resolution of ratification.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Pennsylvania is
recognized.
Mr. CASEY. Thank you, Mr. President.
First of all, I thank our colleague, Senator Franken, for his remarks
on this issue. I am going to be speaking just for a few moments as in
morning business. I ask unanimous consent to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am grateful to be joined by Senator
Kaufman after me.
Almost two decades after the end of the Cold War, the United States
and Russia maintain more than 90 percent--90 percent--of the world's
total stockpile of 23,000 nuclear weapons. Each of these weapons has
the capacity to destroy a city, and a large-scale nuclear exchange
could extinguish most life on this planet. As you are aware, massive
numbers of nuclear weapons increase the risk of catastrophic accidents,
errors, or unauthorized use.
There is a serious imperative in the United States to address this
issue. The United States--and especially this administration--has
rightly focused on nuclear nonproliferation as a top priority. In his
Prague speech, the President of the United States, President Obama,
said:
As long as these weapons exist, the United States will
maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any
adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies. But we
will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.
So I think it is important to note that the President used a number
of important words there: ``safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter
any adversary.'' But he also said we have responsibilities.
The first test of that commitment is the new START agreement.
In October, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said:
[T]he United States is interested in a new START agreement
because it will bolster our national security. We and Russia
deploy far more nuclear weapons than we need or could ever
potentially use without destroying our ways of life. We can
reduce our stockpiles of nuclear weapons without posing any
risk to our homeland, our deployed troops or our allies.
Clinging to nuclear weapons in excess of our security needs
does not make the United States safer. And the nuclear status
quo is neither desirable nor sustainable. It gives other
countries the motivation or the excuse to pursue their own
nuclear options.
So said the Secretary of State.
As we know, Secretary Clinton is in Moscow now, and we all hope we
will be able to make progress on the START follow-on treaty during her
visit. We want to thank and commend her for the work she is doing not
only as Secretary of State every day but at this time especially in
Moscow.
The START follow-on treaty would reduce deployed nuclear weapons in
the United States and Russia and would provide crucial verification
measures that would allow a window into the Russian nuclear program.
While this treaty has taken a little longer than expected to complete,
I applaud the leadership of Assistant Secretary for Verification,
Compliance and Implementation, Rose Gottemoeller, and her efforts to
pursue a strong agreement as opposed to an immediate agreement.
A new START agreement is in our national security interests,
especially in terms of maintaining verification and transparency
measures. Once complete, this agreement could help to strengthen the
U.S.-Russian relationship and potentially increase the possibility of
Russian cooperation on an array of thorny and grave international
issues, including North Korea and Iran.
The START follow-on treaty is a clear demonstration that the United
States is upholding our nonproliferation obligations under the
NPT. START is a necessary step in reaffirming U.S. leadership on
nonproliferation issues. Without a clear commitment to our
nonproliferation responsibilities through a new START agreement, it
will be increasingly difficult for the United States to secure
international support in addressing the urgent security threats posed
by the spread of nuclear weapons.
[[Page S1730]]
International agreements to limit nuclear weapons draw upon a deep
well of bipartisan support over the years. There is no reason--no
reason at all--why this START agreement should be different. We may
have our differences on elements of the treaty when it is presented
before the Senate for ratification, but I hope--and I believe this will
happen--we will be able to come together in common cause in recognition
that these agreements are in our national security interests because
they ultimately decrease the likelihood--decrease the likelihood--of
accidental launch and decrease the likelihood of terrorist access to
nuclear materials. There will be deliberation and there will be debate,
but I am confident that at the end of the process, we will have a
strong agreement that in the proud tradition of the Senate will garner
bipartisan support.
Mr. President, 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I am truly pleased to join with my
friends, Senator Casey and Senator Franken, today to underscore the
importance of reducing our nuclear arms.
I have spoken in the past about the importance of signing a successor
treaty to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, in order to
maintain verification and other confidence-building measures. I have
also spoken in support of the President's fiscal year 2011 spending
priorities, which include a program to modernize and secure our nuclear
arsenal. Today, I wish to go back to the basics when talking about arms
reduction because it is easy to get lost in the details and
misconceptions and forget the big picture.
First, we must remember what is at stake when it comes to our nuclear
arms reduction policy. We cannot afford to lose sight of why it is so
important to get a successor to START, why it must be the right
successor, and why the Senate should take action on the treaty in the
very near future.
This treaty was signed by the Soviet Union at a time when we still
had fallout shelters to prepare for nuclear war. Almost two decades
later, a nuclear attack is more likely to originate from rogue regimes
or nonstate actors, but it is still critical that we not take our eye
off the ball when it comes to existing nuclear stockpiles.
American and Russian nuclear weapons alone account for almost 96
percent of the world's nuclear arsenal, and stockpile reduction remains
a significant challenge in easing residual tensions of the Cold War.
The accumulation of nuclear serves as a reminder of the animosity that
existed between our countries, much of which has now been relegated,
thankfully, to the pages of history. Our nuclear stockpiles reflect the
realities of the past, not the economic and security considerations of
the present and the future.
START is also symbolically significant because it serves as a
cornerstone of the world's nonproliferation efforts and sets tough
international standards. With no arms reduction treaty between the
United States and Russia, we hand cynics an opportunity around the
globe a pretext for derailing nonproliferation efforts.
Now that START has expired, we need a follow-on treaty because
security efforts have changed since the Cold War. This is why we must
ensure that we end up with the right treaty, not just one that renews
now-outdated provisions of START. It is important that a new treaty
both adapts to the needs of the world today and presents a clear vision
for a more secure future.
It is expected that Americans and Russians have different ideas of
this vision and how we can get there. Both countries have domestic and
political considerations which must also complicate matters. Throughout
this process, I have been thoroughly impressed with Ambassador Rose
Gottemoeller and her negotiating team, who have consistently maintained
their focus and core principles.
The Obama administration wants the right treaty, not just any treaty,
and future generations will likely benefit from its steadfast
dedication and resolve.
Finally, we must consider the parameters of the treaty we hope to
achieve. By definition, a lasting treaty cannot be drawn unilaterally,
so it must be something mutually acceptable to both the United States
and Russia. At the same time, there are some important red lines which
must be reflected in the final treaty from the perspective of the
United States:
First, it must have an intrusive verification system in order to
maintain confidence and avoid catastrophic misunderstandings between
the two sides.
Second, it must reduce ready-to-go strategic arsenals in a meaningful
way, which means addressing upload capability.
Third, it must allow modernization of our existing nuclear
capabilities to enhance national and international security.
Fourth, it must remain a strategic offensive treaty with an
intentionally narrow scope. We should not include any other weapons
systems, including antiballistic missile systems, under its regulatory
umbrella.
The Senate should take action on a START follow-on treaty as soon as
possible in order to keep Americans safe and protect global security.
For anyone who has doubts, rest assured that the President and his
negotiating team are working hard to finalize a treaty that first and
foremost must advance U.S. security interests.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue because
the responsible reduction of the nuclear stockpile is one of the most
important measures we can take to improve global security for future
generations.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Remembering George Panichas
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am very honored to have the chance
to join my distinguished senior Senator Jack Reed on the floor of the
Senate today to pay our respects to a friend of both of ours who has
departed us. I will say a few words about our friend George Panichas
myself and then my senior Senator will say a few words in conclusion.
It is a great honor for me to be here with Senator Reed. One of the
bonds we have is our friendship with the Honorable George Panichas.
On March 2, in our Ocean State, the day of George Panichas's funeral,
the flags across the State were at half mast in his honor. While
George's family and friends are still in mourning, we wish to take this
opportunity to share some of our memories in celebration of the life of
a man who was one of Rhode Island's legends.
Representative George Panichas was many things: a husband, a father,
a grandfather, a veteran, a public servant, an advocate, a loyal and
active member of Rhode Island's Greek community, a successful
businessman and, to so many of us, a trusted friend. Although George
was small in physical stature, he will always be remembered as big,
big, big in personality, heart, influence, and accomplishments.
Born in the city of Pawtucket, Representative Panichas was a lifelong
resident of the great State of Rhode Island and a member of our
country's ``greatest generation.'' A decorated Air Force veteran of
World War II, George served as a tail gunner in the U.S. Air Force,
completing 50 missions over enemy-occupied Europe at a time when not
many men survived 50 missions. He received the Air Medal with four oak
leaf clusters, three battle stars for service in the European theater,
the Presidential Unit Citation with oak leaf cluster, and a personal
citation from the commanding general of the 15th Air Force.
Representative Panichas was elected to the Rhode Island General
Assembly representing a district in Pawtucket in 1970. He served until
he retired in 1984. He was the first Greek American to hold State
office in our State. Throughout Representative Panichas's tenure, he
was known for speaking up with his powerful voice and for his influence
in getting the job done.
This Chamber still remembers John O. Pastore, another distinguished
[[Page S1731]]
Rhode Island public servant, small in stature, large in voice and
influence. George Panichas was very much in his mold.
Representative Panichas was a tireless advocate for Rhode Island's
veterans. Thanks to him, today we have a beautiful Rhode Island
Veterans Memorial Cemetery. Thousands of people visit the cemetery
every year and witness firsthand George Panichas's work. He was
responsible for its expansion and many of the improvements that
happened on its grounds. The brave Rhode Islanders and their families
who served our country so honorably will always have a special
beautiful place to be remembered, due in large part to the work of this
man.
Perhaps above anything else, Representative Panichas was widely known
for his dedication to his beloved Greek heritage. Many years I have
attended the Pawtucket Greek Festival with him, held at the Greek
Orthodox Church of the Assumption. I will always remember how he knew
virtually everybody in attendance and the affection and respect the
entire community showed for him.
At his funeral, I returned to the Church of the Assumption for his
wake, and I heard so many stories there from his family, friends, and
colleagues of his unique character, his kindness, and his bold
leadership.
It is with heavy hearts that we remember one of Rhode Island's
legends today. But Representative Panichas's spirit will live on
through his accomplishments and through his beloved family. I extend my
deepest condolences to his loving wife Angela, to his two daughters, of
whom he was so proud--Denise and Joan--to his loving and beloved son
George, Jr., and the apple of his eye, his grandson George III, and, of
course, the rest of the Panichas family. George was truly one of a
kind, and he will be missed.
George Panichas once quoted the great Greek philosopher Aristotle in
saying: You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is
the greatest quality of the mind next to honor.
Today we recall with respect and affection a man whose courage will
long live in our hearts.
I yield the floor for my distinguished senior colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join my colleague and friend Senator
Whitehouse in paying tribute to an extraordinary American, an
extraordinary Rhode Islander, George Panichas. Senator Whitehouse, with
eloquence and obviously great feeling that I share with him, recognized
this extraordinary individual. He has been a friend and a mentor to
both of us. He has been a force throughout his life for not only what
we believe is central to America--opportunity for all, a sense of
fairness and justice and decency--but he also has been intimately
involved in his native land, Greece and Cyprus.
He is someone who represents the ideal of what an American should be.
As a young man, he was a member of, at that time, the U.S. Army Air
Corps. He flew 50 missions. He was a gunner on the aircraft. I think
all of us recognize--although we did not participate in such
challenging assignments--the kind of courage and mental toughness it
takes to get in that aircraft and risk your life 50 times at least and
to do so in an atmosphere of tension and danger. And George did it.
Like so many of his generation, when he came home, he did not boast
about it. He decided, though, that his service was not going to end
with his discharge from the U.S. Army Air Corps. He was going to
continue to serve this Nation because he had participated with his
colleagues, his contemporaries, in a noble effort. He understood the
decency of America. He was part of it, and he understood the great
challenges ahead--challenges to build a fair, just, and more equal
society. He took it upon himself to do that in many ways.
He was a successful businessman. That was just one aspect of his
contribution to the community. He was, as my colleague said, a State
representative in our house of representatives. He was the first Greek
American elected to the State house in Rhode Island. He was a staunch
advocate for veterans. He was the leader of an effort that started many
years ago in the sixties and seventies to build a State veterans
cemetery in Rhode Island and to continue to maintain the highest
quality at our State's veterans home. In fact, those two institutions,
particularly the cemetery, are monuments to his efforts.
He undertook this great effort at a time when there was a lot of
discussion about the service of veterans, but no one was standing up
and doing what George was doing--cajoling and persuading and convincing
and using all manner of his charming temperament and his booming voice
to start to assemble the resources in Rhode Island, and then
nationally, to build what I feel--and I am sure I am speaking for my
colleague--is the finest State veterans cemetery in the country. It is
a place of reverence. It is a place of inspiration. It is a place the
families of Rhode Island veterans feel is appropriate as a resting
place of those who served this Nation.
In October of 2008, in recognition of his great dedication and
service, the administration building at the cemetery was named after
George--a fitting tribute.
In addition to being an active patriot of his country, our country,
the United States of America, he never lost sight of the need to be a
powerful force in Greek-American relations. His constant efforts to
assist, both in terms of business enterprises in Greece and in terms of
charitable organizations in Greece, and his continued work to pull
together the bonds between Greece and the United States were
remarkable. He was someone who was keenly interested and very effective
in advocating a wise American policy toward Greece and Cyprus and to
the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
He was an extraordinary individual, and he will be missed. In all his
endeavors, he had the support, the love, and derived strength from his
wife Angela, who was a wonderful woman. And of course his daughters,
Denise and Joan, have continued the tradition of service in making the
community a better place, and his son George, Jr., has a proud name and
he carries it proudly. Of course, his grandchildren are remarkable too.
I think the only way to end these few words for a great gentleman is
to recall the words of another Greek--Thucydides--who said:
The bravest of the brave are those who see both the glory
and the danger and go forth to meet it.
George Panichas did that as an airman, as a citizen, as an American
who used his opportunity to help others.
Mr. President, we miss this great gentleman, and we are so honored to
be able to say a few words about him.
I yield the floor.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
express my gratitude to the majority leader for finally bringing this
essential legislation to the floor after more than 3 years of
extensions and delays.
This bipartisan bill is the product of years of diligence, patience,
and an overriding commitment to safety. From the tremendous steps
forward in implementing the critical Next Generation Air Traffic
Control System to the thousands of jobs created by the funding for
infrastructure improvements and innovation incentives, this legislation
revolves, first and foremost, around enhancing the safety of our skies.
This bill addresses glaring gaps in safety brought to light by the
heart-breaking tragedy of what should have been a routine flight for 49
people on February 12, 2009, and instead became, according to the
National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, the worst aviation accident
since 2001.
The stunning cockpit voice recordings released by the NTSB during
their investigation of the Continental Connection flight 3407 accident
outside of Buffalo, NY, chilled Americans across the country. On behalf
of the families who lost loved ones in that accident, and who
courageously testified at a series of hearings called by Senators
Dorgan and DeMint on the safety of regional air carriers, Senator Boxer
and I introduced the One Level of Safety Act. Incorporated into the
larger FAA reauthorization bill before us, our legislation seeks to
finally fulfill the decade-old promise of One Level of Safety, which
the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, regrettably viewed as little
more than a slogan for the past several years. Working closely with the
[[Page S1732]]
devastated families left behind by the tragic crash of flight 3407, and
the NTSB, we have addressed a number of glaring deficiencies in our
aviation system which threatened the safety of passengers across the
country.
In response to questions I and others posed before the Commerce
Committee, NTSB chairwoman Debbie Hersman vowed to have the flight 3407
investigation completed within a year. To her credit, she lived up to
her promise. In fact, with 1 year as chair now under her belt, she has
performed admirably. And the work of the Board brought to light
critical information necessary to address the gaps in our safety
regime, gaps that contributed to the flight 3407 accident.
For example, one of the primary causes of the Continental Connection
crash, according to the NTSB's preliminary report released in January,
was the lack of rest for the pilots. One airline claims that more than
a quarter of its pilots commute 1,000 miles just to get to work! And
the safety implications of pilot fatigue are not a new concern. In
fact, as you can see on this chart, fatigue has been at the top of the
NTSB's Most Wanted list of safety improvements since the list's
inception in 1990, left unaddressed now for over 20 years! Today it
languishes on that same list, the NTSB noting hat it has received an
``unacceptable response'' from the FAA. Yet the NTSB has indicated that
fatigue is the primary cause of over 250 accident deaths over the past
15 years.
Indeed, when the FAA last considered modernizing these fatigue rules
in 1995, after receiving resistance from the airlines, the agency
simply chose to shelve the proposed changes rather than address
obsolete fatigue rules more than a half-century old. We cannot allow
this to continue, which is why we require the FAA to develop
regulations that would limit the number of hours permitted for pilots
to fly in a 24 hour period, to assist in alleviating pilot fatigue
problems, as well as to provide guidance to air carriers to develop,
and submit to the FAA, fatigue management plans. The bill mandates the
completion--within a year of enactment--of an ongoing FAA rulemaking
addressing fatigue, an effort undertaken recently by Administrator
Babbitt.
For too long, the FAA has been a reactionary body, acting only after
a tragedy, rather than analyzing trends and data to enable the agency
to foresee future accidents. So, to address this issue, Senator Boxer
and I added a level of accountability to the FAA's safety programs to
encourage proactive oversight. Specifically, this legislation requires
unannounced, on-the-ground annual inspections of flight training
schools and airlines, ensuring all safety standards included in this
legislation will be enforced.
Another element of our legislation, specifically cited by the NTSB
and recently added to their ``Most Wanted'' List of aviation safety
threats, as you can see on this chart, addresses the ability of air
carriers to view a potential pilot's entire flying history. Incredibly,
this information is currently unavailable to an airline--unless they
file a Freedom of Information Act request! And that is simply
unacceptable. The pilot operating the Continental Connection flight
3407 at the time of the accident had previously failed five flight
tests, or ``checks''. But the air carrier claimed it was unaware of
these failures, because the pilot did not disclose them on his
application. To reverse this unfathomable rule once and for all, this
bill gives airlines access to a pilot's complete history to ensure they
are hiring qualified, well-trained, and talented pilots.
Another measure, which I am particularly pleased to have included in
the Reauthorization is the landmark Passenger Bill of Rights
legislation on which Senator Boxer and I worked so diligently as far
back as the spring of 2007. The fact is Congress has waited far too
long to move on this essential safety measure. New York State, one of
many states frustrated by the delays in improving passenger safety here
in Washington, sought to impose its own passenger rights standard, but
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down their
effort, placing the onus squarely on Congress. Specifically, the
Circuit's decision stated that only the Federal Government may
implement a national standard for passenger safety, and I commend the
Commerce Committee for responding by including the Passengers' Bill of
Rights.
We all have heard the horror stories, many detailed before the
several hearings held in the Senate Commerce Committee on this topic--
people trapped on aircraft for nearly 12 hours, left in the dark by the
airlines, uncertain when or if they would ever be permitted to deplane;
overflowing restrooms; diabetics unable to access their insulin and at
risk of going into shock. This was the case in Austin, TX, just prior
to New Year's Eve in 2006, when an aircraft remained on the tarmac for
nearly 9 hours, with no communication from the airline and passengers
ready to revolt. Such incredible stories were on the verge of becoming
commonplace during the explosive growth of air travel during the mid-
2000s. In fact, just last year there were 904 flights that remained
unmoving on the tarmac for 3 hours or more.
More than 10 years since the first attempt to put in place
protections for passengers, they can now be assured that they no longer
will become prisoners in the event of a lengthy delay, nor will their
safety be compromised to meet an airline's bottom line. Guaranteeing
basic necessities like food, water, and functioning restrooms for
passengers left on a grounded aircraft for hours at a time, while
providing them a choice to safely deplane after remaining stranded on
the tarmac for more than 3 hours, is a tremendous leap forward for the
millions of passengers who travel our skies every year. And I say it is
about time.
Moreover, a key component of this bill ends the often ``cozy''
relationship between airlines and their FAA maintenance inspectors that
threatens to undermine aircraft safety. Senator Klobuchar and I
originally developed this legislation to prevent FAA inspectors from
turning a blind eye to safety violations at various airlines. First
brought to light by a report issued by Department of Transportation
inspector general Calvin Scovel in 2008, those failings were confirmed
just last month, when a follow-up report issued by the IG's office
revealed that despite the previous report, the ``. . . FAA had failed
to take appropriate action . . .'' to address airlines ``. . .
longstanding failure to comply with required maintenance inspection
procedures . . .''
In recent years, the FAA experienced a culture shift away from a
safety-first mentality. In fact, the charter of the FAA was amended in
2003 to include the promotion of air carriers in their mission
statement. How is it that a government agency can simultaneously
promote and regulate an entire industry? This bill struck the dueling
nature of such a mission statement, reducing the significance of
advocating for the airlines and returning safety to its rightfully
preeminent position at the agency. At the same time, we put into place
a Whistleblower's Office to protect individuals who reveal violations
within the FAA from retribution.
Why is this necessary? Too often in recent years, Congress has heard
from courageous whistleblowers like Doug Peters, who had his job and
family threatened in 2008 for reporting numerous safety violations at
Southwest, the same violations detailed in the 2008 inspector general's
report. Rather than being rewarded for their dedication, these
individuals were either summarily removed from their jobs or
strategically relocated to place them ``out of the way.'' Thanks to
this legislation, they will have advocates and legal recourse within
the Department at the Whistleblowers Office.
The reauthorization also slams shut the revolving door between
inspectors and airlines. The inspector general's 2008 and 2010 reports
concluded that inspectors responsible for requiring compliance with
federal standards by an individual air carrier were transitioning
between the FAA and those particular airlines and back again,
establishing relationships that led to the undermining of safety
requirements issued by the FAA. Our bill requires an inspector
must experience a ``cooling-off'' period of 2 full years before he or
she can gain employment with the air carrier they once inspected.
At the same time, an additional, critical issue for both Maine and
the Nation is rural aviation. As a tool for economic development,
access to commercial aviation is absolutely essential. To that end,
Senator Bingaman and I were
[[Page S1733]]
pleased to see the inclusion of the Rural Aviation Improvement Act,
which overhauls the Essential Air Service, EAS, and small community air
service grant programs, to continue the commitment Congress made to
small communities when we deregulated the aviation industry in 1978--
ensuring those communities hurt by deregulation, particularly less
populated areas, would continue to receive commercial air service.
The fact is, since deregulation, communities across the country have
experienced a decline in flights and size of aircraft while seeing an
increase in fares. More than 300 have lost air service altogether. Our
bill raises funding for the program from $127 to $175 million annually,
consistent with the President's budget request for the program.
A handful of ``bad actors'' have jeopardized commercial aviation for
entire regions, most of them rural, by submitting low-ball contracts to
the Department of Transportation to ensure they receive the EAS
subsidy, and once they have, reneging on their commitment to the extent
and quality of their service. Our bill will not only establish a system
of minimum requirements for all EAS contracts to protect municipalities
that rely on the program for commercial service, but it will also
extend those contracts to 4 years from the current 2. This gives a
heightened degree of certainty, so that rather than having communities
negotiating new contracts or receiving service from entirely new
carriers every 18 months, those municipalities participating in the
program can plan for infrastructure improvements or other means to
expand service. Actively encouraging communities to get involved in the
process, and build relationships with the carriers who serve them, can
only bolster the quality of the program.
The reauthorization provides states and communities the ability to
take a more active role in the level of service they receive by
allowing them a ``buy-in'' option. This would allow states or local
communities to leverage the EAS subsidy to develop incentives that
would attract additional flights from an existing carrier, or bring in
new carriers who offer a larger array of destinations.
In short, I believe this an outstanding, bipartisan bill that has
required long hours--over 3 years--and considerable effort to complete.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for adding
so many of these improvements to the underlying legislation, commend
the Commerce and Finance Committees for their relentless work, and urge
all my colleagues to support this critical legislation.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of an
amendment that I introduced yesterday that addresses the issue of
toxins entering the ventilation systems on commercial aircraft.
This amendment is designed to ensure the FAA has the necessary
information to protect the American public from exposure to harmful
contaminants while flying.
Specifically, here is what the amendment would do:
First, it would require FAA to complete a study of cabin air quality
within 1 year; second, the amendment would provide FAA with the
authority to mandate that airlines allow air quality monitoring on
their aircraft for the purposes of the study; and third, the amendment
would authorize FAA to mandate installation of sensors and air filters
if the study demonstrates that these steps would provide a public
health benefit.
This amendment is necessary because the air in the passenger cabin is
a mixture of recirculated cabin air and fresh air that is compressed in
the airplane engines.
Sometimes the air you breathe on an airplane gets contaminated with
engine oils or hydraulic fluids that are heated to very high
temperatures, often appearing as a smelly haze or smoke.
That haze or smoke that enters the cabin air is a toxic soup and can
contain carbon monoxide gas as well as chemicals that can damage your
nervous system called tricresylphosphates, TCPs.
Exposure to TCPs can initially cause stomach ache and muscle
weakness, followed by delayed memory loss, tremors, confusion, and many
other symptoms.
Exposure to this and other air toxics in cabin air is a serious
matter.
In 2004, the FAA concluded that the problem was so ``unsafe'' that it
needed to do thorough inspections of certain aircraft.
In a Federal Register notice, FAA called for ``repetitive detailed
inspections of the inside of each air conditioning . . . duct,'' which
FAA stated was ``necessary to prevent impairment of the operational
skills and abilities of the flight crew caused by the inhalation of
agents released from oil or oil breakdown products, which could result
in reduced controllability of the airplane.''
Let me take moment to explain how these broad findings impact people
who happen to be exposed to toxic air in aircraft cabins.
Terry Williams is a mother of two and a former flight attendant, who
knows firsthand the dangers associated with exposure to toxic fumes
while onboard an airplane.
As Terry was working on April 11, 2007, she noticed a ``misty haze
type of smoke'' on the plane as it taxied toward its gate. Since then,
she has experienced chronic migraines and twitching.
Terry made repeated visits to the emergency room before a neurologist
told her she had been the victim of toxic exposure.
Terry is not alone.
Although several flight attendants and passengers have related
similar stories to the FAA of smelling chemicals and then experiencing
serious illnesses, the FAA has never conducted a large-scale study to
measure the frequency or severity of such toxic fume events in
aircraft.
Moreover, there appears to be no FAA standard for identifying or
preventing the presence of toxic fumes in aircraft cabins.
This FAA reauthorization bill pending before the Senate addresses
this very important public health and safety issue.
Specifically, section 613 of the Commerce Committee's bill would
require that the Federal Aviation Administration implement a research
program to identify appropriate and effective air cleaning technology
and sensor technology for the engine and auxiliary power unit air
supplied to the passenger cabin and flight deck of all pressurized
aircraft.
This is a very good and important provision. FAA should absolutely
study what equipment most effectively fixes this air quality problem.
But my amendment would go further than the establishment of a
``research program.''
It lays out a clear framework for protecting the public from what
could be a serious risk.
First, it requires that FAA study the nature of this risk by
thoroughly and comprehensively monitoring the frequency of exposure on
aircraft, so that we understand whether toxic exposure is a common
occurrence.
Second, the FAA must assemble records of passenger illness complaints
to determine the specific health risks associated with harmful
contaminants in airplane ventilation systems.
By gathering this information, I am confident that FAA will develop a
clear picture of the level of health risk posed by toxins in cabin air,
and the ways to protect the American traveling public and the
hardworking men and women who make air travel possible.
Finally, this amendment would empower the FAA to require the
installation of toxic air monitors and air filters that the Commerce
Committee legislation's study would identify.
Such installation would only be required if the FAA's study shows
that such a step is necessary to protect public health, but FAA would
clearly have a mandate to take this step.
In March 2009, the president of the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, ASHRAE, which in 2007
developed voluntary model standards to protect aircraft cabin air
quality, called on FAA to ``investigate and determine the requirements
for bleed air contaminant monitoring and solutions to prevent bleed air
contamination.''
I will ask to have a copy of this full letter printed in the Record.
But I also want to read ASHRAE's conclusion, which states:
[[Page S1734]]
Although no systematic fleet-wide or industry-wide audits
have been conducted, the UK Committee on Toxicity recently
calculated the incidence of oil/hydraulic fluid events as 1
percent of flights based on pilots reports and 0.05 percent
of flights based on engineering investigations. . . .
Still, no aviation regulator requires either bleed air
monitoring or bleed air treatment.
To this end, the ASHRAE committee that developed (the model
air quality standard) is writing to ask you . . . to
investigate the technical implications and flight safety
benefits of addressing bleed air contamination, and to
determine the requirements for bleed air contaminant
detection systems and solutions to prevent bleed air
contamination.
I agree with the ASHRAE recommendation that we need to study this
problem and take steps to protect public health and safety.
I offered this amendment in order to implement ASHRAE's very sound
recommendations, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the March 6, 2009, letter to which I referred.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc.,
Atlanta, GA, March 6, 2009.
Re Request to investigate and determine requirements for
bleed air contaminant monitoring and solutions to prevent
bleed air contamination.
Lynne A. Osmus,
Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, DC.
Patrick Goudou,
Executive Director, European Aviation Safety Agency, Koeln,
Germany.
Dear Ms. Osmus and Mr. Goudou: In 2007, ASHRAE published
``Air quality within commercial aircraft'' (ASHRAE, 2007;
copy attached), developed by Standard Project Committee 161.
The standard addresses a wide range of air quality issues
including ventilation, temperature, and contaminants from a
variety of sources. In light of the committee's flight safety
concerns and the references cited below, the committee
requests that, this year, you investigate and determine the
requirements for bleed air contaminant monitoring and
solutions to prevent bleed air contamination, including
maintenance/operating/design control measures and bleed air
cleaning equipment.
As background, ASHRAE is an engineering association that,
among other things, develops and publishes voluntary indoor
air quality standards that are often adopted by regulatory
authorities. This aircraft air quality standard was developed
over a ten-year period. It was a significant undertaking that
was ultimately approved for publication unanimously by a
committee of members that represent the full spectrum of
aviation interests and expertise: namely, aircraft and
component manufacturers, airlines, crewmembers, passengers,
and a general interest group, appointed according to
administrative rules that ASHRAE issued in 2000 to ensure
that all interest groups were represented and would be heard.
Pre-publication, the standard was also released for two 45-
day comment periods during which the general public and other
interested parties had the opportunity to weigh in.
Section 7.2 of the standard requires the installation of
``one or more sensors intended to identify a substance or
substances indicative of air supply system contamination with
partly or fully pyrolyzed engine oil or hydraulic fluid''
with flight deck indication when such fumes are present to
enable the pilot(s) to respond appropriately and rapidly.
Also on the subject of air supply monitoring, Section 8.2 of
the standard notes the utility of making portable, reliable,
easy-to-use air monitoring devices available in the cabin and
flight deck. Finally, Section 8.2 states that air cleaning
technologies intended to reduce bleed air contaminants may be
considered.
Many other publications support this request. For example,
the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) of the UK
Department for Transport echoed the call for bleed air
monitoring, noting ``adverse physiological effects in one or
both pilots, in some cases severe'' (AAIB, 2007). These
smoke/fume events had been reported on commercial flights, so
the AAIB recommended that the EASA and the FAA ``consider
requiring, for all large aeroplanes operating for the
purposes of commercial air transport, a system to enable the
flight crew to identify rapidly the source of smoke by
providing a flight deck warning of smoke or oil mist in the
air delivered from each air conditioning unit.'' The
installation of sensors which would identify contaminated air
events would further help to address the concerns raised by
the FAA and others of the underreporting of such events (FAA,
2006(a); FAA, 2006(b); Michaelis, 2003). It has been
estimated that less than 4% of oil fume incidents are
reported as required (Michaelis, 2007). Sensors would help
mitigate the reported high failure rate of crews to use
emergency oxygen, despite clear industry guidelines to use
oxygen when the air is (or is suspected to be) contaminated.
Similarly, controlling bleed air contamination is supported
by many recent publications that have cited either pilot
incapacitation or impairment caused by exposure to oil fumes
(AAIB, 2007; ATSB, 2007; SAAIB, 2006; CAA, 2002; CAA, 2000).
Oil fume events have been reported fleet-wide across a wide
range of aircraft types (Murawski, 2008). For example, on the
BAe146 aircraft, the FAA itself requires particular
inspections and cleaning to ``prevent impairment of the
operational skills and abilities of the flightcrew caused by
the inhalation of agents released from oil or oil breakdown
products, which could result in reduced controllability of
the airplane,'' describing oil contamination as an ``unsafe
condition'' and requiring that corrective actions be
completed prior to further flight (FAA, 2004).
Although no systematic fleet-wide or industry-wide audits
have been conducted, the UK Committee on Toxicity recently
calculated the incidence of oil/hydraulic fluid events as 1%
of flights based on pilots reports and 0.05% of flights based
on engineering investigations (with the caveat that the
incidence may vary with airframe, engine type, and servicing)
(COT, 2007).
Still, no aviation regulator requires either bleed air
monitoring or bleed, air treatment. To this end, the ASHRAE
committee that developed Standard 161-2007 is writing to ask
you to establish a joint independent committee (perhaps with
other regulatory authorities) this year to investigate the
technical implications and flight safety benefits of
addressing bleed air contamination, and to determine the
requirements for bleed air contaminant detection systems and
solutions to prevent bleed air contamination, as described.
The committee thanks you for your commitment to aviation
safety and encourages you to direct any questions,
correspondence, or requests for references to the committee
Chairman, Dr. Byron Jones.
Sincerely,
William Harrison,
President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Reid has asked I announce to
Senators that there will be no further votes this evening and there
will be no votes tomorrow. We expect the next vote to be Monday at 5:30
p.m. We do expect finally that we are near an agreement by which we
would be able to finish this FAA reauthorization bill with a final vote
Monday evening. That is our expectation.
I indicated I would describe the circumstances. We are hopeful, as I
indicated earlier, that we would be able to reach conclusion on this
bill. We were hopeful in doing it tonight. That was not possible. But
we expect to have final passage on the FAA reauthorization bill on
Monday at 5:30. But let me describe the discussions we have had more
recently with Senator Kyl and Senator Warner and many other
colleagues--Senator Hutchison.
There remains very little to be done on this bill. We have 17
amendments that have been agreed to on both sides that would be offered
en bloc. We were not able to offer those until we were able to resolve
another issue or at least begin discussion of another issue. And then
there was an issue dealing with slots and perimeter rules for Reagan
National Airport. It has been controversial in the past--for many, many
years--and some colleagues on both sides of the aisle have offered
amendments dealing with slots and the perimeter rule. So it has caused
a lot of discussion for some long while. We have people on both sides
of these issues, for and against increasing slots and expanding the
number of flights beyond the perimeter at Reagan National.
What we have discussed more recently is that an amendment would be
offered by the minority. They would perhaps modify an amendment that is
now filed, and they would offer an amendment on the slots--I guess
slots and the perimeter rule--and have that debated.
One of the things we discussed is that we understand, going into
conference with the House, that the House has provisions to increase
slots at Reagan National. So that will be an issue in conference. The
question is, What is the Senate's position going into conference? It
can be determined by a vote on the floor of the Senate--yes or no--or
it can be determined in good faith by discussions with all of us who
understand there will be modifications, some kinds of modifications on
slots and the perimeter rule. What will they be? Those conversations,
it seems to me, can also become, between now and Monday, a part of the
discussion and good-faith negotiation on how to approach a conference
that reaches the
[[Page S1735]]
interests and needs of the broadest group of Senators.
So that is what we have done. We expect to have a new amendment filed
that will modify one previously filed and have a debate about that. My
hope is that we would not have a vote on that and instead reach some
common understanding that we would work together on the slot and the
perimeter issue in a way that can satisfy the broad interests here in
the Senate and take that position into conference in a very assertive
way and hope the Senate provision would prevail in conference.
Mr. President, that is my understanding of where we are, and with
that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from
North Dakota has stated. I am also working in this group to try to
finish this FAA reauthorization bill. There is so much in this bill
that will let airports throughout our country have the stability and
the airport trust funds to go forward. There are many safety issues
that have resulted from the Colgan accident that we are trying to
correct, and other information. This is a very good, very bipartisan
bill.
There are approximately 17 amendments we will be able to clear with
the consent of everyone who has been interested in these, after we
dispose of the perimeter issue. We are going to have the reformed
amendment filed on the perimeter issue, and it will be available for a
vote on Monday, where we hope we will either be able to vote or get
some sort of colloquy that is an understanding. After everyone is
satisfied with that, we will then clear the other amendments and hope
to go to final passage on Monday. I believe that is the goal, and I
think it is very reachable.
The perimeter rule at National Airport is a rule that was put in
place for many reasons. For one thing, there are noise issues, there
are traffic issues, and there are air traffic issues because National
is a very close-in airport.
Then, of course, there is also the Dulles Airport issue. The way it
has evolved is that Dulles Airport is the long-haul airport into our
Nation's Capital and National is used by people who come into our
Capital because it is convenient. We don't want to jeopardize the
Dulles Airport service in any way, but the people who live farther out
west in our country have been discriminated against, clearly, in not
having access to National Airport because there is a perimeter rule,
with only 12 flights that go beyond that perimeter.
So we have tried for a long time to settle this in an equitable way
that does extend the perimeter but not to the detriment of either
National or Dulles Airport. Senator Warner of Virginia has been a very
strong advocate of the protection of National Airport as well as Dulles
Airport, as he should be, and I will let him speak for himself. But he
has been a very strong advocate, which we all appreciate, and I think
the western Senators have also been very strong in their efforts for a
long time--for many years.
I have been on the aviation subcommittee and am now ranking member of
the Commerce Committee, and I will tell you that we have tried to deal
with this perimeter issue to accommodate the needs of western
constituents, western citizens who want to be able to come into
National Airport and have the choice to come into National Airport. So
I believe we are working very constructively in this, and I support the
agreements that have been made for us to go forward as described.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first of all, I want to agree with my
colleagues, the ranking member, the Senator from Texas, the Senator
from North Dakota, and the Senator from Arizona, on the very good work
that has been done on this FAA reauthorization bill and the importance
of this bill, not only in terms of at least starting us down the path
of NextGen and starting to recognize the safety issues that are
addressed.
As a member of the committee, I wish to compliment the bipartisan
approach that has been taken on this important piece of legislation. I,
like my colleagues and I think most Americans, want to see us move
forward on this important piece of legislation.
I also appreciate the ranking member's comments about the long and
challenging journey this has been, about the slots and the perimeter
rule battles between National and Dulles. I appreciate her comments in
terms of my role as a Virginia Senator to make sure the unique nature
of National and Dulles is protected. She made the comment that Senator
Warner has been a fighter for this. In this case, I am simply filling
the shoes of my esteemed predecessor, Senator John Warner, who I know
for 20 years probably has had this battle, and my colleagues have gone
through some of the twists and turns.
I want to make two or three comments and not take long today because
I will have more to say on Monday.
One is that while National and Dulles serve our Nation's Capital,
they also are the local airports for people in Virginia, DC, and
Maryland, and there have been a number of issues of a unique nature
with National Airport in terms of sound concerns and in terms of
traffic concerns and safety concerns regarding the inability to extend
any runway. I would also say with regard to Dulles that those of us who
have lived in this area for decades have seen Dulles grow from being
somewhat of either a foresight or a white elephant, depending on your
perspective, over the last 30 years to being an international hub and
an airport that has enormous potential and opportunity and has,
candidly, benefited from the maintenance of the perimeter rule--an
airport this government has invested in heavily.
I also have to recognize that technology has changed in terms of the
nature of jets in and out of National. Technology improvements have
allowed for much quieter aircraft coming in and out of National, which
has mitigated some of the concerns of the neighbors around the airport.
We have also seen Dulles make enormous strides not only as a long-haul
airport but as a gateway airport, in many ways, for international
flights.
Senator Dorgan made mention of the fact that the House has already
acted in terms of changing the status quo. So the status quo, at least
from the House perspective, is going to change.
What I look forward to, hopefully, after our colloquy and
conversation, is a debate on Monday. I appreciate the fact that my
colleagues will offer their amendment, and if we get to a vote, we will
get to a vote. If we can resolve this through a conversation, I hope we
can resolve it through a conversation. But I will have that opportunity
to lay out some of the challenges that these airports serve to the
traveling public, and particularly to my constituents, but also
recognizing that the status quo of the last 20-odd years is going to
change and we want to work in a way so that change can be dealt with in
a way that accommodates the needs of the local community; that
maintains National's incredibly important role; that doesn't
cannibalize the great progress that has been made at Dulles; and that
also recognizes the traveling needs of those Americans who live outside
the perimeter, in a way that strikes that appropriate balance.
I appreciate the support I have received from Chairman Rockefeller
and Chairman Dorgan and a number of my colleagues. I also particularly
appreciate as well the good-faith efforts Senator Hutchison and Senator
Kyl have made in not only raising this discussion but raising it in a
way that we can perhaps resolve it so that those folks who will be on
the conference committee can represent a view of the Senate that
reaches that kind of accommodation, and most importantly that we can go
ahead and pass this very important piece of FAA reauthorization
legislation Monday afternoon.
So I look forward to that conversation, I look forward to that
debate, and my hope is that we can get to a final vote on passage of
the bill on Monday and the good work that so many of our colleagues
have done can actually be put into action.
With that, I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me echo the comments of all my colleagues
who have spoken to the issue. I think the comments Senator Warner just
made summarize the issue very well and I
[[Page S1736]]
will not repeat all those things. The translation of all this for our
colleagues is--although I am not making the announcement--that I
presume there will be no further formal action in the Senate tonight or
tomorrow but that we will be laying down a modification of the
amendment that was filed that would include modifications to the
perimeter rule and perhaps other matters.
We will have an opportunity to discuss that tomorrow, and there will
be some opportunity to discuss that Monday, for those who perhaps have
already left. In particular, I know some of my colleagues will not
return until around 4:30 in the afternoon. I am not going to propound a
unanimous-consent request, but I hope, in consultation with the two
leaders, we could work out an arrangement whereby at least some of the
time on Monday can be reserved for a debate on the amendment that will
be filed by, presumably, Senator Hutchison, myself, Senator Ensign and
others and that part of that time will also be in the 4:30 to 5:30
timeframe. That is the time the leader has ordinarily set for the first
vote, returning on Monday, and presumably there will be a unanimous-
consent agreement with the leaders that will reflect the precise
understanding of what vote or votes will occur on Monday night and
when, but presumably it would fall within that timeframe that is
customary.
Just to conclude by saying I hope that as a result of the
conversations we have had and will continue to have Monday and
tomorrow, that we can lay the foundation for the establishment of a
Senate position in the conference committee that would reflect a
consensus and perhaps some compromise that would satisfy the interests
of all. We are never going to outdo the fierceness with which both
Senator Warners--Senator John Warner, who preceded, and now-Senator
Mark Warner--fight for their constituents and for the interests of two
national airports--in a sense representing us all. We certainly
appreciate the single-mindedness with which now-Senator Mark Warner has
pursued those interests but also his recognition that obviously times
change, there are some needs for other parts of the country, and that
through comity and conversation perhaps things can be worked out
without having any detriment to anybody. That is obviously the goal we
would seek to accomplish.
In any event, we will have an amendment on the floor that can discuss
this. Perhaps we will vote on it. In any event, the object will be to
vote on final passage of the bill on Monday evening.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we do not yet have a script with respect
to an unanimous consent on the Monday 5:30 vote, but all of us are
understanding we want to conclude this legislation Monday, beginning
with the 5:30 vote. I think that is a good result.
As Senator Hutchison indicated, this is a big bill with many
important parts--safety, modernization, so many issues. I am
frustrated, as is everybody, in the pace of the Senate. This is the
fifth full day on this bill, but Monday at 5:30 we understand we will
finally resolve this issue, and it will be good for this country. We
will have done some good things passing this bill and getting to a
conference with the House.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________