Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter dated May 18, 2009, to Medtronic, Inc. be printed in the Record.

Madam President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I will only be speaking about 11 minutes or so. I will proceed.

Yesterday--no, it was not yesterday, 2 days ago--the Medicare trustees announced that Medicare's Part A hospital trust fund will be insolvent in 2017. That is 2 years sooner than last year's estimate. This announcement shines a spotlight on an issue Congress cannot ignore. Our largest Federal health program is on an unsustainable course.

Medicare, according to the trustees, is going broke. We have all heard the reasons over and over: People are living longer, health care costs are increasing, and most seniors are developing chronic and very costly conditions.

All this leaves the Federal Government with a $35 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years because the trustees always look ahead 75 years. That is updated annually.

Some in Congress recognize the financial black hole that is looming before us. I hope my colleagues know I am working with Senator Baucus and other members of the Finance Committee to reform the way the Government pays for health care.

Our options for delivery reform will bring the Medicare Program into the 21st century by improving quality and reducing costs. We desperately need to retake control of the costs of the Medicare Program, obviously, so it can be around for future generations. Yet in the face of that reality, some people think the best way to accomplish health care reform is to create another entitlement program.

In the face of Medicare's pending insolvency, some people want to create a new public program, a government-run health insurance program. I am one of the most vocal supporters of health care reform. We need to improve quality, access, and affordability. But we need to understand by adding another unsustainable government-run health insurance plan into our health care system, it cannot be the answer.

We cannot afford what we already have, so let's add more. Put that against the commonsense test. It does not make much sense. As the saying goes: History is a vast early warning system. Today, debate over health care reform is eerily similar to the debate in 1965, before Medicare was created.

Let's look at that history. Before the bill became law, doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers were concerned about this new government-run health care program that was passed back then. We call it Medicare.

Much like today, way back then, they were worried the Government would use this program to ration care and cut payments. To deal with these concerns, Congress and the President actually promised back then to doctors and others that they would continue to be paid, as the law says, the usual and customary rates.

That is why, to this very date, the Medicare legislation still states this:

Nothing in this title shall authorize any Federal officer

or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the

practice of medicine or compensation of any person providing

health care services.

That was written in 1965. It is still in the law. But--and a big ``but''--we all know that the cost and the political pressure has increased.

As a result, this section that I quoted, written in 1965, has become meaningless. Time and time again, Congress has intervened in medical decisions and cut reimbursement rates. Legislation in the late 1980s placed limits on what doctors could charge and put in place a government-mandated fee schedule.

One American Medical Association trustee recounted the AMA's original concern about Medicare by stating it this way: ``Many of the things we feared have come to pass.'' Surprise. Surprise. Despite the promise to pay ``reasonable rates'' when Medicare was created, today the Government pays between 60 and 70 percent of what private insurers pay.

By setting payment rates well below costs, it is becoming more and more difficult for seniors to find a doctor who accepts Medicare. Access issues for Medicaid, as we all know, are even worse. But some say we can avoid these problems by putting the government-run plan on a level playing field with private insurers.

They say Congress could set up a system so the government-run health insurance plan has to follow the same rules as private insurers. They say it would have to pay the same rates, form networks, be independently solvent, all sounding good. My question is this: When this new government-run health insurance plan starts to cost too much, then following the pattern since 1965 with Medicare, is Congress going to start breaking its promises? Will it change the rules?

A recent Wall Street Journal article tried to answer this question this way:

Any policy guardrails built this year can be dismantled

once the basic public option architecture is in place . . .

That is what has always--

And ``always'' is emphasized--

That is what has always happened with Government health

programs.

Maybe at first Congress somehow repeals the requirement that the government-run plan has to form a network. Next, Congress might allow the Government plan to start paying lower rates than private insurers, just like we have done with Medicare and Medicaid. At that point, Congress might let the government-run plan dip into the Treasury from time to time to keep the Government plan solvent.

This, of course, would increase costs for everyone. As the Government takes more and more control over the plan, providers would get paid less and taxpayers would end up paying more. Rates for government-run health insurance plans would be lower than private insurers because Government can impose lower rates by law, also known--can you believe it--as price fixing.

This is a common talking point for supporters of the government-run plan. They say the Government can use its numbers to lower costs. But as the Government cuts payments to providers, costs will go up for everyone who is left in the private market. Slowly but surely the Government plan takes over the market. Eventually, all the promises about creating a level playing field have been broken, and we would be left with a single-payer, government-run health insurance plan, such as Canada.

Canada brags about having a single plan. But Canada does not have just a single plan. There is a second plan, and it is called the United States of America. So if you do not want to wait around 3 months for an MRI in Canada, you can come to the United States, if you have the money to do it and the time to do it, and get it right away.

But what happens if you have such a plan in America? Where do Americans go for what the plan does not provide

for our people when you have delay? Well, we will not go to Mexico, surely. Eventually, all the promises about creating a level playing field will have been broken, and we would be left with a single-payer, government-run health insurance plan.

The simple truth is, supporters of a government plan absolutely intend for this to be the outcome. Independent analysis by the Lewin Group agrees. According to Lewin's work, 119 million people would lose their private insurance. In other words, they would be crowded out. They would end up where? On the Government plan.

It also breaks one of the most important promises that President Obama made during his campaign, and I agree with this promise. What is it? If you like what you have now in the way of health insurance, you can keep it.

Independent analysis has shown that a government-run insurance plan will drive up prices in the private market and force employees and employers to drop that coverage. So the President does not get his plan or his promise during the campaign kept.

This, of course, will make our emergency rooms more crowded than they are today. It will limit access to high-quality care through rationing and price fixing. It will increase waiting time for lab results and lifesaving and life-enhancing procedures. It will add hundreds of billions of dollars of new Government spending.

This is not the kind of change the American people are looking for. Instead of creating a government-run plan and making a bunch of promises Congress cannot keep, let's create stronger rules and regulations for the private insurance market.

For instance, we should prohibit health plans from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions and provide tax credits to people who cannot afford coverage.

Instead of introducing a government-run health insurance plan that would cost too much, limit choices, and lower quality, let's clean up the private market. Instead of introducing a government plan, let's help President Obama keep his promise that if you like what you have in the way of health insurance, you can keep it.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, the next Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, has a tough job ahead of him.

The new drug czar will have to work hard to stem the rise in prescription and over-the-counter medicine abuse and the drug cartel violence crossing our southern borders, as well as the issues we have been combating for many years: traditional drug abuse.

The U.S. has a major drug problem. While we are leveraging law enforcement resources for interdiction and drug crime reduction, we also face an active movement to legalize dangerous drugs. I have long been an opponent of the legalizing cause, as I hear all the time how dangerous drugs are to our youth and families.

The new ONDCP Director must emphasize and invigorate the law enforcement community's efforts to stop illegal drug use. He must be a strong leader for all agencies and organizations that are stakeholders in the fight against illegal drugs. He must bring a respect to the office of ONDCP that has been lacking for some time. It is vital that the new Director is able to coordinate domestic and international drug strategy, including ensuring that the Merida Initiative is a success. The next

Director must also be able to bring together and work with coalitions at the local level to combat meth, coordinate policy on the laws directed to eradicate meth and marijuana production, and be engaged in efforts to stop opium production in Afghanistan and Colombia. His drug strategy must produce results at the national and international level to address drug manufacturing, interdiction, prevention, and abuse.

I have some concerns about Chief Kerlikowske's nomination, given his record.

For instance, in 2003, Seattle voters passed Initiative 75, which made marijuana possession the lowest priority for the Seattle Police Department. During the debate, Chief Kerlikowske opposed the measure only because he disagreed with voters determining what laws a police force should enforce. In answers to my written questions, he merely noted marijuana was already low on the force's list. Chief Kerlikowske's lax record on marijuana enforcement concerns me because marijuana is still often the precursor to more dangerous drugs, and it only endangers those who use it. The next ONDCP Director must be a strong opponent of marijuana and all illegal drugs, as well as act as an aggressive enforcer of the laws regulating these harmful narcotics.

Additionally, Chief Kerlikowske apparently has no experience on international supply interdiction. We need someone who understands international drug problems and can help formulate a successful long- term strategy to address them. Chief Kerlikowske's lack of this experience, along with his lax record on marijuana crimes, raise questions for me on his ability to act as an effective Director of ONDCP. However, several organizations, such as the Major Cities Chief Association, the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, have expressed support for this nominee. While I will not hold up his nomination, I put Chief Kerlikowske on notice that I expect him to provide strong leadership in producing and coordinating drug control strategy and to aggressively work to enforce our drug laws.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I wish to speak a few words about Demetrios Marantis, who was confirmed last night by the Senate to be a Deputy U.S. Trade Representative.

Demetrios is well known to all of us on the Finance Committee. For 4 years, he has very ably served Chairman Baucus--most recently as the Democratic chief international trade counsel. So he has played a central role in all of the committee's efforts on trade policy during this time.

Not only is Demetrios a very sharp trade lawyer and policy adviser, he is also a skilled negotiator. That will serve him well in his new position. I am grateful for the genuine spirit of bipartisanship that Demetrios brought to the Finance Committee, and I am sorry to see him depart. His energy and good nature will certainly be missed.

At the same time, I am comforted by the fact that our Nation will continue to benefit from Demetrios' commitment to public service. He assumes a very important portfolio at the Office of the United States Trade Representative, as a trade Ambassador to Asia and Africa, and also with responsibility for the trade and development portfolio, as well as for labor and the environment.

I therefore look forward to engaging Demetrios in efforts to open up new market opportunities for U.S. exporters in the Asian region. I also look forward to working with him on a reform of our unilateral trade preference programs. We must address these key trade priorities in the 111th Congress, so I expect that we'll continue to see Demetrios on a regular basis for some time to come.

In closing, I commend Demetrios for his outstanding service to the Finance Committee, and I wish Ambassador Marantis every success in his new position.

Before we do that, if the Senator is for it, can we adopt it on a voice vote?

I will use my time.

Mr. President, then let me speak off the cuff. What we have here is following on the President's promise for more transparency in Government--a promise to put everything dealing with bailouts on the Internet. There is more money involved with Federal Reserve and bailouts and stabilizing the economy than even in what we appropriate. So this is to bring transparency to what the Federal Reserve is doing, without affecting monetary policy whatsoever.

I ask us to agree to this amendment to bring transparency because the public's business ought to be public, including taxpayers' money spent by the Federal Reserve.

In March, the Finance Committee held a hearing on the progress and oversight of the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP. At that hearing the Government Accountability Office--GAO--testified that it is not just firms that take taxpayer money under TARP who can say ``no'' to GAO's requests for information, prior to my other amendment on this bill. The Federal Reserve can also refuse to cooperate.

The GAO's ability to audit the Federal Reserve is restricted by law. Perhaps those restrictions could be defended back when the Federal Reserve focused only on monetary policy. However, today it is routinely exercising extraordinary emergency powers to subsidize financial firms far above the levels Congress is willing to authorize through legislation. The Federal Reserve is taking on more and more risk in complicated and unprecedented ways. That risk is ultimately borne by the American taxpayer.

Congress authorized $700 billion in funds under TARP. However, the total projected assistance in various initiatives by the Federal Reserve could be up to $3.4 trillion by GAO estimates.

This modified version of the amendment does not give GAO authority to look at all of that additional taxpayer risk. It is much narrower than the one I originally filed, but it is a reasonable step in the right direction, and it does not threaten monetary policy independence.

Although I would have preferred to include all of the Fed's emergency actions under 13(3), in consultation with Senator Shelby I agreed to limit my amendment to actions aimed at specific companies. I will ask to submit for the Record a list of those actions currently covered by the new language, according to Federal Reserve staff. Future actions of the same sort would also be subject to GAO audit.

The goal of this amendment is extend GAO authority to cover the Federal Reserve's emergency actions that are most similar to the TARP-- in other words actions aimed at specific companies like Bear Stearns and AIG.

I appreciate the support of Senators Shelby and Dorgan who are cosponsoring this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 1021. Let's not give GAO an important mission to do with a blindfold on. Let's take off the blindfold get a good hard look at what the Federal Reserve is doing.

I ask unanimous consent that the actions currently covered by the new language to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas----

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise to speak on an amendment I have offered, 1021. It will have Democratic and Republican cosponsors. This substitute amendment gives the Government Accountability Office authority to audit the Federal Reserve.

However, this version limits the Government Accountability Office's new authority to matters involving the Federal Reserve's participation in the TARP or its emergency action under section 13(3) authority.

This is a much narrower version of the original amendment. It is intended to address the Federal Reserve's concern that its core monetary policy functions remain independent of the Government Accountability Office scrutiny.

For over 90 years, the Fed has conducted monetary policy through a combination of open-market operations and changes in banking reserve requirements. On rare occasions, the Fed has invoked its authority under section 13(3) to take extraordinary action to address what they would decide was a very short-term crisis. While these actions are intended to be temporary, they can have a lasting impact on specific institutions and on the long-term credibility of the Fed.

The Fed has created a number of facilities that are making nonrecourse loans or buying and selling assets through a subsidiary of the Fed. These transactions involve undisclosed counterparties. Without adequate oversight, no one will ever know the terms or conditions of these transactions: Who received what from the Fed and what did the Fed receive in return? How much did each of those entities profit and how much did the taxpayers lose?

This amendment is simply about accountability, not monetary policy, because I do not want to interfere in Fed monetary policy. But I do think that when we are helping out businesses, the way we are, sometimes through appropriations from Congress, sometimes through facilities and powers of the Fed, we are talking about taxpayers' money.

If you think the Fed does not have anything to do with taxpayers' money, remember that last year they returned, I think it was, $38 billion to the Federal Treasury--I know it was in the mid-30s that it returned to the Federal Treasury in year-end operations.

They are not going to be able to do that this year, but that $38 billion goes into the general fund to be used, like money being fungible. It is not seen by the taxpayers any differently from the income tax or the payroll taxes that are paid. There is an interest in protecting the taxpayers' money. It is not an interest in doing anything with the independence of the Fed, it is just a matter of knowing who is getting helped, what is being helped, are they profiting, how much are they profiting, and the extent to which the taxpayers are being protected, the instruments the Fed takes in as collateral. These are things that it is good to know. We need to know. We need to know them. Why? Because there are a lot of facilities, institutions, companies being helped that would be belly up--well, I guess you would say they are belly up or they would not need the help-- but belly up and they exist because of either Congress appropriating money or because of the Fed intervening.

All good reasons maybe but they operate. So, in my judgment, the public's business ought to be public. Oh, there are some exceptions, such as intelligence information, national security, some privacy. But everything else ought to be public. That is what this amendment is all about. It is all about making sure money is handled responsibly.

The Fed is only supposed to lend money against good collateral. Their authority to conduct monetary policy must not be allowed to degenerate into a taxpayer-funded bailout for those who engage in reckless lending.

I hope people who are going to be voting on this amendment tomorrow will consider what we are trying to do. We are trying to do everything this President said in his campaign--the President has not spoken on this issue, but I am speaking in a general way about what the President said in his campaign--that he wanted more transparency in Government, he wanted more accountability in Government.

For the most part, the President, through various things, maybe not completed yet, has tried to deliver on that promise--putting TARP expenditures on the Internet, for instance, so anybody in the United States can know, maybe not today but eventually, where every penny went--because it is the taxpayers' money. This Government belongs to the American people.

What this Government does that affects the pocketbooks of Americans ought to be made public.

This amendment is not something to try to destroy anything. It is not something trying to get involved in that which affects the monetary policy of the Fed. We are just trying to get information out and make sure people are accountable. We have to have this information to know that. It doesn't hurt one iota to make sure the public has access to this information. I hope Members will support amendment No. 1021 tomorrow.

There is another amendment which, it is my understanding, the managers will accept. But 1021 we will have to have a vote on. I have given my reasons. I may take a minute in the morning to expand on that and remind Senators, but I hope we can move forward and get this agreed to.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I want to first start off by thanking the Senate and in particular the Senate Agriculture Committee for addressing a new cause of action in Federal court for those African- American farmers who may have been discriminated against and who were denied entry in the Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 including a provision entitled Determination on Merits of Pigford Claims.

For those who do not know, the Consent Decree was a settlement that resulted from a class action lawsuit initiated by a class of African- American farmers who had for decades been discriminated against by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the administration of its FSA loan program. The discriminatory treatment was well-documented by both the USDA's own Inspector General and an internal task force appointed by then USDA Secretary Glickman.

We had some unanticipated consequences in the Consent Decree's implementation. There was denial of approximately 77,000 African- American farmers into the Decree even though these farmers filed petitions by the late-claim deadline. More than half of these late- claim petitioners didn't even know about the Consent Decree. The Court said the lack of notice was not a sufficient reason to allow them into the Consent Decree. Thus, these individuals were denied entry and their discrimination complaints went unresolved. This was not a fair outcome for farmers or those attempting to farm at that time.

The farm bill did the right thing by allowing late filers to have their claims heard and judged on the merits. These farmers deserve justice and at least the opportunity to have their claims heard.

Unfortunately, it has been very difficult to determine how many of the 77,000 actually have valid claims. Lots of different folks have lots of different calculations. Either way, it's likely to be expensive. Because of the budget constraints, the Farm Bill only could put $100 million towards the endeavor.

I think we can and must do better than that. That is why today I am introducing bipartisan legislation with Senator Hagan of North Carolina. This bill will make 3 changes to the farm bill. First it will allow the claimants to access the $100 million already appropriated in the farm bill, but once that is expended gain access to the Department of Treasury permanent appropriated judgment fund. Second, it will allow reasonable attorney fees, administrative costs, and expenses to be paid from the judgment fund in accordance with the 1999 consent decree. Finally, it includes a section making fraud related to claims a criminal offense with punishment of a fine or up to 5 years in prison or both.

The claimants, who were able to timely file, were allowed access to the judgment fund and so it makes sense that we treat these new claimants the exact same way. The Department of Justice was treating the $100 million included in the farm bill as a cap, but Congress simply viewed it as a down payment to rectify the damage done.

The farm bill we passed last year does one thing right. It focuses a considerable amount of resources on new and beginning farmers and ranchers. Well, many of the Pigford claimants were in that same boat 20 years ago. It is time to rectify that.

The farm bill has simply opened up the door so that claims can be heard. If a person brings a claim and can not meet the burden of proof, then no award will be given. However, we know USDA has admitted that the discrimination occurred, and now we are obligated to do our best in getting those that deserve it, some relief. That is why I am introducing this legislation with Senator Hagan and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. It is time to make these claimants right and move forward into a new era of civil rights at the Department of Agriculture.

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

Mr. President, the Federal Inspectors General are the frontline of protection for taxpayer dollars, ensuring that Federal agencies spend taxpayer dollars in an effective, efficient, economical manner that is in accordance with all applicable law. The Inspectors General root out fraud, waste, and abuse in Government programs by auditing, evaluating, and investigating how Federal agencies spend taxpayer dollars and how Government programs utilize funds. The Inspectors General occupy a unique position within our government. Created by the Inspector General Act of 1978 and by various subsequent statutes, the Inspectors General at Executive Branch agencies also report directly to the Legislative Branch. They were created to keep tabs on the government bureaucracy to make sure that agencies follow the spirit and intent of the laws while protecting taxpayer dollars.

I have been an outspoken advocate for Inspectors General during my time in the Senate and I was proud to be a cosponsor of the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, which was signed into law by President Bush last year. That legislation ensures that Inspectors General are truly independent of the Federal agencies they oversee. The independence of Inspectors General is a critical requirement to their ability to get the job done. If Inspectors General lack independence from the agency they oversee, the quality of their work is impacted negatively and their reputation as independent watchdogs is tarnished.

Over the years, I have seen a number of Inspectors General come and go. It is a tough job to be an Inspector General. You can not go along to get along. You must buck the system, dig deep into the books of the agency, find where the secrets are hidden, and then report the truth to Congress, the President, and the American people. Unfortunately, Inspectors General must do all this with the agencies that often fight their every move. These entrenched bureaucracies have an interest in not seeing Inspectors General succeed--they do not want egg on their face. That is why we in Congress must make sure they have all the tools they need to get the job done and ensure that there is accountability for the billions in taxpayer dollars that are spent annually on the operation of the Executive Branch.

One growing area of concern I have seen over the years is procedural roadblocks being placed before Inspectors General to limit or prohibit their ability to do their job of protecting taxpayer dollars. One recent example relates to the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program SIGTARP, Neil Barofsky. Inspector General Barofsky notified me on January 22, 2009, that he intended to begin an oversight initiative that would have improved the transparency of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP. Inspector General Barofsky's plan was to collect data from TARP recipients asking them for a response outlining the use of TARP funds, copies of support documents, a description of plans to comply with executive compensation restrictions, and certification by a senior executive officer of the accuracy of the statements they make. This sounded like a legitimate plan from the Inspector General tasked by Congress with ensuring that the $700 billion handed out by the TARP program wasn't lost to fraud or abuse. However, it was shortly after this letter that Mr. Barofsky ran into procedural hurdles erected by the Office of Management and Budget,

Mr. President, I want to first start off by thanking the Senate and in particular the Senate Agriculture Committee for addressing a new cause of action in Federal court for those African- American farmers who may have been discriminated against and who were denied entry in the Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 including a provision entitled Determination on Merits of Pigford Claims.

For those who do not know, the Consent Decree was a settlement that resulted from a class action lawsuit initiated by a class of African- American farmers who had for decades been discriminated against by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the administration of its FSA loan program. The discriminatory treatment was well-documented by both the USDA's own Inspector General and an internal task force appointed by then USDA Secretary Glickman.

We had some unanticipated consequences in the Consent Decree's implementation. There was denial of approximately 77,000 African- American farmers into the Decree even though these farmers filed petitions by the late-claim deadline. More than half of these late- claim petitioners didn't even know about the Consent Decree. The Court said the lack of notice was not a sufficient reason to allow them into the Consent Decree. Thus, these individuals were denied entry and their discrimination complaints went unresolved. This was not a fair outcome for farmers or those attempting to farm at that time.

The farm bill did the right thing by allowing late filers to have their claims heard and judged on the merits. These farmers deserve justice and at least the opportunity to have their claims heard.

Unfortunately, it has been very difficult to determine how many of the 77,000 actually have valid claims. Lots of different folks have lots of different calculations. Either way, it's likely to be expensive. Because of the budget constraints, the Farm Bill only could put $100 million towards the endeavor.

I think we can and must do better than that. That is why today I am introducing bipartisan legislation with Senator Hagan of North Carolina. This bill will make 3 changes to the farm bill. First it will allow the claimants to access the $100 million already appropriated in the farm bill, but once that is expended gain access to the Department of Treasury permanent appropriated judgment fund. Second, it will allow reasonable attorney fees, administrative costs, and expenses to be paid from the judgment fund in accordance with the 1999 consent decree. Finally, it includes a section making fraud related to claims a criminal offense with punishment of a fine or up to 5 years in prison or both.

The claimants, who were able to timely file, were allowed access to the judgment fund and so it makes sense that we treat these new claimants the exact same way. The Department of Justice was treating the $100 million included in the farm bill as a cap, but Congress simply viewed it as a down payment to rectify the damage done.

The farm bill we passed last year does one thing right. It focuses a considerable amount of resources on new and beginning farmers and ranchers. Well, many of the Pigford claimants were in that same boat 20 years ago. It is time to rectify that.

The farm bill has simply opened up the door so that claims can be heard. If a person brings a claim and can not meet the burden of proof, then no award will be given. However, we know USDA has admitted that the discrimination occurred, and now we are obligated to do our best in getting those that deserve it, some relief. That is why I am introducing this legislation with Senator Hagan and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. It is time to make these claimants right and move forward into a new era of civil rights at the Department of Agriculture.

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

Mr. President, the Federal Inspectors General are the frontline of protection for taxpayer dollars, ensuring that Federal agencies spend taxpayer dollars in an effective, efficient, economical manner that is in accordance with all applicable law. The Inspectors General root out fraud, waste, and abuse in Government programs by auditing, evaluating, and investigating how Federal agencies spend taxpayer dollars and how Government programs utilize funds. The Inspectors General occupy a unique position within our government. Created by the Inspector General Act of 1978 and by various subsequent statutes, the Inspectors General at Executive Branch agencies also report directly to the Legislative Branch. They were created to keep tabs on the government bureaucracy to make sure that agencies follow the spirit and intent of the laws while protecting taxpayer dollars.

I have been an outspoken advocate for Inspectors General during my time in the Senate and I was proud to be a cosponsor of the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, which was signed into law by President Bush last year. That legislation ensures that Inspectors General are truly independent of the Federal agencies they oversee. The independence of Inspectors General is a critical requirement to their ability to get the job done. If Inspectors General lack independence from the agency they oversee, the quality of their work is impacted negatively and their reputation as independent watchdogs is tarnished.

Over the years, I have seen a number of Inspectors General come and go. It is a tough job to be an Inspector General. You can not go along to get along. You must buck the system, dig deep into the books of the agency, find where the secrets are hidden, and then report the truth to Congress, the President, and the American people. Unfortunately, Inspectors General must do all this with the agencies that often fight their every move. These entrenched bureaucracies have an interest in not seeing Inspectors General succeed--they do not want egg on their face. That is why we in Congress must make sure they have all the tools they need to get the job done and ensure that there is accountability for the billions in taxpayer dollars that are spent annually on the operation of the Executive Branch.

One growing area of concern I have seen over the years is procedural roadblocks being placed before Inspectors General to limit or prohibit their ability to do their job of protecting taxpayer dollars. One recent example relates to the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program SIGTARP, Neil Barofsky. Inspector General Barofsky notified me on January 22, 2009, that he intended to begin an oversight initiative that would have improved the transparency of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP. Inspector General Barofsky's plan was to collect data from TARP recipients asking them for a response outlining the use of TARP funds, copies of support documents, a description of plans to comply with executive compensation restrictions, and certification by a senior executive officer of the accuracy of the statements they make. This sounded like a legitimate plan from the Inspector General tasked by Congress with ensuring that the $700 billion handed out by the TARP program wasn't lost to fraud or abuse. However, it was shortly after this letter that Mr. Barofsky ran into procedural hurdles erected by the Office of Management and Budget,

Mr. President, it is no secret that I have worked for decades to bring greater transparency and accountability to all facets of government operations. If there is one thing that I have learned over those years it is that you cannot achieve the goal of greater transparency and accountability without access to information.

During this financial crisis, we hear daily about the need for many more billions in Federal funds to save this bank or that financial firm. In response to the crisis the Treasury Department is buying stakes in banks and other companies. That program is known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP. It is costing the American taxpayer nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars. Transparency and accountability has never been more important than with a program that big.

In an effort to provide some accountability to the American people for TARP funds, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, was required by legislation to conduct oversight of the TARP program.

The GAO's mission is to look at the overall performance of the initiative and its impact on the financial system. The GAO is also required to prepare regular reports for Congress.

However, GAO cannot do its job effectively without access to information about how the funds are used. This should be obvious. Unfortunately, however, the bill that created the TARP and told GAO to oversee it, did not give them the authority to access books and records of the private firms that receive TARP money.

In January, Senator Baucus and I introduced a bill, S. 340, to provide the GAO the ability to access the books and records of firms who received money from the TARP. Senator Snowe is also a cosponsor of the bill, known as the TARP Enhancement Act. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the Banking Committee have not yet taken any action on the bill.

Amendment No. 1020 is simply the text of S. 340. It would ensure that companies that receive assistance from the American taxpayer are required to

cooperate with requests for information from the Government Accountability Office about how they used taxpayer money.

The GAO is supposed to be the ``eyes and ears'' of Congress. Well it can't do that job wearing blinders and ear plugs. So I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 1020, to ensure that GAO has access to TARP recipients' books and records.

Mr. President, in March the Finance Committee held a hearing on the progress and oversight of the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP. At that hearing, we heard testimony from acting Comptroller General, the head of the Government Accountability Office, GAO. He testified that in addition to the problem that S. 340 is intended to fix, there is another major gap in GAO's access to information about the TARP. It is not just firms that take taxpayer money who can say ``no'' to GAO's requests for information. The Federal Reserve can too.

The GAO is prohibited by law from auditing the the Federal Reserve. Perhaps that restriction was defensible back when the Federal Reserve focused on monetary policy. However, today it is routinely exercising extraordinary emergency powers to subsidize financial firms far above the levels Congress is willing to authorize through legislation. The Federal Reserve is taking on more and more risk in complicated and unprecedented ways. That risk is ultimately borne by the American taxpayer, but the elected representatives of the taxpayers have not had a say in the Federal Reserve's activities or even a reasonable level of transparency to make sure we understand how much risk taxpayers are on the hook for.

The GAO testified at our hearing that the Federal Reserve is heavily involved in two new TARP programs announced since March of this year. It is also responsible for managing huge portfolios of troubled assets it took on in the bailouts of Bear Stearns and AIG. According to GAO testimony, as of March 27, 2009, Treasury has announced initiatives that are projected to use $590.4 billion of the $700 billion in TARP funds authorized by Congress. However, the projected assistance in these initiatives by the Federal Reserve could be up to $2.9 trillion by GAO estimates. In addition, the Federal Reserve has a variety of other facilities it has established to address the financial crisis adding up to another $1.5 trillion.

Despite these enormous numbers, there is a statutory limitation prohibiting GAO from examining the Federal Reserve. That provision is now in direct conflict with the mission that Congress gave GAO to monitor and report on the TARP.

Amendment No. 1021 would fix this conflict by allowing the GAO to provide Congress a complete and independent view of all the TARP programs, including those with Federal Reserve involvement, such as the Term Asset Loan Facility, TALF, and the Public Private Investment Partnership, PPIP. It would also allow the GAO to examine other extraordinary Federal Reserve actions, such as its acceptance of risky assets from Bear Stearns and AIG.

I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 1021. Let's not give GAO an important mission to do with a blindfold on. Let's take off the blindfold and let the professionals at GAO take a good hard look on behalf of the American people at what the Federal Reserve is doing.

Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing the Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act to ensure that federal departments and agencies do not take the eye off the ball when it comes to spending the taxpayers' money. I have put in a lot of time and effort to call attention to instances of waste, fraud, and abuse using government charge cards while agencies were looking the other way. Now I want to make sure that they stay on top of this issue.

In 1998, the General Service Administration's, GSA, entered into a contract with a set of commercial banks to utilize charge cards, not unlike those used by businesses large and small and millions of consumers worldwide. This is called the SmartPay' program. These Government charge cards include government purchase cards, which are used for acquisition of commercial goods and services by agencies and paid directly by the agency, and Government travel cards, which are used to pay for individual Government travel expenses and issued in the name of individual government employees.

Government charge cards were intended as a low cost method to streamline government acquisition and travel processes. The whole idea was to adopt the best practices of the commercial sector. In the business sector, charge cards have been a success. They save time and money. The main reason they work so well is because the control environment in the private sector is rock solid and accountability is a fact of life. When a business is spending its own money, it is going to be sure that it accounts for every penny or it would not stay in business. As a result, in corporate America, if an employee is caught abusing a card, they'll lose it or get fired.

This was not the case when the Federal Government began using charge cards. Federal agencies did not put in place the necessary controls to make sure that all spending on charge cards was legitimate. When I started looking into this with the Government Accountability Office, GAO, we uncovered blatant examples of wasteful spending like LA-Z-Boy reclining rocking chairs, kitchen appliances, and even a sapphire ring being paid for with Government purchase cards, with the American taxpayer paying the bill.

Government travel cards have been used for gambling, sporting events, concerts, cruises, and even gentlemen's clubs and legalized brothels! While travel cards are not paid directly with taxpayers' money like purchase cards, failure by employees to repay these cards results in the loss of millions of dollars in rebates to the federal government. Also, when credit card companies are forced to charge off bad debt, they raise interest rates and fees on everyone else.

A series of GAO reports over the last decade have identified an inadequate and inconsistent control environment across numerous federal agencies with respect to both government purchase cards and Government travel cards. This has led to millions of dollars in taxpayers' money wasted. In some cases purchases were outright fraudulent, and others were of questionable need or were unnecessarily expensive. In each report it has issued, the GAO has made recommendations about what kind of controls need to be implemented to prevent such abuses from occurring in the future. In many cases, the same controls were often missing or inadequate, and therefore the same recommendations are repeated in report after report. One agency would promise to clean up its act, but then we would find the exact same problems with another. That is why I worked to develop legislation that would incorporate GAO's recommendations regarding some of the most basic controls needed in every agency to prevent abuse of government charge cards.

As a result of the pressure applied by the relentless oversight of Congress, the GAO, and agency Inspectors General, we have seen some progress toward establishing a better control environment. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget has issued a circular to agencies that seeks to bring about many of the controls we identified. However, this progress would not have been possible without the continual spotlight being shone on the problem and the threat of congressional action. It is also clear that we still have a way to go in stamping out abuse of government charge cards as evidenced by a GAO report on the internal controls for purchase cards governmentwide that came out just last year.

That report found that a weak control environment led to government purchase cards being used for items like iPods at NASA, internet dating and pornographic sites at the Postal Service, women's lingerie from a place called ``Seduction Boutique'' at the State Department that was supposedly for use during jungle training'', and over $642,000 over six years in fraudulent payments at the USDA for the cardholder's live-in boyfriend. These funds went for personal expenditures like gambling, car loan and mortgage payments, and other retail purchases. Clearly we still have a problem and that's why I'm determined to make sure this situation is fixed once and for all.

In addition to requiring federal agencies to establish a series of basic and vital internal controls that the GAO has found lacking in many cases, my bill would also provide that each agency Inspector General periodically conduct risk assessments of agency purchase card and travel card programs and perform periodic audits to identify potentially fraudulent, improper, and abusive use of cards. We have had great success working with Inspectors General using techniques like data mining to reveal instances of improper use of government charge cards. Having this information on an ongoing basis will help maintain and strengthen a rigorous system of internal controls to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with government charge cards.

My bill also requires agencies to establish penalties so that employees who abuse government charge cards will face real and consistent consequences. This is necessary not only so that taxpayers know that those who would squander their money are held accountable, but also to send a message to other government employees that such behavior will not be tolerated. In fact, these penalties must include dismissal in serious circumstances.

This legislation has been revised a number of times with considerable input from the GAO as well as the Inspector General community and other stakeholders. I am also glad to have Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins as original cosponsors of this bill. Their help, assistance, and support has been very much appreciated as this legislation has developed. The result is a carefully considered and targeted piece of legislation that I look forward to seeing become law. I know that will give me and a great many American taxpayers more peace of mind about how their money is being spent.

Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing the Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act to ensure that federal departments and agencies do not take the eye off the ball when it comes to spending the taxpayers' money. I have put in a lot of time and effort to call attention to instances of waste, fraud, and abuse using government charge cards while agencies were looking the other way. Now I want to make sure that they stay on top of this issue.

In 1998, the General Service Administration's, GSA, entered into a contract with a set of commercial banks to utilize charge cards, not unlike those used by businesses large and small and millions of consumers worldwide. This is called the SmartPay' program. These Government charge cards include government purchase cards, which are used for acquisition of commercial goods and services by agencies and paid directly by the agency, and Government travel cards, which are used to pay for individual Government travel expenses and issued in the name of individual government employees.

Government charge cards were intended as a low cost method to streamline government acquisition and travel processes. The whole idea was to adopt the best practices of the commercial sector. In the business sector, charge cards have been a success. They save time and money. The main reason they work so well is because the control environment in the private sector is rock solid and accountability is a fact of life. When a business is spending its own money, it is going to be sure that it accounts for every penny or it would not stay in business. As a result, in corporate America, if an employee is caught abusing a card, they'll lose it or get fired.

This was not the case when the Federal Government began using charge cards. Federal agencies did not put in place the necessary controls to make sure that all spending on charge cards was legitimate. When I started looking into this with the Government Accountability Office, GAO, we uncovered blatant examples of wasteful spending like LA-Z-Boy reclining rocking chairs, kitchen appliances, and even a sapphire ring being paid for with Government purchase cards, with the American taxpayer paying the bill.

Government travel cards have been used for gambling, sporting events, concerts, cruises, and even gentlemen's clubs and legalized brothels! While travel cards are not paid directly with taxpayers' money like purchase cards, failure by employees to repay these cards results in the loss of millions of dollars in rebates to the federal government. Also, when credit card companies are forced to charge off bad debt, they raise interest rates and fees on everyone else.

A series of GAO reports over the last decade have identified an inadequate and inconsistent control environment across numerous federal agencies with respect to both government purchase cards and Government travel cards. This has led to millions of dollars in taxpayers' money wasted. In some cases purchases were outright fraudulent, and others were of questionable need or were unnecessarily expensive. In each report it has issued, the GAO has made recommendations about what kind of controls need to be implemented to prevent such abuses from occurring in the future. In many cases, the same controls were often missing or inadequate, and therefore the same recommendations are repeated in report after report. One agency would promise to clean up its act, but then we would find the exact same problems with another. That is why I worked to develop legislation that would incorporate GAO's recommendations regarding some of the most basic controls needed in every agency to prevent abuse of government charge cards.

As a result of the pressure applied by the relentless oversight of Congress, the GAO, and agency Inspectors General, we have seen some progress toward establishing a better control environment. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget has issued a circular to agencies that seeks to bring about many of the controls we identified. However, this progress would not have been possible without the continual spotlight being shone on the problem and the threat of congressional action. It is also clear that we still have a way to go in stamping out abuse of government charge cards as evidenced by a GAO report on the internal controls for purchase cards governmentwide that came out just last year.

That report found that a weak control environment led to government purchase cards being used for items like iPods at NASA, internet dating and pornographic sites at the Postal Service, women's lingerie from a place called ``Seduction Boutique'' at the State Department that was supposedly for use during jungle training'', and over $642,000 over six years in fraudulent payments at the USDA for the cardholder's live-in boyfriend. These funds went for personal expenditures like gambling, car loan and mortgage payments, and other retail purchases. Clearly we still have a problem and that's why I'm determined to make sure this situation is fixed once and for all.

In addition to requiring federal agencies to establish a series of basic and vital internal controls that the GAO has found lacking in many cases, my bill would also provide that each agency Inspector General periodically conduct risk assessments of agency purchase card and travel card programs and perform periodic audits to identify potentially fraudulent, improper, and abusive use of cards. We have had great success working with Inspectors General using techniques like data mining to reveal instances of improper use of government charge cards. Having this information on an ongoing basis will help maintain and strengthen a rigorous system of internal controls to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with government charge cards.

My bill also requires agencies to establish penalties so that employees who abuse government charge cards will face real and consistent consequences. This is necessary not only so that taxpayers know that those who would squander their money are held accountable, but also to send a message to other government employees that such behavior will not be tolerated. In fact, these penalties must include dismissal in serious circumstances.

This legislation has been revised a number of times with considerable input from the GAO as well as the Inspector General community and other stakeholders. I am also glad to have Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins as original cosponsors of this bill. Their help, assistance, and support has been very much appreciated as this legislation has developed. The result is a carefully considered and targeted piece of legislation that I look forward to seeing become law. I know that will give me and a great many American taxpayers more peace of mind about how their money is being spent.

I thought they reserved 15 minutes.

I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for those kind remarks, and I hold him in high esteem as well.

First of all, the budget we are voting on had bipartisan opposition in the House of Representatives. Seventeen Democrats voted against this budget. Most of those are what you call conservative Democrats, or whatever title they want. That is what I will call them--fiscally conservative Democrats. They think this budget leaves too much of a legacy to our children and grandchildren in the way of debt. So bipartisan opposition ought to tell this White House and this majority something, and I hope in time that will become very clear.

Today, the Senate begins its debate on the congressional budget resolution, and it will pass shortly, I am sure. The budget process started, of course, with the President's budget coming to the Hill on February 26. That was about 2 months ago. During the committee process--and I participated in that process, and I participated in the floor process--we faced one key question, and that was: Should we apply more or less budget discipline to the record debts and deficits of my President, President Obama, on what he inherited January 20, 2009?

Over the past few weeks, we have heard a lot about revisionist fiscal history or it might best be described as heavy editing of recent budget history. I was pleased to see the distinguished Budget Committee chairman make the record clear: President Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. I agree with that. I don't take exception to that. Those are quantifiable facts. Republicans don't disagree that President Obama inherited a large deficit.

One point of clarification, though, needs to be made. The deficit and the debt were bequeathed on a bipartisan basis. That was due to the makeup of the Presidency last time and the Congress over the last 2 years. The Democratic leadership obviously controlled the House and Senate during the years those budgets were drawn up--2007 and 2008. The Democratic leadership wrote the tax and spending bills President Bush signed in the last Congress. So congressional Democrats negotiated the bailout bill with the Bush administration. Those fiscal policy decisions, though at times very combative, in the end were jointly made on the one hand by a Congress, controlled by the Democrats, and by the administration, controlled by a Republican President. So it was bipartisan.

The antirecessionary spending, together with the lower tax receipts and the TARP activities, set a fiscal table of a debt of $1.3 trillion. That, in fact, was on the President's desk when he took over the Oval Office on January 20 this year. That is the highest deficit as a percentage of the economy in post-World War II history. Not a very pretty picture, Mr. President.

I have a chart here that shows that part of the story, and that part of the story is the gray there, as you can see.

As predicted a couple of months ago, that picture got a lot uglier with the stimulus bill. So for the folks who saw that bill as an opportunity to ``recover'' America, with Government taking a larger share of the economy over the long term, well, they can say: Mission accomplished. For those who voted for the stimulus bill--and I didn't-- you put us on a path to a bigger role for the Government. Over $1 trillion of new deficit spending was hidden in that bill. It caused some of the extra red ink in this chart.

So I point to what is called the inherited aspect of the debt, and those are

the red bars on top of the gray bars--what was inherited.

I think supporters of that bill need to own up to the fiscal course they charted. Again, that is the red line, if you want averages, and it is the red bars for what has been done since this President has come to office.

To be sure, after the other side pushed through the stimulus bill and the second $350 billion of the TARP bill, CBO reestimated the baseline. A portion of this new red ink up front is due to that reestimate. The bottom line, however, is that reestimate occurred several weeks-- several weeks--after the President and a more robust Democratic majority took over in January of this year. Decisions were made. And do you know what happens here? Decisions have consequences. So fiscal consequences followed.

The budget before us, for the most part, follows the fiscal trail blazed by President Obama. As the administration's top budget official said: This budget is 98 percent like the President's budget. I want to congratulate the chairman on keeping some of the tax priorities of the Senate, however. One deals with the alternative minimum tax patch. Although shorter than I proposed, it is dealt with over 3 years. The chairman also kept part of the Senate's middle-income tax relief.

But on both the tax and the spending side, we need to take a hard look at what is going on at the end of this budget term--2014. The budget resolution conference report claims to reduce the deficit from $1.7 trillion this year to about $520 billion in 2014. However, the final year of the budget fails to include the revenue loss from the alternative minimum tax patch for that year. It fails to include the revenue loss for fully extending the 2001 and 2003 middle-class tax relief, the President's Making Work Pay tax credit, the Medicare physician fix, and natural disasters, but it does include illusory, unspecified future discretionary spending cuts. When you add it all up, the thing it fails to do--or claims to do but doesn't--the conference report falls hundreds of billions of dollars short of its claimed deficit reduction.

So let's return, then, to the basic question I asked at the very beginning and also asked when we started the budget process several weeks ago. The question, once again, is this: Should we apply more or less budget discipline to record debts and deficits which my President, President Obama, inherited on January 20, 2009? This budget does answer that basic question. It makes the fiscal situation even worse. Inherited debt doesn't stay at its unacceptably high level; it doubles to 82 percent of gross national product.

So we have another chart here, with the red line going up toward the top in the 10-year outlook that the Congressional Budget Office shows to be over 80 percent. Abnormal deficit levels become normal deficit levels. Again, you see here what is normal and what isn't normal. Levels once considered a fiscal vice by most people--at, say, the peak during the Bush years--of 3 to 4 percentage points--here in the years 2007 and 2008, as you can see from the chart--are very dramatically dwarfed during the outyears of the President's budget. Fiscal vices become what? Fiscal habits, under this budget. I would ask anyone whether they define that plan as fiscal discipline.

Everyone in this body wants to help get our economy back on track. If the economy gets back on track, everybody wins. From a fiscal situation, there is no better policy development than growing the economy. More economy to be divided over an increasing population, so more economy for more people to have more. If we do not grow the economy, we have less for more people.

I think everyone in this body would agree that we ought to grow the economy. Likewise, we know small businesses are an extremely important part of our U.S. economy. I like to say that small business is the engine that drives the U.S. economy. President Obama agrees that small businesses have generated 70 percent of the net new jobs over the past decade, and most economists agree with that.

One month ago we debated the budget resolution on the Senate floor. During that debate, the Senate spoke on this point. Senator Cornyn's small business tax relief amendment passed by an overwhelming 82 to 16; in other words, 82 of the people in this body agreed with President Obama.

Senator Snowe had a similar amendment that was accepted by the managers of the floor bill. Last week the Senate spoke again. This time the question was phrased on a motion to instruct the budget resolution conferees on the importance of keeping taxes on small business low. The vote grew even more: 84 in favor of it, 9 against it. Unfortunately, the conferees did not adopt the Senate budget resolution protecting small businesses from tax increases.

America's small businesses have been suffering during this recession. We will hear it in our events back home--I do. A very good source of answers on the environment for small businesses is found in the monthly survey of small businesses, the survey by the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, a spokes-organization for small business. They are well known around here. They have been conducting this survey for 35 years.

The NFIB membership includes hundreds of thousands of small businesses all across America. I encourage every Member to check out this important survey and particularly this month's survey.

This survey shows some extremely disturbing trends. On credit availability, small businesses are getting squeezed very hard. We have a chart that shows this trend. Particularly, look out here at the year 2009 on the right side of this chart. It is way down as far as the percentage change compared to before. This credit crunch and other factors have contributed to a near record low in the NFIB's index of small business optimism.

I have a chart that puts this data in perspective. We have here, over a long period of time, the optimism of small business. What you see is the attitude of decisionmakers in small business America. Those are the decisionmakers for businesses that President Obama and Congress agree are the businesses most likely to grow or contract jobs. The pessimism is at its second lowest point in those 35 years of surveying. The data should concern every policymaker in this town.

As bad as the two sets of data are, it gets even worse. This chart shows the net increase or decrease in small business hiring plans. The survey asks the business owner whether he or she planned to expand or contract employment over the next 3 months. As you can see right here, it is very negative. This chart shows small business activity contracting tremendously. Small business hiring plans are at their most negative level in the 35-year history of this survey.

With this pessimistic environment, we should not be surprised, then, that small businesses are hemorrhaging jobs. The President's recent efforts to increase lending to the small business sector are commendable. The centerpiece of the President's small business plan will allow the Federal Government to spend up to $25 billion to purchase the small business loans that are now hindering small banks and lenders. Unfortunately, very well intentioned as it is, that is a drop in a very empty bucket. Remember, small business accounts for about half of the private sector.

Moreover, the positives that will come to small business from this relatively small package of loans which will ultimately have to be paid back will be heavily outweighed by the negative impact of the President's proposed tax increases on those very same small businesses, the business sector. Helping small businesses get loans just to take the money back in the form of tax hikes is not wise. It would be wise to make those loans possible, but these tax policies that the President is thinking about doing are going to hinder small business.

Don't take my word for it. Just today the National Federation of Independent Business wrote to all of us, all the Members of the Senate, on this point. NFIB's hundreds of thousands of small business owners oppose this conference report. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record.

Here is what the NFIB says in that letter:

NFIB is concerned the conference report assumes the top

individual tax rates will expire, which would mean a tax

increase from some small business owners.

Do we really want to raise taxes on these small businesses that create new jobs and employ two-thirds of all small business workers? With these small businesses already suffering from the credit crunch before the entire country, do we really think it is wise to hit small business again with this double-whammy of a 20 percent increase in marginal tax rates?

As we move forward from the budget process, the President and the congressional Democratic leadership have an opportunity to change course. From my 33 town meetings in Iowa during spring break, they want to change that course. There is a lot of concern about the legacy of debt that we are leaving to children and grandchildren. Both budgets would perpetuate the double whammy of constricted credit and high taxes directed at America's job engine, small business.

So as I close, in the coming months we Republicans will try to persuade our Democratic friends who have all the controls of fiscal policy to change course. One way they can change course is to focus like a laser beam on jump-starting the Nation's job engine--the small businesses of America. We need to reverse the direction of the sharply downward-sloping arrow that you have seen on some of these charts. That is where the President and the Congress agree that we need to get more job growth.

I quoted the President: 70 percent of the new jobs--small business. We in this party agree with that. As we move on from the budget, let's recognize the reality and the importance of small business.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to briefly respond to my friend from North Dakota, the chairman of the Budget Committee. The chairman was responding to my remarks on small business and the effects of proposed 20 percent higher marginal rates on small business owners.

The budget brought before us raises taxes on small business owners. There can be no question about it. Here is how it works.

The President's budget proposes to raise the top two marginal rates from 33 percent and 35 percent to 40 percent and 41 percent respectively, when PEP and Pease are fully reinstated. President Obama's marginal rate increase would mean an approximately 20 percent marginal tax rate increase on small business owners in the top two brackets.

Many of my friends on the other side will say that while they agree that successful small businesses are vital to the success of the U.S. economy, the marginal tax increases for the top two brackets will not have a significant negative impact on small businesses. The chairman appears to fall into this camp.

Proponents of these tax increases, like the distinguished chairman, the senior Senator from North Dakota, seek to minimize their impact by referring to Tax Policy Center data that indicate about 2 percent of small business filers pay taxes in the top two brackets. In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, Dr. Bob Greenstein, director of the liberal think tank, Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, also used that figure. Moreover, Secretary Geithner has testified that this Treasury Department agrees with that figure. They argue that a minimal amount of small business activity is affected.

However, there are two faulty assumptions to this small business filer argument.

The first faulty assumption is that the percentage of small business filers is static. In fact, small businesses move in and out of gain and loss status depending on the nature of the business and business cycle. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has indicated that, for 2011, approximately 3 percent of small business filers will be hit by these proposed higher rates. These statistics compare to a 2007 treasury which showed 7 percent of flow-through business owners paying the top rate. In the latest analysis, when the impact of the alternative minimum tax--AMT--is fully included, that percentage may drop some.

Small Business Administration--SBA--data provide evidence of the dynamic nature of small business. You can find that data on the SBA Web site in its frequently asked questions discussion. The website is www.sba.gov/advo. According to SBA, 67 percent of small businesses survive for 2 years; 44 percent of small businesses survive at least 4 years; and 31 percent of small businesses survive at least 7 years.

The second faulty assumption is that the level of small business activity, including employment, is proportionate to the filer percentage.

According to NFIB survey data, 50 percent of owners of small businesses that employ 20-249 workers would fall in the top two brackets. You can see it right here on this chart.

According to the SBA, about two-thirds of the Nation's small business workers are employed by small businesses with 20-500 employees.

Newly developed data from the Joint Committee on Taxation demonstrates that 55 percent of the tax from the higher rates will be borne by small business owners with income over $250,000. This is a conservative number, because it doesn't include flow-through business owners making between $200,000 and $250,000 that will also be hit with the budget's proposed tax hikes.

Now, as is frequently the case in debate, the proponent of an idea seeks to change the nature of the debate by changing the question. We witnessed a bit of that this afternoon.

Notice the distinguished chairman did not dispute the basic thrust of the points I raised. Instead, he said, we, on this side, used an unfair or inappropriate definition of small business. He cited examples of former Vice President Cheney and Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Jr. The point seems to be that the 750,000 flow-through small business owners, again those most likely to expand or contract their workforces, who will be in the bulls-eye of the 20 percent higher marginal rates, should be ignored. We should focus instead on one or two examples. The point seems to be that it is fine to target the large group of small business owners if you can find a Cheney or Gates example.

On this point, I direct the distinguished chairman and the full Senate to the Treasury Conference on Business Taxation and Global Competitiveness Background Paper. It was put out on

July 26, 2007. The current Treasury is spending some time updating this data and will be incorporating the full effect of the alternative minimum tax--AMT--for 2011. If colleagues examine the study at page 20, table 3.3, they will find an insightful analysis. The study sorted Treasury data for flow-through entities. The analysis sorted the data to isolate active manager/owners from the broader pool of all flow- through filers. When so sorted, Treasury found that the lion's share of income and tax was still born by those manager/owners. I ask consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the Treasury table.

Even the Tax Policy Center, an institution in accord with President Obama and the congressional Democratic leadership's goal of raising the top rates on small business, shows a large slug of active small business income in taxpayers in the top two brackets. I will ask consent to include a TPC chart printed in the Record.

The proponents of a tax increase of up to 20 percent in the marginal rates of small business owners should bear the burden to disprove the concerns those on our side have raised. Perhaps they could work with Senator Snowe, Senator Cornyn and others to craft an exception that shields the small businesses that employ two-thirds of all small business workers from the tax increase. Pointing to an extreme example, like a Vice-President Cheney or a Bill Gates, Jr., may make great sound bites for politics.

It, however, will not amuse the small business owners who have worked hard to build a business. It won't amuse the workers they need to layoff. It won't amuse the suppliers they have to curtail purchases from. The bottom line is the budget contains a tax increase that is aimed at small businesses most likely to expand or contract. That tax increase is significant and real to those small business owners. They, not the politicians voting in the tax increase, will have to deal with the added tax burden.

Last week, a strong bipartisan group of 84 Senators agreed there is a problem here. We are raising taxes on Small Business America. We ought to be careful.

Throwing out a red herring involving Vice-President Cheney or Bill Gates, Jr. doesn't deal with the problem we have raised.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the materials to which I referred printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is with great sorrow that I rise today to honor a fallen soldier. SGT LeRoy Webster, a 28-year-old soldier from Hartley, Iowa, was fatally shot while on patrol on April 25, 2009 in Kirkuk, Iraq. LeRoy was serving with the B Battery, 3rd Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, out of Fort Hood, TX. My prayers and condolences go out to his wife Jessica, daughters Natasha, Kaydence, and Jadyn, and his parents Donald and Crystal Webster.

LeRoy was deployed to Iraq in January. He had previously served in Afghanistan in 2004 and 2005 and in Baghdad, Iraq from October 2006 to January 2008.

An Iowa native, LeRoy was born in Spencer, IA, and graduated from Hartley-Melvin-Sanborn High School in 1999. His family has deep roots in Hartley, the community where LeRoy grew up and met his wife, who was his high school sweetheart.

LeRoy Webster was a decorated soldier, having earned numerous military awards, and he is remembered by friends as dedicated, good- natured, and an excellent father. His family said he was ``proud to serve in the United States Army.'' LeRoy's sacrifice deserves the gratitude of the entire nation and is a reminder of the high cost of freedom. I express my deepest respect and admiration for this American hero.

(At the request of Mr. REID, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the achievements of American Legion Post 27 out of Muscatine, IA. This group hosted its first World War II Honor Tour in Washington, DC, in October 2008, sponsoring 30 World War II veterans from the Muscatine area. The local community raised funds by holding yard sales, dances, and tournaments, and also by asking help from local businesses and friends. The veterans attending the tour were accompanied by family members and volunteers who donated their time and money to come along on the trip. While in DC, the group visited several historical sites including the World War II Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. I am very proud to represent these honorable veterans and ask unanimous consent that an article written about their time in Washington by Melissa Regennitter of the Muscatine Journal be printed in the Record.