[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11168-11180]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




KEEP STUDENT LOANS AFFORDABLE ACT OF 2013--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued


                        Disabilities Convention

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, 23 years ago I stood here on the Senate 
floor as we voted 91 to 6 for the conference report on the Americans 
With Disabilities Act. I predicted this landmark piece of legislation 
would literally unlock the resources of individuals with disabilities 
that had previously been wasted. I worked long and hard to get it 
enacted into law. It is one of the bills of which I feel most 
appreciative.
  In 2008, I again stood here on the Senate floor as we passed the ADA 
Amendments Act by unanimous consent. I said it was part of our ongoing 
effort to expand opportunities for individuals with disabilities and to 
help them participate in the American dream. I remain committed to that 
effort.
  Both of these legislative achievements were the result of negotiation 
and compromise, and they directly addressed and provided concrete 
solutions to problems faced by American citizens. We should address 
such public policy issues through the legislative process so elected 
representatives make the decisions that affect Americans and are 
consequently accountable to them.
  There is underway an effort to promote the rights and opportunities 
of persons with disabilities through a treaty rather than through 
legislation. Advocates of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons 
With Disabilities--or CRPD--appear to believe that statutes and 
treaties are simply alternative means to accomplish the same end. 
Although I have labored with these advocates on disability legislation, 
I must respectfully but firmly disagree.
  My record on disability legislation speaks for itself, but I cannot 
support the CRPD because the cost to American sovereignty and self-
government clearly outweighs any concrete benefit to Americans.
  When Alexander Hamilton explained the American system of 
representative self-government, he famously said that in America, ``The 
people govern; here, they act by their immediate representatives.'' 
Those words today are inscribed above an entrance to the House of 
Representatives in the Capitol, a building that Thomas Jefferson 
described as ``dedicated to the sovereignty of the people.''
  That sovereignty certainly includes the authority to elect 
representatives and the authority of those representatives to enact 
laws. But it is much more than that. The American people also have 
authority to define our culture, express our values, set our 
priorities, and balance the many competing interests that exist in a 
free society. To put it simply, the American people must have the last 
word. The CRPD would undermine that sovereignty, compromise self-
government, and give the last word to the United Nations. Let me 
explain how.
  The CRPD is not a treaty with other nations but a treaty with the 
United Nations itself. Ratifying it would create a wide range of 
obligations for the United States and authorize the United Nations to 
determine whether we are meeting those obligations.
  The U.N. Web site says the CRPD legally binds any nation ratifying it 
to adhere to its principles. The treaty applies those principles in 
more than two dozen areas of national life including education, health, 
employment, accessibility, and independent living, as well as 
participation in political, public, and cultural life. Article 8 even 
requires ratifying nations to ``raise awareness throughout society, 
including at the family level, regarding persons with disabilities.''
  The treaty also spells out what adherence to its principles in these 
many areas will require. Ratifying nations must enact, modify, or 
abolish not only laws and regulations at all levels of government--
Federal, state, and local--but also social customs and cultural 
practices. Ratifying nations must refrain from engaging in any acts or 
practices that are inconsistent with the treaty as well as ensure that 
all public authorities and institutions act in conformity with it.
  The heart of the CRPD is a committee of 18 experts elected by the 
nations ratifying the treaty that has authority to determine if those 
nations are in compliance. Each nation must submit to this committee 
periodic comprehensive reports on measures taken to meet the 
obligations imposed by the treaty. The U.N. committee dictates the 
content of these reports, evaluates whether a nation is in compliance, 
and makes whatever recommendations it so chooses.
  I commend to Senators an article coauthored by our former colleague 
from Arizona Jon Kyl and published in the current issue of the journal 
Foreign Affairs. He explains well how international law can undermine 
democratic sovereignty. Of this particular treaty, the CRPD, he writes,

       If the treaty has a practical effect, it would be due in 
     large part to interpretations made by foreign government 
     officials and judges and by nongovernmental organizations, 
     none answerable to American voters.

  Under the U.S. Constitution, ratified treaties are the supreme law of 
the land. Since the United States has long had the most progressive 
disability laws and policies in the world, we likely are already doing 
much that the CRPD requires. But that is not the point, and instead 
highlights the real problem. Ratifying the CRPD would endorse an 
official ongoing role for the United Nations in evaluating virtually 
every aspect of American life. Ratifying the CRPD would say the United 
Nations, not the American people, has the final say about whether the 
United States is meeting its obligations in these many areas. It would 
impose this cost to American sovereignty and self-government with no 
real concrete benefit to Americans.
  Ratifying the CRPD will not establish a single right for a single 
American. It will not provide for Americans with disabilities anything 
that American law has not or could not provide. It would not even help 
Americans with disabilities who travel overseas because their treatment 
depends on the laws and policies of other countries, not ours.
  The CRPD's combination of obligations and U.N. oversight can help 
move nations that have not done so on their own toward protecting the 
rights and promoting the opportunities of persons with disabilities. 
That, I take it, is a strategic purpose of the treaty. But the United 
States is not only far down that road, we literally blazed the trail, 
and I was a significant part of blazing that trail.
  Treaty advocates argue that the CRPD's impact on American sovereignty 
and self-government can be minimized by the many caveats that would 
accompany ratification. These are commonly referred to as reservations, 
understandings, and declarations. The legal status of these caveats, 
however, is unclear. The CRPD itself states that ``[r]eservations 
incompatible with the object and purpose of the [CRPD] shall not be 
permitted,'' a judgment reserved to the U.N. committee. No less an 
authority than Harold Koh, former State Department legal adviser and 
now Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale, has questioned 
whether such declarations have ``either domestic or international legal 
effect.''

[[Page 11169]]

  Treaty advocates also emphasize that the U.N. committee will have no 
formal authority to interfere domestically in the United States. But as 
I explained, American sovereignty and self-government are not so narrow 
that they could be undermined only if we literally let the United 
Nations run our country. The United Nations and its components hardly 
need a treaty to opine on aspects of American life and public policy; 
they already do so--and we have seen it many times. It is, however, 
something else entirely for the United States formally to endorse the 
right of the United Nations to do so and subject ourselves to their 
evaluation.
  Treaty advocates say that ratifying the CRPD would give the United 
States a ``seat at the table'' to promote the rights and opportunities 
of persons with disabilities around the world. Ratifying the CRPD will 
neither create, nor is necessary to maintain, America's global 
leadership on behalf of persons with disabilities. We had the most 
progressive laws in the world decades before the CRPD existed. 
Individual nations, as well as the European Union, are today modeling 
their laws after ours even without ratifying the treaty.
  The only table in this arena at which the United States doesn't 
already have a seat is the U.N. disability committee. But do the math. 
The committee has 18 members who are elected by the CRPD's state 
parties, currently 132 nations. The chances of the United States having 
a seat at that table at any particular time are remote and will get 
even smaller as even more nations ratify the treaty. Besides, as I 
noted, advocates acknowledge that the U.N. committee has no formal 
authority anyway.
  Finally, treaty advocates say the ratification by the United States 
will encourage other nations to do so. But at least 19 nations on four 
continents--from Norway and the Russian Federation to Barbados, Israel, 
and Liberia--have ratified the CRPD since it was received here in the 
Senate a little more than a year ago.
  I have not addressed substantive issues with the CRPD as currently 
drafted, but I will mention one. For more than four decades, American 
disability law and policy have used an objective, functional definition 
of disability. A disability is an impairment that substantially limits 
a major life activity. The CRPD, however, states that ``disability is 
an evolving concept'' involving barriers that hinder ``full and 
effective participation on an equal basis with others.'' The threat to 
American sovereignty and self-government I have described would exist 
even if the CRPD utilized a similar concept of disability. But at least 
by the CRPD's terms, it appears the U.N. committee will use an evolving 
concept of disability to evaluate how the United States has implemented 
its objective concept of disability.
  There exists virtually nothing that the United States could do after 
ratification that it could not or does not already do today. The truth 
is that every argument for ratifying the CRPD applies properly to other 
countries, not to the United States. The only real benefit of 
ratification that I can see would be to endorse the principles and 
policy statements in the treaty. The United States, however, either 
already does so by law or can do so in ways that do not undermine our 
sovereignty and self-government.
  In the end, the most potent kind of leadership is the kind that 
America has exercised for decades--decades already, taking real action 
to protect the rights and promote the opportunities of persons with 
disabilities. I remain as committed as ever to that ongoing 
responsibility.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, what do you get when Congress passes a 
2,700-page piece of legislation on a purely partisan basis that 
radically transforms one-fifth of our economy and impacts the lives of 
319 million Americans? What do you get when you oppose the huge costs 
of this legislation, and this new bureaucracy that goes along with it, 
on an economy that is trying to recover from one of the biggest 
recessions our country ever experienced back in 2008? Well, two of the 
things you get for sure are higher unemployment and fewer jobs, and 
anemic economic growth. We have seen both of those in the daily news. I 
am afraid we now have a new normal when it comes to unemployment in 
America, which is at 7.6 percent, and that does not count the people 
who have quit looking for work.
  The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a ranking of how they rate the 
number of people actually looking for work, and it is called the labor 
participation rate. It is on their Web site. We have the fewest number 
of Americans in the workforce than we have had in the last 30 years.
  We didn't get many of the benefits that were promised when ObamaCare 
was passed at a time when we were essentially told: We are from the 
government. Trust us. It will all turn out OK.
  One of the most important numbers in the recent job report is the 
number 8.2 million. That is the number of Americans who are now working 
part time instead of full time because the full-time jobs are simply 
not available. In other words, there are 8.2 million workers who are 
working part time even though they want a full-time job, but they 
cannot find one.
  To give some perspective, the number was 7.6 million in March. So 
between May and June we have seen that number increase by 300,000. 
There are 300,000 Americans who were unable to find full-time work, so 
they had to accept part-time work. When we talk about numbers such as 
these, I know it is tempting to think of those numbers as just 
abstractions, but these are the American people. These are moms, dads, 
brothers, and sisters. These are young adults who are looking for work 
but simply can't find work on a full-time basis.
  I would suggest--and I think the evidence is compelling--that one of 
the reasons for that is ObamaCare. The law requires all businesses with 
50 or more full-time workers to provide their employees with 
government-approved health care coverage, and if they don't, then they 
have to pay a financial penalty. This requirement was originally 
scheduled to kick in next year, but last week the Obama administration 
announced that this so-called employer mandate would be delayed until 
2015. In other words, the administration has implicitly acknowledged 
that the mandate is discouraging the creation of full-time jobs and is 
actually reducing working hours, which is relegating many American 
workers--300,000 more between May and June--to part-time work even 
though they want to work full time. The irony is that the ObamaCare 
bill passed in the Senate--and I still remember this--on Christmas Eve 
of 2009 at 7 a.m. in the morning. It was later reconciled with the 
House legislation in 2010. But we have had two elections occur before 
the full implementation of this bill. What we are going to see now is 
moving the implementation off again until after the 2014 election. In 
my view, that is dangerous because it means there is no electoral 
accountability for the true impact of this legislation even though we 
are beginning to see some of it.
  Of course, the basic problem is that the mandate won't magically 
disappear in 2015, even after it has been delayed by unilateral action 
of the administration. But what strikes me as pretty simple is that 
when you penalize full-time work, what you are going to get is part-
time work in order to avoid the penalty.
  Of course, the employer mandate isn't the only part of ObamaCare that 
is hampering job creation. The law also contains $1 trillion in tax 
increases--including a new medical device tax that has already prompted 
several large manufacturers to close existing facilities or cancel 
plans for new ones.

[[Page 11170]]

I remember a few months ago I had a medical device company located in 
Texas tell me that they were going to be expanding their operations in 
Costa Rica instead of Texas in order to avoid this tax.
  The medical device tax has also discouraged health-care savings and 
lifesaving innovations. One of the great things about our country and 
our free enterprise system is that if somebody has a better way to do 
something, they can design it, build it, and consumers can benefit from 
it. In this case, this medical device tax has been destructive of each 
of those.
  Indeed, this tax has been so counterproductive that 79 Members of 
this Senate--a supermajority on a bipartisan basis--rejected it during 
the vote on the budget resolution recently and effectively said that it 
should be repealed. A number of colleagues from across the aisle who 
supported this legislation initially have now seen that the way this is 
being implemented can be damaging and destructive not only to job 
creation but access to quality health care. The same thing can be said 
of the 81 Members who voted to abolish ObamaCare's IRS 1099 reporting 
requirement back in 2011. The more we have learned about the 
implementation of ObamaCare, the less popular it has become.
  For that matter, the administration itself has had second thoughts 
about key provisions of ObamaCare. In 2010, the Department of Health 
and Human Services began granting a series of waivers from ObamaCare's 
annual limit requirements. It eventually granted more than 1,000. In 
other words, the administration unilaterally said to some people: You 
don't have to comply with the law, while the rest of us were stuck with 
it.
  In 2011, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius 
suspended all work on the so-called CLASS Act, a portion of ObamaCare 
that was formally repealed earlier this year. And, a few months ago, 
Health and Human Services announced that ObamaCare's basic health 
program would be delayed until 2015--again, after the next midterm 
congressional election. Just last week, in addition to delaying the 
employer mandate, the administration also delayed another important 
provision in the ObamaCare oversight. In other words, it said, You 
don't even have to prove that you are financially eligible for taxpayer 
subsidies to get insurance in the health exchanges.
  This is an invitation to fraud and abuse. We saw in 2008 when the 
bubble burst after the financial crisis came to a head, one of the root 
causes of that was companies writing loans to people who couldn't 
qualify for those loans, but they didn't require any financial 
disclosure or verification. Those came to be known as liar loans.
  We are essentially now refusing to learn from that experience in the 
health care field, on the part of the administration, to see as many 
people as possible signed up for the health care exchanges, but based 
only on their unilateral declaration that they are eligible, not any 
real verification or proof. That is an invitation to fraud.
  To add it all up, notwithstanding its aspirations and notwithstanding 
the hopes and perhaps dreams of those who thought we were going to 
somehow transform health care with this legislation, it has now become 
clear to me, and I daresay millions of Americans, that ObamaCare has 
simply not lived up to its promises. It is not working as advertised. I 
think there is a growing bipartisan consensus to that effect. I have 
mentioned some examples and some reasons why, including as well that 
for the past 3 years we have witnessed a nonstop parade of fix-ups, 
fumbles, delays, and broken promises.
  For example, during the 2008 campaign, President Obama pledged his 
health care law would transform health care; it would make health care 
costs for a family of four go down by $2,500. What has actually 
happened is the cost of family premiums has actually gone up by nearly 
$2,400 between 2009 and 2012. According to the Wall Street Journal, 
healthy consumers could see insurance rates double or even triple when 
they look for individual coverage under ObamaCare, and that will happen 
this fall. Some of it is so-called age-banding where young people, such 
as my two daughters who are 30 and 31 years old, are going to be forced 
to pay higher premiums to subsidize health care coverage for older 
people.
  There are also other provisions such as mandatory issue. For example, 
if a person finds out that unfortunately they have a disease and are 
not covered, under ObamaCare they can go out and buy insurance which is 
not actually insurance anymore. Someone said it is akin to waiting 
until your house is on fire to buy fire insurance. That drives up the 
cost and it distorts the insurance market. What we are going to see, 
and what consumers are going to see, is their health care premiums go 
up as a result of the implementation of ObamaCare.
  What about the promise that ObamaCare wouldn't raise taxes on anyone 
making under $200,000 a year? In fact, the law raised taxes on 
everyone, from young people with health savings accounts, to middle-
class workers with families, to senior citizens living on a fixed wage.
  President Obama also promised that anyone who liked their existing 
health coverage would be able to keep it. Do my colleagues remember 
that? He said: ``If you like what you have, you can keep it.'' I know 
people like hearing that because most Americans--up to 80 percent and 
maybe higher--are satisfied with the health insurance they have now. So 
when the President said, ``If you like what you have, you can keep 
it,'' most Americans nodded and said that's good. The reality is, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office, at least 7 million 
Americans will lose their current health insurance because of 
ObamaCare.
  A few months ago one of my constituents in Texas sent me a letter she 
received from her health care provider. The letter informed her that 
because of the new health care law--the so-called Affordable Care Act 
which is turning out to be more unaffordable than affordable--her 
current health policy would be terminated by the end of the year. The 
letter also said: ``Never have we experienced the uncertainty and 
immense challenges that confront the insurance industry during this 
time of health care reform.''
  I don't think it is sufficient for people such as myself or anyone 
else to criticize this flawed legislation and to say: I voted against 
it; it is too bad it didn't work out; tough luck. That is not 
sufficient, and that is not doing our duty. There has to be a better 
way to reform our health care system, and indeed there is a better way, 
if we commit ourselves to five overarching principles.
  No. 1: We must make health care more affordable. That was the promise 
of ObamaCare, but that is not the reality. It has made health care less 
affordable, not more affordable. But we must commit ourselves to 
policies that will make health care more affordable by reining in 
costs, and I have some ideas on how to do that which I will mention 
momentarily.
  No. 2, the second principle: Individuals must have more choices in 
the health care market and they must be allowed to make their own 
choices and select whatever options fit their individual needs. The 
idea of ObamaCare was one-size-fits-all, but we know that one size does 
not fit all. Different families, different individuals have different 
needs. We need to restore the choices to individuals and not to the 
government dictating what those choices should be.
  No. 3: We must ensure that all individuals, including people with 
preexisting conditions, have access to high-quality health insurance 
and to high-quality care. This was a problem in the preexisting system, 
where people with preexisting conditions found it hard to buy 
insurance, and this was one of the noble promises of ObamaCare. But we 
don't have to buy the whole package in order to fix this problem. 
Indeed, there are many high-risk pools at the State level that if the 
Federal Government would help support those high-risk pools, people 
would be able to find health care coverage even if they had preexisting 
conditions, which otherwise would make that difficult to find.
  Principle No. 4: We have to protect the doctor-patient relationship. 
No one

[[Page 11171]]

wants to have the bureaucracy telling them what health care they can 
have and whether they can have it. So we have to protect the doctor-
patient relationship. This is a bond of trust that most of us have with 
the individuals we entrust our health care to--our own doctor. We have 
to make sure people are able to make health care decisions in 
consultation with their doctor and their family that suit their needs.
  No. 5: This is the fifth principle for reform that I think we now 
need to begin the discussion about undertaking. We need to save 
Medicare.
  What kinds of policy reforms might these principles generate? Well, 
for starters, I would suggest we need to equalize the tax treatment of 
health insurance for employers and individuals. This is something we 
have discussed time and time again. But why do we favor, through 
subsidies under the Tax Code, certain types of health coverage and 
discriminate against people who buy insurance in the individual market?
  Secondly, from a policy perspective consistent with the principles I 
mentioned, we need to expand access to tax-free health care savings. 
There is a company in Texas--actually, it has franchises here in the 
Northeast--Whole Foods. It is a great grocery store. I had an occasion 
a couple of years ago to meet with a number of the employees. They vote 
every year on what their health plan should look like. Year after year 
after year, they choose a high-deductible health insurance plan along 
with a health care savings plan so that if they get sick they are 
protected by the catastrophic coverage, but otherwise they can save and 
budget for their ordinary health care needs using a health savings 
account. One of the most amazing things about that is people then begin 
to take some ownership--have some skin in the game--in terms of their 
health care choices, and they tend to do what we do generally as 
consumers, which is they shop around. They say, OK, I have my money. I 
need procedure X, I need this or that. Where can I get that for the 
best price and the best quality service? These tax-free health savings 
accounts transform the health care relationship so people don't only 
just have some third party paying the bills--like getting a credit card 
and never getting the bill under much of our current health care 
system--so expanding tax-free health savings accounts like the 
employees have at Whole Foods in Austin, TX, is one great policy that 
would improve our health care delivery system.
  Third, we need to let people and businesses form risk pools in the 
individual market.
  Fourth, we need to improve price and quality transparency. There has 
actually been some good work done by Health and Human Services recently 
to release health care expenditures for some of the most common 
procedures and reasons people are hospitalized. I think it is kind of 
eye-opening, because some people have found out that for the same 
procedure--in one instance a person might see $1,000 being charged and 
in another, a person might see $5,000 being charged for essentially the 
same practice or procedure. Providing transparency indeed helps to 
create an opportunity for a market, so market discipline can help 
normalize and bring down those costs. Improving price and cost and 
quality transparency are very important to creating a true health care 
marketplace.
  Fifth, in Texas we have found ways to curb frivolous medical 
malpractice lawsuits which don't shut the front door to the courthouse 
for truly legitimate claims but which have made medical malpractice 
insurance more affordable because our civil justice system is more 
predictable.
  Sixth, we need to eliminate all the unnecessary government mandates 
that drive up insurance costs. What happens in Austin, TX, and in State 
capitals across the country is legislators come together and say 
companies can't sell insurance in our State unless they cover X, Y, and 
Z. Well, the fact is not every consumer, not every patient needs X, Y, 
and Z coverage, but by those mandates they end up driving up the cost 
of that health insurance. What we need to do is eliminate the 
unnecessary mandates that many people don't use anyway, because those 
drive up costs. By eliminating those mandates, we can help bring down 
the costs and make health care more affordable.
  Seventh, this is an old suggestion, but one that I think is still 
very important. Why is it that a person can only buy health insurance 
in their own State? If I want to buy car insurance I can buy it 
anywhere in the country and I can--if the company is in Oklahoma or New 
Mexico or Indiana, they can compete for my business. That gives the 
market an ability to hold down costs and that gives consumers access to 
lower costs and better quality by allowing that competition to occur 
across State lines.
  We don't need another government takeover of our health care system. 
When the wheels fall off of ObamaCare or, in the language of the 
distinguished chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, if that 
train wreck of implementation that he predicted occurs, we don't need 
another big 2,700-page government program to substitute. We need to 
implement the types of reforms I talked about to give us lower costs, 
more accessibility, and greater fairness throughout our entire health 
care system.
  Speaking of fairness and accessibility, we know the current Medicaid 
Program is broken when our most vulnerable citizens have a hard time 
finding a physician who will actually take a new Medicaid patient. This 
is one of the problems many of us had with the ObamaCare expansion of 
pushing a lot of people onto Medicaid which, in my State, is a broken 
program, where more than 60 percent of primary care physicians won't 
take a new Medicaid patient because the reimbursement levels are about 
50 percent of what private insurance would pay a doctor to treat a 
patient. So many physicians say, I can't afford to work for 50 cents on 
the dollar, so I am not going to see a new Medicaid patient.
  So what you have is this strange dichotomy where people actually have 
coverage under Medicaid, but they do not have access to health care 
because they cannot find a doctor to take it at that price, and that 
actually, I believe, is sort of the dirty little secret about Medicaid. 
All of us support a safety net program of health care for our most 
vulnerable citizens--all of us--but Medicaid, as currently constituted, 
is not the answer for the reasons I mentioned.
  Each State must have the flexibility to design a program that will 
actually meet the needs of its residents. What works best in New York, 
I guarantee, does not work the same way in Texas and vice versa. States 
should be appropriated a certain amount of money, and I am not 
suggesting it be drastically cut--which would deny the States an 
opportunity to provide health care in their own way--but we need to 
block grant these Federal funds, not micromanage them. We certainly 
need to eliminate as many Federal strings as we possibly can and 
provide the States the flexibility to use the same amount of money to 
provide access to more health care for low-income people.
  Speaking of access to physicians, this is a big problem in Medicare 
too. Of course, Medicaid is for the economically disadvantaged. 
Medicare is for people 65 and older. But in my State, only 58 percent 
of physicians will see a new Medicare patient. That means 42 percent 
will not. In other words, if you live in a rural area or you live 
someplace where physicians will not take a new Medicare patient, you 
are pretty much out of luck. This is a problem again about the way the 
Federal Government tries to save money in health care, not by using the 
discipline of the market--transparency and competition and some of the 
other reforms I mentioned--but rather by whacking reimbursements to 
health care providers. The truth is, if you whack reimbursement rates 
to Medicaid providers and Medicare providers, as we currently do, then 
fewer and fewer people are actually going to be able to find a doctor 
who will see them, even though they have the promise of coverage under 
Medicaid or Medicare.

[[Page 11172]]

  We know, of course, the financial problem Medicare is currently 
suffering. The fact is--and this is something I wish we would talk more 
about from the President to the Halls of Congress--for every $1 that an 
average person puts into Medicare, they take out $3. That is why 
Medicare, in the long run, is unsustainable. If we are going to keep 
the promise of Medicare--and we should--to future generations, we need 
to fix it.
  But when it comes to treating patients, physicians, I believe, know 
better than Washington bureaucrats. This is another reason why I 
support repeal of another provision of ObamaCare which is called the 
Independent Payment Advisory Board, so-called IPAB. There is actually 
bipartisan support for repealing this provision in the House because 
what it would do is appoint a group of 15 bureaucrats who would decide 
what sort of health care was going to be reimbursed under Medicare and 
what would not. There would be no real recourse to Congress or anybody 
else because these people would be the so-called Independent Payment 
Advisory Board.
  It is not hard to predict what would happen if IPAB, as it is called, 
were implemented. When doctors are forced to accept lower rates, they 
will reduce the number of patients they see or else they will drop out 
of the Medicare Program altogether or the types of treatment people 
will be able to get from their doctor will be determined by the Federal 
Government's willingness to pay for it rather than their true medical 
needs.
  I think we have learned the lesson in Medicaid and Medicare, as 
elsewhere, that price controls simply do not work, and they will not 
save Medicare either. It is time to try a new approach that will 
protect the doctor-patient relationship and expand individual choice.
  Under the current model, seniors are forced into a one-size-fits-all 
plan developed in Washington. Under an alternative supported by 
Republicans and Democrats in different contexts--the so-called premium 
support model--the Federal Government would pay a designated amount, 
and then people could use that money to buy their own private coverage. 
They could supplement it if they wanted to, if they wanted more 
generous coverage, but that would have to come out of their pocket.
  But under the premium support model alternative, private plans would 
be allowed to compete against traditional Medicare, much as Medicare 
Advantage does now, and seniors could simply pick the plan they want 
that suits their needs the most. If someone picks a private plan that 
is cheaper than traditional Medicare, they can keep the savings. Then 
again, if they want more generous coverage, they can pay the 
difference.
  How do we know this sort of approach will work? You do not have to 
take my word for it. All we have to do is look at what is working now. 
One of the most successful government health care programs I have seen 
since I have been in the Senate, and that I know about, is the Medicare 
prescription drug coverage program. A national survey released in 
October 2012 found that 9 out of 10 seniors are satisfied with their 
Medicare prescription drug plan.
  Similar reforms could be made to other parts of Medicare to help save 
the program. If these reforms are not made, Medicare will go bankrupt. 
The great thing about Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program, 
is it has actually come in 40 percent under projected costs. It is not 
hard to figure out why. Because when different companies compete in the 
marketplace for the business of seniors who qualify for Medicare, they 
are going to compete--you guessed it--on price, so they are going to 
try to provide it at a less expensive cost, and they are going to 
compete based on quality of service. That is the great genius of our 
free enterprise system and of competition. But if we do not make these 
reforms, Medicare will go bankrupt. That is something none of us should 
look forward to.
  So the reforms I have just outlined will give us a health care system 
with lower costs, a system with greater choice and greater access to 
high-quality care, a system that upholds fundamental values, such as 
fairness and consumer choice, and a system that will provide affordable 
health care for everyone. That is the kind of health care system we all 
want for our families, for our children, and grandchildren.
  Three years ago, Congress took a swing at the health care issue but 
ended up striking out and missed an opportunity to enact necessary 
reforms. We are still learning that as the implementation of ObamaCare 
continues to unfold. But the health care debate is not over by any 
means. It is just beginning in a way. By replacing ObamaCare with 
patient-centered reforms that reduce costs, improve transparency, and 
expand access, we can make it easier for all Americans to get the 
affordable quality health care they deserve.
  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. HELLER. 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. HELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Government Overreach

  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue that is 
troubling to me and to my constituents back in the State of Nevada and 
to a growing number of Americans across the country. I am referring to 
the tendency of those who lead government agencies to abuse their power 
and deprive Americans of their constitutional rights.
  We have seen examples of this alarming trend over the last several 
weeks: The NSA is reportedly confiscating private e-mails and phone 
records. The IRS is specifically targeting conservative groups seeking 
tax exempt status.
  Constituents have flooded my office with phone calls, e-mails, and 
letters demanding to know why their government continues to encroach on 
their liberty. They have had enough and so have I.
  Recently, the Federal court of Nevada ruled that the Federal 
Government has abused its power in my home State. The court ruled in 
favor of private cattle owners in Nevada, ranchers who came to the 
court because they felt the Federal Government was intentionally 
interfering with their grazing permits and their private property 
rights.
  The court found that for more than two decades, Federal officials 
entrusted with the responsibility of managing public lands actively 
conspired to deprive Wayne Hage and his father's estate of their 
grazing permits and their water rights. In its decision, the court 
ruled:

       The government had abused its discretion through a series 
     of actions designed to strip the Estate of its grazing 
     permits and of the ability to use water rights.

  The court described the actions of the government officials as an 
``abuse of executive power'' and said it ``shocked the conscience of 
the court, and provided a basis for finding of irreparable harm.''
  There seems to be a pattern emerging. The Federal Government is 
supposed to be entrusted with protecting fundamental rights, such as 
property rights and the right to privacy. Yet, sadly, the American 
people are left wondering if their own government is living up to that 
public trust.
  The Framers of the Constitution believed that private property rights 
were sacred. The 5th and 14th Amendments specifically prohibit the 
government from depriving citizens of ``life, liberty or property 
without due process of law.'' Those amendments are there for a reason.
  As the Nevada District Court wrote:

       Substantive due process protects individuals from arbitrary 
     depravation of their liberty by government.

  No question. The Federal Government has an obligation to help manage

[[Page 11173]]

the Nation's resources, just like it has the duty to keep Americans 
safe and to enforce fairly the Tax Code. But these responsibilities 
require integrity, accountability, and impartiality. These powers 
cannot be used to push political or partisan agendas.
  In a State such as Nevada, which is made up of land that is 87 
percent federally controlled, and where resources such as water and 
vegetation are scarce, the role of the government in protecting private 
property rights is especially important and cannot be abused by overly 
zealous government officials.
  The rights of cattle owners and ranchers to have their grazing 
permits honored is no less important than any other form of property 
right secured by law through permits and licensing. The government 
cannot be allowed to arbitrarily target certain groups for punishment 
and selectively enforce the law. That kind of behavior is precisely 
what the Framers wanted to guard against.
  Whether it is the IRS targeting groups for their political views, the 
NSA confiscating mass amounts of private data, or the Federal 
Government interfering with property rights, the American people are 
fed up with this laundry list of examples of the Federal Government 
blatantly disrespecting their constitutional liberties.
  Fortunately, the Federal courts remain open for Americans to defend 
themselves against government abuse. But I think it is a tragedy for 
American citizens to be subjected to costly, drawn-out litigation in 
order to make sure their liberties are secured against the very 
government they have entrusted to protect them.
  The American people will not stand for an all-powerful government 
that ignores their constitutional rights. It is long past time that we 
end this culture of government bullying and harassment. The government 
derives its power from the consent of the governed. The consent depends 
on a fair, transparent, and reasonable enforcement of the law.
  If we are to remain the greatest country on Earth and live up to the 
powerful ideals that inspired our Founders, then we must restore the 
trust of the American people in their government, and we must begin 
that process right away.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago the President gave a beautiful 
speech on global warming. He said that the world is coming to an end if 
we don't act; that it is our moral obligation to make sure our planet 
is safe for future generations; that it is all up to us. And to be 
successful we must regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
  For more than a decade environmentalists have been pressuring 
Democrats to do this--pressuring all of us to do this--and we all know 
why.
  I can remember years ago--and this would have been back when I was in 
the House--that my first observation when I looked at liberals in the 
House was that there were four flawed premises on which they based 
their decisions. One was--and I am going from memory now because this 
was many years ago--that the Cold War is over, we no longer need a 
defense; another one was that deficit spending is not bad public 
policy; the third one was that punishment is not a deterrent to crime; 
and the fourth one--and this is the big one--was that government can 
run our lives better than the people can. That is exactly what we are 
talking about here.
  The reason they have been wanting to regulate carbon is better 
articulated by a guy I don't think anyone will argue could be the most 
knowledgeable scientist in America. His name is Richard Lindzen, and he 
is with MIT. His quote was that regulating carbon is a ``bureaucrat's 
dream.'' He said, ``If you control carbon, you control life.'' You 
control life. And that is what bureaucrats want to do. That is what the 
environmentalists want to do. In controlling our lives, they want to 
determine what cars we drive, what kinds of houses we live in, how our 
cities are built, and all of that, and they can do all of this by 
regulating carbon dioxide.
  Democrats--particularly in the Senate--have been unsuccessful in 
passing legislation to accomplish this. And this is the key. Way back 
during the Clinton administration, when Al Gore came back from the 
Kyoto Convention, he said we need to pass and ratify the Kyoto 
Convention. The Kyoto Convention would do exactly that--it would allow 
us in this country and others around the world to regulate carbon 
emissions. In doing this, they would be able to control lives. It was 
way back 13 years ago that this took place.
  Anyway, they tried to pass legislation. The first bill actually was 
not necessarily a Democratic bill; it was the McCain-Lieberman bill, 
and it was one that was a cap-and-trade bill, quite frankly. At that 
time the Republicans were in the majority, and I chaired the committee 
called the Environment and Public Works Committee, so I was on the 
floor managing the opposition to that particular cap-and-trade bill. 
That was a carbon control bill. We won the debate, and as the years 
went by we continued to win over and over.
  I guess what I am saying is that the reason the President is doing 
this right now is because he can't get this done through legislation, 
by those who are held accountable to the people. He can't get it done 
through legislation so he is trying to do it through regulation. The 
most recent attempt, in 2009, was the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.
  By the way, I congratulate Senator Markey for winning his election. 
It is going to be fun for us because we have debated each other on this 
issue now for years and years, but now we are in the same Chamber.
  The bottom line is that in 2009 they did pass that bill in the then-
Democratic-controlled House, but when it came over to the Senate, of 
course it was not even considered here. But that particular piece of 
legislation would have regulated only the largest emitters, and this is 
the hardest thing to get across to people. Everyone understands, after 
12 years of repetition and listening to me at this podium saying it 
over and over again, that if we were to pass any kind of a cap-and-
trade bill, the cost to the American people would be somewhere between 
$300 billion and $400 billion a year. The reason I say that is the 
Wharton School came up with the figure of around $350 billion, MIT came 
out with the figure of about the same, and so no one for 10 years has 
debated that the cost of regulating through cap and trade would have 
been somewhere around $300 billion to $400 billion.
  Now, as onerous as I think all these bills were in trying to do this 
through legislation, it wouldn't have been nearly as bad as what is 
happening today, for this reason. This gets into the weeds here, but it 
is important that we in this body understand what this is all about. 
The bills we killed, which would have cost $400 billion a year, would 
have regulated only the largest emitters--those emitters that emitted 
25,000 tons of CO2 a year. That would have cost the economy 
$400 billion. We rejected that, and we all know that is what the cost 
was, but because the President owes this environmental base and he 
can't pass his legislation, he is now taking unilateral regulatory 
action to regulate greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide.
  Keep in mind that this is not the same as one of the bills we 
defeated. That would have only caused the emission control on those 
entities that emitted 25,000 tons of CO2 or more in a period 
of a year. If it is done through regulation, then it has to be done 
under the Clean Air Act, and the significance of that is this would not 
just

[[Page 11174]]

go after the big emitters, it wouldn't go after just those big emitters 
of 25,000 tons a year, it would catch people and individuals and 
organizations that emit 250 tons as opposed to 25,000 tons. That means 
it would apply not just to large emitters, such as powerplants, but 
every refinery, oil and gas well, every manufacturing facility, every 
plastics plant, the iron smelters and steel mills, every apartment 
building, churches, and every school. So that is everybody. So one 
thing that has never been calculated is what the cost of that would be. 
If the cost of just those emitting 25,000 tons would be $400 billion a 
year, then how much would it be if we applied this to everyone, all the 
way down to 250 tons?
  I do something in Oklahoma each year. I get the total number of 
people who file Federal tax returns, and I kind of do the math. So I 
will take the amount of a tax increase--in this case, let's use $400 
billion a year--and I will say: How much will this cost the average 
family in my State of Oklahoma who files a tax return? It works out to 
$3,000 a year. So we are talking about a major--by far the largest tax 
increase this country has ever seen.
  So don't let the President fool you into believing he will stop at 
the powerplants. He is in an all-out war against fossil fuels and 
affordable energy. And legally, if he goes down this path, he will not 
be able to stop just at the large ones. This will apply to everybody 
out there under the Clean Air Act, and that would be those emitting 250 
tons.
  He is also doing this unilaterally just for the United States. If you 
believe man is causing global warming--I don't, but if you do--then you 
should be concerned about worldwide emissions because who cares if it 
is just the United States of America? It is not just what is happening 
in the United States of America, it is all over the world. That is 
really where the problem--if there is a problem--would be. If all we do 
is lower our emissions without convincing China, India, Mexico, and 
other countries to do the same, then U.S. manufacturers, out seeking 
the energy to run their operations, would have to leave the United 
States and go to those other countries where they do not have 
regulations. So this would have the effect actually of increasing, not 
decreasing, emissions.
  I remember when Lisa Jackson was the Director of the EPA. She was my 
favorite liberal. I used to say I had three favorite liberals, and she 
was one of the three of them. And I liked her because even though I 
disagreed with her philosophically, she was always honest with me. I 
would ask her a question and she would answer it.
  I remember when I asked her live on TV, in a hearing, this question. 
I said: You know, if we were to pass this legislation that would 
regulate CO2 levels, would this reduce emissions worldwide? 
She said: No. Because this only affects the United States and it would 
not affect the other countries.
  So you won't hear the President talking about this. You won't hear 
him talking about the cost, even though they will shrink from our 
economy by more than $400 billion a year. We know that, and no one 
refutes that. It requires the EPA to hire an additional 230,000 
employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement the 
regulatory regime. And these are not my figures, these are the EPA's 
figures. You won't hear him talking about it because he knows it is a 
losing argument. In fact, the day before the President gave this 
speech, he had his campaign send out talking points to all of the 
activists he had working on his behalf. They told--``they'' meaning the 
White House--these people exactly what to talk about, what to say and 
exactly what not to say.
  We recovered this. We found these talking points the President sent 
out to people so this is what Americans would be listening to. I think 
it is worthwhile for us to go over this now.
  On this first chart, we have his overarching three-point strategy. 
Point No. 1 is, we have an obligation to act. The memo continues: We 
have a moral obligation to future generations to leave them a planet 
that is not polluted and damaged by carbon pollution.
  Notice that they are not talking about climate change anymore. They 
are not talking about global warming. The new words they are using now 
are ``carbon pollution.''
  It is all the same thing. Global warming didn't work, so they 
discontinued that. They tried climate change. That didn't work. Now the 
new word is called carbon pollution.
  These are the President's talking points. I think this kind of 
wordsmithing is actually smart, and I compliment them on going to 
professionals and seeing what kind of words they can use to make the 
public believe something that isn't true.
  The second thing they have charged would be that communities all over 
America are already being harmed. The memo continues:

       Climate change is already harming Americans all over the 
     country. Cleaning up after climate-driven disasters last year 
     cost the taxpayer over $1,100. (Or cost taxpayers nearly $100 
     billion, one of the largest non-defense discretionary budget 
     items in 2012.)

  These are the words coming from the White House for people to use in 
their talking points. These figures come from the total cost of all 
natural disasters. I am from Oklahoma. I think we all know we have 
tornadoes in Oklahoma. We have had tornadoes as long as I have been 
living in Oklahoma--all my life.
  So he is talking about that figure on all natural disasters that has 
nothing to do to with carbon whatsoever. He is attributing the cost of 
all natural disasters and its total costs to global warming or carbon 
pollution, as the President now says, even if you believe global 
warming is true.
  The President's third talking point was to his climate plan. This is 
what he is telling his followers, in this body and elsewhere, to use:

       That's why we applaud President Obama's climate plan, which 
     is full of common-sense solutions, starting with his call for 
     the EPA to limit the carbon pollution.
       While we set limits for arsenic, mercury, and lead, we let 
     power plants release as much carbon pollution as they want. 
     It's time to set a limit on pollution that affects public 
     health, and that's why it's so important that the President 
     is rising to this challenge.

  Those are his talking points that he wants people to say about his 
speech and about his program. What this demonstrates to me is that the 
President is no longer fighting greenhouse gases--which he says caused 
global warming--but is instead fighting against carbon pollution.
  But if carbon pollution is simply carbon dioxide--or CO2--
and is dangerous to our health, what are we going to do about the air 
we breathe? Don't we emit CO2 every time we exhale? Is this 
the pollution they are talking about?
  Also in the memo the President's alarmists are given a concrete list 
of things to talk about and things not to talk about.
  This is something we received just a few hours ago, and we are very 
pleased to be able to get a copy of it. This was only supposed to go to 
alarmists. Alarmists, for the benefit of my colleagues, are people who 
believe the world is coming to an end and it is all man's fault. It 
says what to do and what not to do. Look at this. It is amazing, what 
you can say and what you can't say. We will highlight just a few items.
  The first point is the instruction to not talk about the cost of 
regulations. The memo from the White House says, ``Don't lead with 
straight economic arguments.'' Why? Because global warming legislation 
will cost between $300 billion and $400 billion a year, and the 
regulations will cost much more than that.
  Charles River Associates is a credible group that to my knowledge no 
one has challenged. Their study of the Waxman-Markey bill reported that 
the policies would cost the economy $350 billion a year in 2030 and 
$730 billion a year in 2050. Again, go back to the figures consistent 
with what the Wharton School, 10 years before, and MIT came out with.
  The Heritage Foundation said the average family would see its direct 
energy costs rise by over $24,000 in the first 20 years following the 
bill's enactment. This is the Heritage Foundation said it is going to 
affect every family

[[Page 11175]]

in America. The costs will be far higher under the President's 
unilateral regulatory action, thereby bypassing Congress, because they 
are talking about regulating down to much lower levels.
  This memo also instructs the President's alarmists to talk about his 
actions being ``the latest in a series of steady and responsible steps 
the administration has taken'' to combat global warming. In that vein, 
however, the memo instructs them to not overstate the magnitude of the 
action being taken.
  In other words, the President does not want his people talking about 
this as being the first of many steps in regulating every refinery, 
manufacturer, oil and gas wells, steel mills, plastics, and all the 
rest.
  The next memo instructs alarmists to ``discuss the impacts--carbon 
pollution is bad for the health of our kids and our planet'' but to not 
``debate the validity or consensus of the science that is already 
settled.''
  In other words, don't debate the science. Just say it has been 
settled. Because we have more and more people now questioning the 
science, and it is far from being settled. They don't want to bring 
that up. They don't want people talking about it. The science is far 
from settled, and since when does carbon dioxide--which we all breathe 
out every day--hurt our kids?
  The memo also instructs the alarmists to ``inform audiences about the 
nature of the problem, who is at fault, and what can be done,'' but to 
not ``debate the increase in electricity prices. Instead pivot to 
health and clean air messages.''
  In other words, don't admit the truth; that is, overactive, 
unilateral regulation will do nothing more than increase electricity 
prices and unilaterally shut down our economy by imposing EPA 
regulations on every single industry and dramatically expand the 
Federal Government's role in our lives without doing anything to reduce 
global emissions. This is all instruction coming from the White House.
  I have to repeat this. If it were done by legislation or by 
regulation, we have already shown clearly it would not reduce 
CO2 emissions, even if that were your goal, because that is 
what Obama's Administrator of the EPA said. In answering the question, 
``Is this going to reduce CO2 emission,'' the answer, ``No, 
it won't.''
  Richard Lindzen and other scientists have talked about:

       Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat's dream. If you 
     control carbon, you control life.

  So keep that in mind. All this effort is being made, and we have made 
it very clear that it is not going to accomplish anything they want to 
accomplish in terms of reducing CO2 emissions worldwide.
  The last thing I will mention from the memo is that it says to 
``discuss modernizing and retooling power plants and innovation that 
will create green jobs'' but to not ``try to suggest net job 
increases.''
  In other words, don't mention this is going to shut down every coal, 
oil, and eventually natural gas powerplant we have in this country and 
kill thousands of jobs at manufacturers around the Nation. We don't 
want to talk about the job loss. The President only wants to talk about 
the benefits of his regulatory actions and not about the costs.
  But what we have to remember is that even the benefits are overstated 
because they do not rely on the true costs of the regulations. But we 
should not be surprised, this coming from an administration that thinks 
more regulations means more jobs. These are talking points, but the 
mechanics of these new and future EPA greenhouse gas rules will be done 
by the EPA.
  The reason I am here today is to first demonstrate in the speech he 
made how that relates now to the current EPA and perhaps the 
confirmation hearing vote that will be coming up.
  Gina McCarthy is currently being considered to take the top job at 
the agency. Remember, I said Lisa Jackson had that job before and how 
much I thought of her. I like Gina. I like her very much. I have worked 
with her. She has had a different job for several years. She was the 
Assistant Administrator of the EPA for air issues.
  It is very important people understand what we are looking at. We 
have a good personal relationship, but she is the one who is 
responsible for all of the worst regulations that have come from the 
EPA in the last 4 years under Lisa Jackson's leadership. Lisa Jackson 
was the director, but Gina McCarthy was the air director. It is from 
the air office, the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, 
where she has the most expertise and where all of the worst regulations 
will come from in the future.
  After President Obama's speech on global warming, it became clear 
that Gina McCarthy would be used as the tool of the administration for 
all these regulations that will destroy the American economy. I have 
listed these up here, and it is worth looking at.
  In the last 4 years, we have had Utility MACT. MACT means the maximum 
achievable control technology. That means what technology is out there 
to control emissions. She was able to get that through, and $100 
billion and 1.5 million jobs were lost. The next is Boiler MACT, $63.3 
billion and 800,000 jobs lost. Regional haze--another regulation 
regulating the air--will increase the cost of Oklahoma's electricity 
bills by over $1.8 billion. These are all figures that are 
incontrovertible, so people don't disagree with.
  In the next few years, even worse regulations are likely to come out. 
Greenhouse gas regulations may be the worst, but there are also the 
others listed. Greenhouse gas is the one we have been talking about, 
but you also have the ozone NAAQS regulations. Adjustments to that rule 
will put 2,800 counties out of attainment, including all of them in 
Oklahoma.
  We have 77 counties in the State of Oklahoma. I can remember when I 
was the mayor of Tulsa, they came out with new regulations that put 
Tulsa County out of attainment. When you are out of attainment, that 
means you can kiss any energy development, new manufacturing 
opportunity, any other business expansion goodbye. They will not be 
able to get a permit from the EPA.
  Gina McCarthy is the face of President Obama's overregulatory agenda 
that is threatening our energy independence and putting our economic 
future in peril. We can't allow these regulations to move forward. I 
think the key to that is the person who is responsible for all the 
regulations, all the costs, all the jobs I just enumerated, both during 
her tenure as the air boss of EPA and then these that would come in the 
future, that would be in her goal. She would be the tool that is being 
used by the administration.
  Yesterday was kind of interesting because Heather Zichal is President 
Obama's climate czar and she was on the Hill huddling in a secret 
meeting with some of the chief alarmists such as Barbara Boxer and the 
rest. In the meeting, they talked about the President's plan and 
presumably this memo--with wordsmithing talking points from the memo we 
talked about before. So the one we had up before is the same thing they 
talked about yesterday: This is how you are going to have to word all 
this stuff.
  Their goal is not to protect the American people; it is to control 
them. They want top-down control, and carbon dioxide regulations will 
give them this tool. Their talking points memo proves they are doing 
all they can to craft their message in a way that convinces Americans 
they are not trying to crush our economy but instead trying to help. 
But the truth is, their regulatory agenda will only cause more 
unemployment, lower economic growth, and lower take-home pay for the 
American people.
  President Obama delivered a beautiful speech on global warming. That 
is how I started this. It was well thought out, and he is very gifted. 
He had a beautiful speech, and he is embarking on the most devastating 
surge in regulation that will cost hard-working Americans millions of 
jobs and tax increases to accomplish this.
  Keep in mind, if you do all these things it is not going to lower 
CO2 emissions. That is proven. No one has denied it. That 
even came from the Administrator of the EPA. It is going to be 
devastating to the American people.

[[Page 11176]]

  This is big. It has a lot to do with the confirmation hearing of the 
very fine lady who has been a good friend of mine for a long time, but 
the one who is responsible for these air regulations that are killing 
jobs in America, and we cannot let that happen.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
controlled time be extended until 7 p.m., and that all the provisions 
of the previous order remain in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor from time to 
time to share thoughts from people in my State. All of us are hearing 
comments from college students, people who have finished college, and 
often from the parents of those who face a massive debt from going to 
2-year and 4-year private-public schools. This situation can sometimes 
be even more tragic at for-profit schools where they haven't gotten 
much help in their job search. It can be even more tragic if they have 
not finished school and still face this debt.
  My wife Connie Schultz graduated from Kent State University some 
number of years ago. Her father was a utility worker and carried a 
union card for more than 30 years. Her mother was a home care worker. 
She was the oldest of four and the first in her family to go to 
college. Her two younger brothers and sister also went to college.
  Connie graduated from Kent State University 30-some years ago with a 
debt of only $1,200. That so starkly illustrates the difference from 
today and then. She had little privilege, little money, and parents who 
couldn't really put much money out, but with lower tuition, Pell 
grants, a few scholarships, Stafford loans, and working, she was able 
to get through school with little debt.
  The stories we hear today are so different from that. I plead with my 
colleagues that we freeze interest rates at 3.4 percent. I know that 
will not solve anything close to all the problems of college tuition 
and costs of room and board, but it will help. We need to do much more 
than that.
  Every year I convene 50 or 60 college presidents from Ohio's 2- and 
4-year private and public schools, community colleges, and 4-year State 
universities. I invite all of them to come and discuss these issues. We 
have done it for 6 years in a row. It is helpful to try to find ways to 
keep higher education costs in check, but, again, it is not nearly 
enough.
  I am hopeful that in the next 24 hours or so we can freeze interest 
rates at 3.4 percent and then get serious about what we are going to do 
about the $1 trillion aggregate debt that students, or former students, 
have in this country. We need to focus in part on the $150 billion of 
the $1 trillion which 2.9 million students are burdened with. That is 
debt from the private market for the $150 billion of the $1 trillion. 
Fifteen percent is in the private market where interest rates sometimes 
are as high as 12 or 15 or 16 percent. Few private banks are willing to 
renegotiate and refinance those loans.
  My legislation with Senator Heitkamp will help with a carrot-and-
stick approach to encourage the private institutions--banks and private 
lenders--to refinance these loans.
  Let me share a couple of letters from students and families because I 
think that speaks volumes better than I can.
  This is a letter from Daniel from Centerville, OH. Daniel has been at 
the University of Dayton.
  He said:

       I currently have $100,000 in outstanding loans. Last summer 
     (2012) I graduated with a Masters Degree in Middle Child 
     Education and the previous summer I graduated with a 
     Bachelors in Middle Child Education as well from Wright State 
     University in Dayton, Ohio.
       Starting in July of 2013, because of the high interest 
     rates, my average monthly payment for all my student loans 
     will be $600 a month.
       I recently got one of my payments lowered; otherwise that 
     total would be over $800 a month.
       I have consolidated all I can, and even deferred (and still 
     made payments while in deferment) other loans which will be 
     due in February 2014; adding to the $600 a month payment.
       I teach in a school in Cincinnati and LOVE THE WORK THAT I 
     DO.
       It was impossible to find a job in Dayton, so now I spend 
     $200 a month in gas traveling over 40 miles (one way) to 
     work.
       Even though I have a part time job in the summer, while 
     school is out, I still find myself struggling to pay bills.

  Further down in the letter he says:

       Afterall, I will be well over 65 years old before I am able 
     to pay all of my college loans off.
       This country needs to rethink its priorities.

  That was Daniel from Centerville, OH.
  Melinda, from Canton, OH, in northeast Ohio, writes:

       After graduating from college, I had roughly $23,000 in 
     student loan debt. My payments are $276 a month until I'm in 
     my 30s, and I am very tightly budgeted.
       While I am able to make this payment, which is my largest 
     and most important bill each month (aside from rent), it puts 
     me in a vulnerable situation when it comes to emergencies.
       I recently had to have surgery for a chronic medical 
     problem. I was in an auto accident and had to visit the ER.
       Making that loan payment every month leaves very little 
     extra to be saved for unexpected expenses.
       I understand it's my responsibility to pay it, and I loved 
     every minute of my education so it was well worth it, but at 
     the end of the day a hike in my interest rates may be the 
     difference between me saving a little money each month or 
     saving no money each month.
       Also, I fall asleep each night knowing that I am 24 years 
     old and have yet to begin saving for retirement which will be 
     a very important issue for my generation.

  We are not getting into the issues of retirement, Social Security, 
and the effort by some of our colleagues to privatize that system--I 
will not even go into more detail there.
  Christie from Ashtabula, the community where my wife grew up, writes:

       As a low-income individual, I was forced to decide on going 
     to college by a measure of a few things--who could give the 
     best education, and the most financial aid.
       But there was a catch--I couldn't leave Ohio, and I 
     couldn't live far away from home because I didn't have access 
     to a car and my single parent mother (who works two jobs), 
     would have no way to get me if there were any emergencies.
       I chose Case Western Reserve University, a renowned 
     university [ranked] at 37th in the country.
       My financial aid package was hefty.
       If I paid full tuition ($52,000) each year, I would be at 
     an insane $200,000 by graduation.
       Luckily, by the end I will only owe a quarter of that. Yes, 
     that's still around $60,000--$60,000 in student loan debt. 
     That's pretty much a house and a car.

  The last letter I will read is from Linda, who is from my hometown of 
Mansfield, OH.

       I have two children who are currently attending state 
     colleges (Cleveland and Akron). We are a middle-class family 
     working hard to make ends meet, and help our children to the 
     best of our ability. Even after saving for them, and thinking 
     we had plenty for them to get through without much debt, the 
     market crashed in '08, and more than HALF of our hard-earned 
     college savings for them disappeared. They have had to take 
     out loans in order to be able to attend.
       We do not have the money for them to ``borrow'' from us, or 
     to pay the thousands that their college savings doesn't 
     cover. Both of them are on the Dean's list every semester.
       My son is an environmental science major, and my daughter 
     minored in Spanish, and her major is exercise physiology and 
     physical therapy. They are bright and intelligent and have 
     worked extremely hard to get where they are. I implore you 
     not to leave them with ridiculous amounts of debt by doubling 
     the interest rate.

  These stories are pretty consistent. These students are struggling. 
They already are thinking about buying a

[[Page 11177]]

house, starting a business, and saving for retirement even though they 
are in their twenties. They know the challenges are greater in this 
generation than in previous generations.
  Also, what is obvious from these letters is the impact this has on 
families and not just the student who is 25 or 22 or 19 or 28, facing 
years of paying off student loans. It has an impact on the family who 
maybe takes a second mortgage on their house to help their son or 
daughter, the family who faces foreclosure because of financial 
problems, the family who simply can't help their student--as broken-
hearted as that makes a parent, they can't help their son or daughter 
because of their financial situation, to help them with their college 
education.
  Again, I am hopeful we can freeze interest rates at 3.4 percent for 1 
year and get serious about what we need to do about access to college 
and affordable higher education for our young people.
  Mr. President, 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. WARNER. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Tennessee and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy and speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Housing Finance Reform

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to be here today with my 
friend the Senator from Tennessee to talk about legislation that we and 
eight--actually now nine of our colleagues--bipartisan legislation that 
has been recently introduced to reform our housing finance system.
  I came into office a couple of years later than the Senator from 
Tennessee, but I got here in January of 2009 when the entire future of 
our financial system was uncertain. We members of the Banking Committee 
rolled up our sleeves and tried to work together to prevent future 
crises. Well, history will determine whether we accomplished that goal.
  The Senator from Tennessee and I worked strongly together on a couple 
of titles of what has subsequently become known as the Dodd-Frank 
legislation. While there are problems in that legislation, while there 
are problems still within our financial system, I think no independent 
observer would not say that our financial system today, in 2013, is 
stronger than it was after the crisis.
  But one area that did not receive very much attention was the 
question of housing finance. We also know that in many ways our housing 
finance system, both from lack of underwriting, the process that then 
ended up allowing a lot of mortgages to get packaged off, securitized, 
with the assumption that there would never be a decline in housing 
prices or a significant decline in housing prices and that these 
securities would never be in jeopardy, in many ways led to part of that 
financial crisis. At the end of the day, those institutions--Fannie and 
Freddie--that had been the core of our housing finance system ended up 
acquiring $188 billion of taxpayer support to shore up those 
institutions so that the whole housing system would not collapse.
  Well, it is now 5 years later, and we believe it is time to transform 
the failed model of Fannie and Freddie into a smarter, sustainable 
system with more private capital. We believe we can better protect the 
taxpayer and maintain broad access to affordable mortgage credit. But 
we need to act soon to prevent this issue from falling victim to 
election-year politics. And everyone--from the administration, to many 
of us here on the floor of this Senate, to many housing experts--knows 
the status quo is not sustainable.
  So we have two important questions before we get into some of these 
principles about which I will engage my colleague the Senator from 
Tennessee: 1. Why do we need to take action now, and the second 
question is, why does Congress need to act?
  I will take the first question. Why is the time now? Well, over the 
last 5 years since the housing and the overall financial crisis, we 
have seen--slowly, albeit--the housing market come back to life. 
Obviously this has been supported by a low interest rate environment 
that has permitted more refinancing and loan modifications. Rising home 
values have brought many home owners out from underwater mortgages. 
Housing prices have been a significant factor in Fannie's and Freddie's 
recent record profits. But now those very profits have somehow been 
wrapped into at least some of our colleagues' discussions about our 
debt ceiling debate.
  I speak for this Senator and I think the Senator from Tennessee and, 
candidly, I think many Senators are not even engaged with us on this 
debate right now. The last thing we want is for Fannie and Freddie to 
virtually serve as a piggy bank for the pet projects of either side of 
the aisle. If we are not careful, that could happen.
  Fannie and Freddie have been in conservatorship for 5 years. Before 
we become even more dependent upon this broken system, it is time for 
us to move forward. So I would like to ask my colleague the Senator 
from Tennessee, if now is the time, if he might share with us some of 
the ideas he feels and we feel about why it is important that Congress 
be involved in this process and not simply allow this conservatorship 
to go on ad infinitum into the future.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Virginia. 
I have thoroughly enjoyed working with him on this issue. We have been 
working on it since last fall. We spent a lot of time talking to 
various groups to try to get this right. We know that every bill can be 
improved, but we have done our best to present something to the Senate 
that we hope will be marked up in the Banking Committee, something 
that, as the great Senator from Virginia mentioned, has attracted 
numbers of people on both sides of the aisle. I again thank Senators 
Tester, Johanns, Heitkamp, Heller, Moran, Hagan, and now Kirk for 
joining us in this effort. This is a diverse group of folks from 
diverse places around the country who have come together to solve this 
major problem.
  All during the Dodd-Frank debate--and we were certainly in the middle 
of that--all people talked about it seemed was the fact that Fannie and 
Freddie were not included. Yet Fannie and Freddie were two of the 
biggest failures that occurred during that time. As the Senator from 
Virginia rightly mentioned, $188 billion of taxpayer money had to go 
into these entities.
  We have dealt with most of the issues around the crisis. I know there 
are still some rules that are being promulgated. We had some that came 
out yesterday. But this is the last piece.
  As the Senator mentioned, the housing sector has been growing and 
coming back. We understand the importance of the housing sector; 
therefore, we have designed a bill that transitions over time and moves 
us to a model that we hope and believe strongly is far more 
sustainable.
  First of all, let me mention the five things we have worked on 
together. I know each of us is going to stress a lot of different 
things as we move through. I know we plan to come down here at multiple 
intervals as we move ahead. But No. 1, what does this bill do? First 
and importantly, it breaks up the GSEs and liquidates them. It does it 
over time, but our bill does that.
  Secondly and very importantly--this is something we have talked about 
a great deal with industry and certainly people from all sides of the 
aisle--this bill puts 10 percent private capital in advance of any kind 
of government reinsurance. I want to say to the Senator that one of the 
reasons we looked at it this way is that if Fannie and Freddie just had 
5 percent capital, there would have been no taxpayer losses. But 
putting this much capital in advance really is a buffer against the 
taxpayer needing to be involved in it. It fully privatizes a number of 
functions that are currently performed by Fannie and

[[Page 11178]]

Freddie. It gets the U.S. Government out of the business of pricing 
credit, which is something we both have thought needed to occur.
  It modernizes our system of mortgage-backed securities. But I think 
the thing we began with--and I so appreciate the Senator's involvement. 
We realized that one of the major flaws in our housing finance system 
in the past and even--well, it is not today because the government owns 
these two entities, but in the past has been private sector gains, 
public losses. I mean, when you have a situation where you have 
shareholders, you have the private sector doing well when times are 
good; they had an implicit guarantee; people figured that the 
government would come in and backstop these entities if they failed. 
Obviously their underwriting standards got really terrible. The 
organizations failed. What happened? The taxpayers came to the rescue, 
unfortunately, with $188 billion, which has not been paid back. We 
still have these entities in conservatorship. One of the flaws both of 
us, coming from the private sector, saw was that this is not right; 
there is no way we should have entities where there is private sector 
gains when things are going well and public sector losses.
  I wish to thank the Senator for joining in, for all of the hours he 
and his staff have put into this to try to make this bill as good as we 
can possibly make it to bring it to the floor.
  I look forward to the input of the entire Senate. I hope we have an 
opportunity for a markup and a presentation later this fall. But I 
could not be more grateful to the Senator for his efforts and his 
willingness to do this and obviously his willingness to work hard to 
see this go across the finish line.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to return the same compliments to 
the Senator from Tennessee. He brought a greater breadth of background 
in housing finance and the public finance sector than I did. But 
together, working with our other colleagues, I think we have all built 
a series of critical points.
  Again, echoing what the Senator from Tennessee said, there are always 
ways to improve on legislation, but the first and foremost point was 
that we need to make sure there is taxpayer protection. We need to make 
sure the taxpayers are fully repaid that $188 billion. We need to make 
sure as well--and we spend a great deal of time working with industry 
and others--that there continues to be broad access to market credit.
  I think one of the challenges we both felt with Fannie and Freddie 
was there was not only a combination of a private sector gain, public 
sector loss with this kind of hybrid model, but layered on top of that 
was a social purpose. I, for one, believe very strongly that we have to 
make sure there is affordable housing, that there is good access to 
market credit. But when you layer that on a quasi-private entity, as we 
did for years with Fannie and Freddie, you end up where you are not 
sure whether those entities are performing that necessary 
securitization and financing purpose to maintain the overall housing 
financing sector or whether they are allowing certain loans that maybe 
shouldn't have gone into this process because of the social purpose.
  So we have said: Well, we have to make sure there is the appropriate 
private sector taxpayer protection: 10 percent capital--very important. 
We also said: Let's go ahead and split off that public sector role, 
clearly identify it, make sure that for those loans that get 
securitized, a small transaction fee--not a tax, a small transaction 
fee--is charged. Those funds are then set aside to promote rental 
housing, access to credit, low-income housing. Have that audited, stand 
alone, perform that important function.
  As we said as well, doing this, as the Senator from Tennessee has 
mentioned--he has been quite strong on this--we are going to make sure 
the government role is clearly defined but much more limited. There are 
some who say we can do this totally on the private sector side. Well, 
we hope there can still continue to be the 30-year fixed-mortgage 
product that I think the American public has come to expect. We can 
privatize more, but not having the ability to have the government 
backstop would remove that very essential component of our current 
housing financing system. So a more limited government role but still 
the ability for our American consumer to have the kind of access to the 
financial products they have come to expect. Again, it has been 
mentioned--making sure that we expand private sector capital and make 
sure that they take care of that underwriting and credit assessment 
that, quite honestly, the old model did not really provide.
  I would like to ask the Senator from Tennessee this because this is 
one on which we went around and around. I again thank him and his staff 
and my staff and the staff of our now nine cosponsors of this 
legislation. One thing that was quite important to us was that if you 
are going to create this new model, how do we make sure that--while we 
want more competition, private sector competition, while we want 
institutions to be able to go ahead and provide this important issuance 
and securitization function, how do we make sure that those small 
banks--that community-based bank or that credit union, that small bank 
in Knoxville or that small bank in Martinsville, VA--still gets access 
to the same kind of ability to issue mortgages, have those mortgages 
securitized, and not be at a disadvantage of some of the mega-
institutions?
  So I would ask my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee Mr. Corker, 
why doesn't the Senator speak to that issue because it did take us a 
lot of work to try to get this right, and there may be even further 
refinement. But I think this is an area--again, with the reaction we 
have seen from the credit unions, the community-based banks--where I 
think we have made a great first step.
  Mr. CORKER. One of the things, no question, that many banks and 
credit unions around our country have been concerned about, even though 
Freddie and Fannie are 90 percent of all home mortgages today--and very 
dominant, obviously, because of what has happened but also because of 
the tremendous market share they have had--is if we are going to wind 
these down, are they going to be assured access into this market. So we 
have created mechanisms for them to be able to come in through issuers 
to do this.
  One of the things so many of the community banks and credit unions 
have complained about as a tremendous disadvantage with our system was 
that there was volume pricing. In other words, if you were a big user 
of Fannie and Freddie, they gave you a big volume discount--Wells 
Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan. As they tried to process loans 
through Fannie and Freddie and this whole system, they got big volume 
discounts, so they were more competitive.
  These organizations I mentioned are, obviously, important, but the 
community bankers who mean so much are the ones who drive things back 
home. The community bankers are members of the Rotary Club, the Lions 
Club, and are involved in our communities, and they were constantly at 
a disadvantage as it relates to housing finance. So one of the 
components of this bill is not only to ensure they get equal access to 
the system--and we do that very eloquently in this bill--but in 
addition to that we ensure there is no mechanism that allows for volume 
pricing.
  Everybody is treated the same, as it should be, because in this 
particular case we end up with an explicit government guarantee that is 
very different. We don't have a situation where we have private 
shareholders doing well when things are doing good and the public doing 
bad. But one of the reasons we felt confident in moving in this 
direction was the tremendous amount of upfront capital.
  So we dealt with the smaller institutions. As a matter of fact, we 
sat down and worked through the many issues they have brought up. We 
know how important they are to everyone here and everyone in the 
country. We dealt with that, but we also created enough upfront 
capital, as the Senator has mentioned, to protect the public.
  I know, again, that every bill can be improved. We saw that most 
recently

[[Page 11179]]

with the immigration debate. As a matter of fact, I think that is a 
good model. We have introduced something that I hope the Banking 
Committee will take up soon. It is almost unprecedented to have nine 
members of the Banking Committee cosponsoring a piece of legislation. 
Hopefully it will have the opportunity for a markup, for improvements, 
and we know the chairman and ranking member, obviously, are going to 
want to put their stamp, as will many members on the committee, on 
anything that occurs. But I think we have done some of the work that is 
important to establish a very good beginning place.
  We tried to address, as the Senator mentioned, the many community 
banks around our country that are in here constantly and that are so 
important to the States we represent. We have done that. Again, I know 
to the Senator and his staff, and many of the cosponsors, that was 
something that was an ultimate threshold for them, was to ensure the 
community bankers and credit unions around our country had the 
appropriate access, and I think we have hit that good place in this 
bill.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I know our time is about up, but I want to 
close and then I will turn it back over to the final comments of my 
colleague, the Senator from Tennessee.
  I want to say to my colleagues and their staff and those interested 
in this issue that this was the one piece of unfinished business in our 
financial system reform. While there are some today who say: Well, 
things have gotten better, we should allow the status quo to continue--
well, I don't think, from the administration on down, there is anyone 
who thinks the status quo simply continuing--with private sector gain 
and public sector losses--is the right model.
  We ought to take the lessons we have learned over the last 5 years--
some of the very good work in terms of the standardization that is 
being done at the FHA right now--and set up a new model. As the Senator 
from Tennessee said, make sure we get that taxpayer protection.
  I would simply add that housing is a critically important part of our 
overall economy, and on any piece of legislation--and let me not say 
all these groups have endorsed this legislation but they have all been 
generally supportive, they all have had areas they wanted to see 
improvement in--when you have realtors and homebuilders and mortgage 
bankers and large and small banks and community organizations and 
groups who are concerned about low-income housing and rental housing 
all saying we are in the ballpark in an area that is so important to 
our economy and so complex, I think we have taken a great first step. 
So I would urge colleagues to join with us.
  The Senator and I will be happy to come and make presentations. We 
have found, as we have sat down with many Members and walked them 
through all the processes and all of the kinds of protections we have 
built into this legislation, that the presentations have been one of 
the reasons we have had such success with nine members of the Banking 
Committee--almost half of the Banking Committee, without all of them 
even having had a full presentation--pledging their support.
  I again thank my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, for his great 
work and leadership. He has been the lead sponsor. I am proud to be his 
wing man on this as we continue to work through it.
  My sense, though, is this is the time. It is my hope the Banking 
Committee will take up this piece of legislation and make their 
improvements on it. It would be a huge mistake, with interest rates at 
this kind of record low, with this housing market coming back, and with 
us putting in place a 5-year appropriate transition time, not to act 
now. If not now, then when would be the right time to do the kind of 
meaningful housing finance reform that I think so many experts across 
the ideological spectrum have all called for?
  I look forward to working with my colleague, the Senator from 
Tennessee, and I thank him for his good work, and I am happy for him to 
close out our comments today.
  Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator again for all the hours that have 
been spent. I think we have both realized this is a beginning point, 
meaning this is a piece of legislation that has a lot of bipartisan 
support among talented and wise Members--excluding the two of us--and I 
thank him for joining in and helping make this bill better. Obviously, 
this is something we think may be taken up sometime this fall, and I do 
hope we will have the opportunity to make presentations to people 
throughout the Senate very soon.
  I want to make two points. The Senator from Virginia, because of his 
background, was probably more involved in the banking issues than most 
people here because he brought a lot of background and expertise. I 
felt fortunate to be involved in some way during that time, and he and 
I both remember--and I hope Members of this body will remember--back to 
the big issue that people felt during that time was not addressed were 
the two GSEs, Fannie and Freddie. Candidly, it was a pretty complex 
undertaking. There were a lot of other things happening. It was a fair 
criticism, but at the same time, there was a lot being dealt with. Time 
has gone by now, the housing market has improved, but we still haven't 
finished our work.
  I think most people here understand that this last crisis brought 
such hardship to so many people across this country, with trillions and 
trillions of dollars of household wealth going down the tube because we 
had a system that wasn't stable, a system that was making bets on 
things it shouldn't have been making. It was excessive. As the Senator 
has mentioned, between the regulators and some of the rules that have 
been passed, the system is stronger now, but we still have not dealt 
with this.
  I would ask my colleagues to consider later this year looking at 
something to finish that work so we can shore up the housing market and 
do everything we can to keep that from happening again. Because again, 
we know how important the housing industry is to us.
  Secondly, I think the window is closing. For what it is worth, there 
are a lot of people throughout our country who have a personal stake in 
trying to keep the status quo in place, to keep the situation where we 
have, again, private shareholders the public believes have the 
government standing behind it and no matter what they do they are going 
to be bailed out or whatever, placed in conservatorship. People are 
beginning to see that maybe even though these entities haven't paid 
back a single dime yet, they haven't reduced the $188 billion--not one 
penny of capital for the indebtedness has been returned. Certainly, 
there have been dividend payments. But people are coming out of the 
woodwork now to try to reinforce the old system.
  Next year we are going to be moving into an election cycle again. It 
happens every 2 years around here. We have had a pretty productive year 
this year so far. I am proud of a lot of work the Senate has done. This 
is a big and important piece of work, as we have mentioned, that is 
undone. The timing is right because of a lot of forces out there that, 
again, would like to keep the status quo. So I want to again thank the 
Senator from Virginia for his thoughtfulness, the other Members who 
have cosponsored this and gone through a complex issue and come up with 
a very elegant solution to this problem, and I hope we will have the 
opportunity to work together to actually do something that makes our 
country stronger and causes our housing finance system, which is so 
important to our economy, to be more sustainable.
  I thank the Senator. I look forward to coming to the floor with him 
again and continuing the many meetings we are having with Senators on 
both sides of the aisle and, hopefully, with a lot of input from 
others, coming up with a solution the entire body addresses.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 11180]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________