[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1968-1977]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT 
                           OF 2009--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, right now there is a meeting at the 
White House that is being covered extensively by the media live. There 
has been much anticipation about the meeting between the President and 
a number of Members of Congress, equally divided between the two 
bodies, the House and Senate, and the two political parties. It is a 
chance for both sides to listen to each other. The media has decided 
that by and large this is going to be unproductive. I watched a good 
bit of it today. At least people are being open with what they believe 
and what they want.
  There clearly are major differences between the two parties when it 
comes to health care. It goes back a couple, three generations. It 
certainly goes back to the mid-1960s, to 1965 especially, when the 
Senate and the House and President Johnson signed the Medicare bill. An 
overwhelming number of Republicans opposed it and an overwhelming 
number of Democrats supported it. It wasn't as partisanly charged as 
this, but it had the same interest groups around it, including the same 
insurance company opposition, the same accusations by--it was the John 
Birch Society then. Today it is the tea parties who oppose it. They 
didn't talk about death panels back then. Perhaps the John Birch 
Society wasn't as creative as are the tea party people, but they said 
it would be a takeover by big government of health care; the government 
would stand between the patient and the doctor. None of that has 
happened with Medicare. The kinds of accusations and charges and scare 
tactics used by the insurance industry and mostly Republican opponents 
in the 1960s to Medicare are very similar to the opponents to health 
care today.
  So I say, setting the table, that there are major differences between 
the two parties. I was speaking to a couple of school groups recently, 
one from Lakewood, OH, and one from the University of Miami in Oxford, 
southwest Ohio. They asked about partisanship.
  One woman said: I am neither a Republican nor Democrat--a young 
person, a 19- or 20-year-old college student. She said: I don't 
understand why they are blocking appointments, why you can't even agree 
on that, to even have a vote.
  So the partisanship is surely more charged today than it has been. I 
explained to them it is not so much party as ideological differences; 
that Democrats are believers by and large in things such as Medicare, 
and the Republicans think: Let the insurance industry do it. That is 
fine. That is a legitimate philosophical difference. The Republicans 
side with the insurance industry, and the Democrats believe government 
can play a positive role--not an overreach but a positive role in 
people's lives by running programs such as Medicare, by running 
programs such as Social Security, by running programs such as student 
loans, agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency which has 
made our country significantly safer and people's neighborhoods 
significantly safer.
  There are some people on the other side of the aisle who just want 
President Obama to fail. I don't think that is a majority of 
Republicans; I think it is some number. Let's ignore that for a moment 
and just think there are philosophical differences between the two 
parties. I say that because I think there is something more going on, 
and that is that on a lot of these issues there has been bipartisanship 
on this bill.
  I sit on the Health Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. We did 
our work on this bill back in May. Clearly, this hasn't been rushed 
through the Congress or rushed through with reconciliation. The Bush 
administration, on their big initiatives, pushed them through quickly 
without nearly as much debate as we have had, but, nonetheless, we sat 
in the HELP Committee and--the Presiding Officer knows this--we 
accepted, I believe, 163 Republican amendments. I voted for probably 
155 of them. I agreed with most of them.
  At the same time, the Finance Committee had negotiations with three 
Republican and three Democratic Senators. I think they took too long--
that is my opinion--but the fact is, they had negotiations for months. 
There were discussions in May and June and July and August and 
September. Finally, Chairman Baucus, in frustration, said: Let's move 
forward. This doesn't seem to be working.
  So there has been plenty of Republican input into this bill. There 
has been plenty of bipartisanship. As I said, there have been 
Republican amendments which have given the bill a Republican flavor and 
certainly a bipartisan flavor. There were a couple of specific matters. 
They wanted to allow health insurers to sell across State lines. We did 
that in the bill. The bill has provisions that allow a company in 
Indiana to sell insurance to residents of Ohio.
  A company in Indiana can sell in Ohio, and a company in Ohio can sell 
insurance to somebody across the line in Fort Wayne or in Richmond or 
in Indianapolis or in Gary or anywhere else in that State.
  So we listened to that, and we included that in the bill because that 
is one the Republicans always talk about: If you would only let us sell 
across State lines, that would be a great thing. That is what we did. 
We agreed to that.
  The second big issue the Republicans talk about is allowing 
individuals and small businesses and trade associations to pool 
together so they can acquire health insurance at lower prices, much the 
way the large corporations and unions do. We did it. We set up 
exchanges that are basically clearinghouses of companies so that 
individuals can go into these exchanges and buy insurance and spread 
the risk out among millions of people. Or small businesses can take 
their employees--for a company that may have 25 employees, if one or 
two of them get sick from cancer, let's say, that small business will 
either--at best, that small business's premiums will go up and at worst 
they will get their premiums canceled. If two or three or four 
employees are sick and it costs tens of thousands or maybe hundreds of 
thousands of dollars, you can be in a risk pool with millions so your 
rates don't spike up. So the Republicans were right about that: Let 
them go into pools, and we did that.
  So my point is, there is Republican flavor to this bill. There is 
Republican input--not just input, negotiations and successes--in this 
bill. There are 160 Republican amendments out of the HELP Committee in 
this bill. There have been almost unending discussions surrounding the 
bill. Yet the Republicans, to a person, oppose the bill. The only 
reason I can figure that out--not that it doesn't have bipartisanship 
to it--the only reason I can figure it out is what my colleague, 
Senator DeMint from South Carolina, said: If this bill goes down, it is 
the President's waterloo.
  I don't want to accuse my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
of wanting this to fail in order to have the Democrats fail or wanting 
this to fail to damage Barack Obama's Presidency. I don't think that. I 
am not accusing them of that. I just wonder.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on the 
issue of health care. Right now the leaders of this body, as well as 
the House of Representatives, are meeting with the President of the 
United States and members of his Cabinet at the Blair House to discuss 
the current health care reform proposal and where we

[[Page 1969]]

should go forward to improve the health care of the people of this 
country.
  I come to the floor today to talk about a specific portion of their 
discussion concerning health care fraud prevention.
  Today, my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, brought up with 
the President of the United States the issue of health care fraud 
prevention. As a Senator from Florida, this is something I have great 
concern about because, unfortunately, we are the capital of health care 
fraud for this country. I have put forward a proposal--S. 2128, the 
Health Care Fraud Prevention Act--to go after this very problem. Today, 
Senator Coburn brought up the fact that we believe that $1 out of every 
$3 spent on health care through Medicare or Medicaid or other public 
programs--$1 out of $3--is fraud, waste, or abuse--a shocking number. 
In fact, the belief is that $60 billion a year in the Medicare system 
alone--health care for seniors--is waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Unfortunately, we don't have systems in place to go after and prevent 
that waste, fraud, and abuse. What we do in the Federal system when we 
think there is fraud is we send prosecutors and law enforcement folks 
out to combat the fraud. These folks are doing a very good job, and 
there has been a lot of good work done in my home State of Florida. But 
the truth is, that is going after the fraud after it has already 
happened, and oftentimes there is no money left to collect. What we 
need to do is what I have proposed, and what the Health Care Fraud 
Prevention Act, S. 2128, accomplishes is it stops the fraud before it 
starts.
  I was happy today that the President agreed we need to prevent health 
care fraud. He said we have already incorporated all of the good ideas 
on this. I hope that means we are going to pass S. 2128. It is a 
bipartisan supported bill. It is a bill that will stop the fraud before 
it starts. It is not, however, in the Senate bill we passed in 
December. When I tried to bring this measure to the floor as an 
amendment, it was objected to. Since that time, I have worked with my 
colleagues on both the Democratic and Republican side of the aisle to 
move this measure forward. Senator Baucus and I have spoken about it. 
In the 11-page memo the President put forward, it references doing in 
part what S. 2128 would accomplish. So I hope that in the new proposal, 
we will put forward S. 2128 and pass it.
  Quickly, what does the bill do? It does three things:
  One, it creates a chief health care fraud prevention officer of the 
United States. That person, appointed by the President, would work at 
the agency for health and human services, and their only job would be 
ferreting out fraud. When there is $60 billion in Medicare alone and 
potentially that much in Medicaid and across the health care system--we 
think $\1/4\ trillion a year in fraud, waste, or abuse--it is worth 
having one person whose whole job is to try to prevent that fraud. 
Remember, if this money is recovered, we can use it to provide health 
care, we can improve the quality of care because there will be more 
money going into actually helping our seniors, helping the poor, 
helping our veterans.
  The second thing the bill does is it takes a model from the private 
sector--it borrows a page, if you will--because we have an industry in 
this country that does an excellent job of preventing fraud, and it is 
the credit card business. We have all had this experience. You go 
somewhere and use your credit card, and you get a phone call or an e-
mail from your credit card company. They tell you some transaction has 
just occurred and ask: Did you really mean to have that transaction? 
Did you authorize that purchase? And you call them up and say either 
yes or no.
  I have a young family, Mr. President, as you know. When I got 
appointed to the Senate, I brought my kids and my wife up here so we 
could be close. I have three children 6 and under and a baby coming in 
a month, so we are here in Washington, DC, most of the time. I had to 
do what any good dad would have to do: I had to go out and buy a 
television.
  I went to Best Buy and bought a television. I live in Tallahassee, so 
before I left the store, my credit card sent me an e-mail. You live in 
Florida, is what this system is doing and thinking, and you are buying 
a television, which is a highly suspicious purchase, and you are doing 
it in Washington, DC. So I tell them yes, and the transaction goes 
through. If I tell them no, they do not pay Best Buy. They do not pay 
unless there is a verification on the front end.
  We can use that same technology in health care to set up a predictive 
modeling system to prevent the fraud before it starts. I called the 
worldwide head of fraud prevention for MasterCard and asked him: Can we 
do what you do in health care? He said: Sure you can, and I will help 
you.
  There is no reason we can't stop billions of dollars of waste, fraud, 
and abuse.
  Mr. President, before we go on to all the other issues in health care 
that we can't agree upon, we should call up this bill and we should 
pass it. We would get 100 votes, I bet, in the Senate, and we could 
save what one group here in Washington thinks is $20 billion a year. 
That is $20 billion we could use to maybe pay down the debt and the 
deficit or put it back into Medicare, which is hurting and is going to 
run out of money in a few years. We could do good things with that 
money.
  The third thing this bill does is it requires a background check for 
every health care provider. Can you believe we don't check the criminal 
records of people who claim they are providing health care to our 
seniors? We don't check to see if they are felons. We had a guy in 
Miami who was a convicted murderer who claimed to be a health care 
provider. This would require we do a background check. And if you are a 
criminal, guess what. You don't get to provide health care. You don't 
get to dupe the system.
  So I hope we will take up this bill. I am appreciative of Senator 
Coburn. I am glad the President recognizes we can all agree on this. If 
we can all agree, let's get something done. Let's call the bill up and 
let's pass it.


                                 Haiti

  Mr. President, I had the opportunity to go on a congressional visit 
to Haiti a couple of weeks ago--actually, 2 weeks from tomorrow. We 
were there on the 1-month anniversary of the tragic earthquake that 
killed more than 200,000 people. Two hundred thousand people died in 
Haiti. Myself and the other Members of the Senate and the House who 
went there were able to see some of the tragedy.
  We visited the cathedral in Haiti. You often hear President Clinton 
talk about this wonderful Catholic cathedral in Haiti that stood the 
test of time but could not stand the test of this earthquake. In fact, 
really the only prominent part of this cathedral that still stood, 
unbelievably, was the cross.
  We talked to the people who were there. They are a wonderful and 
resilient people, and it is amazing that they could go on with the 
tragedy they had experienced.
  I had the great honor to visit the Gesco Ford Operating Hospital, 
staffed mostly by American doctors and nurses, some of them from Miami, 
some of them from Orlando, in my home State of Florida. They are doing 
wonderful work.
  We met with the President of the country and the Prime Minister and 
Ministers of the President's Cabinet, and we talked about what are the 
next steps.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter I authored to the President of the United States, to which I 
will be referring.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                          Washington, DC 20510

                                                February 18, 2010.
     Hon. Barack Obama,
     President of the United States,
     Washington, D.C.
       Dear Mr President: On Friday, February 12, we traveled to 
     Haiti with a bipartisan group of colleagues from the House 
     and Senate, led by Speaker Pelosi. The situation in Port-au-
     Prince, Haiti is dire. While much good work has been done to 
     provide water and food, and to bury the dead, international 
     assistance will be required for years to come.

[[Page 1970]]

       Although a disaster of historic proportions, this 
     earthquake provides great opportunity for renewal and rebirth 
     as tragedies of the past have for cities around the globe. 
     The goal must not be to return Haiti to where it was on 
     January 11, 2010, but to assist the Haitian people in 
     rebuilding a better, prosperous, and stable country.
       We understand that in the coming weeks your administration 
     will put forth a funding proposal to provide further relief 
     to the Haitian people. For our efforts to be accomplished, 
     that funding must be pursuant to a long-term plan for the 
     success of Haiti's redevelopment. Accordingly, we suggest the 
     following:
       With the aid of the international community, Haiti must 
     develop a long-term plan for investment. That plan must 
     include defined goals and accountability measures that ensure 
     both transparency and sustainable progress. Second, funds 
     must be provided in a significant way to the Haitian people 
     directly. Micro-loans for small businesses and similar 
     targeted programs that are directly linked to economic 
     performance will foster entrepreneurship and organic business 
     growth. Third, a priority of international assistance to 
     Haiti must be to ensure the well-being, safety, and security 
     of the thousands of orphans that are currently living in 
     Haiti. Fourth, long-term projects must focus on 
     infrastructure and job growth with a special attention on 
     developing centers of commerce outside the capital city, to 
     strengthen the economy and disperse the population. Finally, 
     a task force composed of Haitian-American leaders should be 
     convened to tap the energy and vigor of America's Haitian 
     community to sustain support for the relief effort.
       In the short term, a joint effort must begin immediately to 
     move displaced Haitians to high ground before the rainy 
     season begins in the coming weeks. Thousands of Haitians are 
     living in low-lying camps, and tragedy will strike again when 
     the rain comes. We urge your administration to stress this 
     point with President Preval and Prime Minister Bellerive.
       In the midst of the terrible disaster, we were all struck 
     by the strength and resiliency of the Haitian people. With a 
     long-term, measurable plan for redevelopment, the people of 
     Haiti can achieve an economy and a society worthy of our 
     investment and their tremendous sacrifice.
           Sincerely,
     George S. Lemieux,
     Bill Nelson,
     Amy Klobuchar,
     Frank R. Lautenberg,
       U.S. Senators.

  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, this letter is cosigned by myself, 
Senator Nelson, my colleague from Florida, Senator Klobuchar, as well 
as Senator Lautenberg, all of whom were on the trip with me. The letter 
basically asks the President to do four things in trying to focus our 
help and relief for this country.
  We have been involved in trying to help the Haitian people for 
decades, and the American people have opened their hearts and their 
wallets to help the situation in Haiti, but the situation is dire. I 
cannot think of a more complicated, difficult problem than trying to 
bring Haiti forward to a sustainable place.
  Haiti was already in bad shape, but it had a path forward and 
progress was being made. Now, as you drive the streets of Port-au-
Prince, it looks like a bombed area. It looks like a war zone. You will 
randomly see three buildings standing as if nothing had happened and 
then a building that is completely and utterly destroyed. Right now, 
thousands of people are huddled together in these makeshift camps in 
low-lying areas. My great fear for the short-term is that when the 
rains come, which they will in the next weeks in Haiti, there will be 
another great tragedy. So we have to be focused in our help.
  So I, along with my colleagues, sent this letter to the President and 
asked the President to do four things:
  First, create a long-term sustainable plan for Haiti and put in 
charge of that plan, on behalf of our relief efforts, a trustee, along 
with an inspector general, along with a board of advisers, to work in 
partnership with the Haitian Government to make sure the money is spent 
wisely. We cannot just send billions of dollars into Haiti and let the 
money evaporate in short-term solutions. There needs to be a long-term 
sustainable plan.
  Second, we have to provide funds to the Haitian people directly. 
Small businesses need microloans so they can provide jobs for the 
people of Haiti. We can't just give the money to third-party 
contractors.
  Third, we have to be focused on this orphan issue. We have to make 
sure it is done legally, and where it is done legally, we have to make 
sure we get those children to their adoptive parents as quickly as 
possible.
  Fourth, we have to make sure Port-au-Prince is not the center of the 
entire population for the country of Haiti. We are putting too many 
people in one place when tragedy strikes. We need to encourage 
development throughout the country.
  I had the honor of having the President of Royal Caribbean cruise 
lines in my office yesterday--a Floridian, Adam Goldstein--and we 
talked about tourism to Haiti. There is a beautiful citadel in Haiti 
that would be a wonderful attraction for cruise ship tourists. There 
have been all sorts of difficulties building a road to it and making 
sure it is safe and secure.
  We need to find ways to create jobs outside of Port-au-Prince, 
outside that city, so that fragile humanity is not all focused in one 
place.
  Finally, we need to make sure the Diaspora of Haiti, the Haitian-
American people--for example, we have about 250,000 Haitian Americans 
in Florida--are involved in the rebuilding of Haiti. They need to be 
welcomed. They are dying to get involved. They are hungry to get 
involved in this process of rebuilding their home country.
  So I hope the President will put together this commission, appoint a 
strong leader--a Colin Powell or someone of that magnitude--as the 
trustee to work with the Haitian people to rebuild the island of Haiti, 
and I hope we can get effort and energy behind that proposal quickly so 
we don't have any other significant challenges in the coming months 
ahead for the Haitian people.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today because our economy is 
struggling. Unemployment remains high, and the recession's hold on 
cities across America is as strong as ever. My home State of Nevada has 
been one of the hardest hit, and our tourism-dependent economy is 
barely hanging on. Unfortunately, this is true for tourism-dependent 
cities across our country.
  During these difficult economic times, it simply isn't enough to try 
to stimulate domestic spending by passing one massive spending bill 
after another. We need to incentivize tourists from across the world to 
visit the truly unique destinations across America. From one coast of 
this country to the other, there are endless opportunities to tour 
historic sights, take advantage of recreational opportunities, observe 
great architecture, visit theme parks, dine in some of the finest 
restaurants in the world, view natural and manmade miracles, and soak 
up everything that is so uniquely found in America. We all know we live 
in the best country in the world. Now is the time for people across the 
world to enjoy all we have to offer while repairing our economy at the 
same time.
  My colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, understands the 
importance of reasserting our tourism industry on the world stage. 
Together, he and I have sponsored the Travel Promotion Act, which is 
before us today. This bipartisan piece of legislation would help to 
make our travel and tourism industry more successful and more 
competitive internationally. So I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, 
for his great leadership on this important issue.
  Tourism is our country's truest form of economic stimulus. The 
average overseas visitor to the United States spends roughly $4,500 per 
trip to pay for hotels, transportation, dining, shopping, and other 
things. Unfortunately, tourism took a massive hit on 9/11, and it has 
not yet recovered. This lost decade has only been made worse by last 
year's recession.
  If the United States had managed to keep pace with global travel 
trends, 68 million more travelers would have visited the United States 
between 2000 and 2009. These travelers would have generated an 
estimated 250,000 new U.S. jobs in 2008 alone.
  At a time when unemployment is at record-high numbers in this 
country,

[[Page 1971]]

we cannot afford to throw away anymore tourism-related job creation. We 
could take a cue from Canada on successful ways to spur this tourism 
that we need so badly. If you have been watching the Olympics, you have 
seen these ads about British Columbia. I don't know about the rest of 
you, but it has made me actually want to go up and visit. But it is not 
just watching the Olympics. It is the ads that have been the most 
successful part of making me want to go to that part of the world. They 
have beautiful things to advertise, to show you: Doesn't that look like 
an incredible place to go visit?
  Think about all we have in America that we can advertise to the rest 
of the world that may not have thought about it. I didn't think about 
going up to Vancouver and British Columbia, but those ads spurred my 
interest in it, and I am sure they have for many Americans and other 
people around the world. Tourism-related jobs can be created simply by 
spreading the word about the wonderful destinations that are literally 
scattered across the United States of America, and we can do it without 
raising taxes on hard-working American families or by digging ourselves 
even further into debt.
  Unfortunately, the United States has dropped the ball when it comes 
to tourism and the industry has been virtually left behind. Declines in 
visits to the United States since 2000 have cost our country an 
estimated $500 billion in lost spending and at least $30 billion in 
lost tax receipts.
  My speech today is not all gloom and doom, however. Instead, I stand 
here to offer a solution, a solution that can help get our hard-hit 
tourism industry back on its feet. What we need is a comprehensive 
strategy coordinated by public-private partnerships between the 
Government and the expert leaders from our travel and tourism industry. 
This effort needs to center on a major initiative that will make the 
wonderful destinations throughout our great country known to foreign 
audiences. Actually, we do not want them to just be aware of these 
magnificent places. We want them to feel compelled to visit them.
  September 11, 2001, forever changed our country and the security 
measures along with it. But we need to teach potential visitors about 
the new security policies of today so they can travel to and from our 
country with ease.
  The bottom line is, the United States stands to make great gains 
economically and diplomatically if we strengthen our travel and tourism 
industry. So how do we go about doing this? The Travel Promotion Act 
which is before us today would create a public-private corporation for 
travel promotion to promote the United States as a travel destination 
to overseas travelers. This corporation would develop and execute a 
plan to do the following: It would promote the United States to foreign 
travelers by using coordinated advertising campaigns and other 
promotional activities, similar to what we see in the Olympics with 
Canada; the corporation would identify and correct misperceptions about 
U.S. travel policies; it would also help provide travel information to 
foreign visitors to the United States such as information about entry 
requirements, fees, and documents; and last, the corporation would 
focus its efforts to ensure that all 50 States benefit from overseas 
tourism, including areas not traditionally visited by international 
travelers.
  Understand this, no taxpayer funds would be used to finance the 
corporation for travel promotion. Let me repeat that. No taxpayer funds 
would be used to finance the corporation for travel promotion. All the 
funding would come from private industry and from user fees paid by 
some international visitors. This would finally put the United States 
on equal footing with many other developed countries.
  This legislation would be a true lifeline to my home State of Nevada, 
which depends so heavily on travel and tourism. I mentioned earlier my 
State was one of the hardest hit. But I do not think that description 
does the situation in Nevada justice. The tourism industry in Nevada, 
especially Las Vegas, has truly been crippled by the economy. Nevadans 
who were already struggling through home foreclosures have been forced 
to carry the burden of the downturned economy. Taxicab drivers, valets, 
housekeepers, waiters and waitresses and construction workers are 
drowning in this recession because Americans are not traveling like 
they used to. These workers are barely keeping their heads above water 
and some are not even able to do that. They are losing their homes, 
which has truly annihilated the housing market in my State.
  Boosting overseas travel will provide for growth in an otherwise 
shrinking segment of our economy, and it will help heal local economies 
around our country. This will, in turn, greatly advance our overall 
economy at a time when we cannot afford to turn away the potential of 
hundreds of billions of dollars.
  With domestic travel and convention travel down, overseas travel 
could be the silver lining we all need. At a time when our country 
faces record deficit and spending levels, I know this money may seem 
like a lot. Believe me when I say to you that I take my pledge of 
fiscal responsibility very seriously. I vote against spending bills 
that come across this floor all the time because they simply are an 
irresponsible waste of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. However, this bill 
is a responsible use of dollars. It does not apply a government 
spending bandaid to tough economic situations. It creates a solution 
that will greatly benefit our economy, and it does it without taxpayer 
dollars.
  The Travel Promotion Act, which has the overwhelming support of 
Democrats and Republicans alike, is a relatively small investment that 
will significantly boost our economy, create jobs, and make us more 
competitive in the world. The bill will not increase the deficit. This 
bill does not increase the deficit. But it could spur billions in 
additional economic activity, benefiting Americans all around the 
country.
  The Congressional Budget Office--nonpartisan, the official 
scorekeeper around here--confirms it will not place any additional 
burden on the taxpayer. People across my State and across the country 
have had to make difficult decisions when it comes to their own 
families' budgets. In fact, the legislature in my home State of Nevada 
is coming to terms with steep spending cuts and slashing services 
across the board as we speak, in a special session, because it is too 
far in the hole to sustain the current spending spree. So Americans are 
looking to us to boost the economy and so far we have not been able to 
do that.
  Yes, we have spent money--and a lot of money at that, in fact--but 
our economic situation remains the same. I am asking that we look to 
the tourism industry as a lifeline for our economy, as I know it will 
be for my State and for so many others. The Travel Promotion Act will 
be that lifeline. It will create jobs, create opportunity, and show the 
world the beauty and the diversity of America.
  Each one of us, who together represent all 50 States, knows we have 
incredible places to show the rest of the world. My home State of 
Nevada is actually the gateway to the Grand Canyon, which is located in 
Arizona. We have Lake Tahoe. We have, obviously, Las Vegas. We have so 
many other places to visit around our great State. But every single 
Senator could tell those stories. What we need to do is tell them in a 
way that makes foreign travelers want to come to America. The Travel 
Promotion Act is going to help us do that.
  Let me remind folks, if you watch the Olympics, ask yourself these 
questions when those commercials about British Colombia come on: Does 
that make you more or less likely to go, especially if you can afford 
it? I think the answer is pretty obvious. They make an attractive case 
to visit their country.
  This is the United States of America, with some of the most 
beautiful, incredible places to see. Are you telling me we cannot 
advertise this in a way that makes people want to come here? Of course 
we can. We can have tourism boosted like never before in this country 
and all Americans will benefit by

[[Page 1972]]

doing that because when foreign travelers come here, they spend money, 
boost the economy, and boost every single State in this country.
  I encourage this Senate to pass this bill as quickly as possible and 
get it over to the President for signature so we can get on with 
boosting the economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, may I ask what is the pending business 
before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The travel promotion bill.
  Mr. WEBB. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Kennan Nomination

  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes on 
behalf of Justice Barbara M. Kennan, who is the nominee to serve on the 
Fourth Circuit Court. I respectfully request, in the name of good 
governance and the proper functioning of our constitutional system, 
that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle allow a prompt vote 
on her nomination.
  Justice Kennan was voted out of committee in October of last year by 
a unanimous voice vote. Her nomination is noncontroversial. She has 
been a dedicated public servant, a fair and balanced jurist, and her 
nomination has had broad bipartisan support. I believe it is critical 
that we move forward as quickly as possible to confirm her nomination.
  There are currently four vacancies on the Fourth Circuit, more than 
any other circuit. The seat that Justice Kennan would fill has been 
vacant for more than 2 years. Justice Kennan is an extraordinary choice 
to fill this vacancy. She has been a State supreme court justice since 
1991. She has been a trailblazer for women in the law throughout her 
career. At the age of 29, she was the first female general district 
court judge in Virginia when she was selected for the Fairfax County 
bench. That was in 1980. She became the first female circuit court 
judge when she was promoted to that court in 1982.
  In 1985, she was 1 of 10 judges named to the First Virginia Court of 
Appeals and the only woman when that court was created. She was 
selected for the State Supreme Court, the second female justice ever to 
serve there, in 1991. She was, in fact, the first judge to have served 
on all four levels of Virginia's courts.
  I also would like to point out when Governor McDonnell was recently 
sworn into his office, he specifically requested that Justice Kennan 
deliver him the oath of office. There is a wide bipartisan consensus 
inside Virginia about the quality of this nominee, and I am very 
hopeful we can move forward in an expeditious way.
  I am mindful of the Senate's constitutional role in confirming 
executive nominations. It is vitally important, and a robust vetting 
process and debate is appropriate. We have conducted, inside Virginia 
in our delegation, that kind of vetting process which resulted in 
Justice Kennan's name being moved forward.
  In the spirit of pragmatic bipartisanship and good governance, I 
believe it is time to move past these procedural delays that seem to 
infect us and get on with the business of governing.
  I would like to point out that out of 876 Federal judgeships, there 
are now 100 vacancies. These delays affect the administration of 
justice. These vacancies delay the resolution of disputes and they 
diminish our citizens' rights to a speedy trial. It is my understanding 
that Justice Kennan has broad support in this body. The vote in the 
Judiciary Committee is evidence of that. In fact, I will be very 
surprised if any Senator were to vote against her confirmation. Again, 
I am asking my colleagues on the other side of the aisle if they might 
allow this nomination to advance in a timely way.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Thank you.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kaufman pertaining to the introduction of S. 3043 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, as I address this Chamber, President 
Obama is hosting the leaders of both political parties in a summit on 
the issue of health care reform. He has asked for all serious proposals 
to be brought to the table, once and for all, in an effort to bridge 
the gap between the House and Senate legislation and pass a final bill. 
He even provided his own proposal for how we can reconcile these bills 
with one another.
  I thank the President for his leadership on this issue and his 
continued commitment to the issue of health care reform. I am glad he 
has called Republicans and Democrats to the table once again in yet 
another effort to reenergize this debate and move forward on behalf of 
the American people. I remain confident that we can still get this work 
done. That is why I have come to the floor today: to reaffirm my 
commitment to comprehensive health care reform and to urge my 
colleagues to join with our President and the leadership of our 
respective parties to find a real solution. In fact, I recently joined 
many of my colleagues in signing a letter urging this Senate to pass a 
bill that includes a public option--something everyone in this room 
knows I have supported since the beginning of this long debate. No 
matter what comes out of this afternoon's summit, I will judge our 
final proposal based on its ability to acknowledge three goals--the 
same three goals I have called for time and again over the past several 
months.
  Our reform bill must restore competition to the insurance market, it 
must give us the tools to hold insurance companies accountable, and it 
must provide real cost savings to the American people. I am confident 
we can pass a measure that is capable of meeting these goals. I remain 
confident that after nearly a century of inaction, the American people 
demand and deserve nothing less.
  Every President, every Congress, every ordinary citizen in the past 
97 years has had to wrestle with a health care system that is broken 
and inadequate, a system that our predecessors consistently failed to 
fix; a system that has deteriorated badly over the last few decades and 
that remains unworthy of this great Nation. Today, 47 million Americans 
are without health insurance and 88 million do not have stable 
coverage. As a result of our broken system, 45 million Americans die 
every single year because they had no health insurance. These shocking 
facts should never be far from our minds as we debate these issues. 
They are more than statistics; they are ordinary Americans who 
desperately need our help.
  As I address this Chamber today, we stand on the verge of correcting 
the oversights of the past century and getting these people the help 
they need. Legislation has been written, amended, and rewritten. We 
have compromised and compromised again. Each Chamber

[[Page 1973]]

of the Congress has passed a comprehensive bill. Neither bill is 
perfect but both represent significant progress. We are so close to 
doing this. Now is the time to finish the journey.
  Late last year, both the House and Senate voted for health care 
reform with a strong voice and a clear majority. At this point, we have 
only to reconcile the differences between these two bills. Just this 
week, President Obama released his detailed proposal outlining exactly 
how we can get this done. I urge my colleagues from both Chambers and 
from both parties to strongly consider this option.
  Regardless of how we choose to proceed after today's bipartisan 
health care summit, let us come away with a definite plan of action. 
Let us come away with a plan to get this done, a plan that includes 
competition, cost savings, and accountability.
  It is time to realize the promise of the last 100 years. I urge my 
colleagues to finish the fight that Teddy Roosevelt first waged more 
than a generation before any of us were born. Now is not the time to 
lose our nerve. Now is the time to act with conviction. Let's not allow 
the obstructionist tactics of a few to undermine legislation that 
garnered 60 votes in this Chamber and 220 votes in the House. I refuse 
to accept that a handful of ``no'' votes can invalidate 280 votes. I 
refuse to accept that the minority party can stifle the voices of 
millions of Americans and hundreds of Members of Congress who have 
demanded that we win this fight. I call upon my colleagues in both 
Chambers to look past our differences and carry out the will of the 
American people. They sent Democrats to Congress with the largest 
majority in decades. They elected a President who has pledged himself 
to this cause.
  As far as the American people are concerned, this debate was over a 
long time ago. This issue has carried the day. This is the measure that 
the American people voted for in 2008 and, my fellow Democrats, this is 
what our party is all about. Now is not the time to shrink from the 
fight but to engage in it. Now is not the time to falter or to second-
guess the wisdom of the folks who sent us here. Now is the time to take 
bold action, to forge ahead, to carry forward the ideas and principles 
of our party by delivering real results and delivering for the American 
people a health care plan that will give them protection and not see 
their premiums going up 39 percent and 40 percent.
  Comprehensive health care reform will extend quality coverage to 31 
million Americans. It will reduce premiums and prevent insurance 
companies from abusing their customers or discriminating against people 
who get sick. Can my colleagues imagine: You get sick and think you 
have coverage today and then they cancel your policy and you have no 
coverage. The majority leader stood on the floor yesterday and told the 
story about the young kid with the cleft lip where the father paid 
$90,000 because the insurance company canceled the policy because the 
kid was born with a cleft lip. That is unconscionable. We in this 
country should not tolerate it.
  The Senate bill could even cut the Federal deficit by about $1 
trillion over the next two decades. I ask my colleagues: What are we 
waiting for? This is about values, not politics. Our country deserves 
better, so let's make it happen.
  In politics, it is easy to find excuses. It is easy to wait, to 
delay, to place blame on another and throw up our hands. That is not 
leadership. That is not what the American people have called upon us to 
do and it is far less than they deserve. The American people have been 
waiting for 100 years, and I, for one, think that is quite long enough.
  I say to my colleagues: It is time for us to lead. It is time to take 
up the mantle of Teddy Roosevelt and, yes, Teddy Kennedy, and everyone 
in between. Because this isn't just about health care; it is about 
creating jobs, helping small businesses, and keeping America on the 
road to economic recovery. These issues are not separate as some would 
have us believe. They are tied inextricably together. Fixing the 
American health care system will reduce the deficit, make it easier for 
small businesses to meet expenses, create jobs, and provide health 
coverage to more Americans than ever before. The way I see it, we 
cannot afford to wait any longer.
  So let us act with a strong, united voice. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in passing a final health care bill and sending it to President 
Obama as soon as possible. Yesterday would have been all right. Let's 
win this fight. Let's stand up for what we believe in and succeed where 
our predecessors came up short. The stakes are too high to settle for 
anything else.
  I say to my colleagues, and to those who are meeting today with the 
President, we must come up and out of this summit with a plan that is 
going to give health insurance to the people of America not tomorrow, 
not next week, but right now.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I note the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Nevada's tourism has been hit hard by the 
slowing worldwide economy. And when tourism in Nevada hurts, the entire 
State suffers.
  Hardworking people have lost their jobs. The State's budget has taken 
a major hit. Because that budget is largely funded by tourism, funding 
for vital programs in our State are at risk.
  But Nevada is not alone. Its problem is not unique. Tourism is one of 
the top industries in nearly every State in the country and one of the 
largest employers in America.
  That is why this bill is so important. This is an opportunity not 
only to give American tourism a boost, but it is one of the many ways 
we are working to create jobs and help our economy recover.
  The concept behind it is simple: It says, let's create jobs and 
reduce the deficit. It is a win-win for the economy of every State and 
our national economy alike.
  And it is a bipartisan bill that take the strategies that have made 
Las Vegas such a success and brings them to our entire Nation's tourism 
industry.
  This week, the U.S. Travel Association called the last 10 years a 
``lost decade'' for tourism. It cost us half a million jobs and half a 
billion dollars in lost spending. This bill will turn that around.
  The travel promotion bill is a jobs bill. It is about creating jobs, 
it is about growing our economy and it is about keeping the United 
States competitive in the world travel business.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4691

  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration 
of H.R. 4691, which is a 30-day extension of provisions which expire on 
Sunday, February 28--they are an unemployment insurance extension; 
COBRA, health insurance for the unemployed; flood insurance; the 
Satellite Home Viewer Act; highway funding; SBA business loans and 
small business provisions of the American Recovery Act; SGR, which is 
the so-called doctor fix; and poverty guidelines--received from the 
House and at the desk; that the bill be read three times, passed, and 
the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table.
  This matter passed the House unanimously today. The reason it passed 
the House unanimously today, if we don't do something about this, all 
around America, about 1\1/2\ million people who will be watching TV 
will no longer watch TV. This is mostly in rural areas of America, 
rural areas of Nevada. I guess we could be hard-hearted and say they 
don't need to watch TV, but in Nevada we have very harsh winters in 
many parts of the State. For many of these people, the only way they 
can get information is through television. It could lead to some very 
serious problems. If we talk about flood insurance, even though Nevada 
is a very dry

[[Page 1974]]

State, this is something we need to do for States where we have all 
kinds of problems with floods all the time. We, in northern Nevada and 
in southern Nevada, have had some devastating floods, not often but we 
have them. Highway funding, this costs nothing, what we are doing here, 
the extension costs zero. SBA business loans, this costs $60 million to 
allow the SBA to continue processing programs to allow people who want 
to have a business to get a few dollars so they can continue or start a 
new business. We are not going to be able to do this because it expires 
at the end of this month; small business provisions of the Recovery 
Act, the same thing; poverty guidelines, these things cost nothing 
basically nothing; the SGR, it is my understanding about $1 billion is 
being asked for here. I think it is such a shame that we don't get this 
done. The big ones, though, from my perspective, are the poor. We have 
people who weren't poor who are now poor because they have been 
unemployed for so long. This will terminate on Monday. I talked to the 
Presiding Officer. In just a matter of weeks, 65,000 people in Illinois 
will no longer be able to draw these benefits. In the State of Nevada, 
which is not as heavily populated as Illinois, thousands of people who 
have been unemployed for long periods of time--and I repeat, they 
started out in this business not being poor; they are poor now--it 
would be a shame not to give them those moneys.
  My friend, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, is going to say: 
Pay for all this. As I have gone through everything we have talked 
about, it doesn't cost much money. Unemployment compensation does. It 
costs a lot of money. We have millions of people who are unemployed. In 
years past, when we wanted to extend unemployment benefits, it was an 
emergency, a declared emergency historically in this body. Why? Because 
it is an emergency. We have rules in effect, pay-go rules we have 
passed. Of course, we can look to that as a step forward. But that 
doesn't mean we don't have emergencies.
  I would also say that COBRA--what is COBRA? It is a program to help 
people who are out of work or who lose their jobs get insurance.
  Anyway, I say to my friend from Kentucky, I would hope that for the 
people I have described who are just wanting us to do our work, we can 
get that done. I hope my friend would not object to this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). Is there objection?
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard from the Senator from 
Kentucky, Mr. Bunning.


                  unanimous consent request--H.R. 4691

  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to H.R. 
4691 and that the Reid of Nevada substitute amendment which is the desk 
be considered read; that the Republican leader or his designee be 
recognized to offer a substitute amendment, and there be 60 minutes of 
debate with respect to that amendment, with the time equally divided 
and controlled between the leaders or their designees; that upon the 
use or yielding back of that time, and if a budget point of order is 
made against the amendment, a motion to waive the relevant point of 
order be considered made, and the Senate then vote on the motion to 
waive the point of order; that if the waiver is successful, the 
amendment be agreed to and the Reid substitute, as amended, be agreed 
to; that if the waiver fails, the amendment be withdrawn; further, that 
there be 30 minutes for debate with respect to the Reid substitute 
amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled between the 
leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of that 
time, and if a budget point of order is made against the amendment, a 
motion to waive the relevant point of order be considered made, and the 
Senate then vote on the motion to waive the point of order; that if the 
waiver is successful, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the 
Reid substitute amendment; further, that no further amendments, 
motions, except a motion to reconsider a vote, or debate be in order; 
that upon disposition of the Reid substitute amendment, the bill, as 
amended, be read a third time; and following the reading by the clerk 
of the budgetary effects of the pay-go legislation with respect to H.R. 
1586, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended; 
that upon passage, the title amendment, which is at the desk, be 
considered and agreed to.
  Before my friend from Kentucky makes his feelings known, let me say 
this. This is something we worked out yesterday. When I say ``we,'' 
that means Democrats and Republicans, all except one Senator. What this 
agreement allows is for all the provisions in this, these extensions be 
paid for out of the stimulus or the economic recovery money. That is a 
fair vote. Some people want to do that. Let's vote on it. We know what 
the rules are. We are sent here to vote. We are not sent here to 
object. When 99 Senators want something done, it is not right for one 
Senator to hold it up. My friend has that right. But it is a real 
problem for so many different people. I would hope we could have a 
vote. We can do it tonight and move on to other things.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BUNNING. Reserving the right to object, I just wish to make sure 
I am objecting to the right motion. In the third-to-last sentence, the 
leader used, in my opinion, the wrong number. He used H.R. 1586.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky is right. I have 
it written here.
  Mr. BUNNING. It should be 4691.
  Mr. REID. That was my mistake. I appreciate the Senator catching 
that.
  Mr. BUNNING. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard by the Senator from 
Kentucky, Mr. Bunning.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, may I now speak and propose a unanimous 
consent? First of all, let me say this to my good friend from Nevada. I 
have worked all day trying to work out a compromise, anywhere from 2 to 
4 weeks on this UC, trying to get it paid for, for the time of the 
extension. We were very close. We tried to get agreement using 
different pay-fors than what I am going to propose. But in the final 
analysis, it came down to, when the White House summit adjourned, the 
leader came back and it was going to be his way and no one else's way. 
That is what it turned into. I am going to propose a 30-day extension 
with an offset. So I am as anxious to get those same provisions he has 
brought up--the COBRA, flood insurance, Satellite Home Viewer Act, 
highway funding, SBA provisions, American Recovery Act, SGR, poverty 
guidelines. I wish to get them renewed also.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4691

  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the immediate consideration of H.R. 4691; that the amendment at the 
desk, which offers a full offset, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, 
be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Is there objection?
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there 
probably has never been a time in the history of our country when we 
had economic conditions that are like they are today--unemployment all 
over this country averaging some 10 percent; some States as high as 14 
percent. If there were ever an emergency with our economy, it is 
tonight, it is today. And to think we are not going to declare this an 
emergency?
  Millions of people are unemployed, millions of people have been 
unemployed for long periods of time and their unemployment benefits are 
running out. They are not able to buy their health insurance because 
the program is going to expire on Monday.
  The Senate has a history of treating unemployment benefits as an 
emergency. No one, I repeat, can argue that the current economic 
downturn does not represent a grave emergency. So, Mr. President, I am 
forced to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on

[[Page 1975]]

the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to 
H.R. 1299 occur at 7:50 p.m. tonight--3 minutes from now--that if 
cloture is invoked, then all postcloture time be considered yielded 
back, Senator DeMint then be recognized for up to 10 minutes to move to 
suspend the rules; that upon the use of that time, the Senate then 
proceed to vote on the DeMint motion; that if the DeMint motion is 
successful, then the amendment be agreed to, and the motion to concur 
with the amendment be agreed to; that if the DeMint motion fails, then 
no other motions or debate be in order; that the motion to concur with 
an amendment be withdrawn, and the Senate then proceed to vote on the 
Reid of Nevada motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment to the bill, H.R. 1299.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we expect to have three votes here tonight. 
As soon as those are done, we will not have another vote until Tuesday, 
but it will be in the morning.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
     1299, the United States Capitol Police Administrative 
     Technical Corrections Act.
         Harry Reid, Byron L. Dorgan, Russell D. Feingold, Patrick 
           J. Leahy, Daniel K. Inouye, Kay R. Hagan, Jeff 
           Bingaman, Robert Menendez, Richard J. Durbin, Jack 
           Reed, Mark Begich, Patty Murray, Bernard Sanders, 
           Robert P. Casey, Jr., Barbara Boxer, Jon Tester, John 
           D. Rockefeller IV.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
1299, the United States Capitol Police Administrative Technical 
Corrections Act, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 76, nays 20, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]

                                YEAS--76

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--20

     Barrasso
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Kyl
     McCain
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Lautenberg
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 76, the nays are 
20. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader is recognized.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
remarks of Senator DeMint, his vote and the next vote be 10 minutes in 
duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Cloture having been invoked, the motion to refer falls.
  Under the previous order, all postcloture time is yielded back.
  The Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint, is recognized for up to 
10 minutes.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I know many here are very anxious to start 
a new government agency, and I won't hold you up for very long.
  It is important that we recognize some things that are happening. 
There is probably one good thing we can do tonight--maybe--to stop the 
landslide of more government control. In the last year--a little over a 
year--we have seen this Federal Government take over two of our largest 
auto companies, our largest mortgage company, our largest insurance 
company, and expand its control on America's domestic energy sources, 
and, of course, we had the debate on trying to expand control of health 
care.
  We are expecting, very soon, a new financial reform package that will 
expand Federal control everywhere from Wall Street to the local 
pawnshop.
  While these big things are coming in front of us, there are things 
happening in the executive branch that are circumventing Congress, and 
that should concern us. A lot of you have heard from industries back 
home about what the EPA standards are doing. Businesses don't know what 
to expect, nor do local communities. I had an engine company in my 
office today that said orders were on hold until they find out what the 
EPA is going to do. I have also had people in my office in the last 
week talking about the FCC and the coming ruling on expanding control 
over the Internet--one place in our economy that continues to boom with 
innovation.
  There is one thing that just leaked out that I want to bring to your 
attention. We need to try to halt that tonight before it is too late. A 
whistleblower at the Department of the Interior leaked a document that 
shows they are considering using the Antiquities Act to grab over 10 
million acres of land in nine Western States and basically take them 
offline of jobs for mining, forestry, and energy. This includes Nevada, 
Utah, Montana, New Mexico, California, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, and 
Washington. It is important that we stop this and at least have some 
Senate hearings on what they are trying to do.
  This is a priority for what we are talking about today because the 
President and the Congress have said our top priority is jobs. This 
action by the Interior Department will hurt jobs. It will dry up tax 
revenues in local communities and States. It will restrict energy 
supplies in this country.
  Mr. President, all I am asking is that we suspend the rules, which 
require 67 votes, and vote on this amendment to stop the Department of 
the Interior from taking over over 10 million acres of land and hurting 
our economy and jobs.
  I promised the leader I would keep it to less than 10 minutes. I 
encourage everybody to support this motion I am getting ready to make.
  Mr. President, I move to suspend the provisions of rule XXII, 
including germaneness requirements, for the purpose of proposing and 
considering my amendment, which is at the desk, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion of 
the Senator from South Carolina to suspend rule XXII and offer an 
amendment to

[[Page 1976]]

prohibit the establishment of national monuments under the Antiquities 
Act or any other law.
  I understand that the proposed amendment is in response to 
allegations that a portion of an internal planning memo at the 
Department of the Interior identified several areas throughout the 
country as areas that may be appropriate for potential national 
monument consideration.
  The Secretary of the Interior has stated that the document was simply 
a brainstorming exercise to identify sites on public land that might 
merit more serious consideration for possible management options, and 
that no decisions have been made about which areas, if any, might merit 
more serious review and consideration.
  I don't think it makes sense to try to legislate every time an 
article appears in a newspaper. I would observe that even the document 
in question that was leaked to certain Members of Congress states that 
``further evaluations should be completed prior to any decision, 
including an assessment of public and Congressional support,'' and 
Secretary Salazar has publicly stated his view that new designations 
and conservation initiatives work best when they build on local 
efforts. So I think that any attempt to legislate at this time is very 
premature.
  Apart from the substantive problems with the proposed DeMint 
amendment, the travel promotion bill is not the appropriate legislation 
to consider this issue, and waiving the Senate rules to allow for 
consideration of an amendment that would not otherwise be in order is, 
in my view, not appropriate.
  For these reasons, I oppose the motion to suspend rule XXII.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 38, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 27 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--58

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Lautenberg
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 38, the nays are 
58. Two-thirds of the Senate voting, a quorum being present, not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Under the previous order, the motion to concur with amendment No. 
3326 is withdrawn.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in 
support of H.R. 1299, the Capitol Police Administration bill, the 
legislative vehicle for the Travel Promotion Act of 2009.
  The Travel Promotion Act of 2009 will allow the United States to 
remain competitive as a welcoming destination for foreign travelers. 
Our ability to explain the processes and changes made by the United 
States to gain entry for travel will help to ease fears about the entry 
process. The proposed nonprofit, independent corporation charged with 
this responsibility will be able to conduct the necessary outreach and 
promote tourism in a way that the tourism industry cannot. In addition, 
an Office of Travel Promotion will be able to work with the Department 
of State and the Department of Homeland Security to improve the entry 
process.
  Promoting the United States as an attractive tourist destination for 
both leisure and business with international visitors is of the utmost 
importance to the many States that house destination resorts. Consider 
the experience of my own home State of Hawaii. Hawaii's economy largely 
relies on travel and travel related business. Visitors from around the 
world come to see our islands' natural beauty, and experience the 
spirit of ``Aloha.'' Our Nation's hospitality industry suffered a 
severe setback following the events of September 11, 2001, and travel 
from abroad to the United States fell dramatically.
  It is not only the hospitality industry in Hawaii that suffers, but 
our local businesses. The State of Hawaii boasts its beauty and 
environment, but many travelers to our State come to do business, which 
is sometimes obscured or overlooked because of Hawaii's label as a 
tourist destination. The hospitality industry's employees rely on 
vacationers and businessmen and women to provide for their families. 
The economic activity generated by this industry continues to struggle 
during these financially challenging times.
  Hawaii's experience is not unique. The hospitality industry 
nationwide continues to face similar challenges, and the economic 
effects have rippled through the nation to impact all of our citizens. 
The State of Hawaii's visitor statistics continue to reflect the 
downward trend. Preliminary travel data for 2009 indicate that there 
was an overall 3.5 percent decline in the number of international 
visitors to the islands compared to the number of international 
visitors in 2008. Nationwide, the number of international visitors 
between January and November of 2009 fell by 7.2 percent compared to 
the same period during 2008.
  Both developing countries and industrialized economies around the 
world have ministers and offices that promote travel to their 
respective countries. However, the United States does not have an 
office that promotes travel and tourism abroad. This legislation is an 
important first step in the right direction. Establishing an Office of 
Travel Promotion will help to attract foreign travelers to the United 
States. This will not only sustain our tourism based industries, it 
reinforces business relationships and promotes a better understanding 
between Americans and our friends abroad. Interacting with the American 
people is a valuable tool at our disposal to dispel international 
travelers of misconceptions they may have about our country. 
Approximately 74 percent of visitors have a more favorable opinion of 
the United States after visiting our country.
  The economic activity generated by international travel and its 
promotion should be approached in the same manner we foster other 
industries equally important to jobs and the economy. The Travel 
Promotion Act of 2009 is vital to our travel and tourism industry's 
ability to compete globally, and to restore confidence in the United 
States' image as a country that is committed to welcoming our friends 
from abroad. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and help 
us ensure that international business and leisure travel to the United 
States is given all of the tools necessary to succeed.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur in the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1299.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page 1977]]


  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 28 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--18

     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Kyl
     McCain
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Lautenberg
     Warner
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have no real strong feelings about this 
bill other than that I do not think this country needs to create 
another corporation, a corporation that would be authorized to impose 
an annual assessment on U.S. members of the travel and tourism industry 
represented on a board of directors of the corporation established in 
the Department of Commerce, Office of Travel Promotion. I do not 
believe we need another office in this bureaucracy, so I will be voting 
against this bill. I voted against it on June 22 of last year, 
September 8 of last year, and September 9 of last year, so my vote 
would have been the same this year.

                          ____________________