[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1441-S1454]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ACT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1813, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1813) to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and
highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Reid amendment No. 1761, of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 1762 (to amendment No. 1761), to change
the enactment date.
Reid motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, with instructions, Reid
amendment No. 1763, to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 1764 (to (the instructions) amendment
No. 1763), of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 1765 (to amendment No. 1764), of a
perfecting nature.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thought I would use this opportunity
to inform our colleagues and anyone following this transportation
debate as to where we are.
Yesterday, we had an opportunity to stop the filibuster and get right
to our bill and get it done and protect 1.8 million jobs and create
another 1 million. We didn't do that--pretty much on a party line vote.
The filibuster continues.
The hopeful sign we had was right before the vote when the Republican
leader said he was open to reaching an agreement. I was hopeful that
agreement would not contain extraneous votes. I don't think that is
going to happen. I think we are going to face extraneous votes--to
repeal Clean Air Act rules, to open our States to drilling that rely on
fishing and tourism and recreation when we know the oil companies have
millions of acres they can drill on without going to these areas that
are so essential to our economic future just as they are to our
environmental future. It looks as though we are going to face that and
a vote probably on the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Again, I am very sad we could not come together when we have a bill
that got an 85-to-11 vote to proceed to it. We still have to face a
filibuster and still we had to lose two votes to cut off debate. But
the Senate, being the Senate, this is it.
So now we have to vote. The two leaders can agree. I hope they can
work together to achieve an agreement whereby we would have votes on
these extraneous matters, and, hopefully, we would not have a prolonged
debate on them because this is a highway bill. Thousands and thousands
of businesses are waiting for us to act. By March 31, if we don't act,
everything stops. In your State and mine all these highway projects
will shut down with no Federal contribution at all, which is most of
them.
I am hopeful. I cannot report to the Senate that we have an agreement
now, but I hope we will have one at some point today. Once we do have
that, we have a path forward; and if we work together in goodwill, we
can get this done.
Frankly, I don't think we have a choice but to get it done.
Everything, as I said, expires March 31. Here it is March 7 and we have
a few days left before this whole thing blows up, and we will have no
highway bill and people will be laid off.
In this economic time, that is the last result we need. We need to
fix our highways, bridges, and roads.
Madam President, the occupant of the chair is a proud member of the
Environment and Public Works Committee. She has worked hard to get us
to this day. I know she has worked hard to bring this debate to a close
and get a path forward. We can all hope that happens today.
I will be back on the floor with Senator Inhofe. I am hopeful the two
of us can lead us through this bill and get this bill done. Then I
think we can have the House follow our example of Democrats and
Republicans working together. If they start that over there, they will
have the bill quicker than they think, and we can finally put this
behind us and send a message that we are functioning.
This concept of a Federal highway system was brought to us by a
Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower. He understood logistics better
than most. He knew we could not have a thriving economy if we could not
move goods and people. So I am hopeful. I will be back on the Senate
floor when we have an agreement and we can move forward.
I will yield the floor, as I know the Senator from Vermont is here. I
always look forward to his comments.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
[[Page S1442]]
Citizens United
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, over 2 years ago, the Supreme Court
rendered what I consider to be one of the worst decisions in the
history of the United States Supreme Court, and that is regarding the
case of Citizens United. In that case, the Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4
decision, determined that corporations are people, and they have first
amendment rights to spend as much money as they want on elections. I
think when that decision first came about a lot of people in this
country didn't pay attention to it. They looked at it as an abstract
legal decision, not terribly important.
Well, today the American people understand the disastrous impact that
decision has had because what they are seeing right now on their
television screens all across this country is a handful of billionaires
and large corporations spending huge amounts of money on the political
process, and the American people are asking themselves: Is this really
what people fought and died for when they put their lives on the line
to defend American democracy? Is American democracy evolving into a
situation where a small number of billionaires can put hundreds of
millions of dollars into the political process in this State and that
State, in Presidential elections, and then elect the people who will
govern this country?
I believe very strongly the American people do not think that is
appropriate, and I am very happy to say that yesterday, on Town Meeting
Day in the State of Vermont--I think my small State has begun the
process to overturn this disastrous Citizens United decision. We had 55
towns at town meetings demand the Congress move forward to overturn
Citizens United and restore American democracy to the concept of one
person, one vote.
What we do on Town Meeting Day in Vermont, all over our State, is
people come together and argue about the school budget. They argue
about the town budget. They debate the issues, and then they vote. What
people in Vermont are saying is they do not want to see our democracy
devolve into a situation where corporations are determining who will
govern our Nation.
So I am very proud that in the State of Vermont just yesterday 55
separate towns voted to urge the Congress to move forward on a
constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. I hope we will
heed what the towns in Vermont are saying. I hope other towns and
cities in States all over the country will move forward in that
direction. I hope the day will come--sooner rather than later--where
the Congress will entertain a constitutional amendment and bring it
back to the States.
Madam President, at this difficult moment in American democracy, it
is imperative that we stand and reclaim our democracy and say to the
millionaires and billionaires and the large corporations: Sorry, this
country belongs to all of us. This democracy belongs to all of us and
not just to you.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record the names of the 55 towns that passed resolutions yesterday to
overturn Citizens United.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Bolton, Brandon, Brattleboro, Bristol, Burlington, Calais,
Charlotte, Chester, Chittenden, Craftsbury, East Montpelier,
Fayston, Fletcher, Greensboro, Granville, Hardwick, Hartland,
Hinesburg, Jericho, Marlboro, Marshfield, Monkton, Moretown,
Montpelier, Newfane, Peru, Plainfield, Randolph, Richmond,
Ripton, Roxbury, Rochester, Rutland City, Rutland Town,
Sharon, Shelburne, South Burlington, Thetford Center,
Tunbridge, Underhill, Waitsfield, Walden, Waltham, Warren,
West Haven, Williamstown, Williston, Windsor, Winooski,
Woodbury, Woodstock, Worcester,
I am proud to sponsor a constitutional amendment which would overturn
Citizens United and return the power to regulate elections to Congress
and the states. In the coming weeks and months I hope to see more
towns, cities, counties, and states pass similar resolutions.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an issue of
great importance to millions of my constituents in New York, our
Nation's transportation system, particularly public transit. This is
the very lifeline that millions rely on to get to and from work, to
bring their paychecks home every single day to their families at night.
Various proposals that have been put forth throughout the course of the
debate in both the House and the Senate would actually slash funding
for mass transit. The proposal advanced by the House Republicans last
month to eliminate the mass transit account of the highway funds was a
stunning misunderstanding of our Nation's transit needs. Cutting off
public transit from its traditional funding source without providing
viable alternatives is irresponsible. In fact, former Congressman and
now Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called the House bill ``the
worst transportation bill'' he had ever seen.
Let me state some clear facts. New York's Metropolitan Transit
Authority is the Nation's largest public transportation system,
operating over 8,000 rail and subway cars and nearly 6,000 buses. On an
average weekday, nearly 8.5 million Americans ride these trains,
subways, and buses operated by the MTA to commute to work or to visit
the city, which generates enormous economic revenue, not just for New
York but for our country. Moving these riders into cars flies in the
face of any sound environmental public policy and furthers our
dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
Increasing costs for our Nation's transit riders should be rejected
out of hand by the Senate. I will continue to work with my colleagues
to ensure that we do what is responsible and that we maintain transit
funding to encourage the use of mass transit and reduce our dependence
on foreign oil. I understand we have many very difficult decisions to
make as we debate this bill, but I think stopping New York's transit
system in its tracks is simply not a credible solution.
I also have a few amendments for this bill. Each of them is equally
important and they address different issues. The first one I wish to
address affects me as a mom of two young boys who I know will want to
be driving at 16. Kids all across America cannot wait for that day when
they get their driver's license. But there are terrible statistics
about teen deaths. In fact, one statistic showed 11 teens die every
single day because of car accidents. I know every family in America has
been affected by those horrible high school tragedies, of kids dying in
a car accident on their way home from the big game, on their way from
the prom, every scenario we can imagine.
We have to give our teens better tools, better training, so when they
get to become full-time drivers and have all the various permissions
allowed, they are ready for that. We can imagine the scenarios in our
own minds as parents, I know. Think about texting and driving. One
cannot imagine how deadly distracted driving is in our country. Imagine
the young driver who does not have a lot of judgment. Imagine the young
driver who has five other kids in the car and they are coming back from
the big game and they are all excited and they are all listening to the
music and it is nighttime. Those are risky situations where we know if
we give those drivers more training before they are in those risky
situations, they will be able to handle them better.
Experts agree the graduated driver's license, basically gradually
phasing teens into the driving experience with different
responsibilities and different permissions as they get older, is the
way to begin to address some of these risks. It has been a proven
effective method in many States that have already instituted graduated
driver's licenses. So I think we need to have a national priority, a
priority that says they must as a State put in some basic training
requirements, some measure of graduated driver's license, to ensure
when these kids get on the road they have the skills and tools they
need to keep themselves safe, their passengers safe, and the other
drivers on the road are safe as well.
[[Page S1443]]
As parents, as people who set public policy for our Nation, we should
be making the safety and well-being and the lives of at least those 11
teens every day who die a priority, and this is a proven way to do it
and we can do it.
The second amendment basically increases economic opportunity. New
York is unusual in that we are a border State. We share a border with
Canada. There is so much opportunity for cross-border transactions and
cross-border commerce. This change is very simple. It gives authority
to our States to invest in critical border crossings, such as freight
and passenger rail systems. By providing this very simple change,
States such as New York, California, Vermont, and Texas will be able to
choose to enhance these crossings and increase many more economic
engines to address our tough economy.
The last amendment, equally important, is about jobs. How do we
create the economic engine to get America working again? One way is to
increase our pipeline, actually do better training for jobs that are
available. One of the ways we can do that is this pilot program,
already proven effective elsewhere, the Construction Careers
Demonstration Project, amendment No. 1648. Basically, it is a proven
commonsense strategy for at-risk workers to give them an opportunity to
be trained in the building and construction trades so they find
employment, they provide for their families, and we reduce
unemployment. It is a very simple change. It is just a pilot program.
I urge my colleagues to support these three amendments and focus on
how we can pass a good, useful, beneficial transportation bill which
will get our economy moving.
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. McCASKILL. 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. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business
for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tribute To Judge Jimmie Edwards
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a new and
successful program for at-risk youth in St. Louis--the Innovative
Concept Academy--and about its founder, my friend, Judge Jimmie
Edwards. Before I talk about the school and the incredible work Judge
Edwards has done in the St. Louis community, I wish to spend a moment
talking about his childhood roots.
Judge Edwards grew up on the north side of St. Louis in the shadows
of the city's Pruitt-Igoe housing project. The residents of this
housing project faced many challenges, including drug and gang
activity, violence, and sometimes acute poverty. But through
discipline, hard work, and determination, Judge Edwards rose above
these circumstances. He earned his bachelor's and law degrees from St.
Louis University before being appointed to the State bench in 1992, and
for 4 years he has served as the chief judge of the St. Louis Family
Court's Juvenile Division.
During his service on the bench, Judge Edwards became increasingly
concerned about the number of young repeat offenders coming into his
courtroom time and time again, only to be sent back to the same
troubled environment that negatively influenced their behavior in the
first place. From his own experience, he knew that offering these kids
the opportunity for a proper education and for mentoring was absolutely
critical to breaking the cycle.
In 2009 Judge Edwards, together with the St. Louis public school
district, the Family Court Juvenile Division, and the nonprofit
organization MERS/Goodwill Industries, founded Innovative Concept
Academy, a unique educational opportunity for juveniles who had already
been expelled from the city's public schools and who were on parole.
These young people, whom many would have given up on, found a
formidable advocate in Judge Edwards and the academy. From the
beginning, Innovative Concept Academy has been devoted to helping at-
risk youth achieve success through education, rehabilitation, and
mentorship. Its mission--to enrich the learning environment for some of
our most troubled kids--has resulted in second chances for these young
men and women to dramatically improve their lives.
At the start, Judge Edwards planned on providing educational and
mentoring services to 30 students who had been suspended or expelled
due to Missouri's Safe Schools Act. When he asked the St. Louis public
schools for a building to use for the program for 30 students, they
asked him if he wouldn't mind taking on the responsibility of 200 more.
This was a challenge he accepted with his usual enthusiasm and can-do
attitude.
During the first year of its existence, the academy saw 246 students
move through its doors. Today the academy teaches at-risk youth between
ages 10 and 18 and has an enrollment of over 375. Some of these
students are visiting our Nation's Capital this week with Judge
Edwards, his wife Stacy, his daughter Ashley, and his son John, along
with chaperones. Here today along with Judge Edwards and his family and
chaperones are students Angel Tharpe, Deyon Smith, Tyrell Williams, and
Nadia Jones. These are young men and women who have turned their lives
around with the help of Judge Edwards and the academy and who serve as
an inspiration to others in the community and, frankly, an inspiration
to me. I am so proud of what they have been able to accomplish.
The Innovative Concept Academy provides these students and many like
them with so many important services--a quality education in a safe
environment; one-on-one mentoring with school staff, counselors, deputy
junior officers, and police; an array of extracurricular and
afterschool activities, many of which are often new experiences for
these students, including golf, chess, dance, classical music, and
creative writing; uniforms, meals, and so many other necessities are
also provided; and with tough love and important lessons about
discipline, respect, anger management, goal setting, and follow-
through.
All of this allows the students to meet their full potential, and St.
Louis has seen positive results already. The academy has an attendance
rate of over 90 percent. Let me repeat that. The academy has an amazing
attendance rate of over 90 percent, and we are seeing significant
improvement in these young people's grades. And the students are
responding positively. For example, at the end of the first semester at
the academy, the suspensions of 40 of the students ended and the
students were supposed to return to their home school. Almost every
student asked if they could stay at the academy because they know the
academy is a special place where they can improve their lives.
The innovative program has garnered national attention. Judge Edwards
has appeared as a guest on a number of major network shows and most
recently was honored by People Magazine as one of its 2011 Heroes of
the Year. But, for him, it is not about the magazines or the
interviews; for him, it is still about the kids.
I am proud that Judge Edwards hails from my home State of Missouri
and from my hometown of St. Louis. His compassion for those whom
society may have given up on and his commonsense and innovative
approach to solving the problems facing some of our young men and women
are inspirational. He is compelled by his duty to serve and uplift the
next generation no matter what the circumstances. He said it best when
he observed that ``if the community, and that includes judges, does not
take it upon itself to educate the children, then our community and
what we stand for will be no more.'' This notion that we all succeed
when we work together with a common cause and unified purpose is
central to our American identity.
I ask my distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating the
Innovative Concept Academy and Judge Jimmie Edwards. The success of the
academy and Judge Edwards' dedication and service to the St. Louis
community should be an inspiration for everybody serving in this
Chamber. If we could have a little bit of Judge Jimmie Edwards'
attitude about working together, not worrying about taking the credit,
and a can-do attitude, it is amazing what we could accomplish on behalf
of the American people.
[[Page S1444]]
Mr. President, I yield the floor for my distinguished colleague, the
Senator from Missouri, Mr. Blunt.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for all the comments
she has made about Judge Edwards, his family, and the school. This is
truly a remarkable story. I know both of our staffs have been telling
us for some time now of incident after incident of young people's lives
that are being changed by this school, by a judge who decided he needed
to get outside the courtroom to make a difference in the lives of kids.
In fact, People magazine calls this the ``School of Last Resort.'' It
is a chance, it is an opportunity of which many are taking advantage.
Judge Ohmer, presiding judge of the circuit where Judge Edwards
works, put out the following statement. He said:
The editors of PEOPLE magazine have selected St. Louis
Juvenile Court Judge Jimmie Edwards as one of the
publication's `Heroes of the Year' for 2011. Judge Edwards
was profiled in a recent issue of the magazine and the
announcement was made in the November 7, 2011 issue.
Quoted in this comment from his colleague, the magazine said:
``We chose men and women who reached across boundaries to
help strangers or worked within their communities to deepen
bonds. From Logan, Utah . . . to Judge Jimmie Edwards of St.
Louis who started a school for wayward teens, the 2011
winners never let daunting odds stand in their way,'' said
Managing Editor [of People magazine] Larry Hackett.
In 2009, after watching a string of teen offenders come through his
courtroom, Judge Edwards decided to take action. Along with 45
community partners, he took over an abandoned school that he and I were
talking about earlier today and opened the Innovative Concept Academy.
Providing strict discipline, counseling, and programs such as, as my
colleague mentioned, music, chess, and creative writing, the center
literally has changed life after life of young person after young
person, giving them the opportunity to graduate from high school and
lead successful lives after they had been expelled from high school at
an earlier time.
These winners each received an award of $10,000 that they were able
to use for their favorite causes, and certainly Judged Edwards has this
cause and others.
Quoting Judge Edwards:
I am thrilled that our school has received this recognition
but also amazed at the other individuals across America
profiled by the magazine.
Judged Edwards is married to Stacy, and Stacy is here today in
Washington with two of their three children--Amy, Ashley, and John.
His colleagues at the circuit court admire what he has done. The
families involved, the teachers involved, the community partners
involved admire what has happened here. MERS Goodwill, the St. Louis
public schools, according to the judge himself, court employees, all
the teachers and staff and volunteers at the school have made a
difference in the Innovative Concept Academy.
Judge Edwards said:
By supporting our school St. Louis is refusing to give up
on troubled juveniles and, in turn, the students are proving
that hope for a better life is a universal dream.
What a great story this is. His colleagues see him as a hero among
us. People magazine has talked about this. I notice and like in the
People magazine article what they refer to as Judge Jimmie's rules.
Here are three of Judge Jimmie's rules.
One headline is, ``No Saggy Pants.''
Like mumbling, bad grammar and rudeness, droopy pants are
big no-nos [at this school]. ``Kids need to understand what
it means to be civilized,'' says Edwards.
Another rule: ``No Loitering.''
Edwards wears his kids out with after-school activities.
``I expect them to be so tired that they can't do anything
but go [home and go] to sleep, get back up and start [the
day] all over again.''
Then maybe the best rule of all: ``No Quitting.''
``As long as you're trying,'' says Edwards, ``you're
succeeding.''
This is being proven time after time, day after day: One person can
make a difference, and the way this one judge has made a difference is
inspiring a lot of other people to come together and make that
difference, and then inspiring these kids and others who care about
them to decide that this is the school of last resort, but the school
of last resort can produce lots of great results, and we are seeing
that happen. I am proud this is going on in our State and hope that
Judge Edwards's example becomes an example for community after
community around this country.
I yield back the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning
business and engage in a colloquy with my colleagues for up to 20
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
A Second Opinion
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor, as I do week after
week, as a physician who has practiced medicine in Wyoming for almost
one-quarter of a century to give a doctor's second opinion about the
health care law, a law that I believe is bad for patients, it is bad
for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those
patients--and terrible for taxpayers.
March 23 of this year, a little over 2 weeks from now, will mark the
second anniversary of the President's health care law being signed. Two
years ago at this time, Democrats in Congress said the Americans would
learn to love this law. As a matter of fact, on March 28, 2010, the
senior Senator from New York Mr. Schumer said: As people learn what's
exactly in the bill, 6 months from now by election time--the election
of 2010, remember--this is going to be a plus. Because the parade of
horribles, particularly the worries that the average middle-income
person has that this is going to affect them negatively, those will
have vanished and they will see it will affect them positively in many
ways.
Here we are 2 years later. We know that is definitely not the case.
The health care law is more unpopular today than it was when it was
passed and Nancy Pelosi famously said: First, you have to pass it
before you get to find out what is in it. The more the American people
have learned about the President's new law, the less they like it.
Maybe that is why the White House and Democrats in Congress are hoping
this 2-year anniversary of the health care law passes quietly and
without great fanfare, while Republicans believe the American people
deserve to know exactly how this law is going to impact them as well as
the health care they receive.
So in the lead-up to the second anniversary of the law, I am going to
talk about specific ways the law has actually made it worse for the
American people--something I believed from the beginning would happen
and now, 2 years later, we are seeing is specifically the case: It has
hurt jobs, it has driven up costs, it has given Washington more control
over Americans' health care, and I believe it has weakened Medicare.
Today, Senator Cornyn and I are going to focus on how the law
threatens Medicare and specifically our seniors trying to get a doctor,
our seniors trying to get health care, and how this new Washington
board, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, has had that
impact. It is an unaccountable board. It is a group of unelected
bureaucrats who will decide how to fund the care that is covered by
Medicare.
So I come to the floor with my colleague Senator Cornyn. He has been
traveling around the State of Texas as I have been traveling around the
State of Wyoming talking with seniors, visiting with them, asking about
their needs. They have great concerns about what is happening with this
health care law, to the point that this week the House of
Representatives is actually working in a bipartisan way to repeal this
Board, these unelected, Washington-appointed bureaucrats. To me,
[[Page S1445]]
it is the commission that is going to ration seniors' care and make it
harder for our seniors to see a health care provider and get the care
they need.
I know Senator Cornyn is leading the effort in the Senate to work
with the House in an effort to repeal this payment board. I know
Senator Cornyn is doing this in an effort to protect our seniors, to
make sure our seniors get the care they need. So I would ask that the
Senator possibly share with me and others the concerns he has and the
concerns he has heard and ways he is hoping to address them.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am happy to respond to my colleague from
Wyoming Senator Barrasso, who has been not only a Senator but a medical
doctor and who has been on the receiving end of government policy, that
while it may be well intended, backfires, particularly this bipartisan
support now we have seen in the House of Representatives Energy and
Commerce Committee yesterday, where they voted to repeal this
Independent Payment Advisory Board--Independent Payment Advisory Board,
IPAB--not iPOD, IPAB.
The reason this is so important, and I would like to ask my
colleague, from his long experience as a medical practitioner, the
purpose of this 15-member, unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy to
actually set prices for health care, what happens if, to the exclusion
of all other health care reform, the IPAB or the Federal Government
generally cuts reimbursement to providers? It would seem to me we get a
phenomenon that we get the illusion of coverage, but we have no real
access to health care.
The experience we have had in Texas is, for example, Medicaid and the
President's health care bill puts a whole lot of people into Medicaid,
but only about one-third of Medicaid patients can find a doctor who
will see a new Medicaid patient in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, one of
the most populous parts of our State. I know, particularly in many
rural areas--and I know Wyoming has a big rural population as well--
many times it is hard for seniors to find a doctor who will see a new
Medicare patient, again, because reimbursement rates are so low.
So I would like to ask the Senator from Wyoming what his experience
has been in that area.
Mr. BARRASSO. My experience is exactly what the Senator describes. He
said the words ``the illusion of coverage.'' When the President talked
about the health care law, so often he wasn't actually talking about
care; he was using the word ``coverage,'' and he was trying to use
those words interchangeably. But coverage is not care, because someone
having a card doesn't mean they can actually see a doctor. We see that
with Medicaid now, with its low levels of reimbursement. With seniors
already having trouble getting in to see a physician, this has a
significant impact when a board, an independent payment advisory
board--15 unelected bureaucrats--decides they are going to decide how
much to pay for a doctor's visit, how much they are going to pay a
hospital for a bypass surgery or a hip replacement, which is an area of
my specialty. That hospital has to decide if they are going to provide
that service. That doctor gets to decide whether they are going to see
that patient.
In rural communities, if the reimbursement is so low--and I have
heard this from hospital administrators in Wyoming. If the
reimbursement level is so low for a procedure that is primarily, if not
exclusively, done on people of Medicare age--and we can think of those
things that are more likely to happen with someone over the age of 65--
the hospital may ultimately decide they cannot continue to afford to
provide those services and keep the doors open to a hospital. So
seniors in that community will then be denied access to the care in
their own community because the hospital will no longer do or provide
that service, whether it is bypass heart surgery, whether it is total
joint replacement. That senior then has to travel greater distances to
try to find someplace to do that. The hospital may look at
reimbursement for a procedure or different kinds of technology and say:
The reimbursement is so low we are not going to upgrade our x-ray
equipment or our MRI machine. Again, that community would suffer.
Even during the debate of the health care law, we heard in many rural
communities that 1 in 10 hospitals was likely to actually be so
financially stressed by the health care law that they may end up having
to close their doors over the next 10 years. I am hearing that in
Wyoming. But it is because of this Board that the President wants to be
the one to essentially, it looks to me, do the rationing of care.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Wyoming, it seems
to me that what the intent is behind this Independent Payment Advisory
Board and the President's health care law, sometimes called the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act--I think it needs to be named
``Unaffordable Care Act'' for reasons we can go into later.
But the purpose behind it we can all understand; that is, to try to
contain health care costs and spending by the Federal Government
because, of course, health care inflation is going up much faster than
regular inflation of the Consumer Price Index.
It strikes me that, as in a lot of the policy debates we have in
Washington and Congress, we all agree we need to do something to
contain costs, but we disagree about the means to achieve that
affordability that we all know we need and to contain the inflation of
health care costs. I would like to ask my colleague, rather than have
Congress outsource its responsibility in this area to an unelected,
unaccountable group of 15 bureaucrats, from which there is no appeal
and which would have the consequence, as he said, of limiting people's
access--because if all they are going to do is cut provider payments to
hospitals and doctors, then fewer and fewer doctors and hospitals are
going to be able to see those patients. Does he see an alternative that
would perhaps help contain costs more by using transparency, patient
choice, and good old-fashioned American competition? I am thinking, in
particular, about the rare success we have had in the health care area
containing costs in the Medicare Part D Program, to me, perhaps a model
even where seniors have a choice between competing health care plans
and where they get their prescription drugs. But because of the choices
they have and the natural competition that occurs, we get market forces
disciplining costs. Indeed, it is a very popular program, but the
projected costs for Medicare Part D have come in at about 40 percent
less than what was originally projected. It strikes me that is one of
the missing elements with outsourcing of this responsibility to this
unelected, unaccountable group of bureaucrats, where the only thing
they try to do is cut provider payments.
Does the Senator see any alternative along the lines of Medicare Part
D or otherwise?
Mr. BARRASSO. I think the two key words I heard the Senator from
Texas say are ``choice'' and ``competition'' because those things put
the patient at the center. It is patient-centered care, not government-
centered care, not insurance company-centered care but patient-centered
care. It is something we have been talking about for years on the
Senate floor, at least on this side of the aisle, to put the patient at
the center to give them the choice, as well as have the availability of
the competition.
The concern I have--and I was at a statewide meeting in Wyoming with
a number of our veterans and their families and I asked the simple
question: How many believe, under the health care law as passed, that
they are actually going to ultimately end up paying more for their
health care? Every hand went up, every hand. Over 100 people there in
Casper and over 100 hands went up. They all believe they are going to
end up paying more under the President's health care plan than they
would have had it not been passed. That is what we are seeing from a
lot of the research as well, the admittance that the costs are going up
even faster under the health care law than if it hadn't been passed.
Then we ask the critical question the Senator from Texas has referred
to about the availability of care, the quality of care. If we asked the
question: How many believe the availability of their care and the
quality of their care under the President's new health care law will go
down, again, every hand in the room went up.
These are all people who believe this health care law, crammed
through Congress, crammed down the throats of the
[[Page S1446]]
American public at a time when they were shouting: No, we don't want
this--the American people believe it made it worse and that they are
going to end up paying more and getting less for something they didn't
ask for at all.
The American public did have concerns from the beginning, which is
what generated the whole discussion about health care and reform. What
patients are looking for is the care they need, from the doctor they
want, at a cost they can afford. Under the President's health care law,
they are losing all three.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his
response. I think that shows there is an alternative to this
outsourcing of our responsibilities to try to make care more affordable
to this group of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and cutting
provider payments, which actually limits access to health care.
But I tell my colleague from Wyoming, I had an experience a couple
years ago visiting with some folks at Whole Foods, the grocery chain
that is headquartered in Austin, TX, where I live. John Mackey, the
CEO, is very proud of this. They vote each year on their health care
plan. What they have chosen--the employees choose year after year--is a
high-deductible insurance coverage for catastrophic losses, but then to
cover the rest of their care it is a health savings plan that actually
Whole Foods makes contributions into, which is owned by the worker and
could then be used to pay for their health care for their regular sort
of routine needs.
I remember sitting at the table with a number of the workers and
talking about why they like this alternative so much, and it is clear:
Because it gave them the choices we all would want for ourselves and
our families in terms of the doctor we want and the kinds of treatment
we want, and it provided incentives because people were spending not
the government's money, some sort of a credit card they would never see
the bill for, but they were spending their own money in their health
savings account; thus, realigning incentives for not only providers but
also for consumers in a way that creates more transparency, more
choices, and the kind of market discipline to hold down the costs.
I ask my colleague, my impression is, while there was great division
in Congress over the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act, what some people call ObamaCare--60 Democrats voted for it,
40 Republicans voted against it in the Senate--that on this issue, on
the IPAB, Independent Payment Advisory Board, there actually is
bipartisan support, particularly in the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, to take out that particular provision because people now, on
further examination, have seen how it could actually backfire in
limiting people's access to health care.
I would ask my colleague, does he see a way for us, on a bipartisan
basis, to narrowly address that provision while we continue to wait on
the Supreme Court of the United States to rule on the constitutionality
of the individual mandate? We don't know how things, such as the State-
based insurance exchanges, will operate and the subsidies and whether
those are going to be affordable. But on the narrow issue of repealing
the Independent Payment Advisory Board, does he see the possibility for
bipartisan support for that?
Mr. BARRASSO. I believe there is going to be bipartisan support. We
see bipartisan support in the House. I would like to see bipartisan
support in the Senate. When you look at what fundamentally this board
does, they make recommendations, and it is practically impossible for
the recommendations not to automatically become law. We were elected to
make laws, not having independent parties make the laws. American
patients are going to be forced to accept whatever this unelected
board's recommendations are. It is very hard for Congress to override.
I expect, in a bipartisan way, people would say: Let's completely
eliminate this board, which I know the Senator's legislation is
designed to do.
If American patients, people all across the country, suffer from the
recommendations of the board, the way the law is written, they cannot
challenge this unelected board in court. Americans have a right to
challenge things but not this unelected board, as was written into the
health care law.
Those are the sorts of issues I hear about when people say: What if I
can't get a doctor? What if I can't get the care I need because of the
decisions made by the board?
This fundamentally gets to the issue of the whole health care law,
which took $500 billion from our seniors on Medicare not to save and
strengthen Medicare but to start a whole new government program for
someone else. This board, which I think we should eliminate and which I
think is going to be hurtful for our seniors, is the group responsible
for making the sorts of very challenging cuts from our seniors on
Medicare--again, not to help save Medicare but to start a program for
someone else, which is why this program is even more unpopular today
than it was the day it was passed.
I do believe we have a bipartisan reason to eliminate this, and that
is why I am supporting this legislation.
Mr. CORNYN. I would like to ask my colleague one final question.
Whenever we talk about reforming, saving, and securing Medicare so we
can keep the promise we made to seniors that when people reach the
appropriate age, they can actually qualify for this benefit and it
actually will be there for them--and people do, in fact, pay into this
fund, and they expect to get their money's worth back--sometimes the
charge is made that various reform proposals will destroy Medicare as
we know it.
I would like to ask the Senator from Wyoming, a medical doctor by
profession, whether Medicare as we know it, as currently constructed
under the President's health care bill, with this IPAB provision in
place--does it have any chance of survival as it currently operates now
with this new board of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats setting
prices and limiting access? Because doctors and hospitals simply cannot
afford to provide the service at that cost. Doesn't that have the
potential to radically transform Medicare as people have come to know
it?
Mr. BARRASSO. My view is that people will still get a Medicare card
in the mail, but whether there will be doctors or hospitals or nurse-
practitioners or others who will accept that card is the bigger
concern. Because of what this board may do and is likely to do under
the demands of the health care law, those on Medicare today and those
coming onto Medicare may have a harder and harder time finding a doctor
and a hospital to care for them.
Let's face it, today about 10,000 baby boomers will turn 65.
Yesterday about 10,000 baby boomers turned 65. Tomorrow about 10,000
baby boomers will turn 65. We need to make sure Medicare is there and
secure for the current generation as well as the next generation and
generations to come.
My concern is that this board, which I know my colleague is trying to
repeal and which I am trying to repeal, is going to make it that much
harder for our seniors to receive the care they need from a doctor they
want at a cost they can afford.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we approach the 2-year anniversary of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--otherwise known as
ObamaCare--there are a lot of things you are going to hear from across
the street at the Supreme Court of the United States on the
constitutional challenge to this individual mandate, which is a very
important constitutional question for the Supreme Court to decide--
whether there is any limit to the power of the Federal Government when
it comes to forcing you to buy a product approved by the government and
penalizing you if you do not do it, whether that is within the
constitutional power of the Congress under the commerce clause. Then
there are other important questions about the workability of the law,
the affordability of the law.
I think today we can just see if we could work together in a
bipartisan way to repeal the IPAB requirement. Senator Reid is the only
one, as the majority leader, who can bring it to the floor, but
hopefully, in light of the bipartisan support this has on the House
side, he will see fit to do that. I certainly encourage him. I know
Senator Barrasso will encourage him to do that. I hope we can do this
and help ensure that people, when they qualify for Medicare, do not
just get a card but actually have a good chance--I should say better
than a good chance--they will be able to find a doctor who will treat
them for the price the government is willing to pay.
[[Page S1447]]
Mr. BARRASSO. I thank the Senator for the efforts on his part to
repeal this terrible idea that was a fundamental part of the
President's proposal. It is one reason I think the health care law is
even more unpopular today than the day it was passed and signed into
law almost 2 years ago.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JOHNSON. 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. JOHNSON. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business
for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Honoring Our Armed Forces
Wisconsin Casualties
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to
pay tribute to America's sons and daughters who have fallen in the line
of duty--citizens of this great Nation who gave their lives to preserve
the liberties upon which America was founded, the finest among us who,
because they cherished peace, risked their lives by becoming warriors
on our behalf.
What could be more sacrificial than the lives our service men and
women choose to lead? They love America, so they spend long years
separated from their loved ones, deployed in faraway lands. They revere
freedom, so they sacrifice their own so that we may be free. They
defend our right to live as individuals by yielding their own
individuality in that noble cause. They value life, yet bravely ready
themselves to lay down their own in humble service to their comrades-
in-arms, their families, and their Nation.
For more than 234 years, our service men and women have served as
guardians of our freedom. The cost of that vigilance has been high.
Since the Revolutionary War, more than 42 million men and women have
served in our military and more than 1 million of those selfless heroes
have given their lives. Wisconsin has borne its share of that great
sacrifice. Since statehood, 27,000 of Wisconsin's sons and daughters
have died in military service. Since September 11, 2001, we have lost
143 brave souls with ties to Wisconsin. Since I took office last
January, 13 more have perished. Statistics cannot possibly convey the
weight of these losses. After all, statistics are merely numbers that
could never fully communicate the qualities of these fine men and women
whose promising lives were cut far too short. Statistics say nothing of
their unfulfilled hopes and dreams. So instead of numbers such as 1
million, 27,000, 143, or even 13, I would like to ask everyone to think
for a moment about a much smaller but still staggering number, the
number 1.
Each of these men and women was a loved one cherished by family and
friends. Each was a loss to their community and to this great Nation.
Each paid a price that we must never forget. We must also remember the
sacrifice made was not theirs alone. Every family member and friend
left behind experiences profound loss, sadness, and grief. The tragedy
multiplies; it is not contained. For those left behind, the pain may
slowly subside, but the wound will never heal.
Two weeks ago I had the privilege of bearing witness to the sacrifice
of one of Wisconsin's fallen heroes and the courage of those he left
behind. On February 22, a grateful Nation laid 1LT David Johnson of
Mayville, WI, to his final rest at Arlington National Cemetery. I was
honored to join David's loving and proud parents Laura and Andrew, his
sister Emily, and his brothers Matthew and Michael as they said their
final goodbyes. Out of sheer coincidence Michael was already scheduled
to intern in my office this week and is with us today. It is fitting
that we acknowledge his loss and sacrifice.
The Johnson family loved their brother and son. They loved him dearly
and our hearts go out to them. I pray that they find God's peace and
comfort today and in the tough times ahead as they deal with this
overwhelming and tragic loss.
Lieutenant Johnson was only 24 years old when he died of injuries
suffered after encountering an improvised explosion device on January
25 while leading his men in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan.
In addition to Lieutenant Johnson, today I would also like to pay
tribute to the other Wisconsin heroes who gallantly gave their lives
since I took office last January.
Since then Wisconsin has lost SSgt Jordan Bear, U.S. Army. Staff
Sergeant Bear, age 25, of Elton, WI, died March 1, 2012, in Kandahar
Province, Afghanistan; SSgt Joseph J. Altmann, U.S. Army. Staff
Sergeant Altmann, age 27, of Marshfield, WI, died December 25, 2011, in
Kunar Province, Afghanistan; SPC Jakob J. Roelli, U.S. Army. Specialist
Roelli, age 24, of Darlington, WI, died September 21, 2011, in Kandahar
Province, Afghanistan; SGT Garrick L. Eppinger Jr., U.S. Army Reserve.
Sergeant Eppinger, age 25, of Appleton, WI, died September 17, 2011, in
Parwan Province, Afghanistan; SGT Chester D. Stoda, U.S. Army. Sergeant
Stoda, age 32, of Black River Falls, WI, died September 2, 2011, while
on recreational leave from duties in support of the war in Afghanistan;
CPL Michael C. Nolen, U.S. Marines. Corporal Nolen, age 22, of Spring
Valley, WI, died June 27, 2011, in Helmand Province, Afghanistan; SPC
Tyler R. Kreinz, U.S. Army. Specialist Kreinz, age 21, of Beloit, WI,
died June 18, 2011, in Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan; Private Ryan J.
Larson, U.S. Army. Private Larson, age 19, of Friendship, WI, died June
15, 2011, in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan; SGT Matthew D. Hermanson,
U.S. Army. Sergeant Hermanson, age 22, of Appleton, WI, died April 28,
2011, in Wardak Province, Afghanistan; SPC Paul J. Atim, U.S. Army.
Specialist Atim, age 27, of Green Bay, WI, died April 16, 2011, in
Nimroz Province, Afghanistan; CPL Justin D. Ross, U.S. Army. Corporal
Ross, age 22, of Green Bay, WI, died March 26, 2011, in Helmand
Province, Afghanistan; Finally, 1LT Darren M. Hidalgo, U.S. Army. First
Lieutenant Hidalgo, age 24, of Waukesha, WI, died February 20, 2011, in
Kandahar Province, Afghanistan.
May God bless and comfort their loved ones with peace. May he watch
over those who have answered the call and are serving today and those
who will serve in the future. May God bless America.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll of the Senate.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Honoring Doug and Samantha Levinson
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this Friday will mark 5 years
since FBI agent Bob Levinson disappeared while on a business trip as a
retired FBI agent. He was on a business trip to Kish Island in the
Persian Gulf. It is a part of Iran. That is 5 long years that his wife
Christine has been without a husband and 5 long years that her seven
children have been without their father.
Over those 5 years I have spoken so many times about Bob--a retired
FBI agent and a resident of south Florida--from the floor of the Senate
and so many other venues. Just yesterday I met with his wife Christine
after she joined FBI Director Robert Mueller and Deputy Director Sean
Joyce in announcing a $1 million reward for information leading to
Bob's safe return. So in southwest Asia billboards will soon start to
appear announcing that $1 million reward, and it is in southwest Asia
that we know Bob is being held.
Today I wish to talk about his children because tomorrow in Miami the
Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI will honor Bob's two
youngest children--his son Doug and his daughter Samantha, both of
whom, along with their other siblings, have persevered through this
very difficult time.
Doug was in the seventh grade when Bob disappeared. This year he will
graduate from high school, on his way to college. He has excelled
academically and athletically and has grown to almost his father's
height. Bob will be shocked at how tall Doug is, but he will be even
more proud of all that his son has accomplished.
Samantha, Bob's daughter, was in high school when Bob disappeared. In
[[Page S1448]]
just a few weeks she will graduate from college. Samantha has been a
resident adviser and a proud member of her sorority. She interned at
Disney where she hopes to work after graduation. Again, when her father
returns, he will be so proud.
To honor Bob's children, and standing in solidarity with one of their
own, the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI will award to Doug
and Samantha scholarships to assist with the cost of college. I thank
that society and those agents who have protected us so much over the
years. I thank them for their service and for their kindness. I
congratulate Doug and Samantha for all they have accomplished under
such very difficult circumstances.
To Christine Levinson, this heroic woman who has stood so strong in
the midst of great adversity for 5 years--I say to Christine and her
children that this government will not rest, none of us will rest until
we have brought Bob home. I look forward, as do so many, to that day of
celebrating with them and celebrating with all of Bob's friends and his
former colleagues.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll of the Senate.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator is recognized.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, first, I want to say how important roads and
bridges are. We are on the highway bill, and that is one of the main
advantages the United States has had--having excellent transportation.
Of course, that is particularly important in my own State because we
want people to be able to get to the first national park, which is
Yellowstone National Park, and another gorgeous park, the Grand Teton
National Park, and a place called Fossil Butte National Monument, where
people can actually fish for 60 million-year-old fish. We have a spot
in the middle of the State where people can help dig up dinosaur
bones--and if you dig one out by yourself, you get it named after you--
or the first national monument, Devils Tower, which is up in the
northeast corner. And, of course, we are a corridor between those
Western States too. So we know how important roads and bridges are. We
need to do that, and we need to do it now, but we should do it the
right way.
So I want to refer to an amendment I have filed, No. 1645. My
amendment is very simple and straightforward. It would allow the gas
tax to be adjusted with inflation--not with the price of gas, with
inflation. This is not a new idea, and it certainly is not a very
popular discussion point, but this is the debate the Senate needs to
have.
The long-term viability of the highway trust fund is incredibly
important to our States. The underlying proposal the Senate is debating
would pay for transportation and infrastructure projects and programs
for the next 2 years, but it does not address the future of these
programs, nor do the financing proposals fit within the timeframe of
the bill. I have serious objections to paying for 2 years of spending
with 10 years of revenue.
Let me stop on that issue for a moment. We are spending money in 2
years that it will take us 10 years to generate. How can we tell the
American people we are serious about the deficit and serious about
spending when we allow money to be spent five times as fast as it comes
in?
If the Senate wants to keep the highway programs viable through a
trust fund instead of subjected to the general fund, which any
accountant or banker would say is bankrupt, we need to either cut
spending or generate more revenue. Those are the two choices.
A lot of work has gone into the bill before the Senate. Four
committees have worked on it. Four committees have filed amendments
that have been included in the version we are seeing. I appreciate that
many of my colleagues are trying to reduce the mandates on the States
as well as consolidate and eliminate programs. That is good. Those are
steps we need to take. Even with some serious streamlining, however,
the highway trust fund will not have the revenues needed to meet the
current obligations of the fund. We can certainly give States more
flexibility in how they prioritize the Federal funds they receive.
We should not and cannot ignore that with this bill we are just
buying time. Buying time is something the Federal Government has been
doing for decades, and that has gotten us into this serious financial
mess. We are buying time with borrowed money. The borrowing is pretty
dubious, and some of it is from countries we would rather not be
borrowing from.
I want to share some charts with you. You may only be able to discern
what I say, and what I say is what appears in the Senate Record, not
the charts.
These have a lot of numbers on them. I am an accountant, so I get
excited over numbers. Too many numbers, but it still makes the point.
What we have is the highway trust fund balances, starting in 1993,
which was the last time we passed the gas tax. That was 18.3 cents.
This column shows the total revenue received. For the most part they
have been going up, which means more gas has been bought.
But here are the expenditures, and you will see what effect that has
had on the closing balance in the trust fund. We have had quite a few
years when there was some money in there--right after 1993 when the gas
tax more closely matched the cost of construction, and as we get out
here in 2001, we can see that it drops significantly and keeps
dropping. At balance, at the end of 2012, it is going to be $11.4
billion. Of course, we are spending more than that just in this one
bill.
So next year it will be a minus $2.8 billion and $18.7 billion, and
then $34.7 billion. Those are deficits I am talking about, deficits in
the trust fund, which means in those years we are going to have to get
the money from somewhere else. It winds up in 2016 at being a $50.7
billion deficit to the trust fund. That is what we are doing generally
with all of our accounting, but it shows up here in something that I do
not think anybody in America denies is absolutely necessary. We have to
have roads and bridges.
So if my amendment were enacted, what kind of an adjustment to the
tax rate would we see? If this amendment had been enacted last year, in
2011, this January--the tax does not go into effect until the year
after the inflation is measured. This January the tax would have
increased by one-half of one penny--one-half of one penny. The price of
a gallon fluctuates more than that on a daily basis. In fact, I was
watching on television the other night, and the lady was showing the
high price of gas, and she showed a sign out in front of the pumps.
Just as she was about to leave, she said: Wait a minute. While I have
been talking, the price has gone up 20 cents.
So we are seeing some huge changes there, but not with the gas tax.
If we had enacted the indexing in 1993, the last time Congress adjusted
the gas tax, there would have been an increase of 11 cents in the
gasoline tax over 19 years. Excluding the one-tenth of 1 cent that is
added to the base tax rate for the leaking underground storage tanks,
the rate would adjust from 18.3 cents a gallon in 1993 to 29\1/2\ cents
per gallon today.
That is what this chart shows. It shows the amount of inflation there
was each of those years, so the amounts the gas tax would have gone up
in each of those years to provide a fund that would actually help us
with building the roads and bridges, and it would be at 29.5 cents per
gallon today.
In that same timeframe gasoline prices have risen from $1 per gallon
to $3.50 per gallon or more. It was $4 in the example I was giving off
the television. If we had enacted indexing in 2005 under the last
highway bill, there would have been only a 3\1/2\-cents-per-gallon
adjustment. I estimate there would have been increased revenue in the
highway trust fund by over $18 billion from the gas tax alone.
So this is the chart that shows what would have happened if we had
indexed it in 2005, what the CPI index would have been and what the
adjustment would have been. So that would have been a change of 3.5
cents per gallon, hardly noticeable in the price of gas we have today.
But the trust fund would have had $18 billion, which we need to be able
to spend. Very important.
In 1993 the gas tax of 18.3 cents was included in the $1 of gas, and
there was
[[Page S1449]]
also State taxes included in the $1 gasoline price, 18 cents out of a
dollar. Now the 18 cents is part of $4 a gallon.
Don't you think construction costs have increased based on the cost
of a gallon of gas alone? Remember, the gas tax is what paid for roads
and bridges but cannot anymore, causing us to use very bad financing
methods--stealing from pension funds with no way to pay it back, using
10 years' of projected revenue to pay for 2 years' of construction.
What do we do for the money in 2 years? Roads and bridges will always
need construction. Our economy runs on construction. The construction
industry has mixed feelings about my proposed amendment. They are for
it as long as it does not bring the bill down. My intent is not to
bring the bill down but, rather, to make it a viable bill. Of course,
my amendment will not make it a viable bill all by itself. The Bowles-
Simpson Commission deficit report said we needed to increase the gas
tax by 5 cents a year for 3 years to have a viable fund.
Here are the quotes from that deficit commission. The President
appointed the deficit commission. They looked at everything, and on
highways and bridges alone, this is what they came up with: 15-cent-
per-gallon increase in the gas tax over a 3-year period; limit spending
to match the revenues the trust fund collects. That is what we are
failing to do with this current bill.
Once fully implemented, a 15-cent increase would generate an
additional $24 to $27 billion per year for the highway trust fund. Each
1-cent increase would generate about $1.6 to $1.8 billion per year.
That is from that deficit commission that was trying to figure out how
to get ourselves out of the hole we are in right now. This is what they
came up with just for the highway fund.
So with my amendment, it indexes with inflation. It does not start
until next year. It is just a way to test the waters to see if there is
enough courage in this body to take a very minimal step. My amendment
does not solve the shortfall of the highway trust fund, nor would it
fully pay for this legislation. It is just a small step in the right
direction. It is a step in getting the highway trust fund back to what
it was created to be, a dedicated pot of money to pay for the roads,
funded by those who use the roads.
We need to take this step and a lot of other steps if we are going to
fix our money problems and fund programs as intended. The National
Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform--that is that Simpson-
Bowles Commission--supported a 15-cent increase in the gas tax to be
gradually adjusted over a 3-year period. Once fully implemented, a 15-
cent increase, as I said, would provide $24 to $27 billion per year.
That is what we need for roads and bridges.
The Commission also recommended that Congress enact a limitation so
that the spending could not go beyond revenues. That seems like a
fairly commonsense approach. Spend only what we generate. We could use
that around here. Of course, that principle is something we need to
enact in the overall budgeting in Washington.
Let's be clear. The tax rate and gas prices are two very separate
issues. Folks might think that as the price of fuel goes up, so does
the Federal gas tax. That is not true. Whether the price of gas is $1
per gallon or $4 per gallon, the Federal tax remains the same. Again,
the fund collected 18.3 cents from every dollar of gas in 1993.
Construction costs have increased, and now we only collect the same
18.3 cents for a $4 gallon of gas. If we were being successful with
some alternate means of transportation, the amount of gas would go down
as people used those other ones, but it is not.
I am sensitive to the fact that the gas prices are high right now. I
am always looking for ideas on how we can work to bring those prices
down. With the distances we have to travel in Wyoming alone, high fuel
prices have a disproportionate effect on the residents of my State.
The President said there is not a silver bullet to bring the prices
down. That is certainly true if we look at his administration's
policies, having done everything possible to increase the price of
fuel. While there might not be a silver bullet, there are a number of
actions that will make a real difference.
One reason gas prices are high is that the supply is limited, and
tensions in the Middle East have further strained that supply and
encouraged speculators.
To fix the supply problem, we should be producing American energy
wherever it is possible. Instead of blocking production the President
should be encouraging us to develop American energy in Alaska and off
the Outer Continental Shelf and on Federal land. Yes, production is up,
but it is not from Federal lands. That is shut down. It is coming from
private land where a permit does not take a lifetime of investment and
delay. Federal lands are down 12 percent in production. We should be
enacting policies that encourage energy production on public lands in
Wyoming and other Western States rather than relying on oil from the
Middle East and Venezuela.
President Obama should approve the Keystone XL Pipeline so we can get
as much supply as possible from friendly nations such as Canada before
they feel forced to sell it all to China, who is buying up energy
worldwide. China understands that in 20 years the country with the
energy will have the power. I am not talking about electrical power; I
am talking about world power.
Gas prices are high because of the regulatory uncertainty created by
the administration's relentless pursuit of policies that are designed
to make energy more expensive under the guise of halting climate
change. Rather than arguing over new taxes for the oil and gas
industry, we should be working to rein in the Environmental Protection
Agency to stop those regulations that make it impossible for businesses
to plan.
We have a permitting problem. When I hear the lecture about the
number of acres leased for exploration but not being drilled, I get
angry. I am usually not angry. Leased parcels include land that has no
oil. When you buy a lease, you buy a package, and then you drill where
the oil or gas is within that package. Also, there are millions of
acres ready to be drilled, but the leaseholder cannot get the
bureaucrats to turn loose the permits.
Of course, Energy Secretary Chu recently confirmed that his energy
policy is to create conservation by having our gas prices reach the
same level as Europe. Well, unless we do something with the gas tax at
his desired $7 a gallon, we will still only get 18.3 cents a gallon for
the critical highway fund.
If we were really trying to match cost to construct with revenue, the
radical suggestion would be for the gas user fee--and it is a user fee.
If you do not drive on the roads, you do not need to buy the gas. You
do not need to pay the tax. So it is a user fee. But it would be a
percentage of the cost of a gallon of gas if we were really being
radical.
But be clear, we are not doing that. We are probably not doing any of
this. We need to do everything we can to lower gas prices. I am working
to do just that. In fact, we are debating some of these issues on this
legislation because the majority refuses to debate them using regular
order. However, the issue of gas prices is entirely separate from the
issue of determining how we should pay for highways.
We have set up a trust fund that is supposed to take care of road and
bridge needs. I might mention that changing the formula to miles driven
would just be to increase the gas user fee while hiding the increase.
That is not the way to do it. We should be honest about whatever kind
of an increase we are putting on this user fee. That is the wrong way
to do it. If we do not add more revenue to the trust fund, we should
cut our spending to the amount of money we have in the trust fund. That
is, again, what the Simpson-Bowles report said.
I know there a lot of sensitivities in talking about the rate of gas
tax or any other tax. There is no doubt that individuals and businesses
are still stressed in this economy and are struggling to make ends
meet. People in rural States such as Wyoming have few options. They
have to drive long distances for many of their needs. Several of my
colleagues have said to me: This just is not the time to be talking
about the gas tax.
I must ask: When will the time be right? Members of Congress do not
want to tackle this topic when the economy is strong nor do they want
to tackle the topic when we have economic challenges. When revenues to
[[Page S1450]]
the highway trust fund were meeting the needs of the highway program,
no one wanted to consider that there might be a time when the revenue
could not keep up with the needs to maintain our highway system.
We are pennies away from insolvency of the highway trust fund. When
is the right time to talk about the revenue stream for the highway
trust fund? We need to start today. My amendment is a small step to
address the long-term viability of the highway trust fund. It is a
small step to get us moving toward living within our means and
maintaining our roads with the money we have not the money we wish we
had.
I probably cannot get a vote on this minimal increase, but it does
test the water. I would be happy to revise my amendment to any
reasonable level that Senators would support. We cannot continue to
kick this conversation down the road for another 2 years. We cannot lie
to our constituents about the state of the highway trust fund. We
should not steal from other trust funds, and we should not do
unapproved long-term financing for short-term projects. We have a
mechanism to pay for the road programs, a dedicated funding stream paid
for by those who use the roads.
I hope my colleagues will take a hard look at my amendment, take a
look at the plan under Simpson-Bowles, and study the numerous ideas out
there. Let's have a real debate on how to preserve this dedicated
funding for our roads.
In Wyoming, we have an optional sales tax for projects by communities
and counties. The construction project is stated, and the people get to
vote for this increase in their taxes. As long as the money is used to
pay for the promised projects, the voters continue to approve
additional projects with additional taxes. It has happened for 30 years
in Wyoming. People will allow focused taxes for what they know they
need if they believe that is what it will be spent for. And I say they
know the needs for roads and bridges.
When is it the wrong time to do the right thing? I believe most
everyone in this Chamber knows this is the right thing. Most of our
constituents will see it that way too. A vocal few won't, but the
reason congressional approval is at a record low is because so many
live in fear of taking the votes that will fix the problems. We have a
chance to change that with this amendment. I hope my colleagues will
take a serious look at it and fund the highway fund the way it was
intended.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Benefits of Free Enterprise
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, last week I came to the floor to talk about
how free enterprise helps people achieve earned success and thus helps
them pursue true happiness. Today I want to talk about another moral
benefit of free enterprise--its effectiveness in reducing poverty and
promoting economic mobility.
This is an important conversation to have since President Obama has
made income and class inequality the centerpieces of his reelection
campaign. For example, in his Osawatomie, KS, speech last year, he
said:
This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class and all
those who are fighting to get into the middle class. I
believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair
shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone
plays by the same rules.
He followed up with similar themes in the 2012 State of the Union
speech, saying that he believes in ``an America where hard work paid
off, responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they
tried--no matter who you were, where you came from, or how you started
out.''
Of course, these are quintessential American values in no dispute.
But the President's soaring rhetoric is at odds with his main policy,
which is to achieve greater economic equality not by equal opportunity
but through forced redistribution of wealth. For example, the President
has proposed a litany of tax increases, such as the so-called Buffet
rule, higher marginal income tax rates, and higher taxes on investment.
New taxes don't lift anybody, but they do tear some people down.
The President also proposes more government spending to redistribute
the new tax dollars collected. Redistributionist programs have a role,
of course, as government safety nets. They help, for example, people
who are ill temporarily, down on their luck, or not able-bodied. But,
unfortunately, they do not cure poverty. If they did, poverty would no
longer exist in America.
The only permanent cure for poverty and the only system capable of
producing massive increases in economic mobility is free enterprise.
Senator Mark Rubio put it well when he said that ``the free enterprise
system has lifted more people out of poverty than all the government
anti-poverty programs combined.'' As we will see in a moment, economic
data confirms this is true.
As Arthur Brooks and Peter Wehner wrote in their book called ``Wealth
and Justice: The Morality of Democratic Capitalism,'' before the rise
of free enterprise; that is, for most of human history, life was
``bleak, cruel and short.'' Life expectancy was low, infant mortality
was high, disease was rampant, and food was scarce. Education was only
for the wealthy. Indeed, the wealthy were the only people who lived in
relative comfort.
But the emergence of free enterprise roughly two centuries ago helped
to change all that. As the free enterprise system took root,
particularly in Western Europe, protectionist measures eased, trade
increased, and businesses accumulated capital to grow and create new
jobs. People pursued their self-interests free of state coercion or
corruption, and the economic benefits flowed to every strata of
society. As Brooks and Wehner note, ``Markets, precisely because they
are wealth generating, also end up being wealth distributing.''
By every universal measure, life has improved dramatically in free
market societies. Literacy, basic living standards, and life expectancy
have increased, while disease and starvation have plummeted. Child
labor has been eradicated. As free enterprise has spread during the
last two centuries, the world's average per capita income has
skyrocketed by about 10 times. These are major moral achievements. Yes,
some people are richer than others, and that is true in all nations
whether characterized as market economies or not. But where it exists,
free enterprise has helped make the poor make tremendous gains, and
they continue to climb. In the modern era of globalization, we have
seen this on an unprecedented scale. Since 1970, as economic freedom
has grown in developing countries such as China and India, the number
of people living on $1 a day has plunged by 80 percent, according to a
recent study.
What about President Obama's arguments that free enterprise has
harmed middle-class prosperity? Over the past quarter century, economic
studies have shown otherwise. Indeed, as Hoover Institution fellow
Henry Nau pointed out in a recent Wall Street Journal article, middle-
income earners have become richer and many have leaped into the upper-
middle class. Between 1980 and 2007, a period Nau calls ``the Great
Expansion,'' the United States grew by more than 3 percent per year and
created more than 50 million new jobs, ``massively expanding a middle
class of workers,'' in Nau's words.
Nau continues:
Per capita income increased by 65 percent, and household
income went up substantially in all income categories. . . .
In the past three decades, households making more than
$105,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars doubled to 24 percent
from 11 percent.
These are remarkable increases in wealth. What policies produced this
expansion? Again quoting Nau:
Precisely the free-market policies of deregulation and
lower marginal income-tax rates that [President] Obama
decries.
If the President wants to increase class mobility and prosperity and
build on the successes of the ``Great Expansion,'' then he must turn
away from
[[Page S1451]]
the statist policies that have dominated his 3 years in office. As
Brooks and Wehner write:
The answer is not less capitalism, it is better
capitalists.
And I would add, that includes the President and his advisers.
Most fundamentally, our policies must reward hard work and merit for
the simple reason that people are more successful and industrious when
they get to keep more of the fruits of their labor.
That is what we call earned success. Their prosperity flows to others
when they open businesses, create jobs and new products, compete for
workers, raise wages, and invest their profits, which can then be lent
to other entrepreneurs. But when market forces are restricted--when
taxes are too high and regulations are too stifling--entrepreneurship
loses its appeal. If people think outcomes are predetermined by the
government, they don't have incentives to compete.
A 2005 study by economists Alberto Alesina and George-Marios
Angeletos underscores the point. They found that beliefs about
meritocratic rewards are self-fulfilling. They concluded that if a
society thinks people have a right to enjoy the fruits of their effort,
it will choose low taxes and have lower tolerance for redistribution.
Effort will be high in these places. Conversely, they found that if
citizens believe the system is rigged and that luck and connections,
not merit, are the key determinants of success, then they will demand
forced wealth redistribution and effort will be lower in these places.
Simply put, if people think the system is inherently unfair, it will
wind up that way. That is precisely what has happened in countries such
as Spain and Greece, where outcomes are divorced from effort, and, to a
large measure, bureaucrats and special interests dictate who gets
economic rewards.
Since everyone does better when effort is rewarded, then protecting
merit-based success is a moral issue. Indeed, the first American
immigrants left countries with too little opportunity for advancement
to come here and earn rewards based on merit and be the masters of
their own destiny. Polls have shown that, over the years, Americans
have not grown tired of the merit-based system but instinctively
support it. U2 singer Bono colorfully explained why individual
determinism in America is so great:
In America, the guy looks up at the mansion on the hill and
says, ``One day, if I really work hard, I am going to live in
the mansion on the hill.'' In Dublin, they look at the
mansion on the hill and say, ``One day I'm going to get that
[guy].''
Free markets breed a culture of aspiration and mobility, in which
people reject the politics of envy and instead focus on their own
advancement and their own success. If our goal is to foster such a
positive culture of achievement, then we must eschew class warfare in
favor of the free-market policies that have done so much to boost
prosperity both at home and abroad.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUNT. 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. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the amendment I have
offered with my friend, Senator Casey from Pennsylvania, on the highway
bill, amendment No. 1540.
In my State, and I think in the whole country, the question we hear
over and over again is: Where are the private sector jobs? What can we
do to get the economy back on track?
There are very few places the Federal Government can create private
sector jobs. One of the few places we can do that is in public works,
such as the highway bill, where most of the work to build a new bridge
or a new highway is done by competitive bid and by private sector
employers and private sector employees. While we probably take a
different approach to how we get there, I think all of us understand it
is critical we work together to find common ground to create jobs and
to create economic growth.
This infrastructure bill could be--and I hope it turns out to be--a
good start. There is no doubt that infrastructure is the foundation of
our economy. Quality transportation is vital to connect people and
communities, to connect people to the places they work, to connect the
products they make to the places they need to go. That doesn't happen
without a good infrastructure program and one that maintains and
expands as needs to be the infrastructure that we have. I am very
hopeful this bill can provide that additional element to getting our
economy back on track.
At the heart of the problem for small towns and for local governments
in so many States, and particularly in Missouri, is the bridge system
that is not part of the Federal structure. It is the so-called off-
system bridge network, where local communities are responsible for
bridges.
Missouri has perhaps more bridges than any other State. I was in one
of our counties just recently where the county itself--and we have 115
counties. So unlike some of the Western States, the counties aren't
huge. They are designed to be compact, and people could get across them
in the 1820s and 1830s in 1 day, before automobiles. So we have lots of
counties, and 1 of them has 148 bridges. Our smallest county by
population, with only 4,000 people, has 100 bridges. So every 40 people
in that county are essentially responsible for maintaining a bridge,
and bridges are expensive. That off-system bridge network carries
schoolbuses, emergency vehicles, lots of agricultural products,
families going about their daily routine. Without those bridges, that
local infrastructure doesn't work.
What we are suggesting and calling for in this amendment is simply to
continue the current policy. I am not talking about any new money for
bridges. We are not talking about any new program for bridges. But the
bill itself doesn't continue the 15 percent of the bridge funds that
has been allocated for some time now to local government. This would
continue to have that same 15 percent going to local governments.
There are almost 600,000 bridges in the country--more than 590,000,
and 50 percent of those are considered off-system, and approximately 28
percent of that 50 percent are currently considered deficient. Thirty-
two percent of the bridges in Missouri in the off-bridge system are
considered deficient. They either aren't adequate for the traffic they
now carry or are in need of repairs. One out of three bridges in our
State needs an investment.
The new penalty section of the underlying bill that would replace the
current off-system bridge program makes that program even more
uncertain at times when communities and job creators need it the most.
Without our amendment, States would only have to sustain the previous
number of deficient bridges every other year in order to avoid
investing in their off-system bridges. It is a formula that doesn't
work. It might work in big communities that have lots of miles that
they maintain, but I doubt that. I think this makes an inconsistent
investment in bridges all over the country.
Our amendment ensures that counties are not left bearing the full
responsibility of these off-system bridges. If they are left bearing
that full responsibility, many of these bridges will not be fixed. This
has been a major source of funding for counties working on bridges.
This amendment would give States and counties the proper tools and
resources and the assurance of a steady flow of funding in order to
invest in the Nation's bridges.
Additionally, the amendment establishes a procedure where the
Transportation Secretary can rescind this requirement if State and
local officials determine they have inadequate needs to justify these
expenditures. In other words, if they can't justify spending the money
in their State, then the Federal Government clearly doesn't have to
allocate that 15 percent to local communities and to States for the
off-system program.
When I listen to community leaders, and certainly when I listen to
county commissioners, this is a topic that comes up in most of our
counties with great concern. The counties where it doesn't come up
wouldn't have to apply for the money. That 15 percent, allocated
appropriately, will make a big difference.
Community leaders and job creators are looking for things that allow
them
[[Page S1452]]
to prepare for a more certain future. They need the ability to look
beyond 6 months or 1 year to plan and anticipate how they are going to
repair bridges, which bridges they are going to look at this year,
which bridges they will then put off until next year. But right now,
they would have no way of knowing whether there would be any Federal
assistance to these communities. We need to be sure we provide this
certainty for off-system bridges if we are going to promote job
creation and economic development. We have to work together in the
Nation's Capital to make smart investments in our Nation's
transportation system if we are going to provide communities and job
creators with greater certainty to prepare for the future.
I wish to thank Senator Casey for his hard work on this issue. I am
glad to join him on this amendment. It is critical to the State of
Missouri and many other States. The National Association of Counties,
the National League of Cities, the National Conference of Mayors, the
National Association of County Engineers, the American Public Works
Association, the National Association of Regional Councils, and the
National Association of Development Officials are all in support of
this amendment. I hope we have it included in the amendments we get to
vote on, and I urge my colleagues to join in this bipartisan effort to
create more certainty for local governments.
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 (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as
in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
WIND TURBINE SUBSIDIES
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, today in the Wall Street Journal
there coincidentally was an editorial on the subject about which I
speak, and this was entitled ``Republicans Blow With the Wind. Another
industry wants to keep its tax subsidies.'' It is about the possibility
that the Senate will be asked--maybe as early as the next few days
during the debate on the Transportation bill--to extend yet 1 more year
the Federal taxpayers' subsidy for large wind turbines.
I would like to take a few minutes to say why I don't believe we
should do that, and I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks
the Wall Street Journal editorial be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I believe it is time for Congress to
stop the Big Wind gravy train. Subsidies for developers of huge wind
turbines will cost taxpayers $14 billion over 5 years, between 2009 and
2013, according to the Joint Tax Committee and the Treasury Department.
This is more than the special tax breaks for Big Oil, which Congress
should also end. $6 billion of these Big Wind subsidies will come from
the production tax credit for renewable energy, which Congress
temporarily enacted in 1992. The prospect for the expiration of this
tax break at the end of this year has filled the Capitol with lobbyists
hired by investors wealthy enough to profit from the tax breaks.
President Obama even wants to make these tax credits permanent.
According to the Wall Street Journal, this is a ``make or break
moment'' for wind power companies.
There are three reasons the Big Wind subsidies should go the way of
the $5 billion annual ethanol subsidy, which Congress allowed to expire
last year. First, we cannot afford it. The Federal Government borrows
40 cents of every dollar it spends. It cannot justify such a subsidy,
especially for what the Nobel Prize-winning U.S. Energy Secretary calls
a ``mature technology.''
Second, wind turbines produce a relatively puny amount of expensive,
unreliable electricity. Wind produces 2.3 percent of our electricity,
less than 8 percent of our pollution-free electricity. One alternative
is natural gas, which is abundant, cheap, and very clean. Another
alternative is nuclear. Reactors power our Navy and produce 70 percent
of our pollution-free electricity. Using windmills to power a country
that uses one-fourth of all of the world's electricity world would be
the energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats.
Finally, these massive turbines too often destroy the environment in
the name of saving the environment. When wind advocate T. Boone Pickens
was asked whether he would put turbines on his Texas ranch, Mr. Pickens
answered: No, they're ugly.
A new documentary movie, ``Windfall,'' chronicles upstate New York
residents debating whether to build giant turbines in their town. A New
York Times review of this film reported this:
Turbines are huge: Some are 40 stories tall, with 130-foot
blades weighing seven tons and spinning at 150 miles per
hour. They can fall over or send parts flying; struck by
lightning, say, they can catch fire. Their 24/7 rotation
emits nerve-racking low frequencies (like a pulsing disco)
amplified by rain and moisture, and can generate a
disorienting strobe effect in sunlight. Giant flickering
shadows can tarnish a sunset's glow on a landscape.
Let's consider the three arguments one by one. First, the money. For
all we hear about Big Oil, you may be surprised to learn that special
tax breaks for Big Wind are greater. During the 5 years from 2009 to
2013, Federal subsidies for Big Wind equal $14 billion. I am only
counting the production tax credit and the cash grants that the 2009
stimulus law offered to wind developers in lieu of the tax credit. An
analysis of that stimulus cash grant program by Greenwire found that 64
percent of the 50 highest dollar grants awarded--or about $2.7
billion--went to projects that had begun construction before the
stimulus measures started.
Steve Ellis, the vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, told
Greenwire:
It's essentially funding economic activity that already
would have occurred. So it's just a pure subsidy.
According to President Obama's new budget, Big Oil receives multiple
tax subsidies. Doing away with them would save about $4.7 billion a
year in fiscal year 2013 or about $22 billion over 5 years it says. So
far it sounds like Big Oil with $22 billion, is bigger in subsidies
than Big Wind with $14 billion. But here is the catch: Many of the
subsidies that the President is attacking oil companies for receiving
are regular tax provisions that are the same or similar to those other
industries receive. For example, Xerox, Microsoft, and Caterpillar all
benefit from tax provisions like the manufacturing tax credit,
amortization or depreciation of used equipment that the President is
counting as Big Oil subsidies.
Of course, wind energy companies also benefit from many similar tax
provisions. But the production tax credit that benefits wind is in
addition to the regular Tax Code provisions that benefit many
companies. So the only way to make a fair comparison is to look only at
subsidies that mostly benefit only oil or only wind, and by that
measure wind gets more breaks than oil.
The Heritage Foundation has done an analysis showing that if Big Oil
received the same type of production tax credit as Big Wind, then the
taxpayer would be paying Big Oil about $50 per barrel of oil when
adjusted for today's prices. According to a 2008 Energy Information
Administration report, Big Wind received an $18.82 federal subsidy per
megawatt hour, 25 times as much as per megawatt hour as subsidies for
all other forms of electricity production combined.
The production tax credit became law in 1992. Its goal was to jump-
start renewable energy production. While it is advertised as a tax
credit for renewable energy, according to the Joint Committee on
Taxation, 75 percent of the credit goes to wind developers. Here is how
it works: For every kilowatt hour of electricity produced from wind,
turbine owners receive 2.2 cents in a tax credit. For example, if a
Texas utility buys electricity from a wind developer at 6 cents a
kilowatt hour, the Federal taxpayer will pay the developer another 2.2
cents per kilowatt hour. This 2.2-cent subsidy continues
[[Page S1453]]
for the first 10 years that the turbine is in service. This 2.2-cent
credit is worth 3.4 cents per kilowatt hour in cash savings on the tax
return of a wealthy investor. Wind developers often sell their tax
credits to Wall Street banks or big corporations or other investors who
have large incomes. They create what is called a tax equity deal in
order to lower or even eliminate taxes. This is the scheme our
President, who is championing economic fairness, would like to make
permanent.
Energy expert Daniel Yergin, the Pulitzer prize winner, says the
price of oil during 2011, when adjusted for inflation, is higher than
at any time since 1860. It therefore makes no sense whatsoever to give
special tax breaks to Big Oil. Neither does it make sense to extend
special tax breaks to Big Wind, a mature technology. For every $3 saved
by eliminating these wasteful subsidies, I would spend $2 to reduce the
Federal debt and $1 to double research for new forms of cheap, clean
energy for our country.
The second problem with electricity produced from wind is there is
not much of it, and since the wind blows when it wants to, and for the
most part, it cannot be stored, it is not reliable. For this reason the
claims in newspapers about how much electricity wind produces are
misleading because of the difference between the capacity of an energy
plant and its actual production.
Daniel Yergin says the U.S. installed capacity for wind power grew at
an average annual rate of 40 percent between 2005 and 2009. In terms of
absolute capacity, Yergin writes in his book The Quest, that growth in
capacity was the equivalent to adding 25 new nuclear plants. But Yergin
writes: In terms of actual generation of electricity, it was more like
adding nine reactors. This is because nuclear plants operate 90 percent
of the time while wind turbines operate about one-third of the time.
As an example, the Tennessee Valley Authority constructed a 29-
megawatt wind farm at Buffalo Mountain at a cost of $60 million. It is
the only wind farm in the Southeast.
We read in the papers about a 29-megawatt wind farm, but that is not
its real output. In practice, Buffalo Mountain has only generated
electricity 19 percent of the time, since the wind doesn't blow very
much in the Southeast. So this wind farm, sounding like a 29-megawatt
power plant, only generates 6 megawatts. TVA considers Buffalo Mountain
to be a failed experiment. In fact, looking for wind power in the
Southeast is a little like looking for hydropower in the desert.
So one problem with this Big Wind subsidy is that it has encouraged
developers to build wind projects in places where the wind doesn't blow
or the wind doesn't blow.
Finally, there is the question of whether in the name of saving the
environment wind turbines are destroying the environment. These are not
your grandma's windmills. They are taller than the Statue of Liberty,
their blades are as long as a football field, and their blinking lights
can be seen for 20 miles. Not everyone agrees with T. Boone Pickens
that they are ugly but, when these towers move from television
advertisements into your neighborhood, you might agree with Mr.
Pickens. Energy sprawl is the term conservation groups use to describe
the march of 45-story wind turbines onto the landscape of ``America the
Beautiful.''
If the United States generated 20 percent of our electricity from
wind, as some have suggested, that would cover an area the size of West
Virginia with 186,000 wind turbines. It would also be necessary to
build 12,000 new miles of transmission lines.
The late Ted Kennedy and his successor Senator Scott Brown have both
complained about how a wind farm the size of Manhattan Island will
clutter the ocean landscape around Nantucket Island.
Robert Bryce told the Wall Street Journal that the noise of turbines,
the ``infra sound'' issue, is the most problematic for the wind
industry. ``They want to dismiss it out of hand, but the low frequency
noise is very disturbing,'' he explains. ``I interviewed people all
over, and they all complained with identical words and descriptions
about the problems they were feeling from the noise.''
Theodore Roosevelt was our greatest conservation President, and his
greatest passion was for birds. Birds must think wind turbines are
Cuisinarts in the sky.
Last month, two golden eagles were found dead at California's Pine
Tree wind farm, bringing the total count of dead golden eagles at that
wind farm to eight carcasses. And the Los Angeles Times reports that
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ``has determined that the six golden
eagles found dead earlier at the 2-year-old wind farm in Kern County
were struck by blades from some of the 90 turbines spread across the
8,000 acres at the site.'' That puts the death rate per turbine at the
Pine Tree wind farm at three times higher than at California's Altamont
Pass Wind Resource Area, which has 5,000 turbines that kill 67 golden
eagles each year.
Apparently eagle killing has gotten so commonplace that the U.S.
Department of the Interior will grant wind developers hunting licenses
for eagles. In Goodhue County, MN, a company wants to build 48 turbines
on 50 square miles of land, and to do that it has applied for an
``eagle take'' permit which will allow it to kill a certain number of
eagles before facing penalties.
I have figured out how such a hunting license squares with federal
laws that will put you in prison or fine you if you kill migratory
birds or eagles. Nor have I figured out how it squares with the Fish
and Wildlife Service fining Exxon $600,000 in 2009 when oil development
harmed protected birds. Do not the same laws protecting birds apply to
both Big Wind and Big Oil?
Surely, there are appropriate places for wind power in a country that
needs clean electricity and that has learned the value of a diverse set
of energy sources. But if reliable, cheap, and clean electricity
without energy sprawl is our goal, then four nuclear reactors--each
occupying 1 square mile--would equal the production of a row of 50-
story wind turbines strung along the entire 2,178-mile length of the
Appalachian Trail from Georgia to Maine.
According to Benjamin Zycher at the American Enterprise Institute, a
1,000-megawatt natural gas powerplant would take up about 15 acres
while a comparable wind farm would take up 48,000 to 60,000 acres. And,
of course, even if someone built all of those turbines, you would still
need the nuclear or gas plants for when the wind doesn't blow.
Our energy policy should to be, first, double the $5 billion Federal
energy budget for research on new forms of cheap, clean, reliable
energy. I am talking about such research for the 500-mile battery for
electric cars, for commercial uses of carbon captured from coal plants,
solar power installed at less than $1 a watt, or even offshore wind
turbines.
Second, we should strictly limit and support a handful of jumpstart
research and development projects to take new technologies from their
research and development phase to the commercial phase. I am thinking
here of projects like ARPA-E, modeled after the Defense Department's
DARPA, that led to the internet, stealth, and other remarkable
technologies. Or the 5-year program for small modular nuclear reactors.
Third, we should end wasteful, long-term, special tax breaks such as
those for Big Oil and Big Wind. The savings from ending those subsidies
should be used to double clean energy research and to reduce our
Federal debt.
For a strong country, we need large amounts of cheap, reliable, clean
energy, and we need a balanced budget. This is an energy policy that
could help us do both.
Exhibit 1
Republicans Blow With the Wind
Another Industry wants to keep its taxpayer subsidies
Congress finally ended decades of tax credits for ethanol
in December, a small triumph for taxpayers. Now comes another
test as the wind-power industry lobbies for a $7 billion
renewal of its production tax credit.
The renewable energy tax credit--mostly for wind and solar
power--started in 1992 as a ``temporary'' benefit for an
infant industry. Twenty years later, the industry wants
another four years on the dole, and Senator Jeff Bingaman of
New Mexico has introduced a national renewable-energy mandate
so consumers will be required to buy wind and solar power no
matter how high the cost.
The truth is that those giant wind turbines from Maine to
California won't turn without burning through billions upon
billions of taxpayer dollars. In 2010 the industry received
[[Page S1454]]
some $5 billon in subsidies for nearly every stage of wind
production.
The ``1603 grant program'' pays up to 30% of the
construction costs for renewable energy plants (a subsidy
that ended last year but which President Obama calls for
reviving in his budget). Billions in Department of Energy
grants and loan guarantees also finance the operating costs
of these facilities. Wind producers then get the 2.2% tax
credit for every kilowatt of electricity generated.
Because wind-powered electricity is so expensive, more than
half of the 50 states have passed renewable energy mandates
that require utilities to purchase wind and solar power--a de
facto tax on utility bills. And don't forget subsidies to
build transmission lines to deliver wind power to the
electric grid.
What have taxpayers received for this multibillion-dollar
``investment''? The latest Department of Energy figures
indicate that wind and solar power accounted for a mere 1.5%
of U.S. energy production in 2010. DOE estimates that by 2035
wind will provide a still trivial 3.9% of U.S. electricity.
Even that may be too optimistic because of the natural gas
boom that has produced a happy supply shock and cut prices by
more than half. Most economic models forecasting that
renewable energy will become price competitive are based on
predictions of natural gas prices at well above $6 per
million cubic feet, more than twice the current cost.
The most dishonest claim is that wind and solar deserve to
be wards of the state because the oil and gas industry has
also received federal support. That's the $4 billion a year
in tax breaks for oil and gas (which all manufacturers
receive), but the oil and gas industry still pays tens of
billions in federal taxes every year.
Wind and solar companies are net tax beneficiaries.
Taxpayers would save billions of dollars if wind and solar
produced no energy at all. A July 2011 Energy Department
study found that oil, natural gas and coal received an
average of 64 cents of subsidy per megawatt hour in 2010.
Wind power received nearly 100 times more, or $56.29 per
megawatt hour.
Most Congressional Democrats will back anything with the
green label. But Republican support for big wind is a pure
corporate welfare play that violates free-market principles.
Last week six Republican Senators--John Boozman of Arkansas,
Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Charles Grassley of Iowa, John
Hoeven of North Dakota, Jerry Moran of Kansas and John Thune
of South Dakota--signed a letter urging their colleagues to
extend the production tax credit.
``It is clear that the wind industry currently requires tax
incentives'' and that continuing that federal aid can help
the industry ``move towards a market-based system,'' said the
letter. What's the ``market-based'' timetable--100 years? In
the House 18 Republicans have joined the 70 Member wind pork
caucus. Someone should remind them that in 2008 and 2010 the
wind lobby gave 71% of its PAC money to Democrats.
Here's a better idea. Kill all energy subsidies--renewable
and nonrenewable, starting with the wind tax credit, and use
the savings to shave two or three percentage points off
America's corporate income tax. Kansas Congressman Mike
Pompeo has a bill to do so. This would do more to create jobs
than attempting to pick energy winners and losers. Mandating
that American families and businesses use expensive
electricity doesn't create jobs. It destroys them.
Mr. ALEXANDER. 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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________