[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 166 (Wednesday, November 2, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7021-S7058]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REBUILD AMERICA JOBS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1769,
which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to the consideration of the bill (S.
1769) to put workers back on the job while rebuilding and
modernizing America.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the Rebuild America Jobs Act addresses
two of our most fundamental responsibilities: first, the need to
respond to the urgent jobs crisis and, second, the duty to create the
physical framework for economic growth now and into the future.
There should be no debate about our duty to fulfill those two
responsibilities. Yet, once again, we are in a situation where the
refusal of our Republican colleagues to compromise, even on
consideration of measures they have supported in the past, prevents us
from acting on behalf of the American people.
I am encouraged by reports that perhaps finally the need to act has
convinced some of our colleagues across the aisle to at least consider
allowing the Senate to debate this legislation. I hope for the sake of
millions of people in Michigan and in every other State who are waiting
for us to act that at least some of our Republican colleagues will
relent and allow us to at least debate this measure.
What would this bill accomplish? Simply put, it seeks to create jobs
now and into the future. It does so by funding a wide array of
infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, rail transport, mass
transit, airport facilities, and updated air traffic control systems.
These projects would put construction workers on the job immediately.
They would, according to estimates by Moody's, boost economic growth by
more than a dollar and a half for every dollar we spend. And the
benefits would continue into the future as American companies and
American workers benefit from the increased competitiveness that
modernized infrastructure provides.
In my home State of Michigan, this legislation would result in more
than $900 million going to infrastructure projects. It would create
about 12,000 jobs. Residents of my State are keenly aware of the need
to act, and to act now, on the jobs crisis, and they are
[[Page S7022]]
keenly aware of the terrible costs we pay if we allow our economic
competitors to establish advantages over our workers. In my State,
nearly one-third of our bridges are structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete. More than one-third of our major roads are in
poor or mediocre condition. About 40 percent of our major urban
roadways are congested. The people of Michigan want us to act on jobs,
and they want us to act now to maintain America's competitive edge.
These are not controversial ideas--at least they have not been in the
past. Support for infrastructure is traditionally bipartisan. It was a
Republican President--Dwight Eisenhower--who launched the Interstate
Highway System. This bill includes an infrastructure bank based on a
bipartisan idea once supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Every
Member of this body, Democrat and Republican, fights for adequate
infrastructure spending for their State. Why, when faced with the dual
challenges of a jobs crisis and increasingly outdated infrastructure,
would we hamper our ability to grow now and in the future by not
allowing a debate on this bill and adopting this bill?
Perhaps some of my Republican colleagues object to the way this bill
is paid for. As has been the case with previous jobs bills, this
legislation would not add a dollar to the deficit. It would pay for
these much needed infrastructure efforts by asking those with incomes
of more than $1 million a year to pay a fraction of a percentage point
of their income above $1 million a year in additional taxes. Again,
outside the Halls of Congress, this is not a controversial notion. A
strong majority of Americans, including a majority of rank-and-file
Republicans, support the idea of asking the wealthiest among us to
contribute to solving our jobs crisis.
I might say, in terms of investing in infrastructure, a recent CNN
poll shows that 72 percent of Americans support investing in
infrastructure to create jobs. We know from this poll that a huge
majority of Americans want us to invest in infrastructure. They want us
to invest in infrastructure now to create jobs. That is mirrored by
other polls which show a vast majority of Americans believe the fair
way to pay for this investment is for the wealthiest among us to pay a
small fraction of the income they make above a level such as $1
million, which is what is provided for in this bill. Now, make no
mistake, if Republicans reject this legislation because of the funding
mechanism, they are voting directly in opposition to the will of the
American people and against the concepts of basic fairness that should
guide our actions.
Finally, relative to this pay-for, there is only one group of
Americans who have done well financially in the last few decades; that
is, the wealthiest 1 percent. The rest of Americans, middle-income
Americans, have either lost ground or gotten nowhere, but the
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans have done exceedingly well, and their
proportion of the national income has grown dramatically. So to say
income above $1 million should not pay a small fraction of a percent in
a surcharge to help pay for what this country desperately needs and
would create jobs flies right against the feelings and beliefs of the
vast majority of the American people.
Finally, the vote we are going to take in the next couple days is not
even a vote on the bill. This is a vote on ending a Republican
filibuster on the motion to proceed to the bill. It is a motion which
would allow us to begin to debate a bill.
I have been continually surprised at the lockstep opposition of
Republicans to even beginning to debate on these matters. I would make
a simple request, and a number of us have done the same. Let's debate
this legislation. Allow us to debate the legislation. If the
legislation can be improved, offer ideas to improve it. If there is a
better idea, offer the better idea. I believe Republicans would have a
very receptive audience if they propose ideas for which there is strong
evidence of benefits and economic growth and job creation. But until we
can get a job-creation measure to the floor of the Senate, we cannot
even discuss those issues in a legislative setting; we can only really
hear debate as to whether we ought to be allowed to debate those
issues.
A bipartisan vote to begin the debate on jobs legislation would send
an important signal to the people we all represent, a signal that we
are ready to put aside partisanship and address the problems our people
face. I hope Republicans will end their filibuster so we can adopt the
motion to proceed to this jobs bill.
Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. 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.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to address our Nation's job
crisis and to share some thoughts about why it is important that we
proceed to debate on the Rebuild America Jobs Act. It may come as a
surprise to some across the Nation that at this point this Chamber is
not debating the Rebuild America Jobs Act but that we are debating
whether to debate. Only in the Senate could we be engaged in that type
of question, when across America millions of folks want to see us act,
want to see us create jobs.
It was only a few weeks ago we had a similar debate. That debate was
over the America Jobs Act, a broad portfolio of measures to put our
economy back on track and create jobs for Americans. To get closure on
whether to debate, we had to get a supermajority under the rules of the
Senate.
My colleagues across the aisle opposed that and we could not get to
the debate of the bill on how to create jobs. Now we have before us a
smaller segment of that bill, one that focuses on the construction
industry. Again, we find ourselves debating whether to debate rather
than getting down to work and creating jobs. So I hope this time the
outcome will be quite different.
The jobs crisis has hit hard across this Nation. It hit especially
hard in my home State of Oregon, where the job rate has been lowered as
the unemployment rate has been higher than in most States across this
Nation. One of the main reasons Oregon is hurting is because our
construction industry, our residential and commercial construction
industry, is flat on its back. More than 40,000 construction jobs have
been lost in Oregon since 2007. Thousands more have been lost in
related industries such as forest products and nursery stock and grass
seed, all of which only thrive when we are building homes in America.
Right now, we are not building homes in America.
So we need a boost to get the construction industry moving again. If
you do not believe me, just listen to the people in the State of
Oregon. A few weeks ago, I asked my constituents to write in and share
their stories. Today, I am going to share some of those stories with
all of you. Carolann from Marion County writes in and says:
I am a construction cost accountant with 47 years of
experience and two masters degrees. I have been widowed since
1996. I am 69 years old. I fully support my 67-year-old
sister who has dementia and is in remission from colon
cancer. Wall Street and my own bout with cancer just before I
turned 65 has wiped out a lifetime of savings, my retirement
nest egg. I have to work or we will be homeless in about 3
months. I drive a 16-year-old vehicle that is on its last
legs. I have aging parents who are struggling to keep their
farm. Those are the facts. In late 2008, for the first time
in my career, I was laid off from my construction accounting
job. Since that time I have been unable to find another job
in any field despite my good references. Currently I work
part time for a start-up dot-com. My prognosis for continued
employment is shaky. Banks will not loan money to a start-up.
This summer I went from June 26 to September 7 without a
paycheck of any kind. Last week I applied for a job at Wall
Mart for Oregon's minimum wage. I will probably get hired,
but I am not kidding myself about job security. That does not
exist any more for most of us. Senator, the worst thing about
all of this is our do-nothing Congress. Washington, D.C. has
lost touch with America.
Her words ring powerfully in this Chamber. She, similar to millions
of other Americans, is saying this economy is tough. Family
circumstances are rough. Why does Congress not get down to work and
debate and pass job-creating legislation? She is frustrated with this
do-nothing Congress and we
[[Page S7023]]
are debating whether to debate a jobs bill. I encourage my colleagues
to listen to Carolann from Marion County. Let's get past this point and
get down to debating the jobs bill.
Hank from Marion County writes:
Three years ago, I was at the top of my more than 35 years
in construction management working as a senior project
manager on a large project. As the economy tanked, the
projects were terminated. Today I am unemployable after
hundreds of applications. I am left able, willing and highly
experienced, yet undesired. Our farm was foreclosed and my
wife and I had to file bankruptcy. Currently our mortgage
lender refuses to complete a home loan modification, although
they qualified us 2 years ago for the program. And since then
we have been making the required payments each month even
without a final agreement. We have met with community groups,
written letters, made calls, yet nothing seems to happen. In
another year when the bankruptcy period ends, we fear the
bank will simply foreclosure again and we will lose our farm.
Again, another voice from a family deeply affected by the collapse of
the construction industry and a call to us to help put it back on its
feet.
Brian from Yamhill County writes:
I have worked in the lumber industry for 35 years. In 2009
I was laid off for 11 months. I did go back to work in June
only to be cut again after only 5 days of work. I went back
to work in December for the same company. In September 2010
there was a cutback. More than 70 people lost their jobs. I
was lucky. I made the cut. But my pay was reduced by nearly
$5 an hour. I went from driving a fork lift to a clean-up
position. 6 months went by and then another cut. This time
another 60 people lost their jobs. I was lucky again. And I
worked at a new position for nearly a year until September
2011, and then came another cut. This time I was one of 42
people to be laid off with no chance of a call back. Now
there are rumors that the entire plant is closing. I have
been out of work for 1 month now. And in my job search I have
been running into the same thing everywhere I go: No work
available.
Every industrial area I go into I see many buildings where
companies have gone out of business. Windows and doors are
boarded up. I want Congress to do the job they are being paid
to do so I can go back to work.
That is the line he closes on: that we here in this Chamber should do
the job we are assigned; that is, to take on, amend, and pass job-
creating legislation so he can find a job, so he can go back to work. I
think his sentiment is echoed by millions of American families. There
is no substitute for a job. No program can come anywhere close to the
important role a job plays in the personal satisfaction, the structure
it gives us in our life, in the knowledge we are putting a roof over
our family's head and putting food on the table. No program can
suffice. A job is the heart of the success of our families. Yet here we
are fiddling while Rome burns or, in this case, filibustering while
millions of Americans go without jobs. It is not right.
I say to my colleagues, particularly I wish to encourage my
colleagues across the aisle who filibustered the last effort to put the
jobs bill on the floor: Stop. Talk to the folks in your home State who
are unemployed, who expect us to do what every American worker expects
us to do, which is to debate and pass job-creating legislation.
The bill which we are debating whether to debate, the Rebuild America
Jobs Act, is a commonsense strategy to put people back to work in an
industry that needs it, making investments our country will have to
make sooner or later anyway. One in four bridges in America is rated
deficient. We get a D grade on our infrastructure from the American
Society of Civil Engineers.
This is not the America we know. It is not the America we want. Let's
build the America of the future that will have the infrastructure to
drive our economy positively. Infrastructure is not an option; it is a
necessity. We can build it now when interest rates are low and jobs are
needed or we can spend more later when our infrastructure has
deteriorated further and it is more expensive. We can do it earlier,
with lower interest rates and more bang for the buck, or we can do it
later, when it will be more expensive, more difficult, with a higher
interest pricetag. It doesn't seem to be a difficult choice. It
certainly doesn't seem to be a difficult choice as to whether we should
at least be on the bill, debating it.
I know many folks are coming to the Chamber to address the question
of how we get a jobs bill actually before the Senate. I hope all of my
colleagues will get on the line with folks back home, go to that town
meeting, and say: Do you want us to debate a bill or do you want me to
keep stalling and preventing a debate on how to create jobs? I am
pretty confident 9 out of 10 people--and maybe 10 out of 10 people--
will stand up and say: Quit stalling. Let's get to work here so America
can get back to work.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. 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.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, today I want to discuss the jobs bill
we are currently debating and how important it is that we pass this
right away.
I also want to respond to the minority leader's remarks this morning
in which he tried to deny the bipartisan nature of this proposal and,
instead, sought to divert this Chamber toward a hodgepodge of bills
taken up by the House.
All across the country, and in our State of New York, from
Poughkeepsie to Buffalo, there are roads, bridges, and sewer systems in
need of serious repair. In each of these places, there are thousands of
middle-class families desperately looking for work.
In the construction trades--the backbone of the middle class in many
of our communities, in New York and around the country--there is 25,
30, 40 percent unemployment. That is true for many of my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle. We all know that in previous recessions, 60
percent of the new jobs were in construction. That is because they
lower interest rates and build more housing. There is no more lower
interest rates because, when the recession began, they were already
very low and, of course, there is a surplus of housing now in America.
This week, by voting to pass the Rebuild America Jobs Act, the Senate
can get thousands of Americans off the unemployment line and back into
the workforce. Because they get paid good salaries, the money they get
flows into the economy and creates a multiplier effect that creates
other jobs. These are good, solid, high-skilled American jobs--jobs we
need.
Investing in our roads, bridges, and sewer systems could not be more
urgent. More than one in four of our Nation's bridges is either
structurally deficient or obsolete. I put out a list of those in New
York State and it was astounding, in every part of our State.
We all know that, as we get closer to winter, our deteriorating roads
will place a heavy burden on commuters and local taxpayers. Our local
towns, villages, counties, and cities cannot afford the infrastructure
work that is needed right now because of tight budgets and budget
cutbacks at the Federal, State, and local levels. As this past
weekend's storm made clear, investing in our crumbling sewer systems
has never been more essential. All up and down the Northeast, old sewer
systems have given way to serious flooding. We can make a downpayment
on these priorities by passing this bill, and we should do so in a
bipartisan manner.
When I travel across New York State, two of the first things people
bring up to me are jobs and fixing our infrastructure. This bill does
both. It doesn't matter whether the people are Democratic, Republican,
Independent, from upstate or downstate, men or women, liberal or
conservative, they all say the same thing, and we see this reflected in
public opinion. A recent CNN poll showed nearly three-quarters of
Americans support additional Federal investments in our infrastructure.
Yes, they are worried about the deficit and our long-term fiscal
health, but they know we can't cut our seed corn--infrastructure
projects that create jobs and help America grow economically.
Here is the best part of this bill. It invests in projects that
create jobs, but it is fully paid for by asking the wealthiest among
us--those who have incomes of over $1 million--to pay a fraction more
in taxes. They pay that not on their entire income but just on the part
that is above $1 million. So if a millionaire--someone worth a lot of
money--has an income of $1.1 million,
[[Page S7024]]
they only pay the small .7-percent increase on the $100,000 that is
over 1 million. Their first million doesn't change. The tax policy
doesn't change.
Over the last decade, the middle class has taken a punch in the gut.
The cost of sending kids to college has gone way up, the job market is
tougher and tougher, and middle-class incomes are declining while costs
to the middle class are rising. As a middle-class family sits around
the dinner table Friday night trying to figure out how to pay all those
bills and provide a great life for their future and for their children,
it is very hard for them. However, the very wealthy--the very wealthy--
have done very well over the last decade.
A lot of those wealthy people live in our State of New York. We say:
God bless them. They started successful businesses and have done well
over the last decade. So to pay for this bill, we are just asking them
to pay a sliver more--.7 percent more of each $1 they earn over $1
million. This is a situation where they can't say: We are afraid the
money will be wasted, because it goes to infrastructure--directly to
infrastructure. The way this is set up, there is no politics in the
process. It is the most needed projects that get the work.
Let me cite a fact. I know many of my colleagues joined with me and
Senators Brown of Ohio, Stabenow, and Casey in saying China has to play
fair, and we are all worried China will get ahead of us economically.
But right now China is spending four times as much on infrastructure as
the United States--four times as much. That is not four times as much
per capita, that is four times as much period.
Here is the real kicker: According to a recent survey of 1,400
business leaders in 142 countries, the United States ranks No. 24 in
overall infrastructure quality. Is that a shame? We are behind
countries such as Barbados and Oman. We also rank No. 20 in roads
behind the United Arab Emirates, Portugal, and Namibia; No. 22 in ports
behind Malaysia, Bahrain, and Panama; and No. 31 in air transportation
infrastructure behind Chile, Thailand, Malaysia, and Malta.
How can it be that these great United States that we dearly love, and
which always was at the top in creating roads and bridges and tunnels
and great water systems--the third water tunnel in New York is being
built right now, and it is an engineering wonder, though the planning
for it started in the 1950s, I believe--is now ranked No. 31 in
transportation, 22 in ports, 20 in roads behind countries such as the
United Arab Emirates, Portugal, Malaysia, Thailand, and Chile? If that
isn't a wake-up call, I don't know what is. We can't afford to let our
global competitors get the edge.
So this bill builds back infrastructure, creates good-paying jobs
that will send a shot into the arm of an economy that desperately needs
it, and pays for it only by taxing the income over $1 million of those
who are very wealthy and have done very well in our society.
How can anyone vote against something such as this? One could think
maybe the only reason is because some people don't want the economy to
grow and prosper. I hate to think that, but infrastructure has always
been a bipartisan issue in this body, and it should continue to be.
Let me respond directly to the minority leader's comments this
morning. He derided the proposal on the floor as something that had
already been tried, something that had no chance of passing, and
something that was not bipartisan.
First, already been tried? Oh, yes. Is the minority leader saying
because we built the Erie Canal or built the highway system in the
1950s we shouldn't do any more infrastructure? That makes no sense.
That just makes no sense. Every study shows the infrastructure part of
the stimulus bill created lots of jobs and left us with better
infrastructure.
The minority leader then said, as I mentioned, not just that it had
been tried already but that it was not bipartisan. We know the need for
infrastructure is a bipartisan priority. Just because the minority
leader may be imposing a top-down strategy that bars anyone on his side
from voting for any proposal offered by the President to improve the
economy doesn't mean these proposals aren't bipartisan.
Just yesterday, the former Republican Senator from Ohio, a fiscal
conservative if there ever was one--Senator Voinovich--was quoted as
saying he believed the need to repair our roads and bridges was so
great he thought President Obama should be raising the gas tax to fund
those investments. I don't know if I agree with him on that specific
solution, but isn't it remarkable, a Republican Senator calling for
revenue increases to pay for infrastructure investment?
That is what we do in this bill. Let me say once again that Senator
Voinovich is no longer in the Senate, so he is free to pretty much do
as he wants. But I would hope other Senators who are in the Senate
would join in that call because I believe they know in their heart it
is the right thing to do.
The only difference between what we propose and what Senator
Voinovich proposes is that instead of asking middle-class Americans to
pay more at the pump, we ask those who have an income above $1 million
to pay their fair share and to help put construction workers back on
the job. That seems like the right set of priorities to me.
So the minority leader is clearly wrong when he says this concept
isn't bipartisan.
Another former Senator--Chuck Hagel from Nebraska--has been a leader
in calling for an infrastructure bank, which also is in this bill.
Senator Hagel sponsored one of the first pieces of legislation creating
an infrastructure bank and has continued to call for it since leaving
the Senate.
So there are lots of Republicans out in the country who support this
measure, and the polling shows a large number of Republicans who
support the kind of proposal we have on the floor--building
infrastructure and having those who make over $1 million pay for it so
we don't increase the deficit. This is a bipartisan proposal.
So let's not hear from the minority leader or anybody else that the
proposal on the floor isn't bipartisan. Just this morning, the top
Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee was quoted
discussing the progress he and the chairwoman of that committee are
making on a 2-year surface transportation bill. This is great news. I
am glad to hear they are close to advancing that bill. But if one
believes infrastructure is enough of a priority that they can support a
long-term highway bill, why would they object to speeding up some of
that investment now so we can put more Americans to work quickly?
This bill is bipartisan for sure. The minority leader has a political
strategy to block all our President's initiatives to improve the
economy. What does the minority leader call for instead? He has called
for the Senate to take up a hodgepodge of bills sent over by House
Republicans that, even when taken together, don't do enough to tackle
the jobs problem.
Who would believe this hodgepodge of bills will do more for jobs than
the traditional way we get out of recessions--infrastructure building?
Most of the ideas cited by the minority leader have next to nothing to
do with jobs at all. Many of these ideas belong more on a lobbyist's
wish list rather than any serious jobs agenda.
It is a stretch to call many of these bipartisan. Many of these bills
are items Republicans would be seeking to pass even if we were in a
boom and had full employment. Many are just ideological priorities
dressed up as job solutions.
It is laughable for the House leadership to act as though these
proposals would address the jobs crisis when they are sitting on real
solutions such as the China currency bill. The Speaker and the majority
leader over in the House say they want to do something about jobs. They
say they are worried about the two Houses not working together. We had
a large bipartisan majority--65 votes--saying we are going to force
China to play fair on currency because their failure to do so causes
millions of jobs--good manufacturing jobs, primarily, though not
exclusively--to leave this country. There is nothing more Congress
could do that would lift our manufacturing sector than to confront
China's unfair trade practices. But Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader
Cantor sit on that bill and then tell us to take up this hodgepodge of
items. The China currency bill passed with a bipartisan supermajority
in the Senate. Yet the House leadership continues to sit on
[[Page S7025]]
the sidelines as China takes advantage of us. The China currency bill
is languishing in the House for no good reason.
I suggest Speaker Boehner heed the will of his Chamber and put that
bill on the floor and that the minority leader in the Senate would be
well served to stop pretending these pieces of the President's jobs
bill are not bipartisan just because he is withholding his support in
service to a strategy that, perhaps, outlines his No. 1 goal: the
defeat of the President.
It is time to stop the games and accomplish something that can make a
real dent in the jobs crisis. I say to my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle: Pass this bill, rebuild our ailing and aging infrastructure,
create jobs, and make sure what we do here does not increase the
deficit by having those whose income exceeds $1 million pay a small,
little increase to pay for it.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
USDA APHIS Memo
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, yesterday we concluded our work here in the
Senate on our version of the Agriculture appropriations bill. I am a
member of the Appropriations Committee, a member of the agriculture
appropriations subcommittee, and I supported the legislation we passed,
but there is an outstanding issue at the Department of Agriculture of
which I was only recently made aware. To me, it is a very serious
issue, and given more time I would have taken action here on the Senate
floor. It is an issue I will continue to pursue as a member of the
conference committee as we work toward our final fiscal year 2012
Agriculture appropriations bill.
The issue involves a memo issued by the Department of Agriculture
last month, October 6, authorizing the Department of Agriculture Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, to conduct an animal
welfare scientific forum. This forum was approved by Under Secretary
Edward Avalos on October 12.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the USDA's
memo.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Decision Memorandum for the Under Secretary
Through: Gregory Parham, Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
From: William H. Clay, Deputy Administrator, Wildlife
Services.
Subject: APHIS Animal Welfare Scientific Forum.
ISSUE
How can APHIS effectively engage animal advocacy groups in
ongoing scientific reviews and discussions of animal welfare
issues related to APHIS program activities?
SUMMARY
At a meeting on July 26, 2011, between representatives from
USDA's Marketing and Regulatory Programs (MRP) and the Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS), HSUS representative John
Hadidian requested that USDA establish an Animal Welfare
Working Group to address animal welfare concerns regarding
the use of existing and emerging lethal control technology.
The Under Secretary agreed with the general concept. APHIS
recommends hosting a scientific forum facilitated by Animal
Care (AC) at the APHIS Center for Animal Welfare in Kansas
City, MO, to bring together animal advocacy groups as well as
industry organizations to discuss the latest science
regarding lethal control technology and other animal-welfare
related activities carried out by the Agency. Wildlife
Services (WS), AC and Veterinary Services (VS) activities in
use now or those that may be used in the future would all be
open for discussion at the forum. Pertinent scientific
information gathered at the forum would be presented to the
appropriate APHIS programmatic advisory committee for
consideration.
Senior leaders from WS, AC and VS would meet with HSUS and
several other advocacy groups in advance of the forum to
identify priority topics for discussion and potential
speakers.
Background
In the past several meetings with MRP and APHIS
representatives, HSUS representatives have consistently
raised concerns regarding horse slaughter, horse transport,
and WS' use of lethal control methods, as well as several
welfare issues related to enforcement of the Animal Welfare
Act. At a meeting between Under Secretary Avalos and HSUS on
July 26, 2011, HSUS representative John Hadidian requested
that an animal welfare working group be established to
address animal welfare concerns regarding the use of new and
emerging lethal control technology. Under Secretary Avalos
agreed with the general concept.
APHIS representatives believe that HSUS' intent is to
position the organization to be recognized nationally as
influencing APHIS policy on critical and sensitive welfare
issues. Where and how emerging and existing lethal control
technology can be used is one of many issues HSUS wishes to
influence. By expanding the proposed group to other APHIS
programs besides WS, and establishing a scientific forum,
APHIS would be able to engage HSUS and other advocacy groups
on a range of animal welfare issues and focus on science-
based, practical application approaches, using best practices
recognized and developed with input from a variety of
stakeholders, including industry groups, animal advocacy
groups, and State and Federal partners.
The National Wildlife Services' Advisory Council (NWSAC) is
the recognized body to make recommendations to the Secretary
regarding future WS activities. Topics of discussion from the
forum that might aid or impact APHIS activities could be
passed to the NWSAC or equivalent advising bodies for VS and
AC, as appropriate.
HSUS and other welfare advocacy groups would be invited to
participate in a preplanning meeting for the forum with
senior leaders from WS, AC and VS. These groups would have
input into the topics to be discussed, potential speakers for
the topics, dates and times for the forum, how the forum
should run, etc.
The APHIS Center for Animal Welfare in Kansas City, MO is
experienced at managing dialogue between diverse groups on
controversial and emotional issues and in facilitating group
interaction so that individuals stay focused on established
topics. Holding the forum at the Center would make it
convenient for transparent interaction with all interested
stakeholders from across the country.
OPTIONS
Option 1. Establish an Animal Welfare Scientific Forum
consisting of representatives from APHIS, animal advocacy
organizations, industry groups and other interested
stakeholders. This would allow APHIS to engage animal
advocacy organizations with concerns about WS' use of lethal
control methods, as well as other APHIS issues, such as horse
slaughter and transport This process would also refocus
attention from prescriptive protocols based on subjective
criteria to science-based approaches while still allowing for
input from diverse groups, including end users.
Option 2. Do not establish a scientific forum and continue
operating under existing protocols. HSUS and other advocacy
groups currently meet with APHIS programs individually at
random intervals to discuss issues of concern. Multiple
meetings of these advocacy groups with the different APHIS
Programs are less efficient than a single forum that covers
multiple issues.
RECOMMENDATION
APHIS recommends Option 1. This will provide cross-program
participation and will allow animal advocacy groups to
participate in a non-prescriptive manner.
DECISION BY THE UNDER SECRETARY
Option 1: (Signed) Edward Avalos, October 12, 2011.
Mr. MORAN. What is ironic about this forum is there is little science
involved. It is little more, in my view, than the Department of
Agriculture spending taxpayer dollars on a forum to provide the Humane
Society of the United States a public forum to espouse its anti-
agriculture views. The document speaks for itself in this regard. On
page 2, the document states:
APHIS [the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service]
representatives believe that the Humane Society's intent is
to [promote and] position the organization to be recognized
nationally as influencing APHIS policy on critical and
sensitive welfare issues.
After reading that statement, it becomes clear that the Department of
Agriculture is catering to an outside organization instead of relying
on the advice of animal scientists at our land grant universities or
even at the Department of Agriculture. If the Department of Agriculture
was interested in science, why would it allow an animal rights
organization to steer its agenda? Why wouldn't APHIS simply request the
latest animal research from scientists across the country to make sure
its guidance is up to date?
[[Page S7026]]
In addition to catering to HSUS, in planning this forum the
Department of Agriculture APHIS is precluding input from members of the
agricultural industry it is supposed to promote. The memo states:
HSUS and other welfare advocacy groups would be invited to
participate in a preplanning meeting for the forum with
senior leaders from Wildlife Services, Animal Care, and
Veterinary Services. These groups would have input into the
topics to be discussed, potential speakers for topics, dates
and times for the forum, how the forum should run, etc.
That is quoting from the memo. No mention in the memo is made of
asking any agricultural organization or animal scientists for
preplanning assistance. According to the memo, HSUS is going to set the
agenda for this forum. Even if the agricultural industry is later
invited to the event, Agriculture would have the cards already stacked
against them.
I believe it is important for most Americans to understand that HSUS
is not your local animal shelter. HSUS is a national lobbying
organization that spends most of its budget to lobby against farmers
and ranchers who provide us with food or clothing that we enjoy. In
fact, tax documents show that HSUS spends less than 1 percent of its
budget on grants to animal shelters. Given these facts, you would have
to wonder why the Department of Agriculture is giving this organization
this platform and shunning producer organizations. This is one more
demonstration that this organization is no real friend of rural America
or the American farmer and rancher.
My purpose this morning is to inform my fellow Senators of this
troubling development at USDA and to put the Secretary on notice that
this type of conduct from the Department is unacceptable.
The Department's mission statement reads as follows:
We provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural
resources, and related issues based upon sound public policy,
the best available science, and efficient management.
USDA should live up to its mission statement and work to promote
agriculture, not work against farmers' and ranchers' best interests
and, I would say, not work against the best interests of the consumers
of food in this country. Going forward, I will do my best to make sure
the Department of Agriculture adheres to its mission statement.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Updating the Postal Service
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, just a few minutes ago, Senators
Lieberman, Collins, Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and I
gathered in the press gallery upstairs to unveil a proposed compromise
that is designed to help ensure we have a viable, strong U.S. Postal
Service in this country for the next 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years and
longer.
There has been a lot of time spent in debate over jobs: How are we
going to save jobs? How are we going to create jobs in this rough
economy we are moving through? As it turns out, there are about 7
million jobs that flow from the Postal Service. There are only about
500,000 people who actually work for the Postal Service these days.
There are roughly another 7 million who are associated with the Postal
Service in one way or the other.
If we do nothing, the Postal Service--which lost $10 billion last
year, is on track to lose a couple hundred billion dollars over the
next 10 years--will literally go out of business next year--not in 10
years, not in 5 years but next year. That is a consequence none of us
can look forward to and we need to provide predictability and certainty
and part of that is to make sure we have a Postal Service that meets
the needs of our businesses and the interests of our citizens.
The situation is dire, but it is not hopeless. This is one we can fix
and the four of us believe this legislation will fix this problem not
in 5 years, not in 10 years from now but literally provide the fix that
is needed this year.
I mentioned in our press conference that a couple years ago my sister
and I went to the home of my parents. My parents are now both deceased.
We went to their home and we rooted through all kinds of nooks and
crannies and boxes in the attic. We came across a treasure trove of
letters they exchanged during World War II. They wrote to one another
when my dad was overseas. They wrote several times a week. They saved
the letters.
When I was in Southeast Asia back during the Vietnam War, the
happiest day of the week for us was the day the mail came. The letters,
the postcards, the birthday cards, the packages we received, magazines,
the newspapers, made that the best day of the week.
When our Presiding Officer and I go on a CODEL to Afghanistan or to
Iraq to visit our troops and see how they are doing and what we need to
be doing, they still get the mail over there, but it is not like it was
when I was serving or when my dad or my uncles were all serving. Troops
today communicate with their families back home with Skype. They have
the ability to use the cell phones. They have the Internet, Facebook,
Twitter. You name it, it is a different game today. As the way we
communicate in this country and in this world has changed, the Postal
Service needs to change the way they do business and they are ready and
anxious to do just that.
I think there is a good analogy in trying to figure out what the
Postal Service needs to do to right size its enterprise. There is a
good analogy we can draw from by looking back just 3 or 4 years ago at
the situation the U.S. auto industry was in. Think about this: In 1970,
my first trip to Southeast Asia, the market share of Ford, Chrysler,
and GM was just about 85 percent. In 2009, their market share dropped
to less than 50 percent.
When the auto industry reported to us and to the rest of the country
in 2009 that given their market share, they had more employees than
they needed, they had more auto plants than they needed, and there was
a mismatch in terms of the wage-benefit structure they were paying
their own employees versus the wage benefits that were being paid to
their competition selling cars, trucks, and vans in this country, they
asked us for a bailout--not exactly a bailout. They asked for a cash
transfusion. They promised to pay it back with interest. Lo and behold,
they have, and 3 years later Ford, Chrysler, and GM are still in
business. They have fewer employees than they had 3 years ago. They
have fewer auto plants than they had, but they have changed the wage-
benefit structure and made some changes in their health care costs and
the way they administer health care costs which are now overseen by the
United Auto Workers. As I said earlier, the moneys we invested in those
two companies, Chrysler and GM, was money that has been repaid,
largely, with interest.
The Postal Service, in 2011, is in a situation not unlike where our
auto industry was a couple years ago. Given their market share, the
Postal Service has more employees than they need. The Postal Service
has more post offices than they need. They have more processing centers
around the country than they need. What they would like to be able to
do is not to fire employees, not to abrogate labor contracts. What they
have asked to do is to do what the auto industry did in working with
their workers; that is, to incentivize people at the Postal Service who
are eligible to retire to go ahead and retire. There are about 125,000
of them. We have seen the Postal Service head count drop from 800,000
employees a decade ago to a little under 600,000 today. The Postal
Service needs to reduce the head count by another 100,000 or so over
the next couple years by incentivizing people eligible to retire to go
ahead and retire. The Postal Service thinks they can do that for about
$2 billion. By doing that, 100,000 Postal Service employees will be
eligible to retire. That will save the Postal Service $8 billion a year
going forward.
Last year, the Postal Service lost $10 billion, and in the years to
come they are projected to lose about $20 billion. We could literally
address about half of that financial challenge with one fell swoop,
incentivize employees eligible to retire.
[[Page S7027]]
The Postal Service is interested in being able to close some post
offices. They would like to be able to consolidate some post offices--
where they have two, make one. In some cases, they would like to be
able to take the services they provide at a post office and offer them
at maybe a retail outlet that is open more than 6 days a week or maybe
a retail outlet open 24/7, potentially put postal services in some
supermarkets in communities across the country, put them in some
convenience stores or maybe in pharmacies. The idea would not be to
provide worse service; the idea would be to provide better service in a
lot of instances.
There are 33,000 post offices in the country. The Postal Service is
looking today at 3,700 of them to decide whether they are viable. Under
current law, the Postal Service can close a post office. They cannot do
it solely on economic grounds, but they can close a post office pretty
much at their volition and maybe have a cursory conversation with the
community but not much.
The legislation we have proposed would say that the post office, as
they look at these 3,700 post offices that are under review--and
perhaps others in the future--that before they go about closing any of
them, the Postal Regulatory Commission--which is responsible for
setting service standards for the post office--would have to be part of
that decisionmaking process in these communities across America. They
would make sure the service standards the Regulatory Commission--the
regulators, if you will, for the post office--has established are going
to be met in the future if a post office is closed or post offices are
consolidated or the services are colocated. This has to be a
transparent process, where the folks who live and work in those
communities have the opportunity to be full participants in that
decisionmaking.
With respect to the closure of mail processing centers, there are
over 500 of them across the country. The Postal Service would like to
close as many as 300 of them. Under the legislation we have proposed,
there would be the opportunity for communities, businesses, small and
large, postal customers, residential customers, and others to have the
opportunity to make clear whether the close of a mail processing center
in their town or community would somehow be inopportune and a real
detriment to that community in ways that are not fair.
Those are three things that the postal service wants to be able to
do: address their head count needs, take a close look at how many post
offices we have and whether those services can be provided in a more
cost-effective way, and the third is to look at the 500-plus mail
processing centers we have and try to figure out how many of those can
be closed.
The Postal Service delivers mail from my State to the Presiding
Officer's State in Minnesota--I can mail a letter today and probably it
would get out there on Friday or maybe Saturday. The standard service
today is, in some cases, next-day service; in some cases, service can
be as much as 3 days. What the Postal Service has asked is, they will
still be able to do 1-day service, but they would like for the standard
to be officially 2 to 3 days. That is one of the things they are asking
for the opportunity to do, and our bill let's them do that.
The other thing the Postal Service has asked for is some relief, if
you will--not a bailout, not taxpayer dollars--with the health care
costs. Currently, the Postal Service pays into Medicare for its
employees. They are the second largest payer into Medicare of all the
employers in the country. They also pay into something called the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. We have the Postal Service
sort of paying twice for health care service for its retirees. People
65 and over, 85 percent of them are eligible for Medicare. If they are
not, they are still eligible for the Federal employees health benefits
as retirees. The Postal Service has asked to do what a lot of other
companies do. What a lot of other companies have asked is that Medicare
would be their primary source of health care coverage. In addition to
that, the Postal Service would provide a Medigap plan to fill the gaps
that Medicaid and Medicare do not cover. We think that is a reasonable
request. We have also given the Postal Service the opportunity to
negotiate with the labor unions to see if it might make sense for the
Postal Service to withdraw from the Federal Employees Health Benefit
Program and establish their own plan for roughly 1 million people. They
will have a chance to study that and decide whether that makes sense.
I will mention three other things we believe the Postal Service can
do to reduce costs. One of those is the way they deliver the mail. For
a lot of folks in my home, the mail is delivered to our front door.
There is a mailbox by our front door. What we are suggesting in our
legislation is that in some cases the Postal Service looks at whether
that is an efficient way to deliver the mail or maybe is curbside
delivery fine. If someone has a mailbox, the letter carrier puts the
mail in the mailbox and doesn't have to get out, park the vehicle, walk
up to the house and put it in the mailbox and walk back to the vehicle.
A fair amount of money can be saved there.
There is money that can be saved in the way workers' comp is handled
for Postal Service employees--and we also believe for Federal employees
and the President agrees--and we have that legislation in this bill
too.
In addition, in finding ways to save money, I would hasten to add it
is important for the Postal Service to find new ways to make money. We
have seen the TV ads about flat-rate boxes. If it fits, it ships. The
price is pretty good, and the service is pretty good too. That is the
kind of idea we need more of from the Postal Service. The Postal
Service has a partnership with FedEx and UPS. Most people think of them
as competitors, but actually the Postal Service has partnered with
FedEx and UPS. FedEx and UPS don't want to deliver to every door in
America every day for 6 days a week. They don't want to do that. They
simply ask the Postal Service to deliver to those doors that FedEx and
UPS don't want to deliver to on a particular day, and the Postal
Service makes money doing this. They make a lot of money doing this.
When the holiday season comes upon us, we will find there is a need
for--a lot of people don't just go to brick-and-mortar stores to buy
holiday gifts, they want to order online, and the Postal Service can
participate broadly in that business too.
The last thing I wish to mention is this: In addition to making
money, we have to come up with new ideas. Those are a couple ideas that
work. There are others. We are looking for ways to save money in State
and local government. Why not consolidate some of the operations in
post office buildings. We have a couple more tenants and we can provide
service there for other purposes. We do that for passports. Why not do
it for other things? We will hear a lot about virtual mailboxes in the
days to come and whether that might be a new piece of business for the
post office to be involved in as well.
Let me close by saying this: I think as we go forward in this
process, we need to be mindful of the Golden Rule, to treat people the
way we want to be treated. That includes customers of the Postal
Service, be they businesses or residential customers, employees of the
Postal Service, the taxpayers. We need to treat everybody the way we
want to be treated.
The last thing I would say, my friend from Tennessee, who is
standing, and I are two people here who believe we ought to be serious
about solving the big problems, as is the Presiding Officer. There are
a lot of people who think we are incapable of dealing with big
challenges these days.
This is a big challenge. The Postal Service is one of the two largest
employers in this country. The consequences of the Postal Service going
down next year are not what we want to see visited on this country.
Seven million jobs would be in jeopardy. If we simply try to put them
on autopilot and let the taxpayers pay for it, it would be over $200
billion more of a hit on the Treasury.
This is a big challenge. This is one we can fix. To the extent we can
pull together in the Senate, as we have done in our committee on this
issue, I think we will set a good example for our Nation to say: Yes,
we can still take on a tough problem, and we can fix it--not in a year
or two or three from now but this year.
With that, I yield the floor.
[[Page S7028]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I know we are rotating right now. What I
thought I might do is yield just a couple of minutes to Senator
Blumenthal, and then let him yield back to me if that would be OK.
But I do want to thank Senator Carper for his leadership on this
issue. We have looked at this bill and others, and we are glad they
have been able to come to an agreement between each other. Obviously,
the issue of the Postal Service is one of the big issues we need to
deal with. I agree with him. I think that is something we can do now. I
thank him for his leadership.
I yield back for the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee,
Mr. Corker, for very graciously beginning this discussion. I want to
join in thanking the distinguished Senator from Delaware for all of his
hard work and his very successful and insightful discussion this
morning. It is a problem that concerns all of us very deeply and
immediately, and his leadership has been an enormous contribution to
the Nation on this issue.
The GAIN Act
I am pleased to be here today with Senator Corker to discuss a
problem that is spreading across the country. It is a public health
threat to our troops, our children, our frail, and our elderly
involving the spread of mutant germs, so-called superbugs, that are
resistant, sometimes even immune to existing antibiotics.
I have been very proud of the work Senator Corker and I have done
together. He has joined me, and we have been joined by Senators Bennet,
Hatch, Casey, Alexander, Coons, and Roberts in the Senate, and by
Representatives Gingrey and DeGette in the House, along with a very
bipartisan group of respected Members there on an issue that is truly
bipartisan. I wish to yield to Senator Corker and then continue my
remarks on an issue that ought to concern us very closely and
immediately.
Reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest
that these infections are not only prevalent but spreading across the
country. I have a detailed set of charts that demonstrate this problem.
He and I have developed what I think is a solution the Congress can
consider in order to provide incentives for development of new
antibiotics, new medicine, that can help the Nation prevent the spread
of these kinds of diseases.
So with that, I yield for the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from
Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Thank you, Mr. President. I am sure the Chair is familiar
with us going back and forth, and I thank the Chair. I thank my friend
from Connecticut. I know he mentioned the Senators who have joined us
in this effort, as well as the House Members on the other side of the
Capitol, in a bipartisan way.
First, I thank him for his leadership on this issue and for
approaching our office about it. I know the public watches Washington
and wonders if there is ever anything that is done in a bipartisan way.
There are actually lots of efforts that are undertaken that way, and I
am very glad to be working with him and his staff who have been very
professional and, hopefully, this bill can become law.
The problem is that we have these drug-resistant bacteria called
superbugs. All of us have read and heard about them. They are becoming
harder and harder to treat because we lack the new antibiotics capable
of combating these infections. It is actually scary when we think about
what is happening in many facilities across our country. So it is
obviously crucial to discover new antibiotics so we can stay ahead of
this growing trend of drug resistance.
Drug discoveries, obviously, don't happen overnight. Action is needed
now to ensure that we have access to these lifesaving medications when
we need them.
These are serious infections. They are definitely life threatening to
the patients, especially children and the elderly. In fact, the CDC,
the Centers for Disease Control, has named this antibiotic resistance
as one of the top public health concerns in our country.
According to the Infectious Disease Society of America, 100,000
deaths and 360,000 hospitalizations result from antibiotic-resistant
infections each year in the United States. In my State of Tennessee,
nearly 2,000 cases of MRSA are reported annually. MRSA is a common and
very dangerous type of antibiotic-resistant bacteria often found in
hospital settings. Again, I am sure all of us know of cases where this
has happened to loved ones, friends, and others.
The financial impact of these infections is also staggering, costing
our health care system $35 billion to $45 billion annually.
This problem is also threatening the health of our troops abroad. One
particular type of bacteria, known as a Ramibacterium, is striking
hundreds of wounded soldiers coming back from Iraq. Since 2003, more
than 700 U.S. soldiers have been infected or colonized with this life-
threatening bacteria.
While bacterial infections continue to become more resistant to
traditional antibiotics, innovation of new antibiotics capable of
combating these infections has slowed by an alarming rate. FDA approval
of these new antibiotics has decreased by 70 percent since the 1980s.
Between 2003 and 2007, there were five new antibiotics approved by the
FDA compared to 16 new antibiotics from 1983 to 1987.
This bill, the GAIN Act, provides meaningful market incentives and
reduces regulatory burdens to encourage the development of new
antibiotics that will help us save lives and reduce health care costs.
Specifically--and I appreciate the way the Senator from Connecticut has
approached this--the bill provides 5 additional years of exclusivity to
new drugs developed to treat these superbugs.
The bill also gives these antibiotics priority status during the FDA
review process so they can move through more quickly. It encourages the
FDA to revisit the clinical trial guidelines for antibiotics. By
encouraging a more robust antibiotic pipeline, we can help ensure
patients have access to lifesaving treatments while also reducing
health care spending.
The GAIN Act is a straightforward, commonsense bill that provides
market incentives to encourage innovation without putting Federal
dollars at stake. Antibiotic resistance is a growing issue that we must
address to properly prepare for the future.
Dr. William Evans, the director and CEO of St. Jude Children's
Hospital in Tennessee, recently wrote a letter supporting this bill.
Many of my colleagues know of St. Jude and the wonderful work they do
for children across our country. Here is his quote:
We don't want to find ourselves in a situation in which we
have been able to save a child's life after a cancer
diagnosis, only to lose them to an untreatable multi-drug
resistant infection.
I wish to thank my colleague again, Senator Blumenthal from
Connecticut, for his leadership on this bill, and I look forward to
working with him to ensure it gets proper consideration in the Senate.
Also, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in
the Record from the following organizations: St. Jude Children's
Hospital, Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, University of Tennessee
Health Sciences Center, and East Tennessee State University Quillen
College of Medicine.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
St. Jude
Children's Research Hospital,
Memphis, TN, October 14, 2011.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
Hon. Bob Corker,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Blumenthal and Corker: I am writing on behalf
of St. Jude Children's Research Hospital to express our
support for the Senate companion bill of H.R. 2182, the
Generating Antibiotic incentives Now (GAIN) Act of 2011. The
mission of St. Jude Children's Research Hospital is to
advance cures, and means of prevention, for pediatric
catastrophic diseases through research and treatment. The
GAIN Act represents an important first step in addressing a
public health issue that significantly affects our mission.
We believe that the legislation is of great importance not
only to our children's hospital and the children and families
we serve, but to children and families across the country.
Many of the children we treat at St. Jude have compromised
immune systems, and are
[[Page S7029]]
particularly vulnerable to bacterial infections. At the same
time that multi-drug resistant strains of Methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and gram negative
bacteria are on the rise, the number of new antibiotics being
approved has dropped precipitously. A study conducted at St.
Jude and published in Pediatric Blood & Cancer compared MRSA
colonization rates in pediatric oncology patients in 2000-
2001 with rates in 2006-2007. The study showed an increasing
prevalence of colonization with MRSA observed in children
with cancer at our institution, and that the colonization was
associated with infection. Recurrent MRSA infections were
seen in 22 percent of patients. A copy of the study is
enclosed.
We applaud the work that you and your bipartisan group of
colleagues are doing to address the issue of the dwindling
antibiotic pipeline. We believe that the GAIN Act is an
important first step in stimulating new antibiotic
development and getting lifesaving drugs to the children we
treat. We don't want to find ourselves in a situation in
which we have been able to save a child's life after a cancer
diagnosis, only to lose them to an untreatable multi-drug
resistant infection. Thank you for your leadership in the
Senate to ensure that we have the tools we need to treat the
children entrusted to our care.
Sincerely,
William E. Evans,
Director and CEO.
____
Le Bonheur,
Children's Hospital,
Memphis, TN, October 26, 2011.
Hon. Bob Corker,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Corker: on behalf of the patients, families,
physicians and associates of Le Bonheur Children's Hospital,
I commend your efforts to invigorate the development of new
antibiotics to combat the spread of antibiotic resistant
bacteria with the introduction of the GAIN Act. Thank you for
taking the lead on this important public health concern.
Antibiotic infections have been on the rise for many years,
disproportionately affecting children and increasing the cost
of care. We applaud your efforts to encourage antibiotic
innovation, an important step to ensuring that lifesaving
medicine will be available to the many children who need
them.
Please let us know how we can assist in passing this
important legislation. Our many pediatric physicians,
researchers and clinicians are available to lend whatever
support you need. Thank you, Senator Corker, for working to
improve healthcare for children.
Sincerely,
Meri Armour,
President and C.E.O.
Le Bonheur Children's Hospital.
____
The University of Tennessee
Health Science Center,
Memphis, TN, October 25, 2011.
Hon. Bob Corker,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Corker. We, here at Le Bonheur Children's
Hospital and the Department of Pediatrics at the University
of Tennessee Health Science Center, applaud your efforts to
spur development of new antibiotics to combat the spread of
antibiotic resistant bacteria with the introduction of the
GAIN Act. Thank you for taking the lead on this important
public health concern.
Antibiotic-resistant infections have been on the rise for
many years, in many cases disproportionately affecting
children. For example, infections caused by methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus (``MRSA'') have been
particularly frequent in children and may be life-
threatening. My colleagues Steve Buckingham and Sandy Arnold
and I have published a series of articles summarizing our
experience with these infections and discussing the impact of
antibiotic resistance on the treatment of children with
serious infections.
We commend your efforts to encourage antibiotic innovation
that will bring lifesaving medications to the many children
(and adults) who need them.
As a pediatric infectious disease specialist, please let me
know how I can assist and support your efforts on this
important issue. Thank you, Senator Corker, for your hard
work and vision.
Sincerely,
B. Keith English, M.D.,
Professor and Interim Chair, Department of Pediatrics,
University of Tennessee Health Science Center Interim
Pediatrician-in-Chief, Chief, Division of Infectious Diseases
Le Bonheur Children's Hospital.
____
East Tennesssee State University, Office of the Vice
President for Health Affairs,
Johnson City, TN, November 2, 2011.
Hon. Bob Corker,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Corker: We are writing on behalf of East
Tennessee State University to express our support of S. 1734,
the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now (GAIN) Act of 2011.
At the turn of the last century, infectious diseases were
the leading cause of death in America. Between improvements
in sanitation and the development of vaccines and
antibiotics, the impact of infectious diseases on human
health has been greatly reduced in our country. However, we
are concerned that as microorganisms develop resistance to
existing antimicrobial agents there is an increased
possibility that we will see a resurgence in some infectious
diseases that are currently under control. Additionally, with
continued growth of the world's population, and the shortened
travel times between continents, resistant organisms have the
capacity to spread quickly across the globe. We believe that
the GAIN Act, S. 1734, will be a first step in stimulating
new research in antibiotic development to address a
predictable public health crisis.
East Tennessee State University Division of Health Affairs
(including the Colleges of Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy,
Public Health, and Clinical and Rehabilitative Health
Sciences) has research programs strongly focused on meeting
the needs of our region, particularly needs of the
underserved and other vulnerable populations. We recognize
the necessity to promote advancements in research related to
infectious disease and currently conduct clinical and basic
science research in these areas. We feel that the GAIN Act
will expedite our efforts to produce novel treatments for
disease and in turn, reduce the related burden of illness to
the region and state.
Sincerely,
Wilsie S. Bishop,
Vice President for Health Affairs and Chief Operating
Officer.
Philip C. Bagnell,
Dean of Medicine.
Gregory A. Ordway,
Chair of Pharmacology.
Priscilla B. Wyrick,
Chair of Microbiology.
Mr. CORKER. With that, I yield the floor for my good friend, someone
with whom I have thoroughly enjoyed working on this issue. I thank him
again for his leadership on a very important issue that matters to all
of us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Again, my thanks to my very distinguished colleague
from Tennessee whose leadership and contribution to this bill has been
instrumental from the very start. I welcome him and have been thankful
for his partnership on this issue.
As my colleague from Tennessee said so well, these antibiotic-
resistant drugs are a spreading scourge. Reports from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention suggest that MRSA infections are
responsible for more than 17,000 deaths in the United States every
year--more than AIDS and many other diseases that are regarded as
public health threats. All 50 States have seen rates of antibiotic-
resistant E. coli infections double in less than 10 years.
A lesser known bug, Acintobacter, a bacteria that affects increasing
numbers of our troops serving in Iraq, has infected more than 700 of
our servicemembers since 2003. The numbers are continuing to rise.
Those numbers are alarming. I have some charts I will show in just a
moment that will be even more graphic. But to put a human face on this
problem, Jamel Sawyer, a former college football player from Norwalk,
CT, knows all too well the crippling impact of these antibiotic-
resistant infections.
He was in school in Boston. He suffered from severe back pain and a
rising temperature. He went to the hospital and was told he was
suffering from a kind of antibiotic-resistant staph infection which
surmounted multiple rounds of antibiotic treatment. He was left
paralyzed and unable to walk. He was paralyzed from the waist down and
remains very severely handicapped as a result. Right now he is fighting
to gain back his ability to walk and function normally.
We are in an arms race with superbugs. We are in a fight with
antibiotic-resistant mutating germs that are a spreading, persistent,
and pernicious problem all around the country. The resistance is fueled
by careless use of antibiotics, the overuse of certain kinds of
antibiotics, or failure to use them properly, as when they are not used
for the full round when they should be and thereby lead to greater
resistance on the part of these germs.
Failure to use these antibiotics properly and failure to exercise
good stewardship is important, but it is not the only cause. We need to
stay ahead of these germs in an arms race to develop new antibiotics
and provide incentives for those antibiotics.
[[Page S7030]]
The problems we are encountering are shown by these charts, beginning
first in the year 2000 with antibiotic-resistant E. coli. As this chart
makes clear, nowhere--in no State in the United States--was there a
rate above 10 percent. That accounts for the light yellow pattern here.
In 2009, the situation was very different. In States across the
country--major States, including New York and the entire East--the rate
was above 35 percent. In many parts of the Midwest, including the
Presiding Officer's State, the rate was above 25 percent. E. coli
resistance to treatment by this commonly used antibiotic presents a
threat particularly to our children and our elderly.
The next chart I wish to show concerns Acintobacter. This bacteria
has afflicted particularly our troops coming back from Iraq. It is, in
fact, nicknamed ``Iraqtobacter'' by many military doctors, and it has
literally jumped enormously in the number of cases.
This was the case in the year 2000, showing almost everywhere rates
below 5 percent. The present incidence is very different, alarmingly
so. In some States it is above 50 percent, including, I believe, New
Mexico, and in many parts of the East above 30 to 40 percent.
This Acintobacter incidence is something that is a major national
security problem insofar as 700 troops have been infected with
Acintobacter, and as Robert Jackson, the director of Military Families
United said so eloquently about this disease:
The worst part is that many of our men and women in uniform
survive the war effort only to return and die of this
infection in the continental United States. Thus Military
Families United strongly supports the GAIN Act, which
would ensure that American companies have the motivation
to combat the most modern, multi-drug resistant diseases.
I brought these charts simply to show how the spread of these
superbug infections has affected the entire United States. There are
other diseases like MRSA and VRSA. They are a set of acronyms that are
comparable to, in effect, a modern plague.
Fully one-third of all deaths from H1N1 Swine Flu, for example, in
2009 were actually caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria. According
to the Infectious Disease Society of America, 100,000 deaths and
360,000 hospitalizations in the United States resulted from antibiotic-
resistant infections, at a cost of $26 billion to our health system
annually.
What is the reason for the rise and spread of these diseases? Well,
the main reason is we do not have new antibiotics to treat and cure
them. The reason for that dearth of new antibiotics goes to the
fundamentals of modern economics involving the drug industry.
Antibiotics are prescribed and used for a course of 2 weeks, if they
work. There are blockbuster drugs and miracle drugs that are used for
the treatment of chronic diseases and, therefore, are used often for
lifetimes. The revenues from those blockbuster drugs are themselves
blockbuster products and profits.
The problem with antibiotics is the lack of economic incentive to
develop them in the modern economics of the pharmaceutical industry.
The GAIN Act would remedy that problem. It would incentivize the
development and research required to implement and discover these new
drugs. It would extend the data exclusivity rights for 5 years. It
would speed and expedite consideration of these drugs by the FDA. It
would provide a fast track, essentially, and enable prompt review. It
would moderate and eliminate the kinds of regulatory hurdles which is
so important in providing not only incentives but also a track to
consumers so they would have the availability of these drugs.
I personally would welcome other ideas if there are any for
strengthening the incentives for development of these antibiotics that
are so important to treat and cure the antibiotic-resistant germs that
cause these problems. I hope we will continue to have the kind of
bipartisan momentum in favor of these new developments.
I close by saying we are all talking about jobs on the floor of the
Senate these days. This proposal is also, in a way, a jobs-related
program. It would enable small innovators and small businesses--one is,
for example, Rib-X Pharmaceuticals in New Haven, a 50-person company
trying to develop new drugs through innovation. The kind of boost and
incentive this bill will provide is very important for the innovators
of America who are out there trying to provide cures for Acintobacter,
MRSA, E. coli--all of them superbugs--providing a solution to this
problem that I think is very much urgent and in the interests of our
Nation.
This measure is a first step. I hope we can come together to enact
it. I urge the Senate to join me in doing so.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Somalia and Al-Shabaab
Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the Government of
Kenya and its President Kibaki for the difficult decision he and his
government have made with regard to Somalia.
We all recall Somalia as the site of the Black Hawk Down tragedy in
1993. As much as Americans might wish to ignore that troubled country,
I do not think we can. Somalia is a country whose government collapsed
in 1991 but has now given rise to what is arguably the second largest
terror presence on planet Earth, called al-Shabaab. The country also
represents a new 21st-century threat of piracy across America's Persian
Gulf oil supply lines.
On October 16, at the invitation of the Somali Transitional Federal
Government, the Kenyan Government launched Operation Protect the
Country against the al-Shabaab terrorist organization based in Somalia.
We all recall that al-Shabaab is an al-Qaida affiliate that has been
designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States
since 2008. It is responsible for multiple attacks in Somalia, Kenya,
and Uganda, including a suicide bombing in July 2010 in Kampala that
killed 76 people, including an American citizen, 25-year-old Nate Henn
of North Carolina who worked for the Invisible Children nonprofit
organization. Also, on October 25, al-Shabaab kidnapped and is still
holding another American citizen, 32-year-old Jessica Buchanan of
Virginia.
About 4,000 Kenyan troops are now approaching the critical Somali
port city of Kismayo where al-Shabaab makes most of its money and is
headquartered. The success of the Kenyan operation would mean a
significant weakening of al-Shabaab's ability to plan and execute
terrorist attacks and would greatly support the security of the region
and the United States.
Also joining in the fight against al-Shabaab are prominent local
tribal militias, including the Ahlu Sunnah Waljamaah, the ASWJ; the
Raas Kaambooni Front; and the Jubaland militia formed under the former
TFG defense minister, Mohamed Abdi Mohamed.
I commend the Kenyan Government and the allied groups for their
action, and the United States and NATO should support this Kenyan
action.
Al-Shabaab poses a significant threat to America's national security
and to Kenya's safety. Since 2009, al-Shabaab has conducted at least 10
attacks on Kenyan soil and the territorial seas along her coastline. In
a particularly heinous crime, on October 1, al-Shabaab kidnapped a
disabled French woman on Kenyan soil and dragged her to Somalia, where
she later died. Last week, al-Shabaab militants also threw a grenade
into a Nairobi nightclub.
Because of al-Shabaab's refusal to allow access for humanitarian
organizations to relieve famine, Kenya is also now home to 600,000
Somali refugees. In many ways, the famine and distress that is now
evident in Somalia should be called the al-Shabaab famine.
Al-Shabaab also poses a direct threat to the United States by
actively radicalizing and recruiting American citizens.
On October 29, a suicide bomber attacked an African Union base in
Mogadishu, killing himself and 10 other human beings. The suspect,
Abdisalan Hussein Ali, was a 22-year-old American citizen who grew up
in Minneapolis and studied to be a doctor before he suddenly
disappeared to join al-Shabaab in 2008. The recording he allegedly made
before his death contained a disturbing message aimed at young
Americans. He said:
Today, jihad is what is most important. It's not important
that you become a doctor, or some sort of engineer.
According to the FBI, Ali was one of 30 American citizens who have
now
[[Page S7031]]
joined al-Shabaab. In August of 2010, the FBI arrested 2 and charged 12
more individuals in Minnesota, Alabama, and California ``with acts of
terrorism that include providing money, personnel, and other material
support to the Somali-based terrorist organization al Shabaab.'' At the
time, Attorney General Eric Holder called it ``a deadly pipeline that
has routed funding and fighters to al Shabaab from cities across the
United States.''
On July 27, an investigation by the House Committee on Homeland
Security found the following:
Al-Shabaab has an active recruitment and radicalization
network inside the U.S. targeting Muslim-Americans in Somali
communities. It also ensnared a few non-Somali Muslim-
American converts, such as a top Shabaab commander:
At least 40 or more Americans--
According to the House--
have joined Shabaab;
So many Americans have joined that at least 15 of them have
been killed fighting with Shabaab, as well as three
Canadians;
Three Americans who returned to the U.S. were prosecuted,
and one awaits extradition from The Netherlands;
At least 21 or more American Shabaab members overseas
remain unaccounted for and pose a direct threat to the U.S.
homeland.
The House said:
Al-Shabaab has the intent and capability to conduct attacks
or aid core Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in
Yemen with striking U.S. interests and the U.S. homeland.
They said that al-Shabaab has openly pledged loyalty and support to
al-Qaida and al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen and has
cemented an alarming set of operational ties to both groups.
The House report also points out that after the successful U.S.
operation to kill Osama bin Laden, al-Shabaab's leadership eulogized
bin Laden and vowed revenge against the United States. Omar Hammami,
another al-Shabaab leader raised in the United States, said he ``swore
[a] blood revenge against his own homeland for the May 1 killing of
Osama Bin Laden.''
Al-Shabaab poses a grave threat to regional stability and to our own
national security. I thank the Kenyan Government and their allies in
Somalia for taking action. Our administration and our NATO allies
should support Kenya. We should also make sure that in this support we
have the objective to collapse al-Shabaab in Somalia. With luck, while
al-Shabaab may have found a recruit or two among American citizens to
wage jihad against their own country, there, hopefully, will be no al-
Shabaab to fight for if they ever reach Somalia.
Mr. President, I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I believe we are currently debating the motion to
proceed to go to the energy, water, et cetera, package. Included in
that is the proposal of the President that he has sent up asking the
Senate to vote on the question of an infrastructure bank.
I believe there was a prior vote in the Senate on that in the context
of the Jobs Act, which we all know failed at that time. There are some
signs that this may wind up being a partisan effort here, but I hope
colleagues will stop and think very carefully about the infrastructure
bank proposal and what it represents to our country.
Whether we can get it over the hurdle at this moment, I do not know.
But it is an idea whose time has come, and I am confident in the next
weeks or months, hopefully, the Senate will embrace this concept. The
reason for doing so is very simple. Colleagues on both sides of the
aisle are increasingly reminded when they go home, as well as familiar
here just in the general dialog about where we are going in our
country, of the enormous deficit reduction--the deficit; it is on my
mind--of the infrastructure deficit we face in this country as a whole.
So I want colleagues to stop and think hard about a simple question:
How are we going to build America? How are we going to build America
going forward so that we can do what our parents and our grandparents
did for us, providing us with the basic infrastructure of a nation that
has been able to allow people to move easily from home to work to
places of commerce across the country, an interstate highway system,
all of our airports, our train stations, all of the assets that
provided for the strength of our Nation and for the kind of communities
we live in? None of it appeared out of nowhere. It was built because
people had a vision, people had an idea about how you make communities
strong, and also how economies work. The fact is that some of the
greatest projects in our country, whether it is some of the great
bridges we look at today--Golden Gate Bridge, Triborough Bridge, George
Washington, countless bridges across the Potomac and elsewhere--the
tunnels, the roads, our water treatment facilities, our airports, and
the airline system we have, all of those things contribute to the
strength of our country.
But everyone here knows we are not currently pursuing a set of
projects calculated to make America more competitive and to continue
that rich history and tradition of building for the future. We are busy
living off the assets that were created by the generations that
preceded us. So the question has to be asked by every colleague here:
Are we going to appropriate the money for grants? And the answer is no,
partly because the deficit and the debt are telling us in loud terms we
do not have those kinds of funds right now, but also because everybody
here sees the difficulty we are having trying to get the highway bill
reauthorized or the FAA bill reauthorized in order to do the things we
need to do.
The proposal for an infrastructure bank is a proposal that recognizes
this fiscal reality. We simply do not have and will not allocate the
types of funds necessary to do the job every American knows has to be
done. That does not mean the job cannot be done. There is a way to do
it. And the way to do it is to invite other people's money, the private
sector, not tax dollars, to come to the table and invest in these
projects, where these projects have revenue streams that will support
that kind of investment.
One of the important features of the infrastructure bank that I ask
colleagues to focus on is the fact that this bank is not a grant
entity. There will be no grants. It is exclusively loans, and
exclusively loans that meet the fiduciary test of their ability to be
able to be repaid, to have a revenue stream that will support the loans
themselves.
I would say to my colleagues, some of them I know have asked me
occasionally: Well, is this going to be an entity such as Fannie Mae or
Freddie Mac? Is it going to be one of those government-supported
entities that got some folks in trouble? The answer is no, resoundingly
and profoundly no. It is not similar in any way whatsoever. Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac issued stock. They were for-profit entities listed on
the New York Stock Exchange. They were using the Federal guarantee on a
loan to actually leverage their position in the marketplace in
competition with other entities and for-profits. This bank is not for
profit. No issuance of stock will be listed on any exchange. It will
exist exclusively for the purpose of lending to those types of projects
that meet the highest fiscal standards with respect to the ability of
those projects to be repaid.
In fact, in each and every lending situation, the infrastructure bank
will make a risk analysis, just as you do on any deal in Wall Street.
There is a risk analysis, and a risk factor will be assigned to that
deal. In fact, fees will be charged to the borrowers, to the
dealmakers, in order to cover that level of risk. That will be part of
the cost of the transaction.
The benefit of this infrastructure bank is that by virtue of the
Treasury Department providing a discount for the Federal Treasury
guarantee, you actually make the loan attractive in terms of the
private sector in competition, and it does so at a level, as I said, of
risk analysis that does not put the Federal Government or the taxpayer
on line and at risk for the measured level of the loan itself, but only
the risk which is credited or put on the books in terms of what is
carried by the Treasury Department as the risk of this particular loan.
So, in fact, if you look at the type of projects that are authorized
by this--only energy projects, transportation projects, and water
projects--in the better part of the country, they are limited to $100
million size or up, and there is a set-aside for rural communities. In
the rural communities, the
[[Page S7032]]
level of loans could be $25 million or up, because obviously in parts
of rural America, you have smaller kinds of projects, and we want
everyone in the country to be able to share from the benefits of this
kind of an infrastructure bank.
I would say to my colleagues, this bank has bipartisan support. It
has been introduced in slightly different forms from what the President
has put it in. But the fundamentals of the bank in structure and
concept are the same. It has been introduced by Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison of Texas, who is a coauthor; Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator
Mark Warner are the original cosponsors. But it has other cosponsors
and broader support including, I might add, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, which is a strong supporter of the infrastructure bank, and
was present at the announcement of this legislation, as well as the
AFL-CIO.
Why is this infrastructure bank necessary? What is it we need? Well,
everybody knows that the experts are telling us we have a $2.2 trillion
infrastructure deficit in America. That means there are over $2.2
trillion of projects around the country, countless bridges in countless
communities around the country, roads or tunnels or airports, countless
projects which need to be repaired, upgraded, or put in place at first
instance.
We are that far behind, a $2.2 trillion deficit to what we ought to
be doing. The American Civil Society of Architects and Engineers tells
us that we could spend about $250 billion a year for the next 40 years
just to bring our roads up to par, and we are not about to do that, we
know, because we do not have the money, because we are not getting that
kind of an appropriation now for our initiatives.
Listen to what Oklahoma City Mayor Mike Cornett says: Mayors see up
close the deferred maintenance that is going on in the Nation's cities.
It is a ticking timebomb. We also know it puts people to work.
Well, Cornett is president of the Republican Mayors and Local
Officials Coalition within the U.S. Conference of Mayors. He knows what
he is talking about in terms of this deferred maintenance. But the
truth is, every Senator here knows. You can go back home and find
mayors and State senators, State representatives, Governors,
Departments of Transportation--all of them are pleading with us to try
to help provide the kinds of funding necessary because they are simply
overwhelmed. I might add many of our States are living under court
orders to do some of these projects, particularly the water, the
combined sewer overflow-water treatment facilities, where communities
have sued and you need to do those projects in order to meet the
standards. And they are under court order, without understanding where
the money is going to come from. But they are under a court order.
The fact is that whether we decide to do these things is going to
determine how competitive America is going to be. Right now, everybody
knows we are facing a transformational economic challenge. It is
different from the challenge we faced in the last century. During that
period of time, as we came out of World War II, we were the only major
economy in the world left standing. At the end of the war, we had both
the vision and foresight as well as the courage to put a lot of money
on the line in the Marshall plan to help rebuild Europe and rebuild
Japan. And we saw throughout the Cold War the ways in which that
investment paid back for the United States of America, indeed for the
western world and for the values that we made central to that kind of
an investment.
That has changed. It started to change in the eighties and nineties,
and now we are seeing, with the rise of less developed countries that
are, after all, doing the very things that we encouraged them to do--we
told them you have got to liberate your societies to be able to go out
and compete in the marketplace, that they needed to open up that
market, they needed to trade, they needed to excite capital formation
and invest and so forth. That is exactly what they have done. They have
not changed their political systems, in many cases, which remain
totalitarian and closed, one party, but they have certainly changed
their economic systems, and in doing so, they have transformed the
marketplace we are competing in. So the United States is not looking at
the same playing field, where we had unlimited resources, unlimited
capacity to go out and, frankly, win. We could win many times without
even trying that hard. But now other people are doing the same things
we took for granted. They are competing in science, they are competing
in technology, they are competing in manufacturing, they are competing
in software, and they are competing all kinds of things that were our
domain for a long period of time.
The market globally has changed significantly enough that we are
facing a challenge to our ability to be able to remain the No. 1
economy. I heard today that China will probably be the No. 1 economy in
the world within 5 or 6 years, much faster than we had anticipated
previously. So if the United States is going to compete and get its act
together going forward, we have to invest in the infrastructure of our
country, because that is how you, No. 1, create jobs, but, No. 2, you
provide the ability to move goods, to provide for people, to provide
for the quality of life and the kinds of institutions that make a
difference to our ability to be able to compete and to live the quality
of life we want.
The figures of other people's commitment to infrastructure tell us
the story. China is investing 9 percent of its gross domestic product
in infrastructure. Europe is investing 5 percent of its GDP in
infrastructure. Here in the United States, we are investing somewhere
around 2 percent. Figures vary--2.2, 2.1, 2 percent. I think Brazil
invested over $240 billion in its infrastructure in the last 3 years,
and the Brazilian economy is growing in double digits. North Korea,
Mexico, Brazil, China, India, all growing in double digits, and the
United States is stuck in this recession, maybe just breaking out of
it, but with very uneven growth.
The infrastructure bank is geared to fill a void in our investment
abilities in this country. Again, Senators know we are not going to
invest billions of dollars of appropriated money--taxpayer dollars--
because of the competition we have in our discretionary funds now
because of the way we are heading in terms of the fiscal cliff and debt
cliff and because of the challenge of the rising costs in health care
and entitlements. We don't have that money.
While we get control of those components of our economy, we need to
be investing in the infrastructure of our Nation and putting people
back to work. We need to invest in highways, roads, bridges, mass
transit, inland waterways, commercial ports, airports, air traffic
control systems, passenger rail, including high-speed rail and freight
rail systems, and the water sector. We can invest in wastewater
treatment facilities, storm water management systems, dams, drinking
water treatment facilities, levees, and open space management systems.
In the energy sector, we need transmission in America. We need an
energy grid that is modern. We need distribution, storage, energy
enhancements for buildings, public and commercial.
There is an extraordinary amount of work to be done--if we decide to
do it. Hundreds of billions of dollars is sitting on the side lines
right now. It could come in and help us with these projects. The
infrastructure bank is precisely the entity that will bring that
private capital to the table so that it is the Chinese who are
investing in an American infrastructure project that they cannot take
back to China; it is here in America. It improves our lives, but it
gives them a return on investment for the money they put on the line in
a deal, which, frankly, is the kind of deal that will produce the sort
of long-term, patient capital investment that I think a lot of people
are going to be turning to given the nature of the financial turmoil we
see going on in the world today.
We are in a competitive race with other countries to attract this
private equity investment. An infrastructure bank could help us put
that money to work here at home.
Some people say: Senator, why do you need the infrastructure bank to
do this if these deals are so attractive? Why doesn't the money come
and they will invest it anyway and so forth?
It doesn't work that way for a number of reasons. First of all, our
financial institutions have not developed a
[[Page S7033]]
long-term infrastructure-lending business. We don't have that in this
country the way other banks in other parts of the world do.
If you look at a major American infrastructure transaction over the
last few years, guess what. Non-U.S. banks--mostly Australian and
European--are the ones providing most of the financing. They are doing
it at an average of 20 to 1--20 parts by the non-U.S. banks, the
European and Australian banks, and 1 part U.S. investment. Given the
troubles the European sovereign market has today, I think it is going
to be a very long time before we see a lot of European banks looking to
invest over here. Maybe I am wrong.
The lack of investing by our institutions is not because the
investment is too risky. The problem is that for a very long time, the
vast majority of American infrastructure has been financed through the
municipal bond market, the rest largely through Federal grants, which I
have said are now under pressure. So there has been no need for large
bank lending to be created. As we all know, large bank lending--that
market just doesn't happen overnight.
The municipal bond market also relies principally on small retail
investors for most of its funding. Because of the way it is designed,
it can't access large global pools of capital or, for that matter,
pension funds. Pension funds are prohibited from investing in those
bonds.
The municipal bond market is not well-suited to fund large, cross-
State, cross-boundary projects, so we need something else. That
something else is this kind of infrastructure bank, with all of the
very strict limits that have been put into place to keep it from
reaching too far. It doesn't cost a lot of money--$10 billion of
startup funding. It becomes self-financing. Every loan is a loan that
can be repaid because they rely on sources of revenue that are among
the most dependable sources of revenue in the marketplace--from energy
projects that sell electricity, and you have a pretty regular stream of
buyers for that. You have a pretty regular stream of people who need
water in their homes and pay for the water. All of these revenue
streams--the tolls on bridges, for instance, and these others--have a
certainty and longevity to them that make these kinds of deals very
attractive.
I say to my colleagues that one of the silver linings of this kind of
infrastructure investment is this: For every $1 billion, the Federal
Highway Administration tells us you will create, I think, 30,000 jobs.
The range of jobs, depending on whom you listen to, goes from about
20,000 to 35,000. Let's say it is 20,000 jobs per billion. People say
this bank investment of $10 billion can leverage more than $\1/2\
trillion--$500 billion--of investment, so you are talking 20 million
jobs over the course of perhaps 10 years.
I think there are so many compelling reasons for engaging this.
Europe has an infrastructure bank. We have State infrastructure banks,
but the State infrastructure banks don't have the advantage this bank
has of being able to do transboundary, cross-State deals. They also
don't have the advantage of having a discount on the lending component
coming through the Treasury Department of the Federal component of
this--done, as I said, under the strictest fiduciary standards. Only 50
percent of any project can be lending. The rest has to be equity and
has to be invested by the other investors in the deal. It could be a
combination of investors, but they need to invest.
I close by saying that a modern infrastructure is really the
lifeblood of our economy. I don't know how many of my colleagues have
taken the Acela to New York, but it is a train that has the ability to
go 150 miles an hour. It only goes 150 miles an hour between here and
New York for about 18 miles of the trip because you cannot go fast
under the Baltimore tunnel because vibrations might cause it to fall
in. You cannot go fast over the bridges of the Chesapeake because the
train will wind up in the Chesapeake. This is absurd.
Many of us have had the pleasure of having a train ride in China. I
rode recently from Beijing to Tianjin--a trip that used to take 8 to 10
hours takes 29 minutes. You are going 200 miles an hour. The water on
your table is barely jiggling during the entire ride. It is an
extraordinary accomplishment. They are building something like 55,000
miles of that kind of high-speed rail system over there, as they spend
their 9 percent of GDP on infrastructure.
We can do better. The United States of America can do better. We know
that. We are the country that had invention and building construction
in our DNA, the country that went to the Moon and developed these
extraordinary technologies that connect human beings around the world
instantaneously.
I am convinced that if we put this infrastructure bank together, all
of a sudden the United States will attract capital, create jobs,
modernize our economy, and have benefits that spill out all across our
Nation. I hope our colleagues will get rid of the politics and embrace
this idea, which is long overdue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I
commend the Senator from Massachusetts. He has said much this afternoon
that I certainly agree with.
I also want to touch on one other point about the Senator's work--the
Senator from Massachusetts--in this area. The public, perhaps more than
anything else, is talking about why people in Washington, DC, cannot
work together, why we can't come up with ways to build coalitions. I am
not sure people picked up on it in the Senator's remarks, particularly
with respect to China. They are investing far more than we are. But he
has pulled together the chamber of commerce and the AFL-CIO for an
infrastructure package. That doesn't happen by osmosis or because
somebody puts out a press release. He put in the time to try to build
that coalition, which, of course, is key to getting bipartisan support
up here. I want the Senator to know I very much appreciate it. I know
he brought exactly the same approach to his work on the supercommittee,
trying to find common ground on some of the most challenging issues so
that we will generate growth and deal with health care costs.
I have some remarks to make, but I am glad I had a chance to listen
to the Senator from Massachusetts because I thought the point he made
about bringing people together was important. And I hope people will
say, as we look at this transportation package--I just want to get on
the bill, frankly, so we can open other kinds of ideas. The Senator has
put in a lot of time, and it paid off with coalitions such as the
chamber of commerce and the AFL-CIO. That is the kind of approach that
will solve some of these big problems.
Mr. KERRY. I thank my friend from Oregon. Nobody works harder on
building coalitions than the Senator from Oregon. He has done a superb
job on health care and tax policy, so those words mean a lot. I
appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, my sense is that if you tune in on the
Senate today--and, of course, the ways of the Senate are always hard to
follow. The occupant of the chair is involved in changing the rules of
the Senate and has a sense of what I am talking about. You try to
figure out what the Senate is up to, and at this point you have learned
that today the Senate is working on infrastructure. You hear that word
again and again. You roll your eyes and you say: Wake me when the
potholes get fixed.
What I want to do for a few minutes this afternoon is try to tie this
to what I believe is first and foremost on the minds of the American
people, and that is jobs. That is what we hear about morning, noon, and
night.
The fact is that we cannot have big-league economic growth in America
with little-league transportation systems. It is not possible. If our
bridges and roads are falling apart, we simply cannot have the growth
we need, and job growth is the No. 1 issue for our people, and
literally infrastructure improvement--roads, bridges, and
transportation systems and jobs are two sides of the same coin. They go
hand in hand. That is point No. 1.
Point No. 2 is on the question of how we stack up to some of our
competitors worldwide. If we can't move goods and services efficiently
in this country, our businesses are practically in the position where
they have to put up a sign and say: We cannot compete with China
because when China is making
[[Page S7034]]
these kinds of investments that we heard Senator Kerry and other
colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about in the last few days,
you know what we are up against.
Transportation is the key to moving goods and services efficiently.
We have bottlenecks, for example, in my part of the country, in the
metropolitan area and, frankly, in rural areas where people could not
have dreamed there would be a traffic jam even a few years ago.
Point No. 3 is there is no economic multiplier in our country like
transportation. When you make well-targeted investments in
transportation, you create jobs for the folks who are building those
projects, you create jobs for the people who are selling the equipment,
you are creating jobs for folks such as the people in the restaurants
who make the ham sandwiches for the workers who are out there building
the projects and trying to find ways to help our people avoid traffic
and save gas as they try to get to and from work. So this is a big
economic multiplier.
And, No. 4, Mr. President, as you know from your experience as a
westerner, the history of our part of the world is that private
investment has always followed well-targeted public investments. You
look all over the West and the great distances our folks have to
travel, and you will see again and again the key to getting more
private sector investment. In my view, the key to economic recovery is
the private sector job growth that is behind the tax reform bill I have
with Senator Coats--the first bipartisan tax reform bill. We need
private sector job growth in the West. The history of our region is
that private sector employment has traditionally followed well-targeted
public investments.
What I want to see us do--and what the vote that is coming up is all
about--is to have a chance to move to the bill. If we move to the bill,
I believe there are all kinds of opportunities for Democrats and
Republicans, through amendments and a variety of opportunities, to
exchange ideas and to come up with bipartisan approaches. I have had a
chance to be part of those kinds of discussions in the last few years.
Look, for example, at the common ground that has developed between
Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe on the Environment and Public Works
Committee. They are making a lot of progress in reauthorizing a
transportation bill. That is only one example here in the Senate of
Democrats and Republicans coming together.
Let me cite two others. In the Economic Recovery Act, I had a chance
in the Senate Finance Committee to advance an idea I have been working
on for more than 5 years. There was a very large and bipartisan group
of us who worked on it. Former Senator Talent was the original
Republican, but Senator Thune was involved, Senator Wicker, Senator
Collins, and a very large bipartisan group working with colleagues on
our side of the aisle. The Senator from Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar, is
one who comes to mind, who has been a very thoughtful advocate of
improvements in transportation. So in the Senate Finance Committee, as
we moved forward with the Economic Recovery Act, Chairman Baucus and
then ranking minority member Senator Grassley, in effect, said: Well,
we have been hearing about some of these ideas this bipartisan group
has been advancing. Let's give them a chance to make their case. I
offered the proposal to create something called Build America Bonds.
This was a chance to, for the first time, move the Federal Government
into the bonding area. It has long been done, of course, at the State
and local level, and it received good reviews from the private sector.
I recall the day when Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley asked me
what I predicted in terms of the results of the Build America Bonds. I
said: We have gotten basically about a year and a half. As you know,
the Recovery Act was passed in the winter of 2009, and the IRS had to
implement the rules. But when we wrapped up the period for which we
issued Build America bonds, more than $181 billion worth of Build
America bonds had been used all across the country for capital
infrastructure projects. They had been used in big projects on the east
coast of the United States--the New Jersey Turnpike was one--and they
had been used for roads in southern Oregon.
If you want to talk efficiency, look at the Web site of our State
treasurer, Ted Wheeler, who said they were saving in our State 10
percent by issuing these Build America bonds.
I see my friend from California is here, Senator Feinstein, and I
believe California was one of the largest users of Build America bonds.
To have a program that was envisioned as perhaps selling $5 billion or
$36 billion worth of bonds selling more than $180 billion is an example
of what we can do on a bipartisan basis that will put people to work
and will actually save money.
The savings we found in Oregon can also be illustrated by the
analysis done by the Department of the Treasury that finds the same
sort of savings we found in Oregon.
With respect to the Build America bonds, in some respects they were
too successful. People said: Oh, perhaps they are being used for more
kinds of projects than was acceptable to some people. So once again we
said, we are going to come back and try to find a way to generate
bipartisan support. My colleague from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven, and
I got together and we put forward another proposal--a different
version--that we call the TRIP program--the Transportation and Regional
Infrastructure Program. Our plan would allow State infrastructure banks
to issue bonds to pay for transportation projects, once again having a
small supportive role from the Federal Government. The folks who run
the numbers at the Joint Committee on Taxation say that with this
bipartisan proposal--a Republican from North Dakota, a Democrat from
the State of Oregon--it would be possible to get $50 billion worth of
transportation projects with this model, with only $12 billion worth of
cost over 10 years.
I only illustrate this fact to suggest that if it is possible to get
on the bill, I think we are going to see colleagues on the Republican
and the Democratic side look to try to cooperate and find some common
ground. Senator Kerry made the point about the infrastructure bank, how
we got the support of the Chamber of Commerce, Senator Graham and
Senator Hutchison and others. I have gone through some of the history
of other transportation efforts--that progress is being made now with
Senator Boxer and Inhofe on the transportation bill; and the Build
America bonds effort, which produced a thirtyfold increase over what
was anticipated, literally revolutionizing the municipal bond market
and was utilized for big projects, such as the New Jersey Turnpike, and
small projects, such as roads in southern Oregon; and now if we can go
to this bill--and that is what the vote is all about, whether we
actually get on the bill--we will be able to offer alternatives and
ideas. Frankly, the provisions that are in the bill in its current
form, I don't see how anybody can be against them. The question of
highway repair is about as fundamental a function of government as
anything one can imagine. So there is plenty in this bill I think
colleagues on both sides of the aisle could support.
I have cited a number of examples of bipartisanship in this area,
where we can do more in the infrastructure field while we save money,
and I hope colleagues will vote--I gather the vote will be tomorrow--to
move to the bill and give us a chance to get serious about what I think
is central to growing the American economy and at well-targeted
investments in transportation.
To me, the question of job creation and infrastructure are literally
two sides of the same coin, so I hope the Senate moves to this
legislation tomorrow and begins to beef up our effort to deal with a
fundamental part of job creation in this country. It is so fundamental
that in much of the country, if we don't make the investments, it will
literally be the equivalent of saying to our businesses: Put up a sign
that says you are not going to be in a position to compete with China
right now; come back another time. That is unacceptable to me and to
Oregon businesses and Oregon workers. That is why I hope my colleagues
will vote to go to the bill.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon and
the
[[Page S7035]]
Senator from Massachusetts. I happened to hear their comments, and they
are both very good and they are both right on.
I was thinking while Senator Wyden spoke about the fact that in the
past 6 months those of us on this side have tried on four different
occasions to pass legislation related to jobs. We began on May 4 to
reauthorize the Small Business Innovation Research Program, which would
direct grants to small businesses to develop technologies. That fell on
a cloture vote. It did not get 60 votes. It only got 52. We then tried
to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration, which I think
most of us know essentially is a cost share for communities in
distress. That didn't get cloture. It fell 49 to 51. We then tried the
President's big jobs act on October 11. That vote fell. It did not get
cloture. It only got 50 votes. We then tried taking a part of that on
October 20, in order to fund 400,000 school jobs and thousands of jobs
for police and fire departments--first responders--throughout the
Nation. That was paid for with a .5 percent surtax on people who could
well afford to pay for it and probably would want to pay for it, but
that fell on a 50-50 vote. We did not get the 60 votes for cloture.
Today, we are trying for a fifth time on a part of the President's
bill which has to do with infrastructure. Again, there is a pay-for. It
is paid for by a .7 percent tax on people who can well afford to pay
that .7 percent. And I think Senator Wyden and I both know the value of
keeping this Nation No. 1, because we come from the West. We are on a
burgeoning trade basin. We seek competition with countries that have a
blooming infrastructure, and we see the plugs and the bumps and the
stoppages in this country because of an absence of adequate
infrastructure.
I am delighted the Senator is here and that we share this same cause.
Hopefully, there is going to be some change in the mindset on the other
side of this great Hall and people will realize if we are going to
remain No. 1--and we are not No. 1, and I will go into that in my
speech--then we have to pass this segment of the President's bill. So I
thank Senator Wyden very much for his comments.
As I said, this legislation offered by the majority leader includes
the key infrastructure provisions of the President's Jobs Act. It is
$50 billion for our roads, bridges, airports, and transit systems, and
it capitalizes a freestanding infrastructure bank with $10 billion.
This bill makes the investment without increasing the deficit. Funds
appropriated are offset by a .7 percent surcharge only on people who
can afford it.
I come from a State where unemployment is high--11.9 percent--and
employment in our construction sector is down 44 percent, as you can
see from this chart. This is actually California's construction jobs,
and you can see where it was in 2000. You see it rise to 900,000 in
2006, and since that time it has plummeted. The fact of the matter is,
construction, to a great extent, drives the economy in a number of
States, and I think California heads that list. So infrastructure and
employment go directly together.
Last week, this body passed legislation authorizing the sale of power
from the Hoover Dam. The Hoover Dam is on the border between Nevada and
Arizona, and it was built in the 1930s. But it reminds me of the
invaluable contribution that infrastructure investments have made in
generations past. During the depths of the Great Depression, we stepped
forward to help build Hoover Dam. Between 1931 and 1936 our Nation made
a massive effort involving thousands of workers--more than 100 of whom
lost their lives--to build a powerplant unlike anything the world had
ever seen.
This is kind of a working picture of Hoover Dam being built. At the
time, many in Congress argued the cost of this engineering marvel was
too high and the investment of taxpayer dollars too risky. They opposed
efforts to invest in an unproven energy technology like hydropower. The
debate was strikingly similar to the debate we hear today. Luckily for
the people of California, believers in American infrastructure and
technology won the Hoover Dam debate. As the years have passed, the
investment has been repaid and the wisdom of Congress' investment
remains clear.
Today, Hoover Dam, all these years later is still owned by the
American people.
It produces power for the Southwestern United States at less than
one-quarter of the market price. It is the quintessential example of
why infrastructure spending and investment makes sense. During the
depths of the Depression, it gave people jobs and hope. But its
benefits were permanent, not fleeting. The investment made in the 1930s
is still paying dividends for the economy of the Southwest.
Today, this legislation invests $50 billion in America's
transportation infrastructure. That is specifically $27 billion for
highways, $9 billion for transit, $4 billion for high-speed rail, $2
billion for Amtrak rail improvements, $3 billion for airports and air
traffic control modernization, and $5 billion for discretionary grants
and TIFIA loans to multimodal projects. These funds are actually in
addition to funding levels in the surface transportation bill which
authorizes $52 billion annually and the FAA authorization which
authorizes $16 billion annually. The proposal also appropriates $10
billion to capitalize an infrastructure bank. With its own appointed
board and CEO, this bank would have the power to issue loan guarantees
and loans, at the Federal funds rate, to large projects in water,
transportation, and energy.
The bank's authority is similar to the functions performed by EPA's
State Revolving Fund, the DOE's Loan Guarantee Program, and the
Department of Transportation's TIFIA and RRIF Programs.
In the long term, centralizing these functions in a single
infrastructure bank will establish more consistent lending rules and
policies. So I think a lot of us have gotten together from time to time
to see what could be done to fund a real infrastructure bank.
Presently, when we build infrastructure, we have no way of financing
it. We put up the whole cost upfront. Most States and cities don't fund
their infrastructure that way. They float bonds, and they are amortized
over time. So the ability to have an infrastructure bank to loan money,
to look at various instruments, to move infrastructure production
throughout this country I think is vital. Because the bank will lend,
not grant, funds, it will leverage $10 billion into approximately $100
billion in actual investment dollars.
The bank would be particularly beneficial to California--I must say
that--and we lead the application list for Federal financing
assistance.
For example, Los Angeles citizens voted to tax themselves by raising
the sales tax in order to build a desperately needed subway and transit
system. They seek a Federal loan. They have the money to pay it back;
it comes every year due in sales taxes, but they seek a Federal loan to
build the system in 10 years, not 30 years because they need it sooner
rather than later. The County of Riverside seeks a Federal loan to
build a toll road on the Highway 91 goods movement corridor, through
which millions of containers move from the Ports of Los Angeles-Long
Beach to every community in America.
I think most people in this body don't understand that approximately
50 percent of all the containers that come into this country, east
coast, west coast, come in at Los Angeles-Long Beach, 40 to 50 percent,
and they go out in multimodal areas in stacked trains into the Midwest.
But they run into all kinds of impediments. There is not separated
grades. There is not the ability to move these trains as rapidly as
they should be. So if we are going to keep up with the delivery of
cargo into the heartland of this country, most of which comes from
Asia, we need to do something. California's communities are prepared to
repay these loans, but they need help in the beginning.
The Federal Highway Administration estimates that for every $1
billion of Federal transportation spending, 27,822 jobs are produced.
It is one of the biggest bang for the buck programs I know of. For
every $1 billion in spending, nearly 30,000 jobs are generated. So this
bill is a job generator. For every $1 spent on infrastructure projects,
it also spurs economic activity, raising the level of gross domestic
product by $1.59.
So what is the conclusion? Investing in infrastructure is essential
to addressing our nationwide unemployment
[[Page S7036]]
crisis. Oh, I only wish we could see this.
Congestion is a big problem in this country. I told you about Los
Angeles-Long Beach. What I should also tell you is that the average Los
Angeles commuter spends 63 hours per year stuck in traffic. That costs
$1,400 a person. In Greater Los Angeles, commuters spend 515 million
hours stuck in traffic every year. They waste 407 million gallons of
fuel, at a total economic cost of $12 billion. That is just L.A.
I see the Senator from Illinois is on the floor. That is just L.A. I
wonder what the Chicago numbers would be. They have to be large. San
Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, and Riverside County face all the
similar congestion. In each area, the average commuter spends more than
30 hours a year stuck in traffic. That costs us $6.4 billion, and
nationwide, congestion is causing Americans to travel 4.8 billion hours
more and to purchase an extra 3.9 billion gallons of fuel, for a
congestion cost of $115 billion in 1 year. That year happens to be
2009. This is the equivalent of wasting 130 days of flow from the
Alaska pipeline each year. It is enormous.
So is this bill necessary? The answer is clearly a resounding yes. In
my State, 66 percent of our major roads are in poor condition, 68
percent of our urban interstates are congested, vehicle travel on our
highways increased by 27 percent from 1990 to 2007, and 30 percent of
our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
One of the best infrastructure projects in the Nation is the repair
of Doyle Drive going onto the Golden Gate Bridge. Senator, I wish you
could see it because this is a stimulus project and it is amazing
because you actually see these dollars at work. Huge ramps are being
rebuilt going down to ground level, this great icon of America. The
Golden Gate Bridge would never be built today. We just wouldn't build
it. If we did, it would take 100 years to do it with all the permits we
need. But it is there, it is an icon, and there is a major
infrastructure package working on it.
Our Nation's deteriorating surface transportation infrastructure is
going to cost the economy more than 876,000 jobs. It is going to
suppress GDP growth, it is estimated, by $897 billion by 2020. Poor
road conditions cost U.S. motorists $67 billion a year in repairs and
operating costs--$333 per motorist. Failing infrastructure will drive
the cost of doing business in this country up by $430 billion in the
next decade, as the costs to ship goods and raw materials will increase
due to bottlenecks and roads that beat up vehicles.
There was a time when America built big things. In the 1800s, we
built the transcontinental railroad in one of the great private-public
partnerships of all time. We built projects such as the Bay Bridge, the
Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam in the 1920s and the 1930s. In the
1950s and 1960s, we built an interstate highway system unlike anything
else anywhere on the planet. In the 1970s, we built the Bay Area Rapid
Transit system in San Francisco. This multidecade investment gave
America an economic advantage over every country around the world.
Now listen to this. As recently as 2005, the World Economic Forum
rated U.S. infrastructure as No. 1 for economic competitiveness--No. 1
in 2005 for economic competitiveness. But in just 5 years, we have
slipped to No. 15--not 5, not 10 but 15 in 5 years because we haven't
kept up what is a deteriorating infrastructure caused by overuse. The
argument is so solid to pass this bill, I can't understand how anyone
could vote against it.
China is spending today 9 percent of its GDP on infrastructure. They
are our competition. I live on the Pacific Rim. I can tell you, every
time any one of us goes to China they will look around the city,
whether it is Beijing or Shanghai, and you will count 20 to 50 cranes
building in that city, improving infrastructure.
I stood in Shanghai when the head of the government told me: In 10
years, we will build 375 kilometers of underground subway and 25
stations. Guess what. They did and are doing it. We can't do that. It
is a problem. Of course, China doesn't have NEPA, it doesn't have CEQA,
it doesn't have three dozen permits you have to get. It is easy to
write a letter to Mrs. Lee or Mrs. Chu and say: You will move in 30
days because your apartment building is going to be destroyed. That
doesn't happen here.
But there is no excuse not to do what is in this bill. There is no
impediment to do what is in this bill. It might not take us back to No.
1, but it might take us back to No. 3 or No. 4.
China spends 9 percent. Do you know what we spend? I will tell you.
According to the Economist, on April 28, we spent 2 percent of GDP on
infrastructure.
A lot of people are doing columns on whether America remains No. 1 in
the world, whether we have lost our clout, whether we have lost our
competitiveness, whether we have lost our ability to invest in the
future. This bill is a good testing ground because this measure is all
infrastructure, with the ability to get it done in the future by a bank
that can specialize in the arena.
So it is a good test. It seems to me, if we want this country to be
No. 1, we have to vote yes. I believe the will is on this side of the
aisle and I send a challenge to the other side of the aisle. There is
no reason not to vote for this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California for her presentation.
As she talked about her wonderful hometown of San Francisco, one of my
favorite cities outside Illinois, I thought about my most recent trip
there to that Golden Gate Bridge and the wonderful work that is done in
the Presidio. What a tribute it is to that beautiful part of our
country that the investments are being made now so people can enjoy it.
It was filled with people, bicyclers, walkers, runners, families,
tourists, and everybody. It is an indication to me that if you build
it, they will come.
In this situation, I couldn't help but reflect as the Senator went
through the litany of all the great achievements in America over the
last 60 years from the viewpoint of infrastructure. Think back to
President Eisenhower and the big debate that was on then about the
interstate highway system: Was it going to be bonded or paid for with
taxes? It went back and forth, and it ended with a bipartisan
agreement, and thank goodness it did. We need that kind of bipartisan
agreement right here.
Were it not for the interstate highway system, your State would be
much different today. So would mine. Thank goodness, 60 years ago, a
Republican President and a Democratic Congress reached an agreement. It
can be done.
The Democrats did not say if Eisenhower gets this, people are going
to think better of him. They thought better of the Nation, and that was
a commitment that made a difference.
I thank the Senator for telling us this story. I appreciate it.
Mr. President, we had a meeting this morning with economists from
labor and business, and they came and talked to us about what is going
on with the American economy. Nothing they said was a great surprise,
but it sure was troubling. One-fifth of all men in America are
currently out of work. Just a few years ago, it was one-twentieth.
Since 1969, there has been a 28-percent decline in purchasing power
of the average working family. Even though they are working, they have
fallen behind. The level of fear and anger in our country is growing.
We have had slow economic growth rates, and we are facing some serious
issues. The United States today has the same number of jobs it had in
the year 2000, 11 years ago, but we have 30 million more Americans in
2011 than we did in the year 2000. We can lament this and read about it
and say isn't it a darn shame or we can do something about it.
Fortunately, for those of us who have been elected to this Chamber,
we have a reason to do something. In fact, that is the reason we have
been sent here. People didn't send us to give inspiring speeches; they
sent us to solve problems, to make life better for America, to make
this a stronger Nation--a secure, safe, and stronger Nation. We have
that power to do this, and the question is whether we will.
I can tell you many people argue that the President's efforts to get
this economy moving have failed. I could not disagree more. I have been
around Illinois, and I have taken a look at what
[[Page S7037]]
we have built in America with the stimulus funds. It is impressive. In
my home State, it is impressive, not only in terms of infrastructure
but helping businesses get started and to succeed.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin is the president of the right-leaning American
Action Forum and was Senator McCain's top economic adviser during the
2008 Presidential campaign. In the Washington Post, on Sunday, he said:
``The argument that the stimulus had zero impact and we shouldn't have
done it is intellectually dishonest or wrong.''
That is from a conservative, Republican-leaning economist. He knew
the stimulus helped. America would have been in a deeper hole today had
we not acted to reduce taxes and to help build America in ways that
will serve us for generations to come.
We know now we need to do more. Tomorrow we are going to give our
colleagues in the Senate a chance to join us in making that happen. We
are going to try to move this country forward by putting people to work
building things that count. Highways and bridges and airports and
schools, community colleges and things that will serve us for years to
come. It will create thousands of jobs all across America. We know the
stimulus bill did that.
The Department of Transportation estimates that $48 billion in
transportation funds put 65,000 people to work on 15,000 projects. I
just saw one last week. It is the new Intermodal Transportation Center
in Normal, IL. It is amazing. Right next to the Amtrak station, they
have built an intermodal center which has kicked off a renaissance in
downtown Normal, IL. There are restaurants, a brandnew hotel I stayed
in, a Marriott. There are all sorts of shops and a lot of activity. It
is all focused on the centerpiece that is now under construction and
will soon be completed. This intermodal center is paid for by the same
stimulus funds that many come to the floor and question or mock. This
multimodal center is a centerpiece for the growth of a great town in
the Midwest.
Incidentally, the rail service of that Amtrak station is being funded
with $1.1 billion in high-speed rail grants that were part of the
stimulus as well. We didn't just build the buildings, we are putting
down new rail with concrete to make sure people have a safe, secure,
and faster ride. The station is built with $22 million in TIGER grant
funds through the same Recovery Act.
These investments are doing great things for Normal, for Illinois
State University that is there. The mayor of Bloomington, who is right
next door, came over to say he agreed too.
The Peoria airport is another story. They just completed a brandnew
airport terminal. It is beautiful. Mr. President, $6.4 million in
Federal stimulus funds are going right into Peoria, creating jobs in
Peoria, and building an airport for the 21st century. There were 120
workers at work building this terminal--good pay, good benefits, jobs
right here in America.
The Englewood Flyover Project in Chicago is going to eliminate the
biggest railroad bottleneck in the Midwest. It will mean that goods and
passengers move more quickly through that great city and to their
destination. It will put hundreds to work for this construction, and it
came right out of the stimulus package.
I listened earlier when Senator Feinstein talked about choices we
have to make in this country. I think the choices are pretty clear. We
know what China is doing. If we go to China today, we will see building
cranes in every direction. She talked about a 375-mile underground
subway system. When I was there, they talked about 50 new airports they
are going to build in the next 5 years that can land every Boeing
aircraft. They are building the ports, the airports, the roads, and the
railroads to compete with us in the 21st century. What are we doing? We
are locked in a partisan debate on the Senate floor, where we cannot
get one Republican vote to support the President's jobs bill to create
jobs building America's economic future--not one.
Why? I will tell you why. Let's get down to brass tacks. The
Republicans say we cannot vote for any bill that raises taxes. The
President's jobs bill--the part we are going to bring--does raise
taxes, and here are the taxes that are raised. For those making over $1
million a year in income--that is over $20,000 a week in income--we
say, on the income over $1 million, they have to pay a surtax of .7
percent. That would mean that the first $100 that the millionaire makes
over $1 million, they would have to pay 70 cents. The Republicans have
said: No way. We will not make the millionaire pay 70 cents on the
first $100 he earns over $1 million, even if it means putting people to
work in America. Who disagrees with that position? A majority of
Democrats, Independents, and a majority of Republicans, a majority of
the tea party members disagree with the Republican position, but not a
single Republican has broken ranks yet to join us in a bipartisan
effort to put Americans back to work and pay for it by having the
wealthiest, the most well off in our country pay 70 cents on $100.
To me, that is not too much to ask. I would ask that and more of
those who have been blessed with a comfortable life and a good income
and a nice home and no worries. For them to pay a little more so
America can get moving forward and we can reduce this unemployment rate
is not too much to ask. It is what we were sent here to do.
I encourage my colleagues to join us. Let's get together, if we can,
in a bipartisan basis tomorrow and pass this portion of the jobs act
and put America to work.
Incidentally, at this point, the Republicans have produced no jobs
bill. They have no ideas. As we are united in fighting this recession
and unemployment, they are united in opposing anything proposed by
President Obama. I don't think that is the way we need to operate.
Thank goodness when President Eisenhower built the interstate system,
a Republican President and Democratic Congress looked beyond the next
election and into the next century and what America needed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
A Second Opinion
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the October 2011 issue of the AARP
bulletin contains an interesting opinion piece. It was written by the
Senate majority leader, Harry Reid. It is right there on the front
page, Senate Leader Reid. His opinion piece is entitled ``The Health
Care Law is Already Working.''
I come to the floor, as I do from time to time, to give a doctor's
second opinion. I have a second opinion today about the piece in the
AARP paper. I find the choice of the words in the title, ``The Health
Care Law is Already Working,'' ironic, especially as the American
people continue to express negative views about President Obama's
health care law.
I come to the floor--as a physician who has practiced medicine in
Wyoming and taken care of Wyoming families for a quarter of a century--
to talk about the health care law and to talk about health care in
America. What we see is a growing majority of Americans who want to see
the entire law repealed and replaced with patient-centered reforms.
Don't take my word for it. Let's look at the facts. On October 18,
2011, just last week, the Kaiser Family Foundation released its monthly
health tracking poll. This is a nonpartisan Kaiser survey and it tracks
the public views about the health care law, and they have been doing it
ongoing. The results this month are truly astonishing. About half of
all Americans have an unfavorable view of the health care law. Overall
favorability of the health care law stands at just 34 percent, an
alltime low. The number of individuals who view the health care law
very favorably stands at 12 percent, an alltime low. The number of
people who think they will personally be better off due to the health
care law stands at 18 percent, an alltime low. The number of
individuals who think the country, as a whole, will be better off due
to the health care law stands at just 28 percent, an alltime low.
Approval of the law among Democrats dropped 13 percentage points to an
alltime low. These results make it clear that the new health care law
does not work.
About 19 months ago, Mr. Schumer, the senior Senator from New York,
claimed on NBC's ``Meet The Press'' that:
. . . as people learn about the bill, and now that the bill
is enacted, it's going to become more and more popular.
[[Page S7038]]
The President and Washington Democrats miscalculated. They made
numerous promises to the American people and they said we need to act
fast. We can answer questions later. They asked the American people to
trust them. Then the Nation watched as weeks went by, new stories
uncovered another health care law glitch, another health care law
unintended consequence and another of the President's broken
promises. Seniors all around the country know that the President's
health care law took over $500 billion from a broken Medicare Program
not to save Medicare but to start a whole new government spending
program for someone else, not for seniors. Medicare patients know the
health care law failed them and failed to address the broken physician
payment system. America's seniors understand that Washington Democrats
can't cut $\1/2\ trillion from Medicare and then claim those cuts will
not impact their own health care.
When we look at Medicaid, Governors all across the country know the
health care law's Medicaid expansion will restrict patient access to
care and very likely bankrupt our States. Medicare only pays health
care providers cents on the dollar. That is why about 40 percent of
physicians don't accept Medicaid patients. Having a government health
care card doesn't mean patients will actually have access to medical
care.
We also have concerns since the law was passed about employers
dropping coverage. President Obama promised that if Americans liked
their current health care plan, under the law, they would be able to
keep it. Over the last 19 months, employers have made it clear that the
law's mandates are too expensive, threatening their own ability to
offer health insurance to their employees.
A reputable national consulting firm surveyed employers across
industries, geographies, and employer sizes. The company produced a
report titled ``How U.S. Health Care Reform Will Affect Employees'
Benefits.'' The company, McKinsey & Company, found that overall 30
percent of employers will either definitely or probably stop offering
employer-sponsored coverage after 2014. That is when the President's
health care law goes into full effect. Among employers with a high
awareness of the health care law, understanding the specific
implications of the law, that number of those who will either
definitely or probably stop offering employer-sponsored coverage jumps
to 50 percent. At least 30 percent of employers would actually gain
economically by simply dropping coverage even if they compensate
employees through other benefit offerings or higher salaries. So how
did we get from ``if you like the plan you have, you can keep it'' to
``30 percent of employers will either definitely or probably stop
offering health insurance''?
The problems continue to mount. Recently, on October 20, 2011,
Walmart announced its decision to scale back health insurance for some
part-time employees. A New York Times article explained that future
part-time Walmart employees working less than 24 hours per week won't
be allowed to join the company's plan. New part-time employees working
between 24 and 33 hours a week won't be able to buy insurance for their
spouses. The New York Times article quotes Walmart as saying that the
increasing cost of health care is the reason for the change.
Now let's take a look at people's premiums. In 2009, President Obama
promised that his health care plan would reduce health insurance
premiums $2,500 a year for families in America. Well, the opposite has
occurred. President Obama's law has forced Americans to pay more for
their health care premiums. On September 27, 2011, the Kaiser Family
Foundation issued a report showing that the employer average annual
family premium increased 9 percent, from $13,770 to $15,073. The
employer average annual single premium--the other was a family, now for
singles--the single premium increased 8 percent, from $5,049 to $5,429.
Of course, part of this premium increase is tied directly to the health
care law.
Then let's look at the CLASS program. That program has recently
failed. Remember, President Obama's health care law established a
brandnew Federal long-term care entitlement program. It was referred to
as CLASS, but the letters stood for ``Community Living Assistance
Services and Supports.'' Well, to qualify, people would have to pay the
government a monthly premium for 5 years, and then after those 5 years,
they could begin collecting benefits. It is now known that the CLASS
program was an intentionally designed budget gimmick. The Congressional
Budget Office estimated that the CLASS program would reduce the deficit
by $86 billion. These ``savings'' came from the premium dollars the
CLASS program would collect for the first 5 years, all while the
program wasn't required or allowed to pay out any benefits to
individuals. So all the money would be coming in. Instead of holding on
to that excess money being collected to pay out for future expenses,
Washington Democrats here in the Senate used those funds to pay for
President Obama's health care law.
Fast forward, and we now know for sure that the program is not
financially viable and does not work. How do we know that? Well, many
of us knew it when it was going on here on the Senate floor a few years
ago, but on October 14 of this year, Health and Human Services
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that the administration will not
implement the CLASS program.
An op-ed she has written appeared in the Huffington Post, and it
said:
. . . as a report our department is releasing today shows,
we have not identified a way to make CLASS work at this time.
The Obama administration had 19 months to figure out how to implement
the program, and they couldn't do it. Administration officials at the
Department of Health and Human Services knew the CLASS program was
unsustainable, and I believe they knew it before President Obama signed
the health care law. They knew it, the administration knew it, and the
administration failed in their duty to be honest with the American
people and tell them.
Today, the White House still refuses to admit that the CLASS program
is a colossal failure. In the middle of last month, October 17, 2011,
White House spokesman Nick Papas said:
Repealing the CLASS Act isn't necessary or productive. What
we should be doing is working together to address the long-
term care challenges we face as a country.
How can the White House admit that this part of the health care
spending law will burden taxpayers with yet another unsustainable
entitlement program and at the same time demand that it stay on the
books? How do they do that?
After having received the AARP bulletin with the headline ``The
Health Care Law Is Already Working'' from the Senate majority leader, I
came to the conclusion that I needed to come to the floor with a second
opinion. The health care law needs to be repealed. It must be replaced
with reasonable, commonsense, and financially sound alternatives. This
health care law is not working. It is not good for patients; it is not
good for providers, the doctors and the nurses who take care of those
patients; and it is not good for the American taxpayers.
I will continue to come to the floor of the Senate as we learn more
and more about this health care law. It seems that just about every
week or so there is a new, unintended consequence that comes forward, a
new concern for patients, a new concern for providers, a new concern
for the taxpayers. I will continue to work with my patients and with my
colleagues to find a health care law that gets patients the care they
need from the doctor they want at a price they can afford.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here today to discuss the critical
need to address our Nation's crumbling transportation and
infrastructure system. The cracks in this system became abundantly
clear to all of our country and, in fact, the entire world when, on the
afternoon of August 1, 2007, the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis collapsed
into the middle of the Mississippi River, taking the lives of 13
Minnesotans and injuring so many more.
As I said that day, a bridge just shouldn't fall down in the middle
of America, especially not an eight-lane interstate highway which is
one of the
[[Page S7039]]
most heavily traveled bridges in our State, especially not at rush hour
in the middle of a metropolitan area, especially not a bridge six
blocks from my house that I take my family over all the time to go
visit their friends. That is what happened on that day, in the middle
of a sunny day in the middle of America. Yet, years after that bridge
collapsed and then was rebuilt, 25 percent of our Nation's bridges are
still structurally deficient or obsolete.
I wish I could say the bridge collapse was the only tragedy my State
has suffered because of a broken infrastructure system. It is not. We
saw another one just this October in Goodhue County on Highway 52,
which connects the Twin Cities with Rochester, home to the Mayo Clinic.
Within a 10-day span, one intersection on Highway 52 between Rochester,
MN, and the Twin Cities of Minnesota was the site of two fatal crashes
that claimed three lives and injured others. Even before these tragic
crashes, everyone agreed that an interchange was needed so that drivers
weren't forced to risk racing across a four-lane, divided highway, but
the county and the Minnesota Department of Transportation didn't have
the funds to build an interchange which could have eased the situation
and could have saved lives. The worst part is that intersection of
Highway 52 isn't even the most dangerous stretch of that road. In fact,
local leaders have marked other projects as higher priorities. Yet the
funds aren't there, the money isn't there to address these problems.
These are just two examples of the impact of our infrastructure and
transportation needs in this country. There are tens of thousands more
in small towns and big cities from Maryland to Minnesota. That is why I
have come to the floor to discuss the Rebuild America Jobs Act,
legislation I introduced with several of my colleagues, including
Senator Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of
Rhode Island. We have come together as Senators from all corners of the
country because we recognize the urgent need for new and bold
initiatives to rebuild America.
Our legislation would get the ball rolling on desperately needed
improvements by establishing an infrastructure bank--something that has
long garnered bipartisan support in the Congress--and directing $50
billion toward infrastructure. Both of these ideas, as I have noted,
have enjoyed bipartisan support in the past. In fact, standing there
with us this afternoon was Ray LaHood, a former Republican Congressman
who is now the Secretary of Transportation under a Democratic
President.
We have also said there is no such thing as a Democratic bridge or a
Republican bridge or a Democratic or Republican highway. Transportation
has always been a bipartisan issue in this country, and it must
continue to be. That is why we are continuing to push this legislation.
We may not pass it this week, but I know from my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle that there continues to be interest in moving
ahead on infrastructure funding.
This legislation is about improving public safety so that no bridge
ever collapses again in the middle of America, but it is also about
creating better opportunities for our businesses and jobs. I say that
because if we look back through history, it is clear that many of the
major milestones that contributed to America's greatness were rooted in
our infrastructure. Whether it was connecting the east and west coasts
by rail in 1869 or the WPA in the 1930s or the construction of the
Interstate Highway System that began in the 1950s with a Democratic
Congress and a Republican President--Dwight Eisenhower--or even the
amazing innovations of the early American auto industry, our country
did not move forward because our leaders tinkered at the edges of the
status quo. America flourished because of innovators such as Henry
Ford, who once said: ``If I'd asked my customers what they wanted,
they'd have said a faster horse.'' Then he turned around and built the
Model T.
If Henry Ford were alive today, he would say that America cannot
afford to take a horse-and-buggy approach to infrastructure. That is,
in fact, what we have been doing. While other countries are moving full
steam ahead with infrastructure investments, we are simply treading
water.
In an increasingly competitive global economy, standing still is,
sadly, falling behind.
China and India are spending about 9 and 5 percent respectively of
their GDP on infrastructure. Even Europe spends 5 percent of its GDP.
Yet how much are we committing right now? About 2 percent. The effects
of this shortsighted strategy are increasingly clear. In its 2007 and
2008 report, the World Economic Forum ranked American infrastructure
sixth in the world. That was only a few years ago, and yet we have
already slipped to 16th place, putting our roads roughly on par with
those of Malaysia and far behind those of Germany, Canada, and Hong
Kong. This is a huge problem because the strength of our infrastructure
is directly tied to the competitiveness of our economy. Just look at
the numbers. As our country slipped in the rankings for infrastructure,
we also dropped in the World Economic Forum's rankings on
competitiveness. Last year we were in fourth place, and this year we
are in fifth place.
Competitiveness is a huge element here, but it is not just about
global bragging rights. Fundamentally, it is about lifting the parking
brake that has kept our economy idling and addressing the major
inefficiencies we have seen in our infrastructure system.
If we want to move to this next-century economy, it is going to be
about exports. It is going to be about making stuff again, inventing
things, exporting to the world. If we do not have the roads to carry
the trucks to bring those goods to market or the waterways and the
barges to do it or an air traffic control system that is up to speed on
a competitive basis internationally, we are not going to be that
economy that so many of our workers and so many of our businesses want
us to be.
Failing to move ahead will have consequences no one likes. For
example, it would not be altogether different from levying a
multibillion-dollar tax on American industry. I say that because
inefficiencies in infrastructure are expected to drive up the cost of
doing business by an estimated $430 billion, according to the American
Society of Civil Engineers. That is just in the next decade.
America spends 4.8 billion hours in traffic--just sitting there in
traffic--every single year. When trucks idle in traffic on the highways
or wait at port facilities to be loaded and unloaded or when freight
trains sit waiting to pass in our congested rail network, our economy
hemorrhages dollars, losing roughly $200 billion each year. To put that
number in perspective, it is roughly 1.5 percent of our gross domestic
product.
Increased transportation costs will make it more expensive for
companies to ship goods and purchase raw materials. We can only expect
that those costs would be passed on to customers.
Traffic congestion, as I mentioned, costs us billions. When I said
4.8 billion hours per year, actually, I thought: Did I get that wrong?
Is it millions? But, no, it is, in fact, 4.8 billion hours each year
stuck in traffic. That is $101 billion in lost revenue. That is $713
per motorist.
The bad news is that without action those numbers are only going in
one direction--up. By 2020, it is estimated that our crumbling
infrastructure will cost our economy more than 876,000 jobs and $897
billion in lost GDP growth.
As I alluded to earlier, the public safety aspect of this debate is
also incredibly important, and it is something we cannot afford to
ignore, particularly in the context of population growth. According to
the Census Bureau, the American population is expected to add another
120 million people by 2050. That is a 40-percent increase in 40 years,
and it is like adding the entire nation of Japan or more than three
States of California. Think about that. We cannot stand still on our
infrastructure. That is 120 million more people on our roads, bridges,
tunnels, highways, and airports--structures that are already
insufficient for meeting the needs of today's population.
But here is the good news. Addressing this challenge does not just
make sense from a long-term competitiveness perspective, it also makes
sense
[[Page S7040]]
because it would be an immediate shot in the arm for our economy. We
are still looking at an environment where too many Americans are out of
work or have seen their hours cut back. And people who have taken it
the hardest are people in the construction industry. In construction,
the unemployment rate now is 13.3 percent--more than 4 points higher
than the national average.
The Rebuild America Act will help get these workers back on the job.
Here is how we do it:
First of all, we will need to make smarter decisions to stretch our
transportation dollars further. This is a compelling case for public-
private partnerships--we all know government cannot do this alone--
public-private partnerships for private sector jobs. That is why the
infrastructure bank part of the Rebuild America Jobs Act is so
important. The American Infrastructure Financing Authority would
provide loans and loan guarantees to finance projects that would
otherwise be too expensive for any one city, county, or even a State to
accomplish on its own. The bank would serve as an incentive for the
creation of public-private partnerships and the mechanisms necessary
for repaying loans once the projects are completed. This will help
ensure the quality of projects too, because no private firm is going to
invest in a project that is likely to fail.
The infrastructure bank would allow State transportation departments
to move more projects off the books and to tackle other critical needs.
So the Minnesota Department of Transportation could finally have the
resources to focus on fixing Highway 52 and Goodhue County Road 9--or
projects in Missouri or projects in Maryland or projects in Oregon.
There are needs all over this country.
I wish to make an important point here that the American taxpayers
need to know; that is, they would be protected as well. Projects would
be considered and reviewed by expert staff, separate from the
independent and nonpartisan board that would select the projects. There
are strong oversight protections, and projects would have to be backed
by a dedicated revenue stream.
All of this is part of the reason this infrastructure bank has always
had bipartisan support. Senator Kerry has worked very hard on this
legislation, as have many of my Republican colleagues. They have
suggested a similar model in the BUILD Act, many of the sponsors. The
BUILD Act has 10 bipartisan cosponsors.
Beyond bipartisan congressional support, an infrastructure bank has
earned the support of people as far-ranging as from the chamber of
commerce to the AFL-CIO.
With the initial infusion of $10 billion that the Rebuild America Act
proposes, it is estimated it could leverage private investment to
generate between $300 billion and $600 billion for infrastructure
improvements. The infrastructure bank is the kind of bold and new
action we should be taking as a nation.
Coming from a State, as I do, where there is a large rural
population, I also think it is important to note that rural America--
whether they are in South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, or Nevada--
should not be left behind. The infrastructure bank would be structured
so that the kinds of projects that are important to rural regions, such
as clean drinking water and sanitary sewer systems, could also compete
for loans and loan guarantees.
Right now, too many repair and replacement projects in our Nation's
drinking water and sanitary sewer systems are endangered by a lack of
funding. According to the 2008 EPA survey of needs, Minnesota needs
$4.1 billion to upgrade our drinking and sanitary water systems. And in
2011 alone, my State has $400 million worth of projects that are just
sitting there.
Clean water projects are vital to the safety and health of our
communities, particularly our rural communities. We all benefit from
projects that can promote public health, protect our environment, help
create jobs, and support local infrastructure. Let me give you an
example. In southwestern Minnesota, we are working on a three-State
effort--consisting of Iowa, South Dakota, and Minnesota--to get water
to 20 communities. The region's current lack of water has brought
economic development to a standstill in an area where there are all
kinds of possibilities for development in an agricultural community.
According to the manager of the Lincoln Pipestone Rural Water System in
Minnesota, this lack of clean water has forced the community to turn
away businesses that would have otherwise opened in the area, including
a large dairy plant, a large cattle-feeding operation, and biofuels
plants. That is just in the last 5 years. In other words, the community
has lost untold jobs and economic growth because it lacks the water.
Importantly, the infrastructure bank that the Rebuild America Jobs
Act would create also includes technical assistance to rural
communities. Five percent of the initial investment to capitalize the
bank would be designated for projects in these very areas. That is $500
million for rural America.
As we move forward with this conversation, we cannot lose sight of
the critical importance of the multiyear surface transportation bill.
This is something we need, and we need it now.
The surface transportation bill gives certainty to State departments
of transportation so they can make the multiyear planning decisions on
how best to spend Federal and State resources.
The certainty of a multiyear bill also benefits the private sector.
Once States know how much they can put toward infrastructure projects,
they can begin contracting with companies--private companies--in
engineering, design, and construction. These are companies such as
Caterpillar, which employs 750 people at its road-paving equipment
manufacturing facility in Minnesota. I visited there in August.
Caterpillar's employees are the kind of people who are out there on the
front lines of American industry. They are people who make the slogan
``Made in America'' not just a slogan; it is real. They depend on the
certainty that only a multiyear Transportation bill provides. We have
an opportunity to give them that certainty.
I know Chairman Boxer and Senator Inhofe have been working on this
out of their committee, but I did want to keep in mind that as we work
on the rebuild America jobs bill, as we work on the Transportation bill
we are talking about today that I would like to get passed by the end
of this year, that we also are cognizant of the fact that there is a
very important 2-year bill they are debating at this very moment.
When we look at the state of our Nation's infrastructure, there is no
escaping the fact that we are far from where we need to be. Our 21st-
century economy depends on a 21st-century transportation network. It is
that simple. Fixing our infrastructure is one of the best possible ways
to strengthen our Nation's most basic foundation--the channels we use
for everything from commerce and exporting to emergency management and
disaster response.
But I also believe it is about bringing America back to the brass
tacks. We know we have to do something about our debt, and I personally
believe we can get there with a balanced approach, with spending cuts
and looking at closing some of these loopholes. But even then, we must
focus on what will move our economy forward in the long term. We simply
can no longer base our economy on being a country that just simply
churns money and shuffles paper, simply being a country that consumes,
that imports and spends its way to a huge trade deficit. That has not
worked.
What we need to be now is a country that makes things again, that
invents things, that exports to the world. The only way we are going to
make that happen is if we have the roads and the bridges and the rail
and the barges and the airports to carry these goods to market. That is
what this is about. We cannot put it off any longer. We must move
forward now in a bipartisan manner to get this done for our country.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on this
infrastructure jobs bill, and actually I think my good friend from
Minnesota has done a great job of explaining why we need to be focused
on infrastructure. I think if I was
[[Page S7041]]
going to summarize my comments, as they might compare with hers, they
would be that we need to be focused on the longer term problem.
We certainly do have a committee that is working on a 2-year bill,
and here we are spending time today talking about a bill that I think
is likely not to happen. Even if it did happen, would it be better than
a 2-year bill? Of course not. Does it do anything better than the
traditional infrastructure focus of the country that includes
communities and cities and States instead of Federal bureaucrats? Of
course it does not. We need to be focused on the right thing, at the
right time.
The top concern on American minds today is righting our Nation's
economy, having an economy that creates private sector jobs. While we
take different approaches to addressing this issue, I think the
Congress is genuinely united in understanding what the goal should be;
we just have such a difference of opinion as to how to get there.
What role does infrastructure play in private sector job creation and
competition? It plays a critical role. In fact, it is one of the few
places where the Federal Government actually can take actions that
specifically create private sector jobs.
Roads and bridges are maintained and kept clean and kept open and
supervised by State and local authorities, but they are built by
private sector contractors. So that is a good thing. The question is,
What is the best way to get there? Unfortunately, we are 2 years
removed from the expiration of the last surface transportation bill,
and we are talking in the Transportation Committee--I am told; I am not
on that committee--I know Chairman Boxer and the ranking Republican,
Mr. Inhofe, are talking about how you can have another 2-year extension
of that bill. It is unfortunate we are not talking about the 4- or 5-
or 6-year surface transportation bill we have traditionally talked
about because that is the kind of time it takes to really make a
project that matters work.
We have been holding the surface transportation bill together with
duct tape and Super Glue for a couple of years now, and the last time
we did this, in September, we extended that bill for 6 months. The
President frankly began to put his energy behind this different
proposal that I have lots of concerns about. But I have even greater
concerns about the fact that the energy and focus is there instead of
on how do we get at least a 2-year extension of a transportation bill,
a surface transportation bill that would work.
I said we were holding the bill together--the legislation together--
by duct tape and Super Glue. Unfortunately, that is how we are also
holding the transportation system together, because you cannot have the
Eisenhower vision that was mentioned earlier of an interstate system,
you cannot have an Eisenhower vision that has a 6-month shelf life or a
6-month window of opportunity. If you are going to have that kind of
system put in place, you have to have a system that is put in place
with an understanding that this is an ongoing program, that we have
ongoing sources of funding, that we have an ongoing ability to
contract.
That is why we need to be talking about the best way to find new and
innovative ideas to invest in our infrastructure development. I am
increasingly concerned that this legislation we are talking about today
takes a short-term ``Federal bureaucrat knows best'' approach, rather
than the approach we have had good success with in the country when we
were building roads and bridges and airports and infrastructure in ways
that mattered.
In all of our home States, certainly in my home State of Missouri,
community leaders and job creators tell me that they are clearly
looking for more certainty of how to create jobs. They need the ability
to look beyond 3 or 6 months in order to plan and anticipate investment
levels to expand their operations. We need to make smart investments in
our Nation's infrastructure so people who build infrastructure can look
forward with certainty, and communities that are dependent on
infrastructure can look forward with certainty, and a business that is
thinking about making a job-expanding commitment to a community knows
what the highway plan is for the decade, not for the next day.
We have to get there, and you cannot get there 6 months at a time.
This piecemeal approach, including the continuing resolution, and the
so-called stimulus bill, and other things that postpone other efforts
for communities to get funding, the whole idea of an infrastructure
bank that would go for projects that had some ability to pay for
themselves--when you ask questions about that, nobody knows what that
means. Nobody knows why. If these things have an ability to pay for
themselves, States could bond them out tomorrow. If you have a revenue
stream that will pay off the building of a bridge, if you figured out
how to create that revenue stream, States could issue that bond right
now.
The only reason to have a Federal infrastructure bank is because the
infrastructure bank is insolvent and not planned to be solvent, and
only the Federal Government can give it the credibility it needs so it
can ever possibly be used. But that is not the long-term solution to
infrastructure.
As we have witnessed in recent months, the President's idea of a jobs
plan apparently is focused on holding press conferences in front of
bridges--he had one today--to sell the idea that another stimulus bill
will create more jobs. How does the President ever expect shovel-ready
projects to be shovel ready? They only get to be shovel ready if you
have a lot of time to plan and you know what the funding source is, and
you know how you are going to not just start the project but complete
the project--bridge replacement and major infrastructure investment and
critical projects.
But if this bill does become law, 10 percent of the money, the
Congressional Budget Office estimates, would be spent between now and
September 30 of next year. So this is no economic recovery plan. It is
also no long-term highway plan. And 10 percent of the money spent in
the next 11 months is not what it takes to get this job done.
Of course, 50 percent of that--of all of the money--would be spent by
the Federal highway department rather than allocated, as we have
allocated Federal highway money since the 1950s, back to the States
with incentives for them to match that money and to do the best they
could to have a fair distribution of highway and surface transportation
money across the country.
These piecemeal solutions will not work. There are many examples of
communities that are facing challenges and they want to know how that
question is going to be met. In Washington, MO--not Washington, DC, but
Washington, MO--there is an 80-year-old bridge that goes across the
Missouri River. It needs to be replaced. It has needed to be replaced
for some time now. But are we going to let the President of the United
States decide if that is the bridge we replace? There are some things
that the President should not decide. The President is without any
question in the best position to decide what is the best way to go into
Abbottabad and get Osama bin Laden. The President is not in the best
position to decide what are the bridges to be built between Kentucky
and Ohio.
I know he likes to give that example a lot because the Republican
Senate leader is from Kentucky and the Republican Speaker of the House
is from Ohio. And he says, we need a bridge between Ohio and Kentucky.
That may actually be true. But the President of the United States is
not the best person to solve that problem. The best people to solve
that problem are the people in Kentucky and Ohio who get their gas tax
money, their transportation money, whatever kind of funding we can
figure out meets the needs of the future and say, here is our 10-year
plan. Here is how we are going to fund our 10-year plan. In year one we
are going to do the bridge planning for which of these bridge
possibilities we need. In year two we are going to plan the bridge we
decided we needed. In year three we are going to build the bridge.
Maybe by year six or seven someone is using the bridge. This is the
idea. These ideas, these short-term solutions, simply do not work.
State departments of transportation are hesitant to commit to long-
term projects without the assurances of a funding stream in the future.
The President's bus tour will not provide individuals with more
certainty, but instead a long-term investment plan would work to answer
these questions.
[[Page S7042]]
We need a clear Federal infrastructure blueprint to help county
commissioners, to help contractors and cities, to help statewide
departments of transportation lay the groundwork to plan, to assess
local needs, to hire more employees, to make the decisions necessary to
encourage economic growth.
In addition to the short-term approach that I think this bill has, I
am concerned with some of the policies included in this proposal. With
the increased funding for discretionary proposals, grant programs such
as the Federal TIGER grants and now the infrastructure bank, the
message being sent to the States is that Washington bureaucrats will
set the priorities. Our entire infrastructure network is in desperate
need of comprehensive updating that refuses to be put off any longer.
We need to refocus all our efforts on the modes of transportation, the
flexibility between them. Why we continue to rely on fragmented
programs makes no sense to me or lots of other people. The answer is
not to continue writing blank checks to the administration and then
hoping that the people who will make the decision--with zero
accountability, frankly--will somehow make that in the best interests
of all of our States. We need to do the hard work of crafting and
investing in a formula that works for the future.
Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe have been working hard
putting together a new reauthorization bill. I wish that were a 6-year
bill, not a 2-year bill. But I tell you, a 2-year bill has far greater
possibilities for success than a 6-month bill that will go away before
it is able to do any good.
I look forward to starting the work. I hope we can stop taking time
on things that will not work and start solving the problems that have
to be solved for the country, that have private sector job recovery
that we need to be prepared for the next century, as people in this
body worked in the 1950s to see that we could be prepared for the last
50 years of the last century.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, most every Republican in this body and
probably outside of this body would admit that President Obama
inherited a very bad economy by the time he was sworn in. The only
thing is, by every measure of the economy, this economy is much worse
now than what he inherited.
The Obama economy is bad because there is a prospect of taking more
money from the American taxpayers with the biggest tax increase in the
history of the country next year; and many brand new regulations that
are very costly to the economy. Particularly small businesses do not
know where they are going to be hit next and where their costs will be.
We have this big budget deficit that is a damper on the economy. In
every respect, things this administration are doing are putting a wet
blanket on the economy. We have wrongheaded energy policies as well.
We hear the President say, when he puts forth his jobs bill, touring
the country in his bus: Pass this bill right now. Pass this bill right
now. We have had some experience with efforts to pass bills ``right
now.'' They got passed, like the stimulus bill, 1 month after he was
sworn in, which was supposed to keep unemployment under 8 percent. But
it has never been under 8 percent since 1 month after that time. We
have to pass the health care reform bill ``right now.'' And the health
care reform bill was passed that very first year when the other party
controlled everything, all three political branches of government. They
had everything their way. And it was passed ``right now.''
We are finding out that passing something right now is not the way to
do business, particularly if it is done in a partisan way. I think the
extent to which the President would lead instead of being on the fringe
would help this process along, because he is the only elected official
in this country who speaks for the national voice. Each one of us
representing our constituencies has a national perspective, but we also
have to be worried about the needs of our constituents.
Let's go to what the latest effort is of this President to turn this
economy around his way and get this bill passed ``right now.''
Just a few weeks ago, the Senate considered a so-called jobs bill
that would have provided $35 billion of the $447 billion for the
purpose of creating or saving jobs for teachers and policemen and
firefighters. This bailout was included by President Obama in this $447
billion stimulus bill No. 2 that he proposed in his speech before
Congress this September.
When it became apparent the Senate leadership didn't have the
necessary votes for the whole package, then Majority Leader Reid chose
to move this bill in parts instead of in one big package. Most of the
reason he had to do that is because people in his caucus were not ready
to vote for big tax increases or taking more money away from the
American people and sending it to Washington.
Proponents of that bill argued that this $35 billion bailout was
necessary to prevent the layoff of teachers and public safety
employees. Don't forget, this isn't the first time the Senate has
considered this type of bailout because it was that bailout that just
had to pass ``right now,'' in February of 2009, which was supposed to
keep employment under 8 percent. That was the $814 billion stimulus
bill Congress enacted in early 2009. It included bailout money for
State and local governments.
That is one of the reasons it didn't work, because whether it is the
State, local, or Federal government, governments consume wealth. They
don't create wealth. When we put half of that $814 billion bill into
public employment, it doesn't create jobs. That money should have been
used to stimulate private sector employment.
President Obama stated that bill would save or create up to 4 million
jobs over the following 2 years. That bill was supposed to create or
save 150,000 jobs for teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police
officers according to our President.
Then, in August 2010 Congress passed another State and local bailout,
this time sending $26 billion to States to save or create public sector
jobs. At that time, Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, stated
that this bill was ``a very important proposal, particularly to ensure
that 160,000-plus teachers don't get fired as a result of bad State
budgets.'' This $26 billion was the second effort by Congress to help
States plug their budget holes while claiming that we were saving the
jobs of teachers and other government workers.
The truth is, these efforts to save State and local public sector
jobs are more simply a bailout of State and local governments that have
failed to rein in their own spending. State and local governments
became addicted to tax-and-spend big government policies, and Federal
bailouts have only aided the addiction.
Rather than making the necessary and difficult budget decisions,
these State and local governments come to rely on the spendthrift
behavior of their Congress to spend more and plug budget holes.
Nationally, the debt held by States is approaching $3 trillion. That
doesn't even figure in unfunded pension liabilities. Some of the States
in the worst trouble are Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and California. The increase in debt has
had a significant impact on their budgets or on their bond rates and
their ability to find competitive bond rates and competitive financing.
The free-spending State legislatures, coupled with a huge public work
force, have driven up the cost of doing business in these States. It
has negatively impacted their unemployment rate and their economic
growth.
For much of the history of our country, States have been responsible
for financing their schools, police, firefighters, first responders,
and other public employment. We know that throughout the 224-year
history of our country most of the time these State and local
governments have done a pretty darn good job. States that have done
well have grown economically and attracted more jobs. With economic
[[Page S7043]]
growth we are going to have more taxpayers. What this country needs is
more taxpayers, not more taxes.
States that haven't managed their budgets well have had, as you might
expect, the opposite result. This competition among States has created
a system that demands and rewards good government and, in the process,
attracts employers and workers.
A Federal bailout of States upsets this balance. It rewards bad
behavior and ultimately hurts the American economy. Federal bailouts
eliminate the risks associated with poor economic policies. The moral
hazard of Federal bailouts is that it sends a message to bad actors
that there are no negative consequences for their failure to
effectively govern.
At the same time, this type of Federal stimulus is ineffective at
saving or creating jobs, and it does nothing to promote private sector
growth. Annual Federal deficits are close to about 8 to 9 percent of
GDP, and our national debt is $15 trillion. We cannot afford to bail
out States and continue to encourage poor fiscal behavior by our
States.
The bailout of Democratic Governors and State legislatures--and I
suppose I ought to include Republican Governors and Republican State
legislatures, as well--and public employees may be good politics, but
it is terrible economics and creates even worse fiscal situations.
Rather than propose political solutions during this economic downturn,
the President should work with Congress to find real, authentic,
genuine solutions to our economic and unemployment problems.
The recession began in December 2007, and nearly 1 in 10 Americans
remain unemployed today. More than 26 million Americans are either
unemployed or underemployed. The policies of the past 2\1/2\ years have
not worked; they have made things worse.
Now, for the benefit of people--and maybe we can't say this too often
because it looks strictly partisan--but we all ought to admit that this
President inherited a bad economic situation. It is nothing to be proud
of for a Republican President or any of us Republicans who were in
office at that time. But by any measure of the economy, this President
has made things worse.
The time for political documents has long past. It is time to govern,
to work together, to get our economy growing again, and move the Obama
economy into a bipartisan economy, at least to job creation.
For those who are unemployed, it is a depression. It is time we did
something to help turn this situation around. Private sector employers
need an international trade agenda that opens new doors to sell U.S.
agricultural goods and manufactured products and services. Obviously, I
am glad the President finally sent to the Senate three trade agreements
and that they were passed last month. They were delayed, though,
unnecessarily for years, and the rest of the world is moving ahead
without us. We are more than capable of increasing exports, but we need
the markets to do it. It is very simple. Why worry about exports?
Because only 4 percent of the people on the face of the Earth live in
the United States. The other 96 percent live outside the United States.
Who are we going to market to, the 4 percent? Yes. But if we are going
to expand our economy, we are going to have to market to the other 96
percent.
Thank God, President Obama has set an agenda that he wants to double
exports. But in order to reach this goal and do everything possible to
generate economic activity and opportunity in the United States, the
President needs to move forward on other job-generating and trading
initiatives without delay.
It is time to put an end to job-killing Federal regulations--as I
move on to a new subject of why the economy is not so good. New
regulations from EPA, the Department of Labor, National Labor Relations
Board, and others are making it harder for businesses to grow.
Understand that I said ``new'' regulations. I think sometimes people,
when they hear us talk about a moratorium on regulations, they think we
ought to take all of the present regulations off the books. They may
not necessarily be good, but the economy has accounted for them
already.
When we have 9.1 percent unemployment, and we have all these new
regulations coming out--66,000 pages of new regulations so far just
this year--that just makes it very hard to decide whether we ought to
hire somebody--particularly, for small business.
Remember, small business creates 70 percent of the new jobs and about
25 percent of all employment in America. In some cases, new regulations
are actually destroying jobs. With unemployment at 9.1 percent, it is
time for the Federal bureaucracy to stop harmful, job-killing, new
regulations.
What we are calling for is not to stop ever regulating into the
future, but to put a short-term moratorium on regulations so that
people have a chance to get us out of the hole we are in with this 9.1
percent unemployment--let's say a measure of getting unemployment down
to 7 percent before we have new regulations.
It is also time to develop domestic energy resources that will create
jobs while increasing domestic energy supplies. Nobody seems to be very
concerned about spending $830 million every day--just in case that
sounds phenomenal, $830 million a day is the amount of money we send
overseas to bring oil into this country. That is a terrible subsidy to
the volatile Middle East, which wants to train Americans to kill us or
to reward Hugo Chavez, who badmouths us almost every day.
We need to make more energy available, driving down prices, making
our country more energy independent. The President's energy agenda is
moving us backward because of not enough emphasis on the fossil fuels
that are available in this country. It was only 3 years ago that
natural gas was $14, $15 per unit because we thought we were using it
all up in America. Recent discoveries tell us that we have natural gas
for maybe 100 years. It is down to around $4 or $5 now per unit.
But it is not a case of finding fault with the President on green
energy because whatever source of energy we have, if we want a growing
economy, we are obviously going to use more energy. We just must use it
more conservatively. We ought to encourage conservation, and we should
also encourage the use of fossil fuels wherever it can be found. It
ought to encourage all sorts of green energy, and that is all the
biofuels we in the Midwest talk about--the wind energy that my State is
second in production of, and it is also solar, biomass, cellulosic,
biofuels, all of the above.
I said conservation, and I guess the fourth one would be nuclear
energy. It is time to change course and develop energy sources at home
and create jobs in the process.
Finally, in 2009, President Obama said we don't raise taxes in a
recession. He stated his position clearly: The last thing you would
want to do is raise taxes on anyone during a recession because it would
harm businesses and economic growth. We know when he said that
unemployment was under 8 percent. So if we have 9.1 percent
unemployment now and will for quite a bit into the future, aren't we
still in a recession? So isn't the President's own benchmark the
benchmark we ought to be using yet today? Yet we have the biggest tax
increase in the history of the country--taking more money away from the
taxpayers and sending it to Washington--coming up next year.
Wouldn't it do a great deal of economic good if this President said
exactly what he said about the time he was sworn in; that we shouldn't
increase taxes during a recession. Yet we have all these jobs packages
put before the Senate that include job-killing tax hikes. That is why
they have been received with bipartisan opposition. To those who say
the packages the President has proposed have been killed by
Republicans, one of the reasons the majority leader had to change the
President's tax packages for a vote here a couple weeks ago is because
there is opposition within his own conference about that. A few
courageous Senate Democrats have consistently said no to their
leadership when it comes to raising taxes on small business and other
job creators.
The only bipartisanship we have seen so far is the bipartisan
opposition to ill-conceived political documents. The Democratic
majority needs to get serious about addressing our economic problems.
It is time to consider policies that will get people back to work
without harming the economy. It is time to stop the political aspects
of this debate. The best way to do that, it
[[Page S7044]]
seems to me, is to look at the other body--controlled by Republicans--
that has passed 15 pieces of legislation that will help turn this
economy around. We haven't taken up any of them, although I think we
are about ready to take up, thank God, one of the 15 that is referred
to as the ``3-percent withholding.'' Unemployed Americans need to know
we are going to do something to help create jobs and grow the economy,
and taking up more of those 15 bills would be getting something done in
a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, so far the Democratic majority and
President Obama are more interested in political strategies than
creating jobs and economic growth. The only reason I say that is it
seems to me there is little intellectual honesty on the part of the
President when in a speech given to a joint session of Congress one
evening--as he did in September--he would plead for bipartisan support
and then, the very next day, go out on the road on a political venture
and say he can't get the cooperation of the Republicans--pass that bill
right now.
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. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, later this week--I assume sometime
tomorrow--the Senate is expected to vote on the Rebuild America Jobs
Act. This is a practical, commonsense piece of legislation that does
two urgent and important things: It will help to modernize America's
crumbling infrastructure, and it will help to put Americans back to
work and get our economy going again.
Not surprisingly, this bill enjoys overwhelming popular support among
the American people. Every day, Americans see the infrastructure crisis
with their own eyes. They see interstate highways increasingly
overwhelmed--potholes everywhere. They see bridges and overpasses that
are structurally unsound and in danger of collapse. Need I mention the
gridlock in some of our major cities because of inadequate roadways and
access points for automobiles? China and Brazil are building world-
class seaports, while ours are left over from early in the last
century.
We know we need to make major Federal investments in modernizing
America's infrastructure, so why not do it now, at a time when our
Nation is suffering from the most protracted period of joblessness
since the Great Depression. The construction sector is the hardest hit
part of our economy. We can put those people back to work renewing our
infrastructure and, again, as I said, boosting our economy.
Why aren't we doing this? The answer is, Republicans have made it
clear they intend to block this legislation tomorrow, just as they have
blocked so many other bills designed to put Americans back to work and
get the economy moving again. They filibustered and killed the American
Jobs Act. Two weeks ago, they filibustered and killed the Teachers and
First Responders Back to Work Act. It seems to me if the word ``no''
were removed from the English language, our Republican friends would be
rendered speechless.
Let me state the obvious. The word ``no'' will not put 28 million
Americans back to work. The word ``no'' will not allow us to strike a
balanced agreement to bring deficits under control. The word ``no''
will not allow us to undertake a robust program to modernize our
transportation system.
The job-creating investments in this bill are fully paid for with a
tiny fractional tax on the richest of the rich in the United States.
These wealthy Americans would pay a 0.7-percent surtax on incomes in
excess of $1 million a year. Let me repeat that. This infrastructure
jobs bill we will be voting on tomorrow, which the Republicans have
indicated they are going to filibuster and kill, is fully paid for with
a 0.7-percent surtax on incomes in excess of $1 million a year. If
those making more than $1 million a year even noticed such a negligible
tax, I would be astonished. Still, the Republicans say no.
Let's put this in context. Just last week, the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office reported that over the last three decades
the aftertax income of millionaires and billionaires increased by 275
percent. That is correct. The Congressional Budget Office said over the
last three decades the aftertax income of millionaires and billionaires
increased 275 percent. During the same 30 years--the same three
decades--the average take-home pay of middle-class workers in America
actually declined. So is it any wonder the middle class is upset when
they see what has happened to them over the last 30 years--flat,
slightly declined in terms of their living standards and their income--
while the superrich increased their take-home by 275 percent.
The top 1 percent of income earners in America now take home more
than half of all the money earned each year in America. Again, that
needs repeating. The top 1 percent of income earners in America take
home over half of all the money earned in America every year. Mind-
boggling, isn't it? Mind-boggling. Yet Republicans adamantly oppose any
tax increase on these people--even 0.7 percent--which would go toward
the infrastructure of America and putting people back to work.
Certainly, no one questions the solicitude of Republicans toward the
rich and the superrich. I just wish they would show even a fraction of
that concern on behalf of the besieged middle class in this country.
Republicans on this so-called supercommittee are willing to block all
progress in order to prevent any tax increase at all on the rich, but
they are demanding--demanding--deep cuts to Social Security, Medicare,
student loans, and other Federal programs that undergird the middle
class in the United States. Meanwhile, Republicans in the Senate
continue to block the bills we have proposed in order to put people
back to work and get the economy moving again.
Some pundits have speculated that, for political reasons, Republicans
are deliberately blocking any legislation that would boost the economy
or create jobs because that would make President Obama maybe look good.
These pundits point out the Senate's minority leader has been explicit
in stating that his No. 1 priority is to prevent the reelection of
President Obama. So many of the pundits say that, to the extent
Republicans can prevent us from doing anything--keep this place in
gridlock, keep us from having a jobs program--and the economy gets
worse, then they will say to the American people: See, President Obama
is not doing his job. The economy is getting worse.
I just heard my colleague from Iowa. In his speech, he was at least
honest enough to say President Obama had inherited a bad economy. That
is true. He admitted that. My friend from Iowa, my colleague, went on
to say, however, that President Obama has made it worse; that he hasn't
improved anything over the last 2\1/2\ years; that his plan hasn't
worked.
I daresay it is the Republicans who have been blocking anything we
could do to put America back to work, including their voting no
tomorrow, which I understand they will, in order to prevent us from
getting this infrastructure and jobs bill through.
A more charitable explanation is Republican ideology is simply that
government can't create jobs. This may be a sincere belief of most
Republicans, but I must point out it is sincerely wrong. Across our
Nation's history, an often visionary Federal Government has funded and
spearheaded initiatives that have expanded private commerce, given
birth to countless inventions and new industries and created tens of
millions of jobs in the process.
Let's take a look at history. One of the most visionary advocates of
Federal investment to create jobs was, believe it or not, the father of
the Republican Party--Abraham Lincoln. Despite the disruption of the
Civil War, Lincoln insisted on moving the Nation forward through bold
Federal investments and initiatives. For example, in 1862, he signed
the Pacific Railway Act, authorizing huge Federal land grants to
finance construction of the transcontinental railroad--one of the great
technological feats of the 19th century. To produce the rails for this
railroad, he enacted a steep tariff on foreign steel in order to get
the American steel industry going.
There is a story--I don't know if it is real or apocryphal--about
Abraham
[[Page S7045]]
Lincoln. He was approached by, I guess, the free traders of his time
who said: If you are going to build this transcontinental railroad, it
would be cheaper to import the rails from England. They have the steel
mills, they know how to do it, and it would be cheaper to build them in
England and ship them here. It is said Lincoln thought about this for
some time and came back and said: Well, it seems to me, however, if we
buy the rails from England, they have our money and we have the rails.
But if we build the rails here, we have our money here and we have the
rails.
As I said, I don't know if that story is true, but I have heard it
many times in my lifetime. Thus, he put in place a steep tariff, kept
England's rails out, rebuilt our steel industry, and, as they say, the
rest is history.
These and other Federal initiatives during Lincoln's Presidency had a
transformative impact on the U.S. economy--creating new industries and
millions of new jobs. Again, Lincoln did this despite the fact the
Federal Government was deeply in debt--deeply in debt--and running huge
deficits to finance the Civil War.
It is almost humorous to imagine how today's Republicans would have
reacted to Lincoln's agenda. No doubt they would have attacked him as
reckless and irresponsible. They would whine that we are broke and
can't afford to invest in the future. I keep hearing this all the time:
We can't afford to do this. We can't afford that. We are broke. We are
broke. Doesn't anybody understand we are broke?
I keep pointing out the United States is the richest country in the
history of mankind--the richest country in the history of mankind. We
have the highest per capita income of any nation in the world. So if we
are so rich, why are we so broke? We have got to keep asking that
question. I am sure the tea party contingent would have demanded that
Lincoln be expelled from the party, all of which reminds us how far the
modern-day Republican Party has strayed from its progressive, forward-
thinking beginnings. Indeed, the present-day Republican Party would
have excoriated President Reagan. I see they just put a new 9-foot
statue of him out at National Airport. They should put underneath it,
``He raised taxes in 1982, 1983, and 1984.'' Yes, President Reagan
raised taxes in 1982, 1983, and 1984.
Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, championed one of the greatest
public works projects in our history, and that is the building of the
Interstate Highway System. A 1996 study of the system concluded that:
The interstate highway system is an engine that has driven
40 years of unprecedented prosperity and positioned the
United States to remain the world's preeminent power into the
21st century.
And, of course Franklin Roosevelt in the depths of the Depression put
a lot of people to work, and they built a lot of good things. So I
thought I would bring this over here. I hang this on the wall in my
office. This is my father's--not my grandfather's--WPA card. For all
you young people here, you can read your history. WPA stands for the
Works Project Administration. It was instituted in the Depression to
put people back to work building public works projects. So this is my
father's WPA card because he was out of work, and he went to work on
WPA. It has his name here, Patrick F. Harkin, Cumming, IA. It says
here: You are asked to report, ready for work at once at a project as a
laborer, $40.30 per month, 138 hours max, Warren County. Signed by my
father.
So my father went to work on WPA, and this is his card. I keep it as
a reminder of a lot of things, but also a reminder of the good things
the government can do. They gave my father a job. He was married and
had five kids and the sixth one on the way--me; no work, no income. Of
course, that was before Social Security or Medicare or anything else.
What did they do? Did they stand around doing nothing? Years later,
my father took me out to visit some of the projects he worked on, on
WPA. There is a place out in Des Moines called Lake Ahquabi. It is a
huge State park, it is a recreational facility, campgrounds, Boy
Scouts, a big lake there, conference centers, still being used today,
built by my father. Well, not by him alone, but he worked on it in the
WPA, still being used today. You can go in and look at the high school
built by WPA, still being used today, I might add. My father was rather
proud of the things he worked on.
When they built the high school, did the government do it? Was it
some kind of government entity that built it? No, it was a private
contractor. Who dug out the lake and built the things at Lake Ahquabi?
Private contractors.
The bill we are going to vote on tomorrow, the public works bill, the
putting America back to work jobs bill, would put people all over
America back to work on highways and bridges, and sewer and water
systems and things such as that, who would be employed by the private
sector, by private companies to do the work. And the work needs to be
done.
Many of the things my father and others in the WPA worked on in the
1930s still are being used today, although they are crumbling. Someone
recently said that we are still driving on Eisenhower's highways and
going to Roosevelt's schools.
What is our generation going to do to rebuild that infrastructure for
future generations? Well, I guess we are going to sit around here and
do nothing, because the Republicans continue to filibuster and block
any meaningful jobs bill getting through the Senate.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question as to how much more
time the Senator will be taking, so we can adjust?
Mr. HARKIN. I would say to my friend from Arizona, less than 10
minutes, about 7 minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.
Investments such as these, investments such as what Abraham Lincoln
did or what Eisenhower did or Franklin Roosevelt did, investments that
were led by Lyndon Baines Johnson to educate our workforce and to
retrain our workforce, to make sure every child had a good education in
America, all of these helped people who were unemployed, helped them to
get jobs, helped them to become taxpayers, and it set the stage for
economic growth in our country.
To me, the most obvious and quickest way to dramatically ramp up our
Federal investments in infrastructure is to pass this jobs bill. The
American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that America faces a $2.2
trillion infrastructure backlog. Bringing the U.S. infrastructure into
the 21st century would rapidly create millions of private sector jobs,
especially in the hard-hit construction industry, while modernizing our
arteries and veins of commerce.
There could be no economic recovery without robust, forward-thinking
investments to boost our competitiveness and put people back to work.
This means to invest in education, innovation, the infrastructure in
America. It means restoring a level playing field with fair taxation, a
good ladder of opportunity to give every American the education they
need to gain decent employment and achieve the American dream.
Again, it is all wrapped up in the Rebuild America Jobs Act that we
will be voting on here tomorrow. I wish I could say I am hopeful that
we could pass it, but I understand the Republicans are going to
filibuster it and we won't have the 60 votes needed. That is a shame,
because we need to put people back to work and we need to rebuild our
infrastructure, and we can't wait much longer to do it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 720
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 720 and the
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a
third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table,
and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.
[[Page S7046]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Reserving the right to object, which this Senator
does, I want to make a comment and then I will give my answer.
Mr. President, the good Senator, who is on the Finance Committee,
wants to repeal the CLASS Act. It is called long-term care. To be sure,
the CLASS Act is not perfect, but little of what we do in the Senate is
perfect. But if there is anything in this country that we ought to be
driving toward, it is a long-term care policy, which right now consists
of impoverishing yourself and getting rid of your assets, homes, house,
whatever, car, in order to classify for Medicaid. That way you can get
it. It is called the humiliation of Americans with legitimate health
care needs.
The CLASS Act could be amended through the regular legislative
process to make it sustainable over the long term, but always our
friends on the other side of the aisle find it easier to object and
repeal. ``Let's repeal something.'' You don't have to have an
alternative in mind. You can leave people in the same sense of
suffering as we found way back during the Pepper commission, where
people would prostrate themselves in order to qualify for Medicaid, in
which they would have a chance at getting some long-term care. We need
to discuss this, because it is a huge problem.
In 2008, 21 million Americans had a condition that caused them to
need help with their health and personal care. Why? Because Congress
has shied away from this subject forever. We have made a habit of
shying away from it. Medicare does not cover long-term services and
other supports, yet about 70 percent of people over age 65 will require
some type of long-term services and support at some point during their
lifetime--70 percent of people over 65. As our population ages, the
need for services will grow. A little known fact is that about 40
percent of the individuals who need long-term care are under the age of
65, and long-term care services and supports can help these individuals
be more independent and be part of the workforce and to have a sense of
self-esteem.
Medicare, as I say, does not cover these services. The difference
between Medicare and Medicaid and what each of their roles should be is
such that there is now a separate agency in Health and Human Services,
which I helped promote, which is now sorting out what is the best
relationship between the two so they don't have to duplicate each other
and so they can clarify roles and get at the problems.
Medicare doesn't cover these services, so Medicaid is in fact the
real, de facto, long-term care program in the country. That is what it
is. Only after middle-class Americans impoverish themselves are they
allowed to get into that situation.
Again, the CLASS Act is not complete as an answer, but it was at long
last an attempt on the part of the Congress to do something about it.
That in itself was a signal victory. An attempt to help people live
with dignity in their homes and communities is not something which we
should consider a frivolous matter.
Those who are gloating today about the administration's decision not
to carry forward with the CLASS Act are not the fiscal heroes they make
themselves out to be. They have no answers. They have no answers. They
have no alternatives. But if you can repeal something, boy, you can
take that home and people say, Boy, they got rid of that part of
government, not having any understanding of what it does to people who
have situations either of age or other problems which they cannot help.
And they are called people.
Instead, they use this as a political opportunity to bash the
President. I was disappointed when the President did this. I was very
disappointed. But it doesn't mean we have to go along. Imagine that,
bashing the President, using seniors and people with disabilities as a
political prop instead of putting forward real solutions. What this
place lacks is in fact real solutions. A lot of people like to tease
the health care bill. They are, for the most part, wrong. Not entirely
wrong. But one thing they can't tease is the fact that a whole bunch of
people called Senators and Congressmen and staff members worked hard
for a very long 2 years to try and come up with answers. And we did.
Let's have a serious discussion how to meet the current and future
needs of seniors and people with disabilities. They are all of our
friends. We know them. Those needs are not going away.
Having said that, I object to the Senator's request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I appreciate the objection of the Senator
from West Virginia and I appreciate his comments about the importance
of long-term care. I agree, it is something we need to address in this
country. There are other ideas out there, and I think better ideas,
ideas that are based upon incentives as opposed to creating a new
government program. But let me get, if I might briefly here, for a
moment at what I believe is the real issue.
This was a program destined to fail. It was clear from the beginning
many of us said that. There were 12 of my colleagues on the other side,
12 Democrats who voted to strike this particular provision from the
health care bill back in December of 2009. I think at that time many of
us were making the same arguments the experts are now conceding at the
Department of Health and Human Services. In fact, there were colleagues
on the other side, one of my Democratic colleagues, who called this ``a
Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff
would be proud of.'' That is how it was described before it was voted
on and put into the health care bill to help demonstrate the health
care bill would actually reduce the deficit.
The fact is, after having had several months to look at this, here we
are 19 months or so later, the Department of Health and Human Services
has concluded that this doesn't work. They can't make it work. Now the
CBO has come out and said it doesn't impact the budget. My view is we
ought to pull this, we ought to get it off the books, and we ought to
address the issue in a way that makes sense for the American people,
not in a way that adds trillions of dollars of additional debt.
If we look at what we have today in terms of unfunded liabilities, we
have $61.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities in this country or $528,000
for every family. That is five times what most families have in terms
of home mortgages, car mortgages, other types of debt. That is what we
are piling on the American people today. This would have been yet
another unfunded liability, and the experts warned us at the time.
Now, we did an investigation of this. It was published in September.
I worked with some of my House colleagues on it. It was ``The CLASS
Act, The Untold Story.'' It concluded that the actuaries at HHS were
saying before this bill was even passed that it would be a recipe for
disaster, that it would lead to an insurance death spiral, and the
Chief Medicare Actuary at HHS said at the time:
. . . 36 years of actuarial experience lead me to believe
that this program would collapse in short order and would
require significant Federal subsidies to continue.
That is what the experts were saying about this program way
back before it was even voted on in 2009.
I think we ought to acknowledge what now everybody concludes to be
the case; that is, this program will not work. It is actuarially
unsound. We ought to repeal it. We ought to get it off the books, and
that was simply what my motion would do. I regret that the other side
has objected to it, but I have some of my colleagues today who have
been very active on this issue.
I say to my colleague from Arizona, in light of this report that came
out from the HHS last month outlining exactly why they cannot move
forward with CLASS, it seems difficult to understand why the
administration doesn't support repeal of this program. Can my colleague
make any sense out of this contradiction and apparent hypocrisy to say
a program doesn't work, yet we want to keep it on the books?
Mr. McCAIN. I say to my colleague I do not quite understand it
either.
In response to the comments of the Senator from West Virginia about
the importance of long-term care, I think all of us understand that. I
think all of us who meet and have interface with our constituents
recognize that the issue of long-term care is one of transcendent
importance. The Senator
[[Page S7047]]
from West Virginia said he would be glad to make some changes or tweaks
to the program. We would be eager to hear of those. We would be eager
to hear how we could change the program, the CLASS Act, so it is not,
as Senator Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee, said of the
CLASS Act, ``a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that
Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.''
I think it is pretty clear if we accept Senator Conrad's and other
objective assessments of the CLASS Act that we have to go back to
square one. We are not going to be able to fix a program about which,
the Congressional Budget Office said:
. . . the programs would add to budget deficits in the third
decade--and in succeeding decades--by amounts on the order of
tens of billions of dollars for each 10-year period.
The CLASS program would add to budget deficits in future
decades even though the proposals require the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to set premiums to ensure the
program's solvency for 75 years.
I would like to interject. I know my colleagues share my view. When
Senators leave we kind of forget them. Maybe we do not mention them
anymore. But we owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Gregg, former
Senator from New Hampshire, who put in this provision that required
solvency over a period of 75 years before it could be implemented. If
it had not been for that provision, we would now be moving forward with
a program that, according to the CBO, would add tens of billions of
dollars to the deficit in each 10-year period.
Wherever you are, Senator Gregg, and I know you are happier than if
you were here, I offer my appreciation and my thanks.
I note the presence of Dr. Barrasso. I think there is something we
ought to understand about the CLASS Act. It did have a short-term
impact according to the way the Congressional Budget Office ``scores''
things, tells us how much things will add or detract from the deficit,
either plus or minus. The fact is, the CLASS Act, in the first 10
years, because younger people would be paying in premiums and would not
have gotten to the point where they are eligible for the benefits, it
disguised the cost of what we know now as--what we call ObamaCare.
Because of the way they are restricted on scoring, the CLASS Act, at
least for 10 years, contributed $70 billion and helped them estimate
that the Health Care Reform Act, known as ObamaCare, would have $122
billion in savings, when in reality after the first 10-year period it
was tens of billions of dollars in added deficit and burdens on average
Americans.
I ask my colleague, Senator Barrasso, Isn't there a way we could
address the long-term care problem in America? Isn't there a way we
could address this issue without piling on, as the CBO judged the CLASS
Act, an increase of tens of billions of dollars to the deficit, which
we all know right now is $44,000, I believe, for every man, woman, and
child in America?
Mr. BARRASSO. I respond to my colleague from Arizona that we all have
concerns for the people of America. That is why we were here trying to
offer constructive ideas to make sure people would get the care they
need, from the doctor that they want, at a price they can afford.
We heard the President make promises that the cost of premiums would
go down $2,500 a family. We have seen instead the premiums have gone
up.
We heard the President say: If you like what you have, you can keep
it. We saw that we lost out on that. So many people are going to lose
the health coverage they like under this new health care law. So I say
to my colleague, absolutely there are things we can do and should be
doing.
It is astonishing. I received through my medical office the AARP
Bulletin. On the cover of this AARP Bulletin for this past month,
October 2011, the headline is, ``Senate Leader Reid: The Health Care
Law Is Already Working.'' This is what the Senate majority leader has
said on the cover of the AARP Bulletin. Yet the Kaiser survey that
tracks public views about health care every month has come out with
their recent numbers, and the results are astonishing. The American
people have seen through this health care law to the point that a
majority of Americans now have an unfavorable view of the health care
law.
Mr. McCAIN. So we now have about two-thirds of what was advertised as
a savings now going by the boards; in other words, $70 billion of the
advertised $122 billion in total savings that we voted on not that long
ago; is that correct?
Mr. BARRASSO. That is exactly the way I read it, that is the way the
American people read it, which is why the overall favorability of the
health care law now stands at only 34 percent, an all-time low.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we be able to enter
into a colloquy now for 25 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. I would simply say--we have the ranking member of the
Budget Committee here too--that it strikes me that there were probably
lots of other budget gimmicks in the health care law that are going to
come to the surface in the same way this CLASS Act gimmick has. The
Senator from Arizona pointed out they tried to understate the true cost
by taking a lot of savings in the early years as people were paying
premiums, knowing full well in the outyears it was going to add
billions of dollars to the deficit. So it was a gimmick that was used,
again, to make this salable to the American people and salable here.
In spite of that, there was still a majority of Senators who voted
again against this, who actually voted to strike the provision from the
health care bill in December of 2009 when I offered that amendment.
It seems to me at least we ought to have bipartisan support now that
everyone has come out and recognized what we were trying to tell them
in advance: this doesn't work, it was a gimmick, and we ought to get it
off the books.
I ask my colleague, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, about
this budget gimmick that was used. Is it illogical to think if we have
this $2.5 trillion expansion of government in the form of this new
health care bill that somehow it is going to reduce the Federal deficit
because that was the argument that was made at the time, and that is
one of the reasons they were able to make that argument? I suggest
there are going to be lots of other gimmicks we are going to uncover to
demonstrate this thing was way out of line at the time, but I ask for
his comments as being the ranking member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senator Thune deserves a lot of credit
for pursuing this issue tenaciously and seeing his prediction validated
now by President Obama's own Secretary that this cannot be a viable
program. But he is exactly correct. One of the greatest financial
misrepresentations in history, if it continues to be on the books, will
be the contention that this health care bill would actually create
money for the U.S. Treasury, actually produce a surplus.
They used a 10-year scoring model; $70 billion, 60 percent or so of
the total savings this bill is alleged to produce--not savings, actual
revenue, net revenue increase--was this program. Now it is gone.
As Senator McCain correctly said, Judd Gregg deserves great credit
for it because he put in the bill that the Secretary had to certify
that this was a sound program. So after all the political smoke had
been going on, after the bill had been passed, while they were
defending it as a viable CLASS Act program that would actually produce
revenue for the government, when she had to certify it, I suppose,
under penalty of perjury--she could go to jail if she didn't do it
correctly--she said she could not do so.
It was never possible this bill was going to be a moneymaker for the
U.S. Treasury. They double-counted, maybe $300 billion, $400 billion,
$500 billion in money that is Medicare money also counted as income to
fund an entirely new bill. That is going to come out also.
As Senator Barrasso has noted, their estimates have been wildly
inaccurate concerning the ability to bend the cost curve down, to
actually reduce health care costs. This was something a lot of people
thought was a good idea. This was going to produce a reduction in our
insurance premiums, and since the bill was passed they have gone up
dramatically, just the opposite of what was promised.
[[Page S7048]]
I think this is a death knell for the entire health care concept.
This is just one more example of it. I thank the Senator.
Mr. McCAIN. I say to my colleague, what is a little hard to
understand--maybe Dr. Barrasso understands it--the Secretary of Health
and Human Services said they can find no way to implement it, after
nearly 2 years. So why would there be an objection to Senator Thune
having just moved to repeal the CLASS Act?
If they tried for all of these months since the passage of the bill
to figure out a way they can meet the Judd Gregg proviso that required
the 75-year sustainability, then one would wonder why--one would wonder
why we would not just go ahead and repeal it. If there is a better
proposal, as we have all agreed, to address the long-term care issue in
America, then why don't we sit down at the drawing board and find a way
to care for people who, in their most vulnerable years, need government
assistance?
I know of no one in this body who is opposed to a viable, reasonable,
fiscally sound long-term care program. This is not it. This is not it.
It is not even close. So I wondered why my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle would refuse to repeal it unless it is some distorted
pride in authorship.
Mr. THUNE. I would say to our colleague from Wyoming, who is a
physician and has a lot of experience on these issues, who comes down
every week with a second opinion talking about all the various issues
regarding the health care bill--the more recent one, as we have all
seen now is contrary to predictions--health care costs are going up.
The predictions were that they would go down. That is also something
many of us saw coming.
The question is if we leave this on the books, and if they decide at
some point to resurrect it--after they have already acknowledged it
doesn't work--and come up with some new language that does away with
the Judd-Gregg proviso, what are the fiscal consequences of this
program being resurrected? We talked about this, and there were lots of
predictions made at the time.
In fact, the Senator from Arizona had statements from some of our
colleagues who said on the floor at the time how this was going to be a
great deal and how it was going to work. The administration said at the
time that this was not a budget gimmick. That is what they were quoted
as saying. Clearly this was a budget gimmick. We all know that now. It
is a Ponzi scheme. Clearly that is what the actuaries are saying at
Health and Human Services.
If, in fact, we don't get this repealed and at some point this
program ends up being resurrected, what are the fiscal consequences and
implications for the country and future generations who will be saddled
with yet another unfunded liability, another entitlement program that
is not paid for?
Mr. BARRASSO. I think this is devastating for the country. I told the
President directly that overall I thought his proposal was going to
bankrupt the country. We stood here and debated over a year ago the
fact that the Democrats in this body were voting to take $500 billion
away from our seniors on Medicare--not to save Medicare, but to start a
whole new government program for somebody else. And when we talk about
long-term care and what people need over the course of their lifetime,
they took money away from hospice. They took money away from home
health. They continue to take money away from hospitals and the
physicians who take care of our seniors.
Mr. McCAIN. The popular Medicare Advantage Program.
Mr. BARRASSO. Which has an advantage because it coordinates care. It
does a number of things that are important. I believe this is the
reason why last week in the Kaiser poll, the number of individuals who
have a very favorable view of the overall health care law has dropped
to 12 percent, an all-time low. The number of people who think they
will personally be better off under the health care law is only 18
percent, an all-time low. The number of people in the country who think
that the country as a whole will be better off due to the health care
law stands at 28 percent, an all-time low. The American people realize
we need truth, honesty in budgeting.
I know my colleague from the Budget Committee is working on that. He
has an op-ed I read and has a proposal and is working on that. That is
what the American people want. They want some honesty in budgeting, not
the kind of politics and budget gimmicks and tricks we see happening
here. The American people are tired of being misled and sold a bill of
goods. They see through it. They don't like it, they don't want it, and
that is why all of the polling on the health care law shows it at an
all-time low.
Mr. THUNE. We all saw this coming and we tried our best to prevent
it, but now we know and we have these statements that came out as part
of the report that was done by the House and Senate, an investigative
report called the CLASS Act, the untold story. It was published in
September. What it revealed was that the Health and Human Services
Department actuaries--the people who are the experts, not the
politicians, not those of us who are making many of these statements
during the political debate we are having here in the Senate--who are
actually responsible for doing the math on this came up and called the
CLASS program a recipe for disaster. Those were in internal e-mails we
discovered when we were doing this investigation.
Prior to their announcement in October that HHS is not moving forward
with the CLASS program at this time, Secretary Sebelius and other
officials at the Health and Human Services Department claimed through
much of 2011 that the Department had sufficient authority to modify it.
What they were trying to suggest is that we can make this work. Yet
these internal documents cast significant doubt on all of those
assertions.
I will repeat this because I think this is important. The Chief
Actuary, during 2009, when this program was being debated--it was a
part of the health care bill. It was during the debate here in the
Senate. Richard Foster said:
. . . 36 years of actuarial experience lead me to believe
that this program would collapse in short order and require
significant Federal subsidies to continue.
That was what they were saying in 2009 before this vote ever
occurred. He also went on to say:
. . . this would end in an insurance death spiral because the
coverage would only be attractive to sicker people who will
need costly services. This will force premiums higher and
deter healthy individuals from enrolling.
You have all the experts who were putting all this information out
there and sharing this with their superiors, all of who were out there
on the record promoting this as being something that would work and
something that is not a budget gimmick, but actually could, in fact, be
actuarially sound. We all know now it was not. It wasn't then and isn't
now and that is why we ought to repeal it.
Again, I appreciate my colleagues' input and work on this. I think
this is something we ought to end. We need to put the final touches on
this program and end it once and for all so it doesn't come back in
some other form and saddle future generations with trillions of dollars
of additional unfunded liabilities and debt. There are ways we can
approach this issue.
In fact, I have some ideas that I introduced in 2007 that deal with
long-term care and providing incentives for people that we all are
going to be faced with at some point in our lives. But this is the
wrong way. It was the wrong prescription at the beginning. It is the
wrong prescription now. That is why it ought to be repealed.
Mr. SESSIONS. If I recall, Senator Thune quoted the Chief Actuary,
Richard Foster, in his statement that this would collapse during the
debate on the floor. This was talked about, but the administration and
our Democratic colleagues refused to listen. They continued to repeat
the idea that they would have this large surplus. They counted this
money as surplus money in justifying voting for passage of this bill
when common sense told us in a host of areas, including this one, it
was not going to produce a surplus. It goes to mean something systemic
about our problem and why this Congress now going into the third year
will be borrowing 40 percent of the money the United States spends. It
is because the politics here is that we want to pass the bill. When
somebody shows it is not actuarially sound and it is going to cost
money in the outyears, they don't
[[Page S7049]]
worry about that; somebody will take care of that in the outyears. It
is that kind of mentality that I think has helped overrule commonsense
budgeting.
We have not had a budget now in over 900 days in this Senate. So this
is not the kind of responsible approach to managing the taxpayers'
money.
I know Senator Barrasso raised this repeatedly, that this should not
be counted, but did we hear Secretary Sebelius at that time? Back in
2009 she wrote to Senator Kennedy and said to express the
administration's support for inclusion of this bill, calling it an
innovative bill. They were supporting it, promoting it, totally
ignoring the critics and, as a result, they got the bill passed on a
straight party-line vote. As a matter of fact, I believe had Senator
Brown from Massachusetts taken office 2 weeks sooner, there would not
have been the 60 votes necessary to pass it. There would have only have
been 59 and the bill would not be law today.
I thank both Senators for their consistent, steadfast explanation of
the financial danger of this legislation and their willingness to
continue to carry on that fight. I hope we learned something throughout
our whole budgetary and financial process here. We cannot continue to
play games with the American people's money. We have to be honest with
them--honest about our budget, honest about what things are going to
cost, and only then can we get the country on a sound footing.
Mr. THUNE. We have to quit making promises we cannot keep. What we
are seeing today in Europe and the meltdown that is occurring in the
economies over there is a result of too many promises that were made,
too much government debt, governments that have gotten too big, that
can no longer be supported by the economy in those countries.
That is where we are headed. That is why we have to start living
within our means. We have to quit spending money we don't have, and
this was a perfect example of the tendency around here to want to grow
government, to have a government answer, a government solution for
everything, when this makes matters not better but much worse. It makes
it much worse for hardworking taxpayers in this country and for future
generations of Americans for whom this would become an enormous
liability added already to the $528,000 that every family in this
country owes, the mortgage they have on their families already as a
result of the unfunded liabilities we have already racked up. We cannot
keep making promises we cannot keep.
I hope we can get this repealed, and I appreciate my colleagues' hard
work in that regard and look forward to getting an opportunity to get
it voted on. I am sorry our request this afternoon to repeal it was
rejected, but I hope we will get another opportunity to revisit that
and perhaps a vote that will actually put people on the Record. I
believe there is a majority of Senators who agree with us on this
point.
Mr. SESSIONS. I would say a couple of weeks ago the Wall Street
Journal, after all of this happened, wrote that ``including this CLASS
Act was a special act of fiscal corruption.''
If a private business said: Invest in our company; I have a plan that
is going to be sound and it is going to make money in the future, trust
me, invest your money with me, vote for me, yet they knew and had
evidence in their files and their own employees were saying it was not
sound, it was actually going to cost money, I wonder what would happen
to them.
Mr. BARRASSO. You would hear about it. This speaks to the problems we
have in this body. When they write legislation in the cloak of
darkness, behind closed doors, and come in and vote at 1 in the morning
and try to jam things through at a time when an administration calls
for openness and transparency and then they do this sort of thing with
the books in a manipulative way and try to come up with ways to say
that it saves money--in any other true, real business, people would go
to jail for this sort of behavior, I would assume. Is it wrong? All the
way wrong? We have seen other so-called bets that this administration
has made which have the American people scratching their head.
Yesterday it was noted that at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, bonuses
have been paid to 10 of their executives to the tune of over $12
million. I called for the President to cancel those bonuses. The White
House is fairly silent on that. Yet when Senator Obama was running for
President, he wrote a letter to the Treasury Secretary and said: Make
sure no bonuses go to Freddie and Fannie. Now under his administration,
$12 million, it was reported yesterday, went to 10 executives. It
doesn't seem to be a problem now. The White House said there is nothing
they can do about it. Well, why not get the Secretary of the Treasury
involved? That is what Candidate Obama did in 2008. It is time for this
White House to stand up and do what is right.
Mr. SESSIONS. Let me say a more accurate explanation of how this
happened. The Congressional Budget Office scored this as a surplus,
indeed, over 10 years. And, as Senator McCain said, the benefits only
come out after 5 years and these are people paying in, so the real
benefits and payments take place in outer years.
The question is, Is the plan sufficient to be actuarially sound for
the distant future when the payouts occur? So what happened was, Mr.
Orszag had been CBO Director. He said it was not a gimmick and not a
Ponzi scheme. In one sense, he was telling the truth. He was using a
window score from the Congressional Budget Office over the first 10
years, when it didn't pay out any benefits and had a surplus, to claim
that this was going to make the bill itself financially sound. In a
sense, to me, it is these kinds of gimmicks that might keep somebody
from being prosecuted and sent to jail if they were a private person.
This ought to end in the Congress. I think the American people are
crying out for honesty in budgeting. They want us to be responsible.
They want us to tell them the good news but to also tell them the bad
news financially that we face.
They know we can't do things we would like to do if we don't have the
money. They know we don't have the money to keep taking on new
obligations. So I feel as though this is not healthy.
When Secretary Sebelius came along and had to certify that they had a
75-year actuarially sound program, there was no way she could do it. It
knocks a gaping hole into the entire scheme, this health care bill.
I think it is a lesson for all of us. On every vote we do, we need to
be sure we are honest not only in the short-term window but in the
long-term window also.
Mr. THUNE. Too often, the practice around here is focused on the
short term, the near term, the gain, to be able to have some sort of
political victory at the expense of what is in the best interests of
this country and our children and grandchildren. This is a perfect
example of that. I appreciate my colleagues being here. This discussion
will be continued.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VITTER. 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. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Sessions and I have up to 15 minutes for a colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
LSU Versus Alabama
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, Senator Sessions and I come to the floor
following a discussion of a lot of important issues on the floor to
discuss the most important issue back home for us this week, which is
the upcoming regular season national championship game between LSU and
Alabama. In the history of the SEC, this is the first ever regular
season matchup between a No. 1 and No. 2 team in the SEC. As most folks
probably know, LSU and Alabama are both 8 to 0 overall and 5 to 0 in
the SEC.
Obviously, I know who is going to win. The Tigers are going to win.
They have beaten five ranked opponents this year, three of those away
from home, as we are going to have to play Alabama. They have outscored
all opponents 314 to 92 this year. Not to get
[[Page S7050]]
cocky or anything, but LSU has beaten Alabama 8 out of the last 11
years, including 4 of the last 5 times in Tuscaloosa.
We have a lot of strengths. Our senior quarterback Jarrett Lee leads
the SEC in passing efficiency. We have a ferocious defense led by
lineman Sam Montgomery and defensive backs Tyrann Mathieu and Mo
Claiborne. Tyrann, by the way, is much better known as Honey Badger.
This is a prelude to the BCS championship which, by the way, is going
to be in January in New Orleans in the Superdome.
So we feel great going into this game, and that is why I was very
eager to get with both Senators from Alabama and have a friendly wager
which the Senator from Alabama will explain. The loser is going to
treat the winners to some great gulf shrimp and other seafood. We feel
great about it, so we look forward to it.
As I turn the floor over to Senator Sessions, I would just summarize
our feelings in Louisiana in a simple way: You all have a great team--
maybe one of the best Alabama teams ever--but it doesn't matter who
LSU's opponent is because, as we say in Louisiana, the Honey Badger
takes what he wants. We are looking forward to doing that on Saturday
night.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Vitter for those
comments. We are going to look forward to being very hospitable to the
fabulous LSU fans who will be in Tuscaloosa for the ``Titanic tussle in
Tuscaloosa,'' the game of the century, many are calling it, the match
of the millennium, between Alabama and LSU. It is always a big game,
and it is going to be a big game especially this year.
While we have a minute on the floor and there is no other business
being conducted, I just wish to celebrate college football,
particularly in the Southeastern Conference. When we go to those games
and see the color and the crowd and the enthusiasm and the roar for the
home team, it is a thrilling event. It is very special. The fans in
Tuscaloosa are very sophisticated. They know this is a big game, one of
the biggest games in the history of the University of Alabama, and they
know when good plays are good and bad plays are bad. It is going to be
exciting. They know LSU is consistently one of the great teams in
America.
So Alabama is doing pretty well: Eight and zero, their all-star
defense is No. 1 in scoring and No. 1 in total defenses. They also have
their No. 1 rushing defense in the country, allowing only 44 yards per
game, a historic number that ranks better than Alabama's national
championship game in 1992 and the undefeated and untied 1966 team. So
it is going to be a special time.
Our university is a great university. The University of Alabama has
been growing in strength for years now. It has one of the greatest
presidents in America: Dr. Robert D. Witt, who was my high school
classmate, and Judy Bonner is the provost there, sister of Congressman
Jo Bonner. So it is an exciting time in Alabama in general.
Academically and otherwise, the University of Alabama is doing great--
one of its best years in its history.
I wish to also point out and thank the LSU fans and chefs John Folse
and Rick Tramonto, along with Bob Baumhower and Steve Zucker from
Alabama, for sponsoring the LouisiBama Gumbo Bowl to benefit tornado
victims in Tuscaloosa. That shows true class in both of the schools'
fan base. For all the talk going on this week, I hope to see the kind
of respect this partnership indicates among all our fans.
While I don't think it will happen, should Les Miles and his team
somehow manage to get out of Tuscaloosa with a victory, I would love to
treat Senator Vitter and Senator Landrieu to some of the finest gulf
seafood there is, healthy and straight from the Gulf of Mexico, which
my colleague knows is fresher and cleaner and finer than it ever has
been, and maybe we could garnish it with some of the best grass that
marks the field at Bryant Denny Stadium. I understand Les Miles is a
fan. I would also be more than happy to bring my friend, Senator
Vitter, an Alabama tie on the Monday after the game, which I think
would look good if he were to wear it on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, should the unthinkable happen, I will do
that. Should the unthinkable happen, I will deliver fresh, healthy gulf
seafood to Senator Sessions' office as well as Senator Shelby's. We
have been in contact with Senator Shelby's office and Senator
Landrieu's office and they are part of this friendly arrangement as
well. So we will look forward to that. But, most of all, we will look
forward to a great game Saturday night, and we will both look forward
to a win Saturday night. One of us will have to be disappointed--we
will see who--but it is going to be a great game.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Vitter for his friendship and good
service in the Senate. We work on so many things together. But college
football is special, and I think the game this weekend will be one of
the great games in college history. I am so excited about it. I know
the fans in both our States, and throughout the country, are excited
about it.
Mr. VITTER. Amen.
With that, we 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. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I came to the floor to speak about a
different type of football. It seems to be a political football that
some of our colleagues are playing on the question of getting America
back to work again. I am amazed at the political posturing we have seen
this year.
I know for some of our colleagues on the other side, this election
cycle has been driven by tea party economics that demand political
purity over good governance. They have said no to just about
everything. The problem with no to everything is that no doesn't create
a job, no doesn't build an economy, no doesn't create prosperity, no
doesn't get America moving again. They have said no to every different
venture we have had to try to put America back to work.
Certainly, back in my home State of New Jersey, what I hear from the
average citizen is: Senator, help me get back to work. Because I have
New Jerseyans who come up to me, sometimes with tears in their eyes,
and say: This is the first time in my life I have been unemployed.
While that has created a significant economic consequence to them and
their family, it has shaken something even more profound, which is that
social contract, that promise in America that if I prepare myself, work
hard and sacrifice, I get ahead, and my children will do better than I
did growing up. That has been shaken to the core by the economic
challenges we inherited as a result of the crisis of 2008 and that we
have been working out of.
So I have a problem when, every time we come to the floor to offer an
opportunity to get those New Jerseyans, to get those Americans back to
work, all I hear is no.
They say no, refusing to invest in rebuilding our infrastructure, to
creating jobs, to keeping us competitive in a global economy.
They know roads and highways and bridges in their States--in every
State--are in critical need of improvement, and yet we have to come
here time and time again, day after day, to fight back a politically
charged, ideologically fueled opposition that says one thing but does
another.
The fact is, even those who oppose this legislation for political
reasons know good governance means investing in our future. It means
putting Americans back to work. In an economy in which 70 percent of
GDP is consumer demand, if there is no job, there is no money, and if
there is no money, there is no demand. So in addition to the lives of
New Jerseyans and Americans which we could positively affect, this is
about our global picture in terms of our economy. It means also keeping
us competitive in this global economy.
Let me talk about that global economy for a moment because we are in
it. We see what happens in Europe, and we see how we are affected here
at home with our markets and whatnot. But let's look at a different
place. Let's look at China. Let's look at the competition. According to
China's 5-year
[[Page S7051]]
plan, they have a range of investment priorities for the future: clean
energy technology; biotechnology, including pharmaceutical and vaccine
production; high-tech equipment for manufacturing airplanes; a new
space program and satellites.
In fact, this week they launched a satellite, the first step toward a
Chinese space station by the end of the decade.
China is planning more high-speed rail, next generation powerplants
and manufacturing facilities, new nuclear, solar, and wind energy
technologies.
The plan calls for building new energy-efficient cars and adding
9,000 kilometers to their highway system, expanding their national
high-speed rail system to 45,000 kilometers, and building light rail
systems in 21 urban metropolitan areas.
They are planning 6 new heavy material ports, adding 440 new 10,000-
ton shipping berths; a second Beijing airport; and 11 regional
airports.
This is some pretty stiff competition that will allow Chinese
businesses to thrive.
This is the challenge we have. Yes, we have a debt question in our
country, and we must meet that challenge. There is no question we
should and we can and we must. But by the same token, we need to grow
this economy as part of meeting that challenge, an economy that was on
the brink of ruin when this administration inherited it, an economy
that--I will never forget that famous meeting or infamous meeting in
September of 2008 that was called by the Chairman of the Federal
Reserve that members of the Banking Committee and others were called
to. I remember going to it and listening to him describe a series of
financial institutions that were on the verge of bankruptcy and
collapse and in doing so would have created systemic risk to the entire
country's economy and being on the verge not of the great recession we
talked about but a new depression. That is what we have been working
out of.
But even in this economy, we have to make investments and build for a
competitive future. We invest just 2 percent of our gross domestic
product on infrastructure projects. Europe and China invest between 5
and 9 percent, respectively.
The President today called on Congress to up the ante. The American
Jobs Act would invest $50 billion in our transportation infrastructure
and $10 billion in a national infrastructure bank, putting hundreds of
thousands of construction workers back on the job. But it is not just
the construction workers. Certainly, we want to get them back to work.
It is all the architectural firms, all the engineering firms, all the
people who work at those firms who will help build this infrastructure.
It is all the suppliers for all the materials that will be needed to do
this and everybody who produces those supplies and everybody who
transports it and everybody who installs it. So it is an enormous
ripple effect in getting our people back to work--hundreds of thousands
waiting to work, working for America's future.
Clearly, opposition to the Rebuild America Jobs Act is not about good
governance because we have ways and we have offered ways to pay for
this fully. It is about politics. It is about playing political games.
But it is playing political games with the lives and livelihoods of
American families.
While China is planning major investments in retooling for their new
economy, we cannot even seem to agree to fix our own roads. It is akin
to the story of Nero fiddling while Rome burned, except American
families and businesses are the ones who are going to get burned in
this story.
The President today released a report that highlights the importance
of rebuilding our roads and bridges and railways and airports and has
cited important projects around the country. They include over 17,000
jobs in New Jersey that would put people to work making our future
brighter.
One of the projects the President's report highlights as an example
of success is in New Jersey: the Route 52 causeway bridge replacement
between Somers Point and Ocean City in Atlantic and Cape May Counties.
This is a critical emergency evacuation route for Ocean City during
floods and hurricanes. The new bridge eliminates the need to raise the
drawbridge at the old section that is still being replaced. This is a
critical $400 million project that is an investment in New Jersey, in
our community, in our infrastructure that will upgrade an old bridge to
meet today's needs, protect the community, and put people to work.
We can make these investments and still find ways to responsibly
reduce the deficit. An investment is not even just about new projects,
of course. It is about maintaining the very infrastructure we have
already spent money on in the past that we need to preserve for future
use.
Thirty-six percent of New Jersey's bridges are structurally deficient
or functionally obsolete. Seventy-eight percent of New Jersey's major
roads are listed in poor or mediocre condition. Sixty-four percent of
New Jersey highways are chronically congested because of a 29-percent
increase in vehicle travel on New Jersey's highways from 1990 to 2007.
All of that, and we already have $13 billion worth of maintenance
projects on hold because we do not have the money to pay for them.
Those are just numbers in one respect, but those numbers are about
lives. Because when we have infrastructure--major roads, major
highways--that are in bad condition, it means we are sitting more time
in traffic and less time being productive at work or having more
quality time with our families. It means businesses that have a product
they need to get to the marketplace are going over an infrastructure
that means it takes more time. It takes longer to get that product to
market. It has consequences. It adds to the costs. It creates an
uncompetitive set of circumstances. It is about the quality of our
lives and our economy at the same time.
That $13 billion is not to add even any capacity to New Jersey's
transportation system. It is just to keep the status quo. As I have
said for quite some time, as we have attempted, with my colleague,
Senator Lautenberg, to build a new Trans-Hudson Passenger Rail Tunnel,
which is critically needed in that region--and we have learned since
September 11 that multiple modes of transportation are incredibly
important so that, God forbid, if we have a tragedy again--we learned
on that day, when all the bridges were closed and all the tunnels were
closed that ferries brought people out of downtown Manhattan to New
Jersey, ultimately, to be taken to hospitals--multiple modes of
transportation and options are critical for our economy. They are also
critical for our security. Yet we cannot even keep up-to-date that
which we have, much less create a new Trans-Hudson tunnel that would
open the entire region with its economic opportunities. We cannot grow
if we are stuck. In that region, as in many regions of the country, we
are stuck.
We can begin the long-overdue process of maintaining, rehabilitating,
and replacing if we pass this legislation. We can do it if we act
together as a nation, as we did in 1956. In 1956, it was a Republican
administration that created the Interstate Highway System, and now we
cannot seem to get one Republican to vote to maintain that system. In
2011, we cannot get one Republican to vote to help keep us competitive
and put Americans back to work.
We need our Republican colleagues in Congress to end the roadblock
and fix the roads. They need to vote yes to providing every State with
the resources they need to repair and rebuild aging roads and bridges
and put people back to work.
Think of the jobs we could create nationwide if we publicly committed
to investing enough to keep up and stay competitive with the Chinas of
the world. Even if China is able to meet only a fraction of its
ambitious goals, it will be far beyond the course we are presently on.
In 1956--I want to go back to that history--under a Republican
President, Dwight Eisenhower, Congress passed the Federal Aid Highway
Act. It took 35 years, but we committed this Nation to building 46,876
miles of highway--one of the largest public works projects at that time
in the Nation's history. Why? Because a young Army officer, Dwight
Eisenhower, saw the need.
He drove across the country in an Army convoy that left Washington on
July 7, 1919, went to Gettysburg, and took the old Lincoln Highway to
San Francisco. On the journey, bridges
[[Page S7052]]
cracked and had to be rebuilt, vehicles got stuck in the mud, equipment
broke, and they did not arrive on the west coast--they left on July 7--
they did not arrive on the west coast until September 6--a 2-month
journey that gave birth to the American Interstate Highway System.
Let's not be so shortsighted that we will turn back the clock to the
days of the old Lincoln Highway. I understand the need to reduce our
deficit, and these provisions I have talked about that I support are
paid for. But I do not understand the blind commitment to doing
nothing, refusing to invest in our future and create American jobs in
the process and calling it good governance.
Good governance is what President Eisenhower did when he signed the
Federal Highway Act into law. Now it is up to us to invest in
maintaining it. Let's be honest with ourselves about the fact that good
governance means investing in our Nation, in our people, in our
progress, in our prosperity, in our future. Investing in our
infrastructure is an investment in our country and in our future. Let's
put today's ideologically driven politics aside and recall the
practical Republican politics of President Eisenhower who saw a
national need and had the will and the wisdom to put the Nation to work
to build it.
So I ask my colleagues: Where is the Grand Old Republican Party that
united America behind an interstate highway system and put government
and people to work to make it happen?
If we put aside the ideological posturing, if we put aside the
suggestion I have heard many times that the major goal is--by some of
our Republican colleagues--to make Barack Obama a one-term President
and then, ultimately, use both the filibuster to stop progress in the
Senate and/or use a constant ``no'' vote to stop progress for the
Nation under the guise that is the way President Obama will fail--the
problem with that is, that is, at the end of the day, in my mind, not
about President Obama failing, that is about the Nation failing at one
of the most critical times in our country's history and one of the most
critical times in our economy.
If we can put aside the ideological posturing, if we can put aside
the political strategy and gamesmanship, if we are honest with
ourselves about what good governance means and what it means to
American families to invest in creating jobs and keeping us globally
competitive so that we can continue to grow that economy and create
other jobs for individuals that will help them realize their hopes and
dreams and aspirations, that will help them contribute to the Nation,
that will create new revenues that will be part of meeting our debt
challenge, we would pass this legislation and make it happen. That is
the opportunity before the Senate. It is one I hope our colleagues will
grasp.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Sanctuary Cities
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, earlier today my friend and colleague
from Illinois, Senator Durbin, came to the floor and criticized--
wrongly, I believe--my State of Alabama and the State of Arizona for
something that I would think we would all want every State and locality
to do; that is, cooperate in the enforcement of Federal immigration
law.
Alabama and Arizona are undertaking a legitimate effort in attempting
to help enforce the laws of the United States when this administration
too often has failed to do so. The American people and the rule of law
in our country have suffered as a result.
This administration has flatly refused to enforce our national laws--
generous immigration laws that they are--despite the fact that there is
on the books extensive and a fair code of laws designed to facilitate
substantial, legal immigration into our country. Moreover, the Obama
administration is systematically going after States that attempt to
assist--Arizona, Alabama, now South Carolina, and Indiana next. Even
more egregious is that the administration has refused to take any
action against States and localities that affirmatively, proactively,
and intentionally impede the immigration enforcement in the United
States. These jurisdictions include San Francisco County, Santa Clara
County, Washington, DC, and perhaps the most egregious example: Cook
County, IL, which recently passed an ordinance--passed an ordinance
directing local Illinois law enforcement officials to ignore U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers.
The detainers are sent to local jails, and they request that
officials at those jails detain illegal aliens for an additional 48-
hour period, statutorily provided, after that local jurisdiction's
business with that immigrant ceases so that an ICE officer may place an
alien into Federal custody. This is done on all kinds of crimes
throughout the country. People are arrested in Alabama; Georgia has
charges against them, and they send a detainer. If someone is arrested
in Illinois and the Federal Government has a charge against them, they
place a detainer. So when they are finished in that trial or with their
sentence, before they are released out on the street, they are turned
over to the other jurisdiction. Maybe it is a murder charge. Maybe it
is a serious felony charge. This happens every day in America. It is
common practice. If it were to cease, law enforcement in this country
would be dealt a devastating blow.
Cook County has decided that it gets to decide who gets deported from
the country and when, and acting in this way directly undermines
Federal law enforcement. When testifying before the Senate Judiciary
Committee last week, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet
Napolitano said, incredibly, that she has had no contact with Cook
County and has had no discussions with the Attorney General of the
United States on this issue.
So today Senators Grassley, Cornyn, Coburn, and I sent a letter to
Secretary Napolitano, and we requested that she and others in the
administration consider taking action against Cook County and other
local jurisdictions that purposefully and deliberately undermine the
laws of the United States and offer sanctuary to illegal aliens who
have broken our laws by entering the country illegally. Is there no
consequence to that in this country now? If that is so, aren't we, in
fact, putting up a sign on our borders that says: Just get by the
border and you are home free, nothing will ever happen to you. Isn't
that a magnet to more illegal immigration? Isn't that a mixed message
to the world? Don't we need to be sending a good and decent message;
that is, we believe in immigration. We are a nation of immigrants. We
have the most generous immigration laws in the world, but you must
comply with them. We can't accept everybody who would like to come
whenever they would like to come. We have to ask people to file
applications, meet certain qualifications, and come when your time has
come to come to America.
That is what law is all about. That is why people want to come to
this country, frankly, because in their countries they have no law, and
they don't have the opportunity to earn something and be able to keep
it.
Since the implementation of this ordinance in Chicago, over 40
suspected illegal aliens arrested on felony charges have been released
from Cook County jails. Last week, the Executive Associate Director of
Enforcement and Removal Operations at the Federal Department of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, told my staff that Cook
County presents a major problem for immigration enforcement efforts. In
fact, he said that Cook County, IL, is the most egregious example of
sanctuary city policies and is ``an accident waiting to happen.'' Yet
the head of the Department of Homeland Security stands silent, and the
Justice Department is too busy prosecuting States that are trying to
cooperate and uphold the law of the United States.
Senator Durbin said that no State is above the law, but it is these
sanctuary jurisdictions, such as Cook County, and not States such as
Alabama, Arizona, South Carolina, and Indiana that need to remember
they are not above the law.
The truth is that this is yet another example of a longtime trend in
Chicago
[[Page S7053]]
of elected officials placating immigration law breakers while thumbing
their noses at Federal law enforcement, jeopardizing public safety, and
pretending that what they do is honorable and good and for the
taxpayers who elected them. But releasing dangerous criminals is a
dangerous thing to do. Releasing dangerous criminals--it could be a
person who goes and murders someone, as we have seen time and time
again.
The Cook County commission passed this order less than a month after
Chicago-based open-borders group National Immigrant Justice Center sued
the Department of Homeland Security, challenging the constitutionality
of these ICE detainers--things that have been done by every State,
city, and county throughout America for decades, hundreds of years--
since the founding of our Republic, I suppose. The lawsuit undoubtedly
influenced the Cook County commission. They decided they would be open
about it in voting in favor of this ordinance. So if one of those
illegal aliens arrested on felony charges and released by Cook County
commits a crime now, Cook County officials are to blame for it.
We should not release someone when the Federal authorities place a
detainer on them. They do not do that very often. They do not do it
nearly enough, frankly. So there will be a good reason for sure if they
place a detainer on them, and to ignore that is really stunning.
So sanctuary jurisdictions such as Cook County, IL, undermine the
ability of law enforcement personnel to enforce the laws that are on
the books now and represent a threat to our security. These
jurisdictions cannot choose if and when they will turn over illegal
aliens charged with a crime and wanted by ICE.
So if we are going to talk about who is and who is not above the law,
I suggest that my good friend--and we have worked together on a number
of things, some of them criminal justice issues--the Senator from
Illinois needs to clean up his own backyard rather than casting
unfounded criticisms on States that are taking up a valuable effort to
see that our immigration laws actually are enforced, to help end the
lawlessness that has caused so much disruption in our country and upset
the American people.
The American people are not anti-immigrant. We are a nation of
immigrants. The American people are not opposed to people being able to
come to our country. The American people do not dislike people who are
here. Their anger is basically addressed to those of us in authority
who are failing to maintain a lawful system of immigration, one that we
can be proud of, one that is consistently enforced throughout the
country. I believe that is what we should be striving for in our
Nation, and if somebody wants to change the law and allow more people
to come or fewer people to come, let's vote on it and have it right
here on the floor of the Senate, and maybe we can have some changes.
But, fundamentally, it is the duty of Homeland Security, it is the
duty of the Department of Justice to enforce the laws as they exist.
They do not get to make the laws and enforce them. It is the duty and
responsibility of Cook County to participate with the Federal
Government in fulfilling its basic duties, such as honoring detainment.
When you do not have that, we have a real problem in our country.
So I would suggest that the Attorney General take a little timeout
from his lawsuit against Arizona or Alabama or other States and focus a
little bit of his attention on a major jurisdiction such as Cook County
that is willfully and deliberately acting to undermine Federal law
enforcement.
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.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the bill
before the Senate--the Rebuild America Jobs Act. The Rebuild America
Jobs Act contains a variation of a bill that I cosponsored with Senator
Kerry--we call it the BUILD Act. It is the Building and Upgrading
Infrastructure for Long-Term Development Act, and so we call it BUILD.
But the changes that have been made in the bill that is before us today
are untenable, and I cannot support it.
Last March, I introduced the bipartisan BUILD Act along with Senators
Kerry, Warner, and Graham. It puts forward a method of addressing our
infrastructure needs that I think is the right way forward. The need
and demand for greater infrastructure investment is unprecedented. The
American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that a $2.2 trillion
investment is needed over the next 5 years to restore our
infrastructure to an adequate condition. Ignoring these needs hampers
our economic growth, impedes the flow of inter- and intrastate
commerce, and slows the development and distribution of domestic energy
production. We should consider new, innovative ways of financing our
infrastructure. Traditional government mechanisms alone cannot keep
pace with our national demand.
Our legislation--Senator Kerry's and mine--creates the American
Infrastructure Financing Authority. This would be an independent
authority designed to facilitate private investment in critical
infrastructure projects. It is designed like a bank, providing loans or
loan guarantees for regionally or nationally significant projects in
transportation, energy and water sectors.
Let me emphasize that this will not provide grants. Grants will not
be given. They will not be allowed. Nationally significant projects or
regional projects would be at least $100 million. There is a $25
million category for rural areas, but we are not looking at a stimulus
where we go in and provide financing for small projects. This is for
dams, for desalination plants, or for an electric grid that isn't
working and causing brownouts in major areas.
We are talking about big dollars that are not easily raised in the
government sector or the private sector alone because it doesn't make
economic sense, unless we put the loans and the loan guarantees
together. There is a prohibition against spending more than 50 percent
of the project cost, and the other 50 percent has to have come from
another source--a private source or a State or local government source.
In addition, there has to be a revenue stream that will have the
ability to pay this loan back. We want the loans paid back so that more
infrastructure can be built. So we are talking about a revenue stream
from, say, water bills, if it is a water desalination plant that is
going to provide water for economic development, or if it is a dam that
is going to provide electricity, we have electric bills. But we have to
have a revenue source. So we have narrowed our legislation so that it
will have the ability to pay back the loan. It is going to be something
that can work.
In its first 10 years, it is estimated that our BUILD Act would
provide $160 billion in financial assistance for major projects like
this. So if it would be highways or bridges, there would be a toll that
would be necessary for the transportation--something that would have a
revenue stream to pay these back but allow them to be built because the
private sector is sitting on the sidelines right now.
The bank would not replace our existing Federal funding mechanism,
but it would supplement them for the large projects that have a major
public benefit. The bank administering this fund would apply sound
underwriting principles to assess the risk of a loan or loan guarantee.
The BUILD Act would require an initial appropriation. Senator Kerry
and I have committed to identifying a reasonable offset. Additional
deficit spending has never been an option for the BUILD Act. So it
would be $10 billion that would be taken from a program today and put
into this long-term bank so we can match loans and loan guarantees with
private funds or State or local funds and do big things, not little
things, except in rural areas where there is a $25 million threshold.
It is going to be $100 million or more, and no more than 50 percent of
it can be from this program.
I appreciate the fact the bill before us incorporates some elements
of the BUILD Act and seeks to correct some of the flaws in the previous
infrastructure bank proposals that have been put
[[Page S7054]]
forward by the administration. However, I think the differences between
our BUILD Act and the legislation brought forward by the majority
leader take away the bipartisan appeal of the bill.
Let me also say there is in this legislation--in addition to the $10
billion in the long-term plan Senator Kerry and I introduced--a $50
billion stimulus package, which is why I couldn't possibly support this
bill. It is another $50 billion stimulus package. I appreciate the need
for investment--obviously, that is why I support the BUILD Act--but $50
billion in the bill in addition to the $10 billion bank is more of the
same type of stimulus that has not worked. It is more debt. Well, I
guess it isn't more debt because they pay for it with a tax, which is
even worse. The bill before us has the $50 billion added to it, and it
is paid for with a surtax on people who are making more than $1 million
a year, and mostly from their businesses. That is why I can't support
it. It proposes a permanent tax increase to pay for a temporary
spending program. That is bad policy in itself.
Raising taxes on incomes that would harm business owners and job
creators is part of the reason people aren't hiring today. The
President keeps talking about more taxes on business. On top of the
Obama health care plan, it is causing businesses not to hire people,
and we have a 9-percent unemployment rate in this country.
So I think it is important we defeat the bill before us and try to
come up with something that is more akin to the BUILD Act that Senator
Kerry and I have put forward. Data from an August 2011 Treasury report
says four out of five people who would be hit by the surtax are
business owners--the same people we need to encourage to create jobs.
I think it is going to be essential, if we are going to try to create
jobs in our country, that we stop talking about surtaxes on businesses.
We have to stop talking about more costs, and we have to stop the
overregulation. We have overregulation, the talk of more taxes, and we
have the Obama health care plan that is going to have fines and taxes
that are coming after the next election when that all comes together.
Businesspeople are seeing this and saying: I am going to hold where I
am now instead of hiring people and getting our economy jump-started.
So I think job creation should be the key of anything we do in this
Congress. It should be our focus. It should be the priority, and that
means we should have conditions in the private sector that will create
job growth. The bill before us today is simply another $50 billion
stimulus plan that we have already seen doesn't work, and it is paid
for with a new tax that is going to further stifle business hiring.
Now more than ever we must focus our efforts in this Congress on
commonsense measures that will jump-start the economy and make our
businesspeople think it is worth hiring. Then we will have a surge in
the private sector, which is the sector that can create jobs that will
last.
So I am not going to be able to vote for the bill before us, but I
would like to urge my colleagues to look at the Kerry-Hutchison bill
that offers a long term approach. It is not going to be immediate
because it would take up to a year to set up this bill. But we
shouldn't be just talking about today. We shouldn't just be talking
about something that will jump-start the economy between now and the
end of the year. We should also be looking at the long term as well. We
should be looking at the long term fiscal situation and how we assure
that not only are we trying to jump-start right now but that we are
looking forward to the future. That is what a true BUILD Act would do.
That is what an infrastructure bank that is put in place with solid
principles would do.
The Kerry-Hutchison bill is such a bill. The bill that is before us
is not.
I hope we will be able to have a chance for our bill to go through
the Finance Committee and to get suggestions from our colleagues on
ways to strengthen it. But the bill before us today would hurt our
economy, hurt job creation, and that is not the direction we should be
going.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I just left a meeting with President Obama
at the White House, and we discussed the jobs bill that is pending
before the Senate. It is a bill which the President put together and
presented to Congress almost 2 months ago. He invited the Republicans
at that time to come forward with their ideas, and hoped that we could
come up with a bipartisan approach to dealing with the 9-percent-plus
unemployment in our country and the 14 million people out of work, not
to mention another 10 million who are underemployed and could do better
with a better job.
We had a briefing this morning from an economist from labor and
business who talked about some of the realities facing America today,
and they are daunting: that one out of five men in this country is out
of work; that we have seen, since 1969, a 28-percent decline in the
purchasing power of working families in America; that we are seeing
growth rates which are at least anemic and maybe even worse in terms of
the future of our economy.
There are those who are criticizing the President and saying his
approach is all wrong. But what those who criticize him offer is
nothing. Nothing. There is no Republican plan for creating jobs in this
country. It is a litany of complaints that they have had about the
Federal Government for decades. For example, they argue there are too
many rules and regulations, and that is what is impeding job growth.
I spent 2 straight weeks going across Illinois visiting businesses,
large and small, that have done well in this recession. Not a single
one has raised that issue. None. I don't think that is a real issue. It
is an issue that we should be concerned about when it comes to job
creation. It is not an issue for causation.
Secondly, the Republican approach has been, and consistently so, that
the most important thing they can do is to protect the income taxes
paid by the wealthiest people in America. That is not why I was sent to
Congress. I believe my responsibility is to look to the common good and
beyond the wealthiest in this country, particularly to help working
families who are struggling so much.
The bill that will come up tomorrow will give the Republicans a
chance to join us again in part of the jobs bill which they used to
support. Some of the elements of that bill are pretty straightforward:
$60 billion that will be spent on infrastructure, $50 billion for
transportation funding, and another $10 billion for the infrastructure
bank. Of that, $27 billion is for highways across America. I will take
a big chunk of that in Illinois, and I will bet you will in Colorado.
There is plenty to be done out there to alleviate congestion, to make
the roads safer. There is another $9 billion for mass transit. We need
it desperately. Mass transit, of course, keeps people off the highways,
moves them back and forth to work in a most economical way. Our mass
transit systems in Illinois and most places could use a shot in the arm
with an investment for safety and for reliability. There is $4 billion
for high-speed inner city passenger rail corridors. That is working in
Illinois, proof positive, almost $1 billion in our State. We got the
money, incidentally, that the Republican Governor of Wisconsin said he
didn't want. We said we will take it in Illinois and the people in
Wisconsin can wave as the train goes by. We are going to put that money
into better rail beds, faster service, more reliability.
We broke all records in Amtrak passenger volume a few weeks ago, 30
million passengers, the most ever in any 1 year in Amtrak history.
Eighty-two percent of passengers say they are satisfied with the good
service of Amtrak. It is an enterprise that has a lot of support in
America, and we want it to grow. Unfortunately, the other side has come
out against it many times. So the
[[Page S7055]]
President has put $2 billion directly into Amtrak. They can use it for
new trains, new locomotives, and passenger cars built in America. How
about that? Good-paying jobs in our country. There is $3 billion for
TIGER and TIFIA grant loan assistance, $2 billion for FAA improvement
grants, $1 billion for FAA NextGen air traffic control. And for the
record, those of us who fly on airplanes every week think this is long
overdue. The air traffic control system in America is based on science
that is decades old and goes back to World War II, and it is time to
move beyond it. And we can, but we need to invest to make sure that
happens. Then there is $10 billion for the national infrastructure
bank. That is absolutely critical for us so that we can continue to
grow and continue to build.
When I look at this, what it translates into is pretty amazing. It
would put people to work upgrading 150,000 miles of road in America,
laying or maintaining 4,000 miles of train tracks, restoring 150 miles
of runways at airports, and putting in place a NextGeneration air
traffic control system to reduce time delays and add safety. The plan
includes $27 billion for roads and bridges, $9 billion, as I mentioned,
for transit systems, and money for a competitive grant program, $5
billion, $4 billion for construction of high-speed rail. It is no
wonder this has been supported not only by the labor unions--they want
to put people back to work--but by businesses all across America that
have an interest in highway construction.
The national infrastructure bank, of $10 billion, will leverage
private and public capital to fund a broad range of infrastructure
projects. The bank would be based on a bill introduced by Senators John
Kerry and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, which has been endorsed by the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So if you think these are all Democratic
ideas with no business support, one of the central elements here, the
infrastructure bank, has the support of the Chamber of Commerce. It
builds on legislation offered by Senators Rockefeller and Lautenberg,
and long-time bank champion Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro.
How do we pay for this? I think that is where the conversation starts
falling apart on the floor of the Senate. We pay for it and don't add
to the deficit by adding a new income tax surtax on those making over
$1 million a year. Listen carefully. Those making over $1 million a
year. So you have to already be making $20,000 a week before you pay
the first penny in new taxes, and the tax just applies to the
additional money over $1 million, and it is 0.7 percent.
I want to apologize, for the record. I think I misstated this earlier
when I said that for the first $100 of new income over $1 million, that
those who were millionaires would pay 7 cents more in taxes. I
misstated it. I missed it by a factor of 10. It turns out to be 70
cents instead of 7 cents. So the burden is 10 times what I suggested.
For every $100 a millionaire earns over $1 million, under this bill
to put America to work, they would have to pay 70 cents. The
Republicans have said, ``Unacceptable.'' It is unconscionable that we
would tax what they call the job creators.
We did a survey, incidentally, and found out that 1 percent of small
business owners make $1 million or more--1 percent. For 99 percent of
small business owners this is no tax increase, so it is not hurting job
creators. It is creating jobs and that is what we need to do, and I
cannot believe we are going to see this fail tomorrow again because we
do not want millionaires to pay 70 cents out of every $100 more they
make beyond $1 million, 70 cents in taxes. I think it is worth a lot
more than 70 cents to get America back to work, and I think the sooner
we do it, the better.
The Congressional Budget Office released a report that highlights the
trend in household income between 1979 and 2007. As I mentioned
earlier, American families, working families, have fallen further and
further behind. The data showed that the top 1 percent of earners saw a
dramatic increase in their share of household income. The remaining 99
percent were relatively unchanged.
The share of aftertax household income for the top 1 percent of the
population more than doubled, climbing to 17 percent in 2007 from 8
percent in 1979. For the top 1 percent of household earners, the
highest earners in America, average real aftertax household income grew
by 275 percent between 1979 and 2000.
What happen to the others? The top quintiles were receiving 53
percent of aftertax household income in 2007, up from 43 percent in
1979. People in the lowest fifth of the population received about 5
percent of aftertax household income--that is 20 percent of the people
receiving about 5 percent of aftertax household income in 2007, going
down from 7 percent in 1979.
People in the middle? Three-fifths of the population saw their share
of aftertax income decline by 2 to 3 percent in those years, 1979 to
2007.
If you wonder why people are sitting in tents in these ``occupy''
areas and why there is a rage across America, it has a lot to do with
this. People are working hard, playing by the rules, and falling
further and further behind. They are looking up at the top and saying,
I don't understand this. Why is it that the bank CEOs are getting
multimillion dollar bonuses and the management of my company is getting
a dramatic increase, while they tell us we are the most productive
workers in the world? It is understandable they want a fair shake, and
it starts with putting people to work.
With 14 million people out of work today, getting them jobs where
they can start paying taxes instead of drawing benefits is something
they want and we should want. It is worth saying to the wealthiest in
America, pay your fair share; maybe a little bit more than you did
today. If it makes America a stronger nation and the economy stronger,
my guess is those folks making over $1 million a year will prosper too.
That has been the story of America. I am sure that story will be
repeated.
The question tomorrow is whether there will be a single Republican
vote to support us. I am not certain. I have to think back. I do not
believe we have had one Republican vote supporting the President's jobs
bill so far, any aspect of it. We are going to keep trying, and the
American people expect us to.
The President spoke today at Key Bridge, right here between
Arlington, VA, and DC, a bridge right near where I went to college and
crossed hundreds of times. It is a bridge that needs some work and he
was making that point, let's put Americans to work right there,
creating good American jobs with this jobs bill. The President made a
point of noting that while we are talking about passing a jobs bill in
the Senate, the House of Representatives is talking about commemorative
coins and reaffirming our belief in the phrase ``In God we trust.'' The
President said in the speech there is no doubt in his mind that people
do trust in God, they just don't trust in the House of Representatives
to get the job done here, to pass a jobs bill that will get people back
to work.
That is the challenge we face. That is the challenge America faces,
and a bipartisan solution will serve the Nation well.
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. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight to
discuss an issue I have addressed many times in this Chamber over the
course of the past few years, and that is the urgent need for this
Congress to come together to pass policies that will spur job creation
in our country. I know the Presiding Officer, my colleague from
Colorado, has done so in powerful ways himself. I want to talk
specifically about the Rebuild America Jobs Act, legislation that is
pending as I stand here and as you sit here for Senate debate.
We both know that the Rebuild America Jobs Act is one component of
President Obama's comprehensive job creation package which he and the
American people have been urging us in this Congress to pass. But my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, have
uniformly filibustered the President's comprehensive
[[Page S7056]]
job creation package, so we are now attempting to debate the package in
smaller legislative pieces. This week we are attempting to begin debate
on the Rebuild America Jobs Act, which would put hundreds of thousands
of Americans back to work rebuilding our crumbling bridges, our roads,
and our airports. It is an important bill. It is worthy of this
Chamber's debate consideration. It should not be subject to another
filibuster that leaves the American people wondering why the heck we
cannot charter a path forward that would help create jobs and build our
economy.
Before I specifically address what is in the Rebuild America Jobs
Act, I thought it would be informative to briefly talk about how our
economy got in the rough place it is in today. We are 3 years removed
from a near global economic meltdown. If you think about it, in the
final year of the Bush administration we lost nearly 4.5 million jobs.
That is very significant. Our economy was bleeding over 800,000 jobs a
month when President Obama was sworn in. Credit markets were frozen,
job losses mounted, and there was real concern that we as a nation
risked slipping into another Great Depression. The Presiding Officer
remembers all too well, as we all do, the concerns and the dynamics
that were present at that point.
Fortunately, President Obama took a leadership role and the Congress
worked with him to take steps to avert a catastrophe. But we are left
with an enormous hole we are trying to climb out of. Beginning in 2009,
we slowed the economic free fall that we passed and we put an end to
the great recession--at least on paper. The Presiding Officer knows
that. But, as typical of any recession, let alone the great recession,
job growth has trailed economic growth.
Under the President's leadership, in the last year and a half, the
economy has added nearly 2 million jobs. We are nearly halfway
restoring the jobs lost under the Bush recession. Yet with unemployment
standing at 9.1 percent nationwide, we still have a long way to go.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, in order to speed up
economic recovery and bring down this stubborn unemployment rate, the
President presented to us a few months ago an ambitious job creation
package called the American Jobs Act. The bill, which consisted of
bipartisan proposals, as we well know, proposals that both parties had
supported time and time again, ran into a wall of uncooperative
partisanship in this Chamber and was grounded by a Republican
filibuster.
Mr. President, you and I both adhere to the concept of
bipartisanship, working with the other party, but this kind of
obstructionism has become way too common in the modern Senate and it
truly is getting in the way of our capacity, our desire to create jobs.
I say that in a plain and simple way. It has put in jeopardy our
future, frankly. We have to win a global economic race. We have traded
the burden of governing--I should say also the responsibility of
governing and legislating--for seemingly a set of ideological positions
and gamesmanship, and you know and I know Coloradoans are flat out
tired of it. They want their elected leaders to lead, to work across
the aisle and produce some results that will help working Americans,
will help small businesses.
I could not agree more with our citizens at home. I have to say that
I think impartial observers would say with regularity, tea party
interests in the Congress have taken our economy, have walked our
economy, driven our economy to the edge of a cliff with the repeated
threats of a government shutdown. If I could use the words of my
colleague from Colorado: Can you imagine a city government leader
allowing Denver, for example, to forfeit and default on its financial
obligations? It would not happen. It feels as though we are creating in
this Congress crises out of thin air, to rattle our economic markets.
You do not have to look back to August, to those dark days when the
debate over the debt ceiling and then threat of default was an economic
crisis completely of this element's own making. Then what followed?
What was predicted to follow: Our credit was downgraded and it had
economic effects.
I have been meeting with businesspeople this week who can give you
example after example. I was a businessman in the private sector. My
colleague from Colorado was. We know the Federal Government can only do
so much to grow jobs and positively affect the economy. But when you
have self-inflicted wounds, such as those that were produced in August,
you are going to stifle recovery and you are going to create real
business uncertainty in the private sector.
If we were serious about economic recovery, we would stop taking the
Federal budget to the brink of disaster at every opportunity. I know
there are people in this town who want to score points, but hard-
working Americans, hard-working Coloradoans, and our businesses
ultimately pay the price for this kind of increased uncertainty. If we
were serious about providing businesses, particularly small businesses,
with the capital they need, we would look for opportunities to do so.
One of the ways I believe the Senate could help would be to consider
and pass a bipartisan piece of legislation that I have introduced now
in a series of Congresses that will double the amount of loans credit
unions can offer to small businesses.
This would literally help tens of thousands of Americans. It would
allow businesspeople to create jobs for hundreds of thousands of
Americans and there would be no cost to the American taxpayer. This is
a form of lifting a regulation. Credit unions are overly regulated and
this simple change in the policy that applies to their access to the
small business sector would make a difference.
Instead--and this pains me to say--what I hear from the other side of
the aisle, what my Republican colleagues offer are proposals that rely
almost entirely on attacking the administration or suggesting that we
implement the failed policies that got us into this situation in the
past. This is one area where the commonsense rules that protect our
consumers and preserve our clean air and our clean water are designated
as the problem. There is, frankly, scant evidence to support their
regulatory boogeymen. They offer no hard evidence of these claims. I am
convinced the constant drumbeat about regulations is more harmful to
our country's job creation potential than the alleged effect of the
regulations themselves.
In fact, a recent Bloomberg study noted that this administration has
issued 5 percent fewer regulations than the Bush administration at the
same juncture. Economic data shows that these regulations have a minor
effect, if at all, on the economy. I have in hand studies that show the
right kinds of regulations, particularly when it comes to protecting
the public's health, that actually can create jobs. The Assistant
Secretary of Economic Policy at the Department of the Treasury recently
wrote: ``None of these data support the claim that regulatory
uncertainty is holding back hiring.''
On the contrary, she found that a lack of demand in the market and
global financial and economic conditions are the primary culprits for
our slow recovery.
This jives with what we hear generally from business leaders who, by
large margins, point to a lack of demand and uncertainty in the
marketplace as the primary barriers to their businesses, not Federal
regulation. What feeds this uncertainty and lack of demand is the
constant political threats to send our economy off a cliff and the
constant scare campaign that tells Americans to fear the Obama
administration.
I am not unsympathetic to the plight of the regulated sectors of our
economy. President Obama said it well. He said: ``We should have no
more regulation than the health, safety, and security of the American
people require,'' and we should make compliance with the ones we do
have as easy as possible. I don't want to overstate this, but that is
why I have taken steps to eliminate unnecessary Federal redtape, such
as easing the cap on how much credit unions can loan to small
businesses. But to constantly spread fear about our Government's work
to provide oversight and protect clean air and clean water is a further
uncertainty and worsen the lack of demand we see in the economy.
[[Page S7057]]
To break through this nonsense--and I don't use this word lightly--
this ``nonsense'' about the effect regulations are having, President
Obama has offered a real path forward based on sound economics and
bipartisan ideas. The Rebuild America Jobs Act was introduced
yesterday. As I said, it is a part of the President's overall
comprehensive approach. I hope we can move to debate this important
infrastructure bill.
We are going to have a vote tomorrow morning, I believe, that would
allow the Senate to move to actually debating the bill, and it would
significantly and immediately boost job creation across the country. We
would be able to ensure that we keep our roads and our bridges and
other infrastructure safe, while investing in new projects that will
stimulate businesses to invest and begin to create new, good-paying,
American-based jobs, the type of jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.
The American people, without question, overwhelmingly support the ideas
in this projobs bill. It is all about investing in the future of hard-
working Americans and making sure they have the tools to achieve the
American dream.
In Colorado alone, the investments for highway and transit projects
in the bill are estimated to support the creation of at least 6,400
local jobs. We would accept those jobs in a minute. We know those
people. We know the construction sector is one of the ones languishing
in our State. These are trained, committed Coloradans who are dying to
improve our State, to improve our infrastructure, to improve our
economy. Why is that important beyond our State or beyond our country?
We cannot compete if we do not have the infrastructure that allows
commercial activity to thrive. That has been one of our competitive
advantages for decades. Our competitors are not sitting back and
waiting for us. They are investing in their infrastructure now. We
don't have to go any further than China, India, Africa, South America.
Those countries and continents are investing in their infrastructure.
What was heartening is that recently we have seen a great coalition,
one that maybe we could mirror in the Congress, to support the
President's proposal. That is the AFL-CIO, the leading labor
organization in the United States that speaks for all the various
unions across our country, allied with business interests such as the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These are diverse interests. They are often
at loggerheads. They have come together to urge us to pass such a
measure that would build America.
The bill will not solve all our infrastructure challenges. It will
not respond to every infrastructure opportunity we have. For example,
we ought to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. That is
another less-than-valiant effort we made this year. As the Presiding
Officer knows, we left in August with the FAA not funded and that cost
us some economic growth. It put people out of work. Even for a week or
two, that was too much time to be out of work. We ought to fully
reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration and in the process
upgrade our national system of air travel.
I served in the House. I worked on the NextGen concept, which would
upgrade the way in which we direct airplanes to travel across our
country using satellite technology. Now we use radar technology. That
is a 20th century technology. We need a 21st century technology. So
let's pass a full authorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.
We ought to pass a robust highway bill. For too long we have not had
the full funding and full direction on a robust highway bill. I wish to
applaud the bipartisan work that has gone into that. Senators Boxer,
Inhofe, and Vitter have taken the first steps on a bipartisan proposal
to do just that.
I note that many of my Republican colleagues object to the Rebuild
America Jobs Act on the grounds that we would pay for it with
additional revenue from those who make annually more than $1 million. I
wish to point out that the American people disagree with them. Polls
show close to 70 percent of Americans support offsetting the costs of
the bill--because we are going to pay for this. We heard that message
loudly and clearly; that those who make over $1 million a year could
help shoulder more of the burden. I know I talked to people who have
done quite well at home in Colorado who are willing to make that kind
of investment if they see the return on the investment. The American
people are ahead of us on this. They know it is a matter of simple
fairness.
If I were in an ideal world--therefore, I am running the show--I
would make some changes to the bill to address our broader
infrastructure challenges. I would fold in the FAA; I would fold in the
highway bill I mentioned. But let's take the first modest step. Let's
open the floor of the Senate to debate on the Rebuild America Jobs Act
just like the American Jobs Act more generally. We could discuss how to
pay for it and what are the best mechanisms. Perhaps there is another
way to pay for it, but let's begin the process.
I wish to close by focusing on our home State of Colorado. I return
home, as the Chair does, almost every weekend and take the time to hear
out my fellow citizens and those who hired me to represent them in the
Senate. They will briefly complain about our inability to get things
done, as we know, even the simplest things it seems like this year. I
know my colleagues have similar experiences. But they quickly move to
what they are doing at home and how they are making their lives better.
I get energized by their commitment to working in their own
communities. The other thing I don't hear much at home is a litmus test
as to what political party we are a member of or what their concerns
are about who is up for reelection next year. They come together all
across our State, in Alamosa and Durango and Grand Junction, Sterling,
and the list goes on and on of communities that come together. That
isn't to say there isn't disagreement or that the solution comes easy,
but they don't deal in the kind of partisan bickering that has become
so common here.
I know the Presiding Officer feels that sense of possibility at home.
So let's match that sense of possibility. Let's match their energy. We
can take some heart from the fact that our economy is beginning to show
some signs of improvement.
The Department of Commerce report showed a 2.5-percent growth in
Gross Domestic Product. That is welcomed news and signals that we are
slowly making progress. I want to underline unemployment remains
stubbornly, maddeningly high at 9.1 percent. We must do better. I hope
we can start by a minimum voting tomorrow to at least debate the
Rebuild America Jobs Act.
Let's end the filibusters, particularly when it comes to starting a
debate. Literally, we are not even going to debate this bill. If we
were to open the debate tomorrow, in a few days' time, we would have to
have an additional cloture vote to end debate on the vote itself. If
the minority and my Republican colleagues don't want to move to end
debate, they certainly have that option at that time.
Let's keep faith with the description of the Senate, which was one of
my motivations for wanting to represent Coloradans here, which is the
most deliberative legislative body in the world. If we are the Chamber
that many look to for debate, for time spent to understand the best
policies for the country, let's keep faith with that. Let's keep faith
with our obligations as Senators. So the time for filibusters is over.
Let's go to work on behalf of the American people.
I remain optimistic. I think we can bring forth creativity and a
sense of cooperation. That is what we see at home. That is what happens
in Colorado. That is what happens in all the States that are
represented here. That is the American way. Let's bring the American
way to the Senate and put Americans back to work.
I thank the Chair for his patience, his interest, his partnership,
his service to the State of Colorado and the United States itself.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S7058]]
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday,
November 3, 2011, when the Senate resumes consideration of the motion
to proceed to S. 1769, the Rebuild America Jobs Act, it be in order for
the Republican leader or his designee to move to proceed to S. 1786;
that the motions to proceed be debated concurrently, with the time
until 3 p.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees
prior to votes on the motions to proceed in the following order: Reid
motion to proceed to S. 1769 and McConnell or designee motion to
proceed to S. 1786; that the motions to proceed each be subject to a
60-affirmative-vote threshold; that if the Reid motion to proceed is
agreed to, the vote on the McConnell or designee motion to proceed be
delayed until disposition of S. 1769; finally, that the cloture motion
with respect to the motion to proceed to S. 1769 be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________