Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business and to be followed by Senators Casey and Kaufman.

Madam President, I rise today to speak about arms control and the President's negotiations with Russia over a replacement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START. This new treaty will be an important enhancement to American national security, and I look forward to considering it on the Senate floor once it has been signed.

As you may recall, the original START treaty was ratified by the Senate in 1992 by a bipartisan vote of 93 to 6. It went into force in late 1994, with a predetermined life of 15 years, causing it to expire this past December.

Soon after taking office, the Obama administration began careful and diligent work to negotiate a successor treaty with Russia. As START was expiring in early December, President Obama and President Medvedev of Russia issued a joint statement making clear that our two countries would effectively abide by the expiring treaty until the new one comes into force.

I think we can all agree that the original START was a landmark achievement. It brought about historic reductions in nuclear weapons. Its verification measures and the communication between the United States and Russia that they fostered served to build confidence between the two countries at an uncertain moment. It helped our nations to move toward a post-Cold-War mentality, providing strategic stability between the world's two greatest nuclear powers.

I am confident the successor to START will be equally historic. The world has changed, and this will be a new treaty for a new world with a new set of nuclear challenges. But the bottom line for the new treaty remains the same as it was for the original START: The treaty must--and it will--advance our national security interests.

When the new treaty is signed and presented to the Senate, there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss and debate in detail the specific numerical limitations on strategic offensive arms. President Obama and President Medvedev determined these would be in the range of 500 to 1,100 for strategic delivery vehicles, and in the range of 1,500 to 1,675 for their associated warheads. Likewise, we will carefully examine the counting rules for those limitations, the monitoring and verification measures for implementing the agreement, and all its other provisions.

I look forward to discussing all these specific matters when the Senate fulfills our responsibility to offer our advice and, as appropriate, our consent. But the core reasons this treaty will make us safer are already clear.

The verifiable reduction of nuclear weapons by the United States and Russia will provide us with strategic stability and mutual confidence. In other words, it ensures transparency and predictability between the two countries that possess 95 percent of the world's nuclear weapons.

The new treaty will do this while streamlining the elaborate and, in some cases, outdated and unnecessarily burdensome verification measures from the original treaty. The new treaty will also reduce the risk of nuclear theft or loss from our countries, and we know just how important this last point is in a world where terrorist groups would give anything to obtain a nuclear weapon.

This new treaty will also allow us to lead by example in arms reduction, and this will in turn greatly aid our vital nonproliferation efforts. Indeed, while the arms reductions in the treaty will be relatively modest, entering into the treaty will be a significant step in the renewal of our arms control and nonproliferation agenda for the 21st century. It will put us on firmer ground as we confront the dangers of nuclear weapons in this new world.

I want to dwell briefly on this last point. The centerpiece of the global nonproliferation framework is aptly named the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This treaty requires that states without nuclear weapons pledge not to acquire them. But it also imposes a responsibility on nuclear states which must pursue reductions in weapons.

When we fulfill that responsibility, it strengthens the global nonproliferation framework that centers on the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It strengthens our hand in dealing with nonnuclear states, whether they are allies pursuing civilian nuclear power or adversaries with unclear nuclear intentions.

The point is not that untrustworthy adversaries will suddenly be transparent about their intentions or fulfill their obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Rather, we can negotiate with and pressure adversaries more effectively when we are meeting our own responsibilities. Likewise, we can work more effectively with our friends--and rely on them for multilateral support--when we ourselves lead by example. In other words, arms control agreements like the new START follow-on treaty are themselves powerful tools in our nonproliferation efforts.

The START follow-on treaty is only one element of President Obama's ambitious nonproliferation and arms control agenda to reduce and ultimately eliminate the threat from nuclear weapons. But until we are able to realize this end goal, it remains important to maintain an effective deterrent. This treaty will in no way--in no way--take away that deterrent.

Likewise, it is critical for us to support the administration's increased budget request for ensuring the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile and the complex and experts who maintain it. Such a commitment to a safe and reliable nuclear arsenal goes hand in hand with minimizing the danger from nuclear weapons through arms control and nonproliferation. We must pursue the limitation of nuclear weapons while maintaining an effective deterrent. And that is just what the START follow-on treaty will do. It will make us safer without jeopardizing our effective deterrent.

I look forward to a robust discussion and ultimately, I hope, to bipartisan consent to the resolution of ratification.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the gridlock in the Senate and the effect it has on our ability to do our jobs as legislators. If you talk to the average person on the street, he or she will probably tell you that Americans are pretty frustrated with their government right now. People think government does not work and that politicians care more about fighting with each other than they do about helping American families.

Some days I can hardly blame the people who hold this opinion. We are now in the second year of President Obama's administration and we have only just begun to fill the spots in the executive and judicial branches because of filibusters, holds, and other procedural tactics that have delayed an extraordinary number of people. We had no Under Secretary for Domestic Finance at the Treasury Department despite the fact that our country has just experienced arguably the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We have no Assistant Secretary for Legislation at the Department of Health and Human Services. You would think when we have been considering health care reform legislation in the past year, it might be helpful to confirm an Assistant Secretary for Legislation at the Department of Health and Human Services.

There are so few members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Supreme Court is currently deciding whether the NLRB's current decisions have any legal standing, yet we have failed to confirm a single one of President Obama's three nominees.

In one of the most egregious examples of obstructionism, the Senate failed to vote on the appointment of the first nominee for Transportation Security Administration Chief, the person charged with keeping our Nation's airlines safe. In the interim, a terrorist tried to attack Northwest flight 253. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the nominee eventually withdrew himself from consideration, saying he was ``obstructed by political ideology.''

I have said it before and I will say it again: I have no problem with standing on principle. Our first President, George Washington, supposedly once said we pour House legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it. Whether or not that story is true, the Senate has long served as the cooling Chamber, the place where reason and thoughtful debate occur in our Congress. The filibuster is a key tool for the way the minority can stand up to a majority that is acting irrationally in the heat of the moment. So I have no problems with my colleagues threatening to filibuster nominees or legislation that they actually oppose.

That is what the Founders intended. The Senate has an important role to play in giving the President its advice and consent on nominations. I take that role very seriously. But too often my colleagues filibuster nominees they actually support in an effort to extract other promises or just to slow the Senate down.

In February, the Senate finally confirmed the noncontroversial administrator of the General Services Administration after 9 months. The vote was 94 to 2. Similarly this month, my colleagues forced a cloture vote, they forced a cloture vote to approve a judicial nominee for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. She was then confirmed unanimously, 99 to 0.

Yet we are forced to vote for a filibuster. That is nuts. This is a perversion of the filibuster and a perversion of the role of the Senate. It used to be the filibuster was reserved for matters of great principle. Today it has become a way to play out the clock. Some of my colleagues seem more interested in using every procedural method possible to keep the Senate from doing anything then they are in creating jobs or helping Americans struggling in a difficult economy.

They seem to actually want the government to fail. Why else delay things you actually agree with? No wonder Americans are frustrated with the government. It is time for this to stop. It is time for the Senate to stop playing politics or pursuing personal agendas and start approving well-qualified nominees without forcing unnecessary delay.

For our government to function the way it is supposed to, it needs to have personnel. Let's give the executive branch and the judicial branch the people they need so we can help government function in the way it is supposed to and reassure Americans that government does work for them.

I yield the floor.

I rise today to commend the communities of Minnesota's Red River Valley for their extraordinary flood mitigation efforts this year. Spring flooding in the Red River Valley is an enormous challenge to my constituents in Moorehead and in surrounding communities and the communities downstream.

Last year, these communities experienced record flooding with snow melt draining into the Red River and resulting in over 40 feet of water filling the valley. The families of the Red River Valley saw severe overland flooding resulting in the devastation of their homes, road closures, and the cutting off of transportation in and out of the area.

This year, the Red River Valley is getting ready for what is generally forecast to be a major flood. Right now the National Weather Service is forecasting a 90-percent chance of major flooding of over 35 feet. I spent this past weekend in Moorehead, MN, and surrounding communities and communities downstream meeting with local leaders and talking to folks on the ground getting ready for the flooding.

Their flood preparation efforts this year are truly impressive. The city of Moorehead and Clay County have been acquiring houses in the floodplain and moving them out of harm's way. As a result, Moorehead is going to need one-third fewer sandbags this year compared to last year.

Volunteers are already at work sandbagging, getting ready to fortify the levees. I went to the Moorehead facility building this weekend to bag sandbags. We do that inside. They cannot freeze; the sandbags cannot freeze. It would be like stacking frozen turkeys. They have to be unfrozen when we stack them.

The sense of community solidarity in tackling this challenge is incredible. I was struck by how much the community has unified once again around preparing for these floods, and it was fun. So I would urge folks in the area to go down to the Moorehead facility building in the next few days and weeks and sandbag.

What I took away from being there this weekend and from talking to local and community leaders is that they are doing all that they can to prepare for these floods with the resources they have. But they need our help. I am determined to make sure we are doing all we can on a Federal level to help these communities through the next few months.

Right now, Congress needs to appropriate supplemental funding for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund. FEMA has said they are reserving their remaining disaster relief funds for immediate needs until we appropriate the supplemental funding. Yet the longer we wait, the longer communities in the Red River Valley have to wait on important flood mitigation efforts such as removing the remaining homes in the floodplain.

I have contacted the FEMA Administrator urging him to exhaust all available options while Congress approves the President's request of $5.1 billion in supplemental funding for the Disaster Relief Fund.

I stand ready to support Chairman Inouye in any of his efforts on this or any other bill on the Senate floor to approve this $5.1 billion in supplemental funding.

Once again, I commend the communities in Minnesota's Red River Valley for their flood mitigation preparation for this year.

As the ice melts and the water rises, I will continue to fight to get Federal funding out to these communities to make sure we are doing all we can to support them in their flood preparations and in their recovery over the coming months.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I also would like to take a few minutes to speak on another topic, the extension of unemployment benefits and COBRA subsidies. I admire those in this body who take a principled stand. The Senate would get more done if all Members were guided by their basic core principles and put principles ahead of political posturing, ahead of party, ahead of polling.

To block a legislative measure because it is not fully offset--sure, that could be based on principle. Believe me, I am concerned about our budget deficit. But principles are something you consistently stand behind. That is what makes it a principle, something you care about, something that guides you throughout your career. That is what makes it a principle. Principles cannot be ignored, even when it is expedient or advantageous to do so. Yet that is exactly what is happening now. A principle is being invoked only now that it is convenient.

You might remember that when George W. Bush entered office, it was with a $200 billion budget surplus. He also entered office with projections of nearly $1 billion in future surpluses over the next decade, on a glide path to paying off the entire national debt.

But instead of doing the sensible thing and paying down our debt when we had the means, the Bush administration racked up massive deficits at a record pace. Vice President Cheney even said ``deficits do not matter.'' Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan testified that we might pay off our debt just too quickly. We were told we might have too much money. Really. He did this. He testified to Congress saying that was a real worry.

Then we paid for an unnecessary war in Iraq, without offsets. We passed Medicare Part D without offsets. We passed three different sets of tax cuts totaling trillions of dollars, most benefitting the wealthiest people in the Nation, without offsets.

Yet last Thursday night the Senate repeatedly attempted to extend benefits for America's unemployed workers, and these efforts were blocked supposedly because it was not fully offset. For some reason benefits to the wealthiest Americans did not need to be offset, but keeping unemployment benefits flowing to those families who have been hardest hit by this recession suddenly need an offset.

If this is a matter of principle, it seems to me we have very bizarre principles. One principle we should all stand behind is supporting American families when economic times are tough. Last week, half a million Americans applied for unemployment benefits for the first time.

Despite what some might suggest, our Nation's unemployment crisis is not over. We know unemployment can persist long after recovery begins. This downturn will continue affecting American families for months and years to come.

That is why we need to extend Federal unemployment benefits now. Without an extension, over 1 million Americans, including thousands of Minnesotans, will lose their benefits this month. Without those unemployment benefits, many families will have no other way to keep paying their mortgage and buying groceries. Even with some economic progress, there are still six applicants for every job opening, and in some industries there are simply no jobs to be found.

Our obligation to America's working families is a serious one. When there are jobs to be had, working and middle-class families keep our economy running. After Wall Street's indiscretions were the cause of an economic collapse and our government bailed them out, we are in no place to tell America's families that there is not enough help to go around. Their interests should have been placed ahead of the big banks from the start.

Further, the provisions that are currently being blocked will also provide

for the vital COBRA subsidy. Right now, the COBRA subsidy is helping American families retain their health care coverage while they continue to look for work. Facing a medical crisis while being employed and uninsured is a burden most families simply cannot withstand. We should not be putting Americans in that position when it is due to no fault of their own.

We should not be driving them to a place where they simply have run out of options. This procedural stalling is unacceptable. I have heard from Minnesota's employment commissioner that the expiration and subsequent agreement on an extension will be an administrative burden on our State, not to mention an inefficient use of State resources.

The delays are also stressful and disruptive for Minnesota's families. This is the case in all 50 of our States. So I call on all of my colleagues to come together today and stand behind the principle, the principle of supporting American families when times are tough. This is the principle on which we should all be focused and all be judged.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen.) The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.

Amendment No. 3338 to Amendment No. 3336

(Purpose: To create additional tax relief for businesses,

and for other purposes.)

Madam President, 50 years ago this month, a group of athletes gathered in Squaw Valley, CA, for the Winter Olympics. A part of the U.S. contingent--the 1960 men's ice hockey team--unexpectedly surprised the world and brought home the Olympic gold medal by defeating the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Canada. Of these 17 remarkable men, 8 were from my home State, the great State of Minnesota. As anyone could see from watching this year's games, this outsized contribution from Minnesotans continues to this day.

Twenty years after this ``forgotten miracle,'' Team USA again shocked the world by miraculously defeating Finland and the vaunted Soviet Union to again win the gold medal. Thirteen Minnesotans played for the 1980 ``Miracle on Ice'' team, and a 14th was their coach.

This year's Olympic men's ice hockey team was considered by many not to have a chance for a medal. They were too young, too inexperienced; they had not played together before. And the U.S. men had not defeated Canada in Olympic play in 50 years. Yet a week ago, despite being the underdog, Team USA upset the favored Canadians in their own arena.

After defeating Switzerland and soundly beating Finland in the semi- finals, Team USA played Canada a second time last night for the gold medal. Although we fell behind early, Zach

Parise--a Prior Lake, MN, native--tied the game with under a minute to play. Sadly for us, Canada would end up scoring in overtime to win the gold medal. But that cannot take away from what was truly a golden performance by the Americans. Jamie Langenbrunner, from Cloquet, did a stand-up job as captain, leading and pulling together a team that also included Minnesotans Erik Johnson, from Bloomington, and David Backes, from Blaine.

The American women's ice hockey team was expected to be great. And they were. Before falling to Canada, they had outscored their opponents 40-2. With Edina native Natalie Darwitz as captain, as well as Jenny Potter from Edina and Gigi Marvin from Warroad, they brought home a well-earned silver medal.

And of the 12 members of the U.S. Olympic curling team, 8 are from Minnesota. Natalie Nicholson of Bemidji and Allison Pottinger of Eden Prairie were on the women's team. The men's team was an all-Minnesota affair with John Shuster and Jason Smith of Chisholm, Chris Plys and Jeff Isaacson of Duluth and John Benton of St. Michael. Even their coach, Phil Drobnick is from Eveleth, MN.

Tony Benshoof of White Bear Lake is an Olympic luger. Kaylin Richardson of Edina was in her second Olympics, competing in alpine skiing. Wynn Roberts of Battle Lake was a competitor in the biathlon. Rebekah Bradford of Apple Valley is an Olympic speedskater. And Caitlin Compton and Garrott Kuzzy, each of Minneapolis, competed in cross- country skiing.

And there are many other Olympic athletes, like Lindsey Vonn, who have strong Minnesota ties but reside now in other States--which have mountains.

Yesterday marked the end of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver. I am so proud to see that there were more athletes in this year's Olympics from Minnesota than from any other State. Twenty-one Minnesotans took part in these games. Most were in their first Olympics. A few others were in their second Games. Natalie Darwitz has been to three. Jenny Potter has now been to four, winning a medal every time. Isn't that something--four-time medal-winning Olympian and mother of two.

Twenty-one athletes from all over Minnesota who now will be going back to tending a bar or being a teacher or being an engineer or a mom. Natalie Nicholson will return to Red Lake Indian Reservation as a nurse practitioner. The men's ice hockey players will be going back to finish the National Hockey League season. John Shuster will be getting married. All will continue to inspire us.

I congratulate every single one of these competitors. Each has shown tremendous grit and determination to earn a place representing our Nation at these Winter Olympics. Whether you won a medal, or simply gave it your all and competed, each of you is a champion.

Olympians make the children of our State and Nation dream of what they might do, and grownups like me dream of what we wish we could do, all while fulfilling their dreams on the world's stage and representing our Nation admirably. We owe them thanks for their hard work, their perseverance, and most of all their heart. And I hope I have the chance in the coming weeks to meet with each of these Minnesota athletes so I can congratulate them in person.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Patricia Smith to be Solicitor of Labor. Ms. Smith is a well qualified, might I say exemplary, nominee and I enthusiastically support her confirmation.

Most recently, Ms. Smith served effectively as New York's commissioner of labor, frequently bringing business leaders, workers groups, and government officials together at the table. She has earned the support of business groups in her State through her willingness to engage in an ongoing working partnership. She has earned the support of labor groups in her State by upholding and enforcing New York's labor and workplace laws.

Ms. Smith not only has support from labor and business but bipartisan support as well. The entire New York congressional delegation signed a letter endorsing her nomination. She has worked under both Democratic and Republican administrations during her long tenure in public service. Republicans and Democrats alike acknowledge her willingness to engage both sides of the aisle and to do so effectively.

Most important to her position at the department of labor is her strong track record of protecting workers. She has demonstrated that all workers, regardless of wage, occupation, or gender, deserve the fullest protection of New York's labor laws. As commissioner of labor there, she targeted enforcement toward the industries and geographic areas most susceptible to abuse and managed to increase compliance among employers and raise awareness about recurring workplace problems. For example, Ms. Smith has led New York's Department of Labor in shutting down exploitative sweatshops. Last year, her department's investigation turned up an instance where sweatshop operators were requiring employees to fraudulently use two sets of timecards, thereby avoiding paying overtime. Workers were often required to work 80 hours a week, often working 7 days a week, and then were coached to lie to labor department investigators. These employers who ignore workplace laws cheat taxpayers out of money. The taxpayers are forced to make up the difference when taxes on overtime wages are not paid, not to mention that this treatment of workers is both illegal and immoral. Ms. Smith worked to fix these problems.

Based on her exemplary work, Ms. Smith has won support from countless civil rights groups, including the National Conference on Civil Rights, the National Women's Law Center, the American Association of University Women, and the Business and Professional Women's Foundation.

Unfortunately, there are some who have been trying to delay Ms. Smith's confirmation. Further delay is detrimental to America's workers. The Department of Labor has been deprived of a critical member of its leadership team. We should see that it is filled as soon as possible. The Solicitor of Labor leads an office of over 600 people who work to enforce 200 of our Nation's labor laws. The Solicitor also sets long-term planning strategy, participates in shaping legislative policy, and interprets legislative language. These are all essential elements to the full functioning of our Department of Labor. Delaying her confirmation is a disservice to the American workforce.

For these reasons, I urge all of my colleagues to support the nomination of Patricia Smith to be Solicitor of Labor.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 8 minutes.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I want to talk about jobs. Lately it seems that everyone says they want to talk about jobs and that we will get around to tackling jobs next week or the week after. I would like to kick off the discussion today, right now, and follow it up with what I plan to do about jobs. I would not be the first to observe that times are tough right now. Our Nation is still reeling from the most disastrous economic collapse in a generation. Failed regulatory policies--or really, just deregulation--bad lending practices, and Wall Street recklessness all contributed to the current crisis, double-digit unemployment for the first time in 25 years. Millions of American families are relying on their unemployment benefits to put food on the table and to pay their rent. Some are looking down at their final unemployment check, wondering what they are going to do next. For every single job opening, there are six unemployed workers. Too many people are left without options or hope in this dismal job market.

In the fall of 2008, when Wall Street's financial institutions started falling like dominos, our regulators told us: Congress has to pass TARP now or we face total economic ruin. This seemed to get Congress moving. It passed legislation in a matter of days. My feeling is that the American people, especially those folks out of work, need their advocates to say: We have to do this now. Every Senator who has heard from their constituents about the depressing job market, about the day-to-day struggles of being unemployed, should be on the floor insisting that we act now; that if we don't act now and act boldly and broadly, Main Street will continue to suffer, and that this unemployment crisis we are in will drag on and on.

The House has already acted. They passed a robust jobs package last December that provided needed funds to States and localities to keep teachers, firefighters, and police officers on the job. It provided funds for public infrastructure projects. These are all vital elements to a successful jobs creation package.

In addition to these fundamentals, the Senate has the opportunity to put forward new ideas for job creation. Today I am introducing my proposal, the SEED Act, Strengthening our Economy through Employment Development, SEED. We have seen Cash for Clunkers. We have talked about Cash for Caulkers. Now I am proposing cash for jobs. The SEED Act is modeled after a program we used for several years in Minnesota during the recession of the 1980s. By all accounts, it was extremely successful. Minnesota's program got over 7,400 people back to work in its first 6 months and created nearly 15,000 permanent, long-term jobs. It did that at a much lower cost per job than the stimulus package this body passed last year.

The SEED Act will incentivize rapid job creation by offering small and medium-size companies and nonprofits a direct wage subsidy to hire new workers and expand their operations. Small businesses are the driving force behind our economy. We all know that. They want to grow. But many of them need an added infusion of capital since TARP hasn't trickled down to them. Administered on a first-come-first-serve basis, these subsidies will provide 50 percent of wages of newly hired workers and will be disbursed through the already existing Workforce Investment Act system. Using this existing system will minimize the bureaucracy that plagues so many new initiatives. Additionally, employers who hire recently returned Iraq and Afghanistan vets would be eligible for a 60- percent subsidy. The subsidy would be available for a 12-month period, and the employer would commit to keeping the worker on for an additional 3 months after the subsidized year.

This model proved highly effective and efficient in Minnesota. Jim Glowacki is one of my constituents. He used Minnesota's program in the 1980s. After he lost his job, he decided to start his own business. He had few resources and little ability to borrow money. He used Minnesota's program, which was called MEED, to hire his first two employees. Now his company, the JPG Group, employs 17 full-time workers and has an annual payroll of over $800,000. His story epitomizes the incredible potential for this approach to spur job creation.

The second component of the SEED Act is to direct grants to States, localities, and tribes to fund green jobs; Providing funds to retrofit public buildings. In addition to creating green jobs, these retrofits will increase energy efficiency, decreasing our dependence on foreign oil and saving taxpayers money. These are public buildings. Too many of our public buildings, public housing, libraries, and schools are becoming outdated and don't utilize the green technologies available

today. There are many skilled workers currently on the bench who already have the training they need to immediately get to work on these projects. These new projects will increase demand for energy-efficient windows and doors and heating systems and insulation, providing a boost to our Nation's stalled manufacturing sector. Some of you may not know this, but Minnesota is the Silicon Valley of windows. We are home to the Nation's leaders in energy-efficient windows which makes some sense given our winters. Retrofitting public buildings is a win for everyone--for workers, localities, taxpayers, manufacturing, and the environment. This is a win-win-win-win-win, I think. Windows, too. If we reallocate $10 billion from the TARP program and pass this proposal into law, we have the potential of creating up to 500,000 jobs, and quickly.

Getting people back to work will ease the burden on public benefit programs like such as employment and COBRA subsidies. Many employers will convert their participating workers into permanent employees, setting them up for a long-term career. Minnesotans have stressed to me how efficiently this program worked in our State and that it provides an excellent return on investment. They have worked tirelessly to demonstrate the benefits of this type of bold proposal. I thank them for collaborating with me on this important piece of legislation. More than 50 Minnesota organizations, companies, and chambers of commerce have come out in support.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of these organizations.

I urge my colleagues to join me in quickly moving forward on a bill to put Americans back to work. I urge them to join me in support of the SEED Act, Strengthening our Economy through Employment and Development.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I want to talk about jobs. Lately it seems that everyone says they want to talk about jobs and that we will get around to tackling jobs next week or the week after. I would like to kick off the discussion today, right now, and follow it up with what I plan to do about jobs. I would not be the first to observe that times are tough right now. Our Nation is still reeling from the most disastrous economic collapse in a generation. Failed regulatory policies--or really, just deregulation--bad lending practices, and Wall Street recklessness all contributed to the current crisis, double-digit unemployment for the first time in 25 years. Millions of American families are relying on their unemployment benefits to put food on the table and to pay their rent. Some are looking down at their final unemployment check, wondering what they are going to do next. For every single job opening, there are six unemployed workers. Too many people are left without options or hope in this dismal job market.

In the fall of 2008, when Wall Street's financial institutions started falling like dominos, our regulators told us: Congress has to pass TARP now or we face total economic ruin. This seemed to get Congress moving. It passed legislation in a matter of days. My feeling is that the American people, especially those folks out of work, need their advocates to say: We have to do this now. Every Senator who has heard from their constituents about the depressing job market, about the day-to-day struggles of being unemployed, should be on the floor insisting that we act now; that if we don't act now and act boldly and broadly, Main Street will continue to suffer, and that this unemployment crisis we are in will drag on and on.

The House has already acted. They passed a robust jobs package last December that provided needed funds to States and localities to keep teachers, firefighters, and police officers on the job. It provided funds for public infrastructure projects. These are all vital elements to a successful jobs creation package.

In addition to these fundamentals, the Senate has the opportunity to put forward new ideas for job creation. Today I am introducing my proposal, the SEED Act, Strengthening our Economy through Employment Development, SEED. We have seen Cash for Clunkers. We have talked about Cash for Caulkers. Now I am proposing cash for jobs. The SEED Act is modeled after a program we used for several years in Minnesota during the recession of the 1980s. By all accounts, it was extremely successful. Minnesota's program got over 7,400 people back to work in its first 6 months and created nearly 15,000 permanent, long-term jobs. It did that at a much lower cost per job than the stimulus package this body passed last year.

The SEED Act will incentivize rapid job creation by offering small and medium-size companies and nonprofits a direct wage subsidy to hire new workers and expand their operations. Small businesses are the driving force behind our economy. We all know that. They want to grow. But many of them need an added infusion of capital since TARP hasn't trickled down to them. Administered on a first-come-first-serve basis, these subsidies will provide 50 percent of wages of newly hired workers and will be disbursed through the already existing Workforce Investment Act system. Using this existing system will minimize the bureaucracy that plagues so many new initiatives. Additionally, employers who hire recently returned Iraq and Afghanistan vets would be eligible for a 60- percent subsidy. The subsidy would be available for a 12-month period, and the employer would commit to keeping the worker on for an additional 3 months after the subsidized year.

This model proved highly effective and efficient in Minnesota. Jim Glowacki is one of my constituents. He used Minnesota's program in the 1980s. After he lost his job, he decided to start his own business. He had few resources and little ability to borrow money. He used Minnesota's program, which was called MEED, to hire his first two employees. Now his company, the JPG Group, employs 17 full-time workers and has an annual payroll of over $800,000. His story epitomizes the incredible potential for this approach to spur job creation.

The second component of the SEED Act is to direct grants to States, localities, and tribes to fund green jobs; Providing funds to retrofit public buildings. In addition to creating green jobs, these retrofits will increase energy efficiency, decreasing our dependence on foreign oil and saving taxpayers money. These are public buildings. Too many of our public buildings, public housing, libraries, and schools are becoming outdated and don't utilize the green technologies available

today. There are many skilled workers currently on the bench who already have the training they need to immediately get to work on these projects. These new projects will increase demand for energy-efficient windows and doors and heating systems and insulation, providing a boost to our Nation's stalled manufacturing sector. Some of you may not know this, but Minnesota is the Silicon Valley of windows. We are home to the Nation's leaders in energy-efficient windows which makes some sense given our winters. Retrofitting public buildings is a win for everyone--for workers, localities, taxpayers, manufacturing, and the environment. This is a win-win-win-win-win, I think. Windows, too. If we reallocate $10 billion from the TARP program and pass this proposal into law, we have the potential of creating up to 500,000 jobs, and quickly.

Getting people back to work will ease the burden on public benefit programs like such as employment and COBRA subsidies. Many employers will convert their participating workers into permanent employees, setting them up for a long-term career. Minnesotans have stressed to me how efficiently this program worked in our State and that it provides an excellent return on investment. They have worked tirelessly to demonstrate the benefits of this type of bold proposal. I thank them for collaborating with me on this important piece of legislation. More than 50 Minnesota organizations, companies, and chambers of commerce have come out in support.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of these organizations.

I urge my colleagues to join me in quickly moving forward on a bill to put Americans back to work. I urge them to join me in support of the SEED Act, Strengthening our Economy through Employment and Development.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act, which I am introducing today with my friend and colleague, Senator Snowe, is a straightforward but vital piece of legislation. It would ensure that servicewomen in our military have reliable and timely access to emergency contraception when they need it.

Emergency contraception, or Plan B as it is more commonly known under its brand name, is Food and Drug Administration-approved medication that prevents pregnancy. It is safe and, if taken shortly after pregnancy, highly effective. Since 2006, the FDA has approved it for over-the-counter sale. Currently, women 17 years old and older may purchase emergency contraception over the counter, while those younger require a prescription.

Emergency contraception is widely available at pharmacies throughout the U.S.

The problem this legislation is meant to address is that there's no guarantee that emergency contraception be available to our servicewomen in the military. The military health care system includes what is called a basic core formulary, which lists the medications that must be stocked at all Department of Defense medical facilities, including those overseas. Emergency contraception is not currently on the basic core formulary.

Consequently, emergency contraception is not systematically and reliably available at all medical military facilities. It is allowed to be stocked at such facilities, so it is available in some places. In that regard, the bill that Senator Snowe and I are introducing today is not a dramatic departure from existing practice.

But there is no guarantee that a servicewoman will have access to it. Immediate accessibility is especially important in the case of emergency contraception because it is only effective if taken within a short window of time. Once a pregnancy is established, it doesn't work.

There is no good reason why servicewomen shouldn't have the same access to emergency contraception that civilians here in the U.S. have.

That is just what this legislation would do. It would guarantee that all military health care treatment facilities stock emergency contraception by placing that medication on the basic core formulary.

All servicewomen should be able to have access to emergency contraception in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy. The fact that more than 2,900 sexual assaults were reported last year in the military only heightens the need to ensure emergency contraception is always available.

This is legislation that has been endorsed by a wide range of organizations both in Minnesota and nationally.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this commonsense legislation. I thank Senator Snowe for joining me in introducing this bill, and I thank all my colleagues who have signed on as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a list of supporters be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues from Vermont and Ohio.

Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues in the Senate to support Senate amendment No. 3135 to replace the proposed excise tax with a surtax that would affect only those making literally millions of dollars a year. Senator Brown and Senator Sanders, with whom I will engage in this colloquy, have shown tremendous leadership on the issue, and I thank them and join them in their efforts.

Before I get into this, though, I want to answer a couple of things I have seen and heard on the Senate floor. I walked in and my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, had a chart up. He had a chart up that said when your taxes will kick in and when your benefits will kick in. So I didn't hear the whole speech, and I felt bad about that--not having heard his whole speech--and I went up to him and said: I didn't hear your whole speech.

And he said: Oh, man, that's too bad.

But I said: Did you actually happen to mention any of the benefits that do kick in right away?

And he said: No.

So I think we are entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. Benefits kick in right away. If you are going to hold up a chart that says when taxes kick in and when benefits kick in, and you say 1,800 days, you better include the benefits that do kick in right away.

Absolutely.

Does the Senator understand that spending benefits start right away?

I asked a question. I yielded to you for a question. I am asking you a question. Does the Senator----

Has to what?

I have the floor. The Senator from South Dakota said: Did I realize he was talking about the spending doesn't start for 1,800 days on health care--that the benefits don't start. Well, here is one: $5 billion in immediate Federal support starts immediately for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with a preexisting condition.

I don't know about anyone else in this body----

I yield.

We have our time now.

We have our time, and the Senator from South Dakota just said, when he gave his presentation, nothing that we are paying for starts until 1,800 days from now. There is a whole list of things that start. The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act----

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will prohibit insurance from imposing lifetime

limits on benefits starting on day one--starting on day one, Senator. He doesn't want to hear it.

We are entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. The fact is, benefits kick in on day one and the large majority of benefits kick in on day one, and we shouldn't be standing up here with charts that say the exact opposite.

Senator McCain, a week ago, said: Facts are stubborn things. These are stubborn things. Small business tax credits will kick in immediately. The Senator from South Dakota just said that no payments, nothing that costs any money will kick in right away. That is not true. We are not entitled to our own facts.

I stand here day after day and hear my colleagues, my good friends from the other side, say things that are not based on fact.

We hear about this $78 trillion unfunded liability. You know, I remember during the Social Security debate that we used to hear about this $11 trillion unfunded mandate for Social Security. They asked the Actuary what that was about--Treasury Secretary Snowe--because the American Actuarial Society got mad about this. You know what it was? It was into the infinite horizon, was the liability. It was into infinity. That was a figure used by the President of the United States--George Bush at the time--that we have an $11 trillion unfunded mandate. What was the actuarial thinking behind it? Into infinity, and that people would live to be 150 years old.

One second. I want to explain the end of this.

So this was the unfunded liability--assuming people lived to 150 and still retired at 67. That meant an 83-year retirement and that we would live to 150. I assume the first 50 years would be great, the next 50 years not so great, and the last 50 years horrible. Ridiculous stuff.

Let's have an honest debate, for goodness' sake. Let's not put up charts that contend one thing and that are just not true.

I yield to Senator Sanders.

Let me go into this term ``Cadillac.'' You know, I never had a Cadillac, but that was the thing, right?--a Cadillac? That was an incredible extravagance--a gold-plated extravagance. But, in fact, this would be taxing plans that provide basic comprehensive coverage for thousands of middle-class workers and their families. One of the problems with the excise tax is that it categorizes plans based on their actuarial cost, not solely on the generosity of their benefits. Plan characteristics explain only a small percentage of the differential in cost. Some reports suggest only 6 percent of the difference in cost is explained by generosity of benefits.

Let me give an example: A small business that employs many older workers is going to face--actuarially, it is going to be considered higher than a business with a young workforce. So even if both of these employers provide the exact same benefits, their costs will be different. The employer with the older workforce faces a higher risk of falling under this tax--not due to the richness of the benefits but due to the age of its employees.

The same goes for small workforces. If a small business offers one set of health benefits and a large company offers the exact same set of benefits, the cost for the smaller employer is higher because its risk pool is smaller.

Do we really want to penalize small businesses or workplaces that retain older workers?

Senator Sanders.

Again, let's think about what these folks, these union folks who negotiated these health care policies and sacrificed in salary--what are they getting? They are getting affordable deductibles. They are getting affordable co-pays. Sometimes, they are getting vision and dental care. This is comprehensive health care we want Americans to get. That is who is going to get hit.

Over the last 20, 30 years, we have seen a squeeze on these people. We have seen a squeeze on the middle class, a shift in the risk to people. That is what this whole bill is about. We are trying to eliminate the risk of losing your health care if you have a preexisting condition; we are trying to lose the risk of going bankrupt. That is the whole point of this bill. Let's not shift more risk onto these folks who are doing these kinds of jobs and supporting their families with their salaries and their benefits.

We are actually addressing that doughnut hole that was in the Medicare Part D bill. We are closing it by half. Do you know when it starts? Next year.

Senator Thune did say none of the benefits started next year, but I guess he just hasn't read the bill. I have so many constituents come to me and say: Read the bill, read the bill. I ask-- --

I do find that many of my colleagues with whom I am very friendly have not read the bill and are not very familiar with it. I think if you are going to get on your feet and debate and make assertions, you should really be familiar with the content of the bill. That is what I thought. I have only been here a while, so maybe I am naive, but I think when you say none of the benefits are going to start next year, you should be right.

In fairness, I am not sure they are all for that. I think I have heard some soundings from the other side to extend what we have this year because this runs out on January 1 and we do not want to see a lot of plugs pulled.

Yes, in theory.

I just want to bend over backward to be fair to my colleagues on the other side.

Maybe I do that to a fault, and I apologize to our side.

Let's get back to the excise tax and what it is purportedly supposed to do. It is supposed to bring down costs and generate revenues. Those are both necessary objectives. I have been submitting stuff over and over again to bring down costs, including a 90-percent medical loss ratio, including uniform standardized insurance forms which will save billions of dollars. I don't think this excise tax is the best way to bring down costs and generate revenue. We should be focusing on actually bringing down the cost of services instead of trying to limit the availability of care.

One way to actually bring down the cost of services is the value index in the bill, which Senator Cantwell introduced in the Finance Committee and which is still in this bill, and which Senator Klobuchar fought for, and many of us from high-value States. That will change the Medicare reimbursement rates to incentivize value. Another unintended consequence of the excise tax is its effective penalty on comprehensive benefit packages secured for workers by their unions. Again, I come back to these unions who gave up salary benefits, who gave up earning benefits. As soon as this gets going, this is going to be returning year after year as we see medical inflation go up and up. This is the cost of living index plus 1; right?

Plus 1 percent. That is not what we have seen from medical costs.

One last word on the deficit and the debt. May I remind everyone that when the Republicans were in the majority and President Bush came to Washington, we had a surplus, a record surplus. At the time the Chairman of the Fed, Alan Greenspan, testified to Congress that we had a new problem. The new problem was that because of the projected surpluses, we were, in a number of years, going to have too much money, that we were going to pay off the debt and the Federal Government would be forced to buy private equities and that this would not have a maximizing effect on our economy. That is what he said, after Bush became President. That was what he said. He said we were going to have too much money. That is what the Chairman of the Fed said. So we handed the ball off to President Bush, and we handed the ball off to these Republicans. The problem was, we were going to have too much money. That is not a problem anymore, is it? Now you hear them screaming about the deficit. Think about the deficit they left us. Think about the economic circumstances they left us in. We are talking about getting rid of this excise tax, but we are talking about paying for it. The CBO has scored this bill as cutting the debt in the next 10 years by $179 billion and then $500 billion in the next 10. That is responsible.

What we saw in the years that we had a Republican President and a Republican House and a Republican Senate was an explosion in the deficit. I don't want to hear lectures about the deficit. When I hear presentations from my colleagues, I want them to remember what Senator McCain said when he said facts are stubborn things.

When we debate in this Hall on this floor, let's stick to the facts. So many of the benefits in this bill start immediately. It is simply not fact to say they don't.

I thank the Senator. I thank both of my colleagues from Vermont and Ohio, and urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 3135.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of amendment No. 2795, which would repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance. I thank my colleague Chairman Leahy for championing this legislation, which is crucial to health reform and to working families around the country who pay too much in health insurance premiums.

We are on the verge of expanding health insurance to 31 million more Americans--an accomplishment that would be truly historic. But as heartened as I am about the relief this will bring to families, I am deeply concerned that this expansion could be a windfall for insurance companies if we don't include additional checks and balances. We should be putting significant Federal funds towards health insurance--but that money should go towards helping people afford health insurance, not towards lining the pockets of insurance companies and their CEOs.

As a country, we have long understood the profound importance of economic competition. Competition leads to greater entrepreneurship, creativity, and productivity for businesses. It leads to lower prices and higher quality for consumers. Competition is why America has created so many of the most innovative businesses in the world. It is also why we enacted antitrust laws--because we need to protect this value we hold dear, and we know that competition won't always happen on its own.

Because I understand the value of competition, I am extremely concerned about the antitrust exemption in current law for health insurance and malpractice insurance. It is indisputable that health insurance premiums have gone through the roof in recent years. From 1999 to 2008, median income rose about 24 percent, but insurance premiums grew by 131 percent. It is no wonder that so many American families are struggling to afford insurance.

These high premiums are directly connected to the lack of competition in statewide health insurance markets. Ninety-four percent of State health insurance markets are considered ``highly concentrated,'' according to the U.S. Department of Justice. In 16 States, the two biggest health care insurance companies controlled 75 percent or more of the market in 2007. In Hawaii, that figure was 98 percent. In Rhode Island and Alaska, it was 95.

But while American families suffer, insurance company profits continue to rise. From 2000 to 2008, the major insurance companies made over $59\1/2\ billion. Their profits rose by 428 percent from 2000 to 2007. And their CEOs are making big bucks themselves--in 2007, the CEO of Aetna took home $23 million, while the CEO of CIGNA took home $25.8 million.

The antitrust exemption for health insurance and malpractice insurance may have had a purpose at one point in time--it gave the health insurance companies time to respond to a major change in the law. When Congress passed the McCarran Ferguson Act in 1945, it was responding to a 1944 Supreme Court case that upended the insurance industry as they knew it. The bill passed without any hearings in the Senate and with very little debate in the House.

Most indications suggest that both the House and the Senate expected the antitrust exemption to be temporary. But somehow, through the conference report, this ``temporary fix'' became permanent--and health insurance markets have become more and more concentrated as a result.

This cannot continue. Senator Leahy's amendment gives us the opportunity to further the American ideal of competition, and help working people in the process. I urge my colleagues to bring this amendment up for a vote, and to vote to repeal the antitrust exemption. This issue is just too important for us to wait any longer.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Nelson-Hatch amendment, which replaces the compromise language in the current bill with unprecedented restrictions on women's access to safe and legal abortion services.

I think we can all agree that women's health is fundamental to our Nation's health. We all know that when women are healthier, families, communities, and countries are healthier. But I also know the issue of abortion is difficult, no matter where you stand on it, and I truly respect the fact that we have a range of opinions among us. Women have abortions for different reasons. Some of these reasons may not seem right to some of us. But even if we disagree, it is better that each woman be able to make her own decision with her doctor.

In a perfect world, no woman should have to face the decisions we are discussing today. But the reason we have insurance coverage is to help us deal with the unexpected. No woman expects to have an unplanned pregnancy. No woman expects to end a wanted pregnancy because of fetal anomalies or risks to her own health. If we limit options in private health insurance coverage, we take away a woman's right to make a decision that may be best for her and for her family in their circumstances.

But unplanned pregnancies do occur, and we have a responsibility to provide women with the full range of choices regarding their health. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled on this issue and made it clear that women have a constitutional right to access abortion. It is our responsibility to make sure abortions are safe, legal, and rare.

Supporting a woman's right to make decisions about her health means more than keeping abortion services legal; it means supporting a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy safely and with dignity. It also means teaching honest, realistic sex education. It means the right to choose contraception. It means standing with women who choose to continue their pregnancies--with the hope and expectation that a compassionate society will support them in their responsibilities raising a child. It is about respecting women's personal decisions and the challenges they face, especially at times when they are the most vulnerable.

I strongly oppose the Nelson-Hatch amendment because it undermines the status quo and breaks new ground by restricting women's fundamental rights. The amendment stipulates that health plans cannot cover abortion services if they accept even one subsidized customer, even if the abortion coverage would be paid with the private premiums health plans receive directly from individuals. If adopted, this would mark the first time in Federal law that we would restrict how individuals can use their own dollars in the private health insurance marketplace.

I also oppose the amendment because we have a workable solution. The existing compromise in our bill represents genuine concessions by both pro-choice and pro-life Members of Congress. The current bill prohibits Federal funding of abortion but also allows women to pay for abortion coverage with their own private funds. It makes clear abortion can't be mandated or prohibited and stipulates that Federal funds cannot be used for abortion.

Let me be clear. The compromise within the current bill is as far as we can go. We have negotiated to get to this point. We cannot negotiate further without literally undermining the compromise we have made on behalf of women's health in this country.

We are on the verge of passing a historic health reform law that will do more to improve the health of women and families than any legislation in recent history. We will end discrimination based on health history, on gender, or history of domestic violence. We will provide access to preventive health services so women can get annual exams and mammograms at no cost. It is our responsibility to guarantee women are not worse off--under the health reform we are going to pass-- than they are today.

As my friend Paul Wellstone used to say: ``If we don't fight hard enough for the things that we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them.'' I urge my colleagues to stand with me today to oppose this amendment.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I will just take the 16 seconds.

I do have the microphone, and I thank you for the 16 seconds.

I would like to now--oh, I have used it up.

I yield my time.

How much time do I have? Two minutes.

Madam President, let me use the 16 seconds I had but use it in a better way, so maybe it won't be 2 minutes. I was going to talk about Senator Lincoln's amendment to limit tax benefits health insurance companies receive on salaries for CEOs, but let me just talk about the nature of this debate.

My esteemed colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, quoted Ronald Reagan saying facts are stubborn things. We just had my distinguished colleague from South Dakota say that this bill does not extend for 1 day the solvency of Medicare. Well, according to the Office of the Actuary for the

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, it extends it for 5 years. Now, facts are either stubborn things or they aren't. The Actuary for CMS is either the Actuary for CMS or not. You can't have a debate such as this and throw things around. Facts are stubborn things. We are entitled to our own opinions. We are not entitled to our own facts. You cannot stand up here and wave your arms and say this doesn't extend Medicare 1 minute, 1 day, when the Actuary for Medicare says the bill extends it for 5 years.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I actually was kind of feeling bad because I thought I was going to be changing the subject, when Senator Durbin said I would be the next Democrat to speak. Because our good colleague from Nevada brought up an amendment on medical malpractice liability and the Senator from Illinois responded to it and I thought the Senator from Nevada was going to respond to his response with some factual information or something, he completely changed the subject. So he went from the Canadian system to rationing, and he will include his entire statement, which included this: We don't ration care here in the United States, we let--meaning the government--we let the private sector do that.

They do a great job of rationing care in the private sector. That is where we ration care in this country. They ration it by cutting off your insurance when you get sick. They ration care by not giving you insurance if you have a preexisting condition.

I wish to speak about an amendment I have--that is why I was going to change the subject--but let me talk a little bit about tort reform, liability insurance. Senator Durbin mentioned Atul Gawande. He wrote that article in the New Yorker. Senator Ensign talked about how great the tort reform was in Texas. McAllen, TX, has the most expensive health care in the country. What kind of progress is that? They have the most draconian medical liability reform. In Minnesota, we don't have anything such as that. We do it for a third of the cost that they do it for in Texas and with better outcomes.

The reason I actually asked for time today is to express my support for Senator Lincoln's amendment to limit the tax benefits that health insurance CEOs receive--not limit their salaries, limit the tax benefits. This does not limit their compensation, as was claimed by the Senator from Nevada.

Most Americans would agree that the government, though, shouldn't be giving tax breaks to insurance companies for lining the pockets of their CEOs at the expense of working families who are forced to pay more and more as their premiums spiral out of control. The savings from removing this tax deduction in Senator Lincoln's amendment will go directly to our seniors as a direct deposit into the Medicare trust fund. This amendment is immensely important because it reinforces one of our primary goals with this bill, which is to rein in the cost of health care. One of the key ways we can control costs is by holding insurance companies accountable.

I am pleased to be working with Senator Lincoln on another effort to make our health care system focused on patients, not profits. Yesterday, Senator Lincoln joined me, Senator Rockefeller, and others in introducing an amendment to require that at least 90 percent of your premium dollars go toward actual health services. We do that in Minnesota. We do that in Minnesota--91 cents, actually.

I urge my colleagues to support both our amendments to ensure we get the highest possible value for our premium dollars because nobody can contest the fact that for-profit health insurance companies have been making obscene amounts of money, while Americans watch their premiums skyrocket. From 2000 to 2007, insurance company profits rose 428 percent--in 8 years. During that same time, we saw more than 6 million more Americans become uninsured. During that same period, American families saw their premiums almost double.

So nobody can stand on this floor and argue that American families aren't suffering. No one can dispute what I hear from Minnesotans every day, that in this economic downturn, one of the greatest fears families have is: What happens if I get sick? What happens if my spouse or my child gets sick? We are hardly holding on now. We are just one illness away from losing everything. That is what I hear. That is what I hear from Minnesota families, and this is a State that has less-expensive, higher quality health care than the rest of the country. If Minnesotans are struggling, we know we have a crisis on our hands.

That is why I am working to make sure this bill does everything it can to bring down costs, improve quality, and hold private insurance companies accountable.

The current reality is, most of us don't know where our health insurance premiums go. It is difficult enough to understand a billing statement from your health insurer, much less track where your money is spent. Well, we are going to change that. We are going to change that with transparent reporting of how health insurance companies are spending your money. That is in this bill. Clear reporting, written in plain English will help us hold them accountable for every dollar we spend on health insurance. But reporting isn't enough because, right now, some of the health insurance plans being marketed and sold in this country are nothing short of a rip-off.

A recent report in BusinessWeek magazine described a policy being sold in Florida to college students in which only 10 percent of the premium went toward actual health services. Again, only 10 cents out of every dollar goes to health care in this plan. The rest goes to marketing, wasteful administrative costs, and, of course, profits. And this is legal. It has been legal. It was legal when the Republicans had the White House and controlled this Congress. We are going to make it illegal.

I don't think this is what we want for our children--insurance companies pocketing millions of dollars at the expense of our physical and economic health. Is that the kind of country we want to be? I believe we can all agree this health care reform bill must guarantee that Americans get value for the premiums we pay.

I implore my colleagues to support these efforts because health insurance should be about providing the best possible health care, not about marketing, wasteful administrative costs, CEO pay, and profits.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about Shane Bauer, Sarah Shourd, and Josh Fattal. These three young Americans have been in custody in Iran since July 31, 2009. That is more than 4 months.

Shane is from Minnesota, where his devoted mother, Cindy Hickey, still lives. I have been in constant and close touch with Cindy over the phone, and last month I was able to meet with all the families of the young hikers, and they have been back in Washington again this week. I have to say, they are a remarkable group of people who want nothing more than to be reunited with their children. On behalf of their families, I have come to the floor today to urge the Government of Iran to make a humanitarian gesture and release these young Americans so they can be together with their families again.

As many of you know, Josh, Sarah, and Shane were hiking near the Iraqi-Iranian border in a remote region that is famous for a beautiful waterfall when they were taken into custody by Iranian authorities. The Iranians have indicated that the Americans strayed across the border in this remote region. There can be no doubt that it was an accident. Four months later, Josh, Sarah, and Shane remain in prison in Iran.

The Iranian Government has allowed the Swiss Embassy, in its capacity as protection power for U.S. interests in Iran, to have consular access to them twice during the time they have been held. I hope this will continue, and continue more regularly.

The Swiss have been enormously helpful in working with us to resolve the situation to bring these Americans home. I have been assured by one of the Swiss that Josh, Sarah, and Shane were all in decent physical condition as of the last visit. But it is also clear the imprisonment is taking its toll on these young people.

The President of Iran has indicated that their case will be examined expeditiously and with compassion, which is encouraging. President Ahmedinejad first made that statement around the time the U.N. General Assembly met this past September.

These young American tourists find themselves in unfortunate circumstances. One thing is clear: These circumstances do and should have nothing to do with politics. I hope that Josh, Sarah, and Shane's situation can be resolved on the same basis--as purely a human gesture by the Government of Iran. I understand that people on all sides tend to get caught in the middle of geopolitical events they have nothing to do with. That is a cycle that can and should be stopped. We do not want to perpetuate that cycle. Above all, I hope the Iranian Government will recognize that these Americans have committed nothing more than an innocent mistake and want nothing more than to be brought back together with their families. The Americans should be released.

In the meantime, I hope Josh, Sarah, and Shane will be able to speak with their families by phone immediately. That would be the first direct contact they have had since their detention over 4 months ago.

As we approach the holiday season and the end of the year, this is an especially important time for families to be together. That is not an American value or an Iranian value, it is a human value. It is my fervent hope that Josh, Sarah, and Shane will be brought back together with their families now. I urge the Government of Iran to make a humanitarian gesture and make that family reunion possible.