[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.

                          ____________________