Floor Statements

Mr. President, at 2:30 today, the Senate Finance Committee, Subcommittee on Health Care, held a hearing entitled The Role of Long-Term Care in Health Reform. In conjunction with the Subcommittee hearing, my colleagues Senators Lincoln, Snowe, Ensign, Collins, Klobuchar, Graham and I wanted to take the opportunity to introduce the Long-Term Care Affordability and Security Act of 2009.

Our Nation is graying. Research shows that the elderly population will nearly double by 2030. By 2050, the population of those aged 85 and older will have grown by more than 300 percent. Research also shows that the average age at which individuals need long-term care services, such as home health care or a private room at a nursing home, is 75. Currently, the average annual cost for a private room at a nursing home is more than $75,000. This cost is expected to be in excess of $140,000 by 2030.

Based on these facts, we can see that our Nation needs to prepare its citizens for the challenges they may face in old-age. One way to prepare for these challenges is by encouraging more Americans to obtain long-term care insurance coverage. To date, only 10 percent of seniors have long-term care insurance policies, and only 7 percent of all private-sector employees are offered long-term care insurance as a voluntary benefit.

Under current law, employees may pay for certain health-related benefits, which may include health insurance premiums, co-pays, and disability or life insurance, on a pre-tax basis under cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements, FSAs. Essentially, an employee may elect to reduce his or her annual salary to pay for these benefits, and the employee does not pay taxes on the amounts used to pay these costs. Employees, however, are explicitly prohibited from paying for the cost of long-term care insurance coverage tax-free.

Our bill would allow employers, for the first time, to offer qualified long-term care insurance to employees under FSAs and cafeteria plans. This means employees would be permitted to pay for qualified long-term care insurance premiums on a tax-free basis. This would make it easier for employees to purchase long-term care insurance, which many find unaffordable. This should also encourage younger individuals to purchase long-term care insurance. The younger the person is at the time the long-care insurance contract is purchased, the lower the insurance premium.

An aging Nation has no time to waste in preparing for long-term care, and the need to help people afford long-term care is more pressing than ever. I look forward to working with Senators Lincoln, Snowe, Ensign, Collins, Klobuchar, Graham and all of our Senate colleagues toward enacting the Long-Term Care Affordability and Security Act of 2009.

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

Mr. President, at 2:30 today, the Senate Finance Committee, Subcommittee on Health Care, held a hearing entitled The Role of Long-Term Care in Health Reform. In conjunction with the Subcommittee hearing, my colleagues Senators Lincoln, Snowe, Ensign, Collins, Klobuchar, Graham and I wanted to take the opportunity to introduce the Long-Term Care Affordability and Security Act of 2009.

Our Nation is graying. Research shows that the elderly population will nearly double by 2030. By 2050, the population of those aged 85 and older will have grown by more than 300 percent. Research also shows that the average age at which individuals need long-term care services, such as home health care or a private room at a nursing home, is 75. Currently, the average annual cost for a private room at a nursing home is more than $75,000. This cost is expected to be in excess of $140,000 by 2030.

Based on these facts, we can see that our Nation needs to prepare its citizens for the challenges they may face in old-age. One way to prepare for these challenges is by encouraging more Americans to obtain long-term care insurance coverage. To date, only 10 percent of seniors have long-term care insurance policies, and only 7 percent of all private-sector employees are offered long-term care insurance as a voluntary benefit.

Under current law, employees may pay for certain health-related benefits, which may include health insurance premiums, co-pays, and disability or life insurance, on a pre-tax basis under cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements, FSAs. Essentially, an employee may elect to reduce his or her annual salary to pay for these benefits, and the employee does not pay taxes on the amounts used to pay these costs. Employees, however, are explicitly prohibited from paying for the cost of long-term care insurance coverage tax-free.

Our bill would allow employers, for the first time, to offer qualified long-term care insurance to employees under FSAs and cafeteria plans. This means employees would be permitted to pay for qualified long-term care insurance premiums on a tax-free basis. This would make it easier for employees to purchase long-term care insurance, which many find unaffordable. This should also encourage younger individuals to purchase long-term care insurance. The younger the person is at the time the long-care insurance contract is purchased, the lower the insurance premium.

An aging Nation has no time to waste in preparing for long-term care, and the need to help people afford long-term care is more pressing than ever. I look forward to working with Senators Lincoln, Snowe, Ensign, Collins, Klobuchar, Graham and all of our Senate colleagues toward enacting the Long-Term Care Affordability and Security Act of 2009.

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

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

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

Mr. President, in recent weeks and months, a new phrase has been born that has gained in popularity and support. The new phrase that is so in vogue in the Halls of Congress and at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue is ``green jobs.''

I have no fault with the term. Everyone wants to create green-collar jobs. Green jobs are believed to be a critical component of getting us out of the economic doldrums in which we find ourselves. A new White House middle-class task force recently focused on the creation of green jobs as a means of fueling our economy and creating jobs for the middle class. Vice President Biden has defined a green job as one that provides products and services that use renewable energy resources, reduces pollution, and conserves energy and natural resources.

I don't disagree that the creation of these types of jobs is a very worthy ambition. This newfound desire for so-called green jobs has led me to remind my colleagues of an existing industry that is making great strides to reduce pollution, conserve natural resources, and contribute significantly to our economy.

The U.S. renewable fuels industry has been creating good paying jobs in rural America for years. It has been 30 years since a tax incentive for ethanol was passed and 17 years since I fathered the wind energy tax credit. These alternative energies have been producing a renewable resource right here at home that is reducing our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels, and it has contributed to a cleaner environment.

U.S. domestic renewable fuels have been doing all these things long before it was cool or in vogue. So don't be surprised that this is the nature of America's farmers, ranchers, and entrepreneurs. They do things because of the intrinsic value to our country and to our economy, whether it is a fad on the east coast or not.

I happen to think it is great that there is a newfound zeal for creating renewable resources here at home. I have been supporting our domestic renewable fuels industry for nearly 30 years as a means to reduce our dependence on volatile nations for our energy, mostly for petroleum. I have been promoting clean wind energy since I fathered the wind energy tax credit back in 1992. I am pleased to see the success and the support wind energy now receives because of my tax incentive.

I hope my colleagues who tout the benefits today of the so-called green jobs fully realize the contribution the domestic ethanol and biodiesel industries have been making for years in this area. Farmers across this country produced more than 9 billion gallons of homegrown renewable fuels last year. Ethanol production displaced 321 million barrels of oil last year. That is the equivalent of our imports from Venezuela for 10 months. The use of 9 billion gallons of ethanol saved American consumers $32 billion last year.

Yet even with this success, our farmers and the biofuel industry have been under constant attack--at least constant attack over the last 2 years. In a high-priced public relations smear campaign, the food manufacturers and the Grocery Manufacturers Association have tried tirelessly to denigrate the efforts of our farmers. In a baseless campaign, they tried to blame the ethanol industry for raising food prices, even though corn makes up about a nickel of the cost of a box of Corn Flakes. The grocery manufacturers thought they found a weak link in the food chain that they could target and scapegoat as a culprit behind the rising cost of food. It was clearly proven that the cost of energy had a significantly greater impact on food prices than did other commodity costs.

The fact is, the ones responsible for the high cost of food are the companies whose names stare back at us as we go through the grocery stores and supermarkets, and they have never hidden their motive during this smear campaign. It was stated clearly at the time the smear campaign was started that it was about ``protecting our bottom line.''

Consumers are still seeing the impact of that pocket lining by big food companies while commodity prices have dropped by half since their highs last summer. But food prices are still at record highs. Even the price of oil has dropped more than $100 a barrel. Yet food companies continue to keep prices high.

You don't need to take my word for it because we have the grocery store chains themselves fighting back now. SuperValu, Safeway, and Wegmans are just a few chains that are speaking publicly against the price increases pushed on them by Kellogg's, General Mills, Kraft, Nestle, and others. An article in the Los Angeles Times as recently as March 2 stated:

Our large grocery companies operating in Southern

California have seen the wholesale price for a carton of

Kellogg's Corn Pops rise about 17 percent since June, despite

a 52 percent plunge in corn prices from their peak this

month.

The chief executive for Safeway was quoted as saying:

It is disingenuous to consumers that all commodity costs

are coming down, interest rates coming down, everything is

coming down, and the national brands are taking their prices

up.

The chief executive of SuperValu described the situation as a ``battleground'' with manufacturers right now over prices.

I am pleased to see others in the food chain call on these food producers to lower prices in light of the large drop in commodity prices, but this isn't the reason I came to speak today. I would like to take just a few more minutes to share with my colleagues another assault that is taking place on biofuels.

In the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, Congress enacted and expanded a renewable fuels standard to greatly increase the production and use of biofuels. A component of that renewable fuels standard was a requirement that various biofuels meet specified life cycle greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The law specified that life cycle greenhouse gas emissions are to include direct emissions and significantly indirect emissions from indirect land use changes. This means that the emissions from planting, growing, and harvesting the feedstock to the production of biofuels must be included in the calculation. It also means that the Environmental Protection Agency must determine and must measure the greenhouse gas impacts if there is a significant conversion of forest or prairie-to-tillable land because of our biofuel policies.

For the past few months, the Environmental Protection Agency has been working on what we call a rulemaking--notice of proposed rulemaking--to implement the updated renewable fuels standard. While it hasn't been finalized or made public, there are great concerns about this rule within the biofuels industry surrounding the science behind indirect land use changes. And, of course, when you think of the Environmental Protection Agency, isn't science what EPA is all about?

President Obama, during his Presidential campaign and as President

now, has stated that his administration will return to decisions and actions based on ``sound science.'' In January, he said:

Rigid ideology has overruled sound science. Special

interests have overshadowed common sense.

Well, I would encourage President Obama and his staff to take a close look at what the EPA is doing in this rulemaking process called a notice of proposed rulemaking on renewable fuels standards. There are a couple of people in the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation who firmly believe--do you believe this?--they can quantify the indirect land use changes that result from our biofuels policies. I am afraid that the bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency are going down a path of blaming our biofuel producers for land use changes around the globe, and specifically even outside of the United States.

The fact is, measuring indirect emissions of greenhouse gas reduction is far from a perfect science, and dozens of credible scientists agree. There is a great deal of complexity and uncertainty surrounding this issue. One study last year claimed that biofuels, as a result of these indirect impacts, actually led to greater emissions and greenhouse gas emissions than did gasoline. This conclusion defies common sense. Under careful scrutiny, credible scientists on the other side disproved these conclusions, and I want to quote some.

Dr. Wang of the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory replied to these assertions by stating:

There has also been no indication that the United States

corn ethanol production has so far caused indirect land use

changes in other countries, because U.S. corn exports have

been maintained at about 2 billion bushels a year, and

because U.S. distillers' grain exports have steadily

increased in the past 10 years.

May I add that really what EPA--through indirect land use--is talking about here, in the most common denominator, is they figure that because Iowa or Missouri or Minnesota or Illinois corn producers are growing corn, and some of it is going into ethanol, that someplace down in Brazil, farmers are just sitting around trying to calculate and are going to plow up acre for acre the amount of land that is maybe being used for production of ethanol at this point. Well, I think the practical matter is that just isn't happening, and that is exactly what Dr. Wang is saying here. And if that were the case, what can the farmers of our country do about it? Are we going to be at the point where something that happens in some other country is going to affect our policy here in the United States as to what we can grow and what we can use that crop for? I don't think that is a credible position to take.

Now, I quoted one study, but there are a number of credible studies that have demonstrated that our biofuel policies will have little, if any, impact on international land use. A recent study by Air Improvement Resource found that the production of 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol by the year 2015 should not result in new forests or grassland conversion in the United States or abroad. Let's look at the University of Nebraska. A peer-review study conducted there and published in the Yale Journal of Industrial Ecology found similar conclusions. They concluded that corn ethanol emits 51 percent less greenhouse gases than gasoline. A third study, conducted by Global Insight, found that it is virtually impossible to accurately ascribe greenhouse gas impacts on indirect land use changes to biofuels.

There are a number of assumptions that can affect the conclusion about indirect land use changes. With any model, if you put garbage in, you will get garbage out, and I want to make sure the EPA isn't putting garbage in. I want to make sure they know yields per acre for corn have doubled between 1970 and today. I want EPA to know that nitrogen fertilizer used per acre has been declining since 1985. The Environmental Protection Agency also needs to know that the ethanol industry today is vastly more efficient than it was just a few years ago. Ethanol producers use one-fifth less energy today than they did just 8 years ago. More fuel is being produced from the same amount or even less land.

The California Air Resource Board is also trying to grasp this issue. They are developing a low carbon fuel standard which is penalizing biofuels with an indirect land use change. On March 2, 2009, to counteract this, 111 scientists sent a letter to California Governor Schwarzenegger on this very matter. The scientists are from leading research labs such as Sandia, Lawrence Berkeley, and the National Academy of Sciences, as well as leading educational institutions, including MIT, UCLA, Michigan State, and Iowa State. Scientists criticized the California Air Resource Board for proposing a regulation that alleges an indirect price-induced land conversion effect around the globe caused by a demand for agricultural production and biofuels.

In other words, they said in this official report what I just said: There isn't some Brazilian farmer just sitting around nervously awaiting whether he can plow up another acre of grassland in Brazil just because some more ethanol is being used out of products we grow here.

The letter of these 111 scientists sent to Governor Schwarzenegger stated:

The ability to predict this alleged effect depends on using

an economic model to predict worldwide carbon effects, and

the outcomes are unusually sensitive to the assumptions made

by the researchers conducting the model run. In addition,

this field of science is in its nascent stage, is

controversial in much of the scientific community, and is

only being enforced against biofuels.

The two primary conclusions of these scientists are that science surrounding indirect land use changes is far too limited and uncertain for regulatory enforcement. Second, indirect effects are often misunderstood and should not be enforced selectively.

Several of us in the Senate are trying to get the Environmental Protection Agency to wake up and reconsider some of their thoughts. Last week I had the opportunity to join my Iowa colleague, Senator Harkin, as well as 10 other Senators, in appealing to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to be cautious on this issue and as doctors would say about medicine: First do no harm.

Because of the incomplete and limited science, we urge in our letter against any premature and, of course, inaccurate conclusions on indirect land use changes. Instead, the EPA should move forward by allowing for public review and refinement of the methodology that they have developed. I am afraid the climate folks at EPA are heading in the wrong direction on this issue. I do not think they are bad people, but I am afraid they do not understand much about American agriculture. I do not think they are aware of the significant crop yield improvements we have seen in recent years or the great potential for the next 20 years.

I will just give my own farming operation as an example. In 1959, when I started farming, we were raising, on average, about 60 bushels of corn per acre. It happened that the first year I farmed I produced considerably less than that amount, but eventually, within 15 years, this farmer, as well as the Iowa average, had gone to about 90 bushels of corn per acre.

Last year, in my county, we raised 175 bushels of corn per acre. During that period of time, we went from tilling the field probably six or seven times over to produce a crop to now a point where we are only tilling the field once or twice before harvest. In each of these processes, we are producing more corn, we are producing it more efficiently, and at the same time we have an abundance.

When I started farming, farmers were producing about enough food for 44 other people. A family farmer today produces enough food for 140 other people.

I think we have made great progress, but I am not sure EPA understands the efficiency of the American farmer today and for sure they do not understand that people in Brazil are not just sitting around, seeing how they can take advantage of the fact that American farmers might be producing some of their crop for sustainable energy production in this country as opposed to importing more oil.

I also do not think these people fully understand the benefits of valuable ethanol byproducts, which further reduce the effective land used for fuel production.

Along this line, do they understand that when you take a bushel of corn to make 3 gallons of ethanol that corn is

not gone forever, that 18 pounds of the 56 pounds that is in a bushel of corn is left over for animal feed? So it is not all going to production of energy.

To me, it defies common sense that the EPA would publish a proposed rulemaking with harmful conclusions about biofuels based on incomplete science and inaccurate assumptions and especially in light of President Obama's commitment to use sound science in decisionmaking by the bureaucracy carrying out the laws we pass. The Environmental Protection Agency's action, if based on erroneous land-use assumptions, could hinder biofuel development and extend America's dependence upon dirtier fossil fuels from parts of the world that are not very stable.

Agricultural practices and land-use decisions in other countries are not driven by U.S. biofuel policies. In other words, there is no Brazilian farmer sitting around in Brazil, waiting to see what Iowa farmers are going to do with their corn--for food or export or for fuel. Even if they were, we have no accurate way to measure it scientifically and we need to ensure that in that measurement, biofuels get credit for these increased efficiencies of production--of the basic commodity as well as the increase in efficiency producing the ethanol.

President Obama was, and as far as I know is still, a strong proponent of our domestic biofuels industry and he especially was during his time in the Senate. I know he recognizes the benefit of producing homegrown renewable fuels, and I doubt he would agree with the conclusion that biofuels emit the same or more lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as does gasoline.

I hope the EPA will reconsider its conclusions on this or not hastily draw conclusions.

Mr. President, during the height of the Presidential campaign, President Obama made a number of high profile statements and promises about what actions he would take once he was elected and sworn in. These promises outlined a number of important issues such as closing the revolving door for lobbyists in the executive branch, ending the use of no-bid contracts, and curbing the influence of special interests, to name just a few.

Over the years, I have been an outspoken supporter of legislation that would make the Government more transparent and open. I have authored and supported a number of bills that would open the Government up and make it more accountable to the citizens. In particular I have been strong advocate for whistleblowers. Most importantly, I have always pushed the Government to be accountable by conducting vigorous oversight of the Federal bureaucracy regardless of which party controls Congress or the White House. I have been an equal opportunity overseer and have given my Republican colleagues as many headaches as I have given Democrats.

Given my background on oversight, I was supportive of some of the statements President Obama made as a candidate with respect to transparency and openness in Government. A document on the Obama campaign Web site titled, ``Restoring Trust in Government and Improving Transparency,'' outlined ethics and contracting reform, and included a statement that:

Obama will sign legislation in the light of day without

attaching signing statements that undermine legislative

intent.

Candidate Obama further discussed signing statements during a campaign speech where he said that his administration was ``not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.'' A video of that speech is available online for all to see.

I was also encouraged by candidate Obama's promises to protect employees in the Federal Government who blow the whistle on fraud, waste, and abuse. In yet another campaign document, candidate Obama stated that he would ``strengthen whistleblower laws to protect Federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government.'' That statement was posted on the Change.gov Web site of the Obama Transition Team for all to see. It was a welcome message to the employees of the executive branch that risk their careers and stick their necks out to alert Congress, inspectors General, and the public about fraud, waste, and abuse in Government agencies and programs.

These employees, also known as whistleblowers, often do nothing more than ``commit truth,'' and for it they are shunned by their agencies, coworkers, friends, and government. My colleagues have all heard me say time and again that whistleblowers are as welcome as a skunk at a Sunday picnic. These patriot individuals believe that Government can do better for its citizens. They risk everything to make sure that laws are faithfully executed as they were intended and let Congress know when something is not working and needs fixing. Some of the most important reforms to our laws have come from whistleblowers, be it reforming our national security and law enforcement coordination following the tragic events of 9/11, or ensuring we have clean water to drink.

Given Candidate Obama's promise to not use signing statements to circumvent the legislative intent of Congress and his pledge to support whistleblowers, I was shocked to read the signing statement he issued on the Omnibus apprropriations bill that was signed into law on March 11. Not only did President Obama's action run contrary to his promise not to use signing statements to circumvent the intent of Congress, he also appears to have broken his promise to strengthen whistleblower laws by singling out an important whistleblower protection provision that Congres has included in every appropriations bill for the last decade.

Sections 714(1) and (2) of the omnibus bill contains an appropriations rider that states that no appropriation shall be available to pay the salary of any officer or employee of the Federal Government:

Attempts or threatens to prohibit or prevent, any other

officer or employee of the Federal Government from having any

direct oral or written communication or contact with any

Member, committee, or subcommittee of the Congress.

This rider was first included in appropriations bills in 1997 and has been included in appropriations bills since. It is a strong signal to all agencies that efforts to block federal employees from coming to Congress won't be tolerated.

However, the applicability of this rider is now in question given the signing statement issued by President Obama. His signing statement, in pertinent part, stated that this provision does not:

detract from [his] authority to direct the heads of executive

departments to supervise, control, and correct employees'

communications with Congress.

This statement is shocking. It acknowledges that President Obama envisions a scenario where he would order a Cabinet Secretary to supervise, control, and correct statements made by employees to Congress.

Worse yet, the signing statement goes further to add that this authority would be used when employee communications would be ``unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.''

I want to emphasize that word ``confidential,'' because you will hear about that in just a minute.

While other Presidents have objected to this appropriations rider in the past, President Obama's signing statement is even more problematic than those because it states that he has the authority to not only restrict privileged material, but also ``confidential'' information.

By failing to define ``confidential,'' President Obama has given a blank check to executive branch agencies to block communications with Congress related to an undefined, broad category of information.

Understand, it is a constitutional power and responsibility of this Congress to oversee, as part of our checks and balances of our Constitution, the agencies of Government to make sure laws are faithfully executed, as the Constitution requires, and as money is spent according to Congress.

Even the New York Times noted President Obama's signing statement includes ``one somewhat unclear objection'' that ``could be read as bumping up against the rights of executive branch whistle-blowers.'' Because, in our constitutional responsibility, we have to rely upon people in the executive branch to tell us when the job isn't being done according to the Constitution or according to law.

So I want to go further than what the New York Times said and say: It does

more than bump up against the rights of whistleblowers. It, in fact, is going to be a chill. It will chill executive branch employees from sharing information with Congress in our congressional obligation of oversight.

It could also be construed to be an attempt to limit Members of Congress from conducting this constitutional duty. I wrote to President Obama last Friday raising my concerns with his signing statement, and, most importantly, the chilling effect that it will have on whistleblower communication with Congress.

Today, I have not received a response. However, I read in the New York Times on March 16 that an unnamed administration official stated that President Obama is ``committed to whistleblower protections,'' and that the administration ``had no intention of going further than did Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush in signing statements concerning similar provisions.''

Then, what is that word ``confidential'' doing in there? However, that same official did not provide any detail on that additional term ``confidential.'' I would like President Obama to answer my letter soon and clarify exactly what he meant in this signing statement. Absent a more detailed response from President Obama, I cannot see how his signing statement can be reconciled with the pledges and promises made by Candidate Obama, nor can I reconcile the criticism issued by Candidate Obama about President Bush's use of signing statements with the statements made by that unnamed administration source in the New York Times.

The unnamed source said President Obama ``had no intention of going further than did President Clinton or George Bush in signing statements.'' Candidate Obama stated he would not use signing statements in a manner similar to President Bush to circumvent the will of Congress. Now a member of the administration is telling the New York Times that President Obama means to do exactly the same thing as President Bush in issuing signing statements.

It seems to me, if this is the case, Candidate Obama would have a problem with President Obama's use of signing statements to underline the intent of this appropriations rider on whistleblowers.

Now, a number of my colleagues were quick to object to signing statements issued by President Bush but somehow have so far remained silent regarding President Obama's use of signing statements. Well, to those who had concerns in the past, I encourage you to take a close look at this signing statement and the potential harm it will cause for Members of Congress doing our constitutional responsibility of oversight to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

Those who may believe my acts are motivated by partisan politics, I want you to look at my record and see that I have repeatedly objected to signing statements that hindered the rights of whistleblowers. Just one example: I objected to a signing statement issued by President Bush back in 2002 that restricted the application of whistleblower protection provisions included in Sarbanes-Oxley.

I also, as another example, objected when a signing statement was issued by President Bush impacting specific reforms contained in the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008.

In closing, I call upon President Obama to revisit the March 11 signing statement and implement sections 714(1) and (2) in a manner consistent with the spirit and intent of this legislation.

As a former Senator, he must recognize the good that whistleblowers do by speaking out and by shedding light on fraud, waste, and abuse in Government agencies and programs.

Candidate Obama supported whistleblowers, but based upon his recent signing statements, these campaign promises now ring hollow. I hope I have interpreted him wrongly and will give him an opportunity to set the record right because I hope he comes out the same way he did in the campaign: strictly in support of whistleblowers, who are an essential element of the process of our checks and balances of government as Congress does its constitutional job of oversight.

We do not know where all of the skeletons are in the closet. We do not know all of the abuses of law. We do not know of all of the fraudulent things that are going on in government. We need that information from whistleblowers, and the best evidence I can give you of that is the $22 billion that has been brought back into the Federal Treasury since I got the False Claims Act of 1986 passed.

Most of that information would not have been available without the information from whistleblowers.

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I remain very concerned about the continuing prevalence of performance-enhancing drugs in sports. The ongoing reports of the vast use of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports, especially Major League Baseball, illustrate the presence of a disturbing culture throughout all sports. It is becoming all too common to read not only about professional athletes using performance-enhancing drugs, but also college and high school athletes turning to these substances to gain a competitive edge. Although Congress passed the Anabolic Steroid Control Act to disrupt this cycle of abuse in 2004, we cannot relent in our efforts to keep performance- enhancing drugs out of our society and away from our children.

The dietary supplement, Dehydroepiandrosterone, DHEA, is readily

available online and on the shelves of nutritional stores, but can be used as a performance-enhancing substance. In response to the growing use of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports, Congress passed the Anabolic Steroid Control Act in 2004. When this bill was being considered, DHEA was among 23 anabolic steroids that are now schedule III controlled substances. Some of my colleagues objected to DHEA being included on this list, because they believed DHEA was harmless and did not have the same anabolic effects as the other steroids on the list. DHEA was subsequently removed from the bill, but the facts do not back up the claims that DHEA is not a performance- enhancing drug or harmless.

According to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, DHEA is a pre-cursor hormone to androstenedione and testosterone. These substances became illegal anabolic steroids as a result of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004. Although the body naturally produces DHEA, the natural production of the hormone ceases around the age of 35. Many people over this age use DHEA, in low doses, as part of an ``anti-aging'' regimen. However, when taken in high doses over time, DHEA, like its other relatives in the steroid family, may cause liver damage and cancer. In fact, one study conducted by scientists at Oxford University revealed DHEA use to be strongly associated with breast cancer development. The truth is there are few studies about the long term effects DHEA has on the body. According to Dr. F. Clark Holmes, Director of Sports Medicine at Georgetown University, many proposed studies involving high doses of DHEA are denied approval out of concern that the product may cause irreversible harm to human subjects. Because DHEA is marketed as a dietary supplement, companies are not required to prove their safety to the Food and Drug Administration. However, nearly all the professional sports leagues, the Olympics and the NCAA have banned their athletes from using it for good reason.

What is even more disturbing is the fact that DHEA is being marketed online to younger athletes. One bodybuilding website, directed towards teenagers, features a teen bodybuilder of the week to promote performance-enhancing supplements. A 19-year-old Junior National Champion bodybuilder is one of the bodybuilders on this website. When asked what supplement gave him the greatest gains for his competition this teenager replied, ``DHEA.'' In another website, DHEA is advertized as follows, ``If you're a bodybuilder, and want to increase lean body mass at the expense of body fat, actual studies show this supplement may significantly alter body composition, favoring lean mass accrual.'' Another example on another website describes DHEA in this way, ``DHEA is HOT, and you will see why. As a pre-cursor hormone, it leads to the production of other hormones. When this compound is supplemented, it has shown to have awesome effects.'' These advertisements are geared to the younger crowd, even though DHEA has no legitimate use for teenagers.

These DHEA advertisements, and others like it, are having some impact on young athletes, especially in my state of Iowa. The Iowa Orthopaedic Journal published a study on nutritional supplement use in 20 Northwest Iowa high schools. In this study, 495 male football players and 407 female volleyball players were asked if they used nutritional supplements. The results of this anonymous survey revealed that 8 percent of football players and 2 percent of Volleyball players used supplements. These students identified DHEA as one of the supplements that they used. The students were then asked to give the reason why they used DHEA and the general response was ``for performance enhancement.''

We have to find a way to keep young people from using a substance that can do them harm. Three states currently prohibit the sale of DHEA to minors. There are also various supplement stores like GNC and Walgreens that have policies in place that prohibit the sale of DHEA to anyone under 18. If we cannot place DHEA behind the counter, then we should at least make it difficult for teens to walk out of a store with a potentially harmful substance in hand. This is why I'm pleased to introduce the DHEA Abuse Reduction Act of 2009. This bill will place a nationwide restriction on the sale of DHEA for those under 18 years of age. It will also allow those who use DHEA, legitimately, to not have to obtain a prescription to do so. The Coalition for Anabolic Steroid Precursor and Ephedra Regulation, which is comprised of the Nation's leading medical, public health and sports organizations support this legislation. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency also supports this legislation to keep DHEA away from our children. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.

In the highly competitive world of sports, the pressure to use performance-enhancing drugs can be overwhelming. Even though we, as a society, demand excellence from our favorite teams and athletes, we cannot accept this excellence to be falsely aided by a drug. Furthermore, we cannot allow harmful drugs to destroy the health of so many young and promising athletes. We have to continue to curb the use of performance-enhancing drugs for the health of our country and children.

Madam President, I thank the Senator for his kind words. I have had an opportunity to work with him not only on legislation of this type but a lot of other pieces of legislation, and I enjoy working with him because he is a person of great common sense. I thank him for his leadership in this area, and, more importantly, I thank him for serving in the outstanding position as chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, with a lot of responsibilities in the area of making sure aging problems are brought to the forefront.

This legislation we are introducing is called the Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement Act. It brings to the surface some very important issues he is watching as chairman of the Aging Committee. I have some interaction with it because I am a member of the Finance Committee.

This is a critical piece of legislation that brings overdue transparency to consumers regarding nursing home quality and operations. It also provides long needed improvements to our enforcement system.

In America today, there are well over 1.7 million elderly and disabled individuals in over 17,000 nursing home facilities. As the baby boom generation enters retirement, this number is going to rise dramatically. While many people are using alternatives, such as community-based care, nursing homes are going to remain a critical option for elderly and disabled populations.

As the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have a longstanding commitment to ensuring that nursing home residents receive the safe and quality care we expect for our loved ones. Why? Because the taxpayers put in tens of billions of dollars--I would imagine over $47 billion or $48 billion now, and maybe that figure is higher than the last time I looked, but it is billions of dollars. Our Aging Committee and all of Congress have a special responsibility to make sure that money is spent well, and one way of spending it well is to make sure it delivers quality care to these people who are in need.

Unfortunately, as in many areas, with nursing homes, a few bad apples often spoil the barrel. Too many Americans receive poor care, often in a subset of nursing homes. Unfortunately, this subset of chronic offenders stays in business, often keeping their poor track records hidden from the public at large and often facing little or no oversight or enforcement from the Federal Government, based on laws that were passed in 1986 and 1987.

There is a lack of transparency, a lack of accountability, and sometimes in our approach to nursing homes, quite simply, a lack of common sense--the sort of common sense the Senator from Wisconsin always exhibits in the legislative approach. These are things this legislation seeks to bring to nursing homes and their residents-- transparency, accountability, and common sense.

Let's look at transparency. In the market for nursing home care, as in all markets, consumers must often have adequate information to make informed choices. For years, people looking at a nursing home for themselves or their loved ones had no way of knowing a nursing home facility's record of care, inspection history, or which individuals were ultimately responsible for caring for their loved ones.

This bill is intended to change that and to emphasize this point about why we have to be concerned about the type of facility in which a person is placed.

I have never once in my life run into a single elderly or disabled person who said to me: I am dying to get into a nursing home. This is on the continuum care, the stop where people cannot be taken care of beforehand. We need to make sure that is right.

This legislation requires nursing facilities to make available ownership information, including the individuals and entities that are ultimately responsible for a home's operation and management.

Today when I am discussing this bill with people in the industry, I don't have anybody objecting who actually owns a nursing home. But early on, that seemed to be something that, for some reason or another, did not seem to be anybody's business. Tell me it isn't anybody's business who owns a nursing home if they are receiving $45 billion to $50 billion of taxpayer money going to that industry. That ownership is very important.

How nursing homes are staffed can greatly affect the care they provide, especially when dealing with complex conditions, such as nursing homes. So you go behind who owns a nursing home, who is working there, and that is pretty important. If you do not have all this information, it leaves residents and their families without clear information about who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that a resident is consistently provided with high-quality care.

This provides transparency, as well, concerning nursing home staffing and surveys. Homes differ widely in terms of the number of specialized staff available to residents, as well as the number of registered nurses and certified nursing assistants who provide much hands-on care.

Let me say it a second time. How a nursing home is staffed can greatly affect the care it provides, especially when dealing with complex cases. This legislation requires better tracking of this information and requires that this information is available to prospective residents and their families.

In addition, this legislation will help families have a better idea of a nursing home's track record in that it requires better transparency for nursing home inspection reports that are completed on a routine basis.

The Secretary will also now be required to provide consumers with a summary of information on enforcement actions taken against a facility during the previous 3 years.

This same transparency will also provide additional market incentives for poor homes to improve. If customers know about problems, that home is incentivized to improve or face going out of business.

This effort also requires a strong, effective enforcement and monitoring system to ensure safe and quality care at facilities that will not take the necessary steps voluntarily. But even with improved transparency, there are some nursing homes that will not improve on their own.

In the nursing home industry, most homes provide quality care on a very consistent basis. So we need to give inspectors better enforcement tools.

The current system provides incentives to correct problems only temporarily and allows homes to avoid regulatory sanctions while continuing to deliver substandard care to residents. This system must be fixed.

Last year, CMS requested two things: one, statutory authority to collect civil monetary penalties sooner, and, two, the ability to hold those penalties in escrow pending appeal.

To that end, this bill requires nursing homes that have been found in violation of law be given the opportunity to participate in an independent, informal dispute resolution process within 30 days. After that point, depending on the outcome of the appeal, the penalties are collected and held in escrow pending the exhaustion of the appeals process. This will ensure that nursing homes found to be violating the rules actually pay the penalties assessed if it is determined those penalties are appropriate. But we should not have to resort to enforcement. Problems resulting in penalties should be avoided or detected and fixed immediately by the nursing home in the first place. That is why this bill now requires all nursing homes to have compliance and ethics programs, as well as quality assurance and performance improvement programs.

In addition to increased transparency and improved enforcement, this bill provides commonsense solutions to a number of other problems.

This legislation requires the Secretary of HHS to establish a national independent monitoring program to tackle problems specific to interstate and large intrastate nursing chains.

In the case of nursing homes being closed due to poor safety or quality of care, this bill requires that residents and their representatives be given sufficient notice so they can adequately plan a transfer to an appropriate setting.

We need to be very sensitive--and I am very sensitive--to the fact that nursing home residents are often elderly and fragile. Moving them into a new facility is traumatic. So we have to make sure these residents are transferred appropriately and with adequate time and care.

This bill also aims to help nursing homes that self-report their concerns and remedy certain deficiencies, giving those homes that are trying to do their best and find things wrong on their own to get credit for that. By doing so, nursing homes then may have any penalties reduced by 50 percent. This will encourage facilities to take the lead in finding, flagging, and fixing violations.

This bill is also intended to strengthen training requirements for nursing staff by including dementia and abuse prevention training as part of pre-employment.

I am proud to introduce this bill along with my friend Senator Kohl. The Committee on Aging and I have a long history of working together on elderly care issues, and I am happy to continue that work.

I also note today the Government Accountability Office is releasing a report critical of CMS's funding of State oversight entities, such as nursing homes. This report notes that survey activity is sometimes so unreliable that certain homes have not even been inspected in more than 6 years. The report makes a number of recommendations to CMS, and I will be looking very carefully at how CMS follows those recommendations. In the meantime, it is important that we improve transparency and accountability for the inspections that are taking place.

We will continue to do everything we can to make sure that American nursing home residents receive the safe and quality care they deserve. Increasing transparency, improving enforcement tools, strengthening training requirements will go a long way toward achieving that goal. I thank, once again, Senator Kohl.

Madam President, I thank the Senator for his kind words. I have had an opportunity to work with him not only on legislation of this type but a lot of other pieces of legislation, and I enjoy working with him because he is a person of great common sense. I thank him for his leadership in this area, and, more importantly, I thank him for serving in the outstanding position as chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, with a lot of responsibilities in the area of making sure aging problems are brought to the forefront.

This legislation we are introducing is called the Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement Act. It brings to the surface some very important issues he is watching as chairman of the Aging Committee. I have some interaction with it because I am a member of the Finance Committee.

This is a critical piece of legislation that brings overdue transparency to consumers regarding nursing home quality and operations. It also provides long needed improvements to our enforcement system.

In America today, there are well over 1.7 million elderly and disabled individuals in over 17,000 nursing home facilities. As the baby boom generation enters retirement, this number is going to rise dramatically. While many people are using alternatives, such as community-based care, nursing homes are going to remain a critical option for elderly and disabled populations.

As the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have a longstanding commitment to ensuring that nursing home residents receive the safe and quality care we expect for our loved ones. Why? Because the taxpayers put in tens of billions of dollars--I would imagine over $47 billion or $48 billion now, and maybe that figure is higher than the last time I looked, but it is billions of dollars. Our Aging Committee and all of Congress have a special responsibility to make sure that money is spent well, and one way of spending it well is to make sure it delivers quality care to these people who are in need.

Unfortunately, as in many areas, with nursing homes, a few bad apples often spoil the barrel. Too many Americans receive poor care, often in a subset of nursing homes. Unfortunately, this subset of chronic offenders stays in business, often keeping their poor track records hidden from the public at large and often facing little or no oversight or enforcement from the Federal Government, based on laws that were passed in 1986 and 1987.

There is a lack of transparency, a lack of accountability, and sometimes in our approach to nursing homes, quite simply, a lack of common sense--the sort of common sense the Senator from Wisconsin always exhibits in the legislative approach. These are things this legislation seeks to bring to nursing homes and their residents-- transparency, accountability, and common sense.

Let's look at transparency. In the market for nursing home care, as in all markets, consumers must often have adequate information to make informed choices. For years, people looking at a nursing home for themselves or their loved ones had no way of knowing a nursing home facility's record of care, inspection history, or which individuals were ultimately responsible for caring for their loved ones.

This bill is intended to change that and to emphasize this point about why we have to be concerned about the type of facility in which a person is placed.

I have never once in my life run into a single elderly or disabled person who said to me: I am dying to get into a nursing home. This is on the continuum care, the stop where people cannot be taken care of beforehand. We need to make sure that is right.

This legislation requires nursing facilities to make available ownership information, including the individuals and entities that are ultimately responsible for a home's operation and management.

Today when I am discussing this bill with people in the industry, I don't have anybody objecting who actually owns a nursing home. But early on, that seemed to be something that, for some reason or another, did not seem to be anybody's business. Tell me it isn't anybody's business who owns a nursing home if they are receiving $45 billion to $50 billion of taxpayer money going to that industry. That ownership is very important.

How nursing homes are staffed can greatly affect the care they provide, especially when dealing with complex conditions, such as nursing homes. So you go behind who owns a nursing home, who is working there, and that is pretty important. If you do not have all this information, it leaves residents and their families without clear information about who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that a resident is consistently provided with high-quality care.

This provides transparency, as well, concerning nursing home staffing and surveys. Homes differ widely in terms of the number of specialized staff available to residents, as well as the number of registered nurses and certified nursing assistants who provide much hands-on care.

Let me say it a second time. How a nursing home is staffed can greatly affect the care it provides, especially when dealing with complex cases. This legislation requires better tracking of this information and requires that this information is available to prospective residents and their families.

In addition, this legislation will help families have a better idea of a nursing home's track record in that it requires better transparency for nursing home inspection reports that are completed on a routine basis.

The Secretary will also now be required to provide consumers with a summary of information on enforcement actions taken against a facility during the previous 3 years.

This same transparency will also provide additional market incentives for poor homes to improve. If customers know about problems, that home is incentivized to improve or face going out of business.

This effort also requires a strong, effective enforcement and monitoring system to ensure safe and quality care at facilities that will not take the necessary steps voluntarily. But even with improved transparency, there are some nursing homes that will not improve on their own.

In the nursing home industry, most homes provide quality care on a very consistent basis. So we need to give inspectors better enforcement tools.

The current system provides incentives to correct problems only temporarily and allows homes to avoid regulatory sanctions while continuing to deliver substandard care to residents. This system must be fixed.

Last year, CMS requested two things: one, statutory authority to collect civil monetary penalties sooner, and, two, the ability to hold those penalties in escrow pending appeal.

To that end, this bill requires nursing homes that have been found in violation of law be given the opportunity to participate in an independent, informal dispute resolution process within 30 days. After that point, depending on the outcome of the appeal, the penalties are collected and held in escrow pending the exhaustion of the appeals process. This will ensure that nursing homes found to be violating the rules actually pay the penalties assessed if it is determined those penalties are appropriate. But we should not have to resort to enforcement. Problems resulting in penalties should be avoided or detected and fixed immediately by the nursing home in the first place. That is why this bill now requires all nursing homes to have compliance and ethics programs, as well as quality assurance and performance improvement programs.

In addition to increased transparency and improved enforcement, this bill provides commonsense solutions to a number of other problems.

This legislation requires the Secretary of HHS to establish a national independent monitoring program to tackle problems specific to interstate and large intrastate nursing chains.

In the case of nursing homes being closed due to poor safety or quality of care, this bill requires that residents and their representatives be given sufficient notice so they can adequately plan a transfer to an appropriate setting.

We need to be very sensitive--and I am very sensitive--to the fact that nursing home residents are often elderly and fragile. Moving them into a new facility is traumatic. So we have to make sure these residents are transferred appropriately and with adequate time and care.

This bill also aims to help nursing homes that self-report their concerns and remedy certain deficiencies, giving those homes that are trying to do their best and find things wrong on their own to get credit for that. By doing so, nursing homes then may have any penalties reduced by 50 percent. This will encourage facilities to take the lead in finding, flagging, and fixing violations.

This bill is also intended to strengthen training requirements for nursing staff by including dementia and abuse prevention training as part of pre-employment.

I am proud to introduce this bill along with my friend Senator Kohl. The Committee on Aging and I have a long history of working together on elderly care issues, and I am happy to continue that work.

I also note today the Government Accountability Office is releasing a report critical of CMS's funding of State oversight entities, such as nursing homes. This report notes that survey activity is sometimes so unreliable that certain homes have not even been inspected in more than 6 years. The report makes a number of recommendations to CMS, and I will be looking very carefully at how CMS follows those recommendations. In the meantime, it is important that we improve transparency and accountability for the inspections that are taking place.

We will continue to do everything we can to make sure that American nursing home residents receive the safe and quality care they deserve. Increasing transparency, improving enforcement tools, strengthening training requirements will go a long way toward achieving that goal. I thank, once again, Senator Kohl.

Mr. President, the nomination before the Senate is critically important in this time of economic upheaval.

We need a U.S. Trade Representative to assert our rights, defend our interests, and negotiate new market opportunities for our exporters.

Trade can and should play an important role in our economic recovery. President Obama recently acknowledged this in his trade policy agenda.

If Mayor Kirk is confirmed today, I look forward to working with him to advance a progrowth trade agenda for the benefit of U.S. consumers and producers.

We have a lot of work to do, some of which is left over from the last Congress. By that I am referring to our three pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.

We also need to find a way to reinvigorate the Doha Development Round negotiations in the World Trade Organization.

I appreciate Mayor Kirk's engagement and enthusiasm to assume the responsibilities of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Based on his responses to my questions during the vetting process in the Finance Committee, there appear to be some policy areas in which our views converge.

There are some other areas in which I continue to have concerns, particularly where his responses provided insufficient detail to determine whether we can have a convergence of views.

But that said, if Mayor Kirk is confirmed, I believe that we will able to work together on a positive trade agenda.

During the committee vetting process, several issues arose with respect to the nominee's tax returns.

I am grateful for Mayor Kirk's cooperation with me, Chairman Baucus, and the Finance Committee staff.

In the true spirit of transparency and cooperation, he responded to all questions about his taxes directly and honestly.

He also agreed in communications with the staff to release information about his tax issues, and that information was put into the record of the committee proceedings.

I believe that all nominees should be held to the same standard when it comes to compliance with the tax laws.

Mayor Kirk was required to amend his returns and pay additional tax as a result of the vetting process.

Each of the issues for which he amended his returns was considered by him and his preparer at the time the returns were prepared. However, upon further review of some of the calculations, he agreed that some of them needed to be changed. Those issues are now resolved.

In closing, Mayor Kirk is a strong nominee for the position of U.S. Trade Representative.

He brings enthusiasm and energy to the table, as well as first-hand experience and understanding of the benefits of liberalized trade.

I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

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

Mr. President, yesterday I had an opportunity to address my colleagues on my concerns with the budget sent to us by President Obama, a bloated budget crawling with tax increases. Today, I would like to be more specific in that discussion.

Almost 3 weeks ago, President Obama sent his first budget up to Capitol Hill. The deficit and debt proposed in that budget are eye- popping. President Obama is correct when he says he inherited a record budget deficit of $1.2 trillion. Let me repeat that because this Senator and the Senator from Idaho are willing to be very transparent on what the numbers are. You do not argue with them.

I can say we agree with what President Obama said, that he inherited a record budget deficit of $1.2 trillion. This is a chart that shows the pattern of Federal deficits over the past few years. We go out to the year 2019 because the Congressional Budget Office always looks ahead in their projections. You can see what those deficits are-- obviously, very high where we are right now because of the recession we are in and things of that nature.

But from the talk around here, especially the talk from the Congressional Democratic leadership, you would think they got majority power just this January, 2 months ago. You would think there was no role of the Democratic Party in creating deficits that President Obama inherited. Now we even have some in the administration who are joining this chorus. A very smart guy, a guy we all ought to respect for his understanding of economics, former Treasury Secretary Summers, now Director of the National Economic Council, said Sunday on a news show that a Republican President--and emphasis upon Republican Congress--had left President Obama with this inherited deficit.

Well, I am sure Senator McConnell would have liked to have been majority leader, but he would be glad to correct Dr. Summers and let him know he was not majority leader but was minority leader during the years of 2007 and 2008.

Likewise, Congressman Boehner, though he would like to be Speaker, was not Speaker. He would be glad to point out he was leader of the minority, the Republicans, within the minority in the House and not Speaker during 2007 and 2008.

So the correction comes from the fact that Congressional Democrats and the last Republican administration agreed on the fiscal policy in the last Congress. The Congress, namely the Democratic leadership, together with former President George W. Bush and that administration, wrote the stimulus bill, wrote the housing bills, and had a great deal to do with financial bailouts.

The congressional Democratic leadership wrote the budgets and the spending bills of 2007 and 2008. So we need to set the facts straight. President Obama did, as I said twice--I will say again--inherit the deficit and debt. But--and a very important ``but''--the inheritance had bipartisan origins, the Democratic Congress, on the one hand, and a Republican President on the other hand.

Now, what is more, the budget the President sent up would make this extraordinary level of debt an ordinary level of debt.

We have to think about the budget coming up because this is budget month. These issues are going to be driven home to the people. We have an extraordinary level of debt in this budget. It soon may look like an ordinary level of debt, and it will be. What is now an extraordinary burden on our children and grandchildren would become an ordinary burden.

I have a chart that shows this inherited debt. The inherited debt meaning what was inherited by this administration on the day they were sworn into office, January 20 of this year, is here. This black line is the percentage of gross national product. This is real dollars. So you see by 2019 how it grows and how it still is very big debt. But this inherited debt is not a pretty picture. But the picture gets uglier because in the last year of the budget, meaning the budget the President sent up here, debt held by the public would be two-thirds, 67 percent, of our gross national product. In other words, what was inherited has the national debt coming down to about 42 percent of gross national product, but what is happening from this point on with the budget we have, this black line will come up here at 67 percent. That is the legacy of this budget.

That number assumes also the return of a healthy economy, which we all hope happens. I suppose most Presidents would assume a healthy economy, but it is not a certainty. That means President Obama's budget assumes that a prosperous United States will carry the debt to more than two-thirds of the gross national product as we look out 10 years ahead, and the Congressional Budget Office does that on an automatic basis. That number, if the economy is healthy, will be 67 percent, right here, that black line. If the budget is not as healthy as what they project then, of course, that black line will be higher than 67 percent.

In terms of proposed tax policy, the President's budget does contain some common ground. If President Obama wants to pursue tax relief, he will find no better ally than we Republicans. If President Obama wants to embrace fiscal responsibility and reduce the deficit by cutting wasteful spending, Republicans on Capitol Hill will have his back. From our perspective, good fiscal policy keeps the tax burden low on American families, workers and small businesses and keeps wasteful spending in check. For the hard-working American taxpayers, there is some good news in this budget. President Obama's budget proposes to make permanent about 80 percent of the bipartisan tax relief plans set to expire in less than 2 years. For 8 long years, Republicans have tried to make this bipartisan tax relief permanent. Now the Democratic leadership seems to have seen some of that light. They now agree with us Republicans that families should be able to count on marriage penalty relief, on a double child tax credit. Democratic leaders now seem to agree with decisions that were in the bipartisan tax bill of 2003, agree with us Republicans that low-income seniors who rely on capital gains and dividend income will be able to rely on low rates of taxation as they draw on their savings.

Democratic leaders now agree with Republicans that middle-income families will be able to count on relief from the alternative minimum tax. They were never supposed to be taxed in the first place, but it is not indexed. So they would agree that we protect middle-class taxpayers from the AMT which was not indexed. President Obama will find many Republican allies in his efforts to make these tax relief policies permanent.

I wish the budget I am referring to, the budget that came to the Hill a couple weeks ago, was as taxpayer friendly, but it is not. There is a lot of bad news for American taxpayers. If you put gas in a car, heat or cool your home, use electricity to cook a meal, turn on the lights, power a computer, there is a new energy tax for you in the budget from the President. This tax would exceed a trillion dollars. I better say ``could'' exceed because the figure in the budget is less than that, but most everybody around here thinks it is going to be over a trillion dollars.

This budget also raises taxes on those making more than $250,000. That sounds like a lot of money to most Americans. If we were only talking about the idle rich, maybe the news wouldn't be so bad. But we are not talking about coupon clippers on Park Avenue. We are not talking about the high-paid, corporate jet-flying, well-paid hedge fund managers in Chicago, San Francisco or other high-income, liberal meccas. Many of the Americans targeted for this hefty tax hike are successful small business owners. Unlike the financial engineers of the flush, liberal meccas of New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, a lot of these small businesses add value beyond just shuffling paper. There is bipartisan agreement that small business and all these businesses are the main drivers

of our dynamic economy. Small businesses create 74 percent of all new private sector jobs, according to latest statistics. On Monday, my President, President Obama, used a similar figure of 70 percent. Whether it is 70 or 74 percent, it means the vast majority of small businesses create most of the new jobs in America. They are the employment machine. Both sides agree we ought to not hurt key job producers that small businesses are.

President Obama also mentioned his zero capital gains proposal for small business startups. It might surprise you, but we Republicans agree with President Obama on that issue. We are still trying to figure out why Democratic leadership doesn't agree with the President on that small business-friendly proposal, because we tried to get a better proposal in the stimulus bill. If we also agree that small business is the key to creating new jobs, why does the Democratic leadership and the President's budget propose a new tax increase directed at these small businesses of America that are most likely to create new jobs? Wait a minute, please. Many on the left side of the political spectrum say only 2 or 3 percent of the small businesses are affected by this tax increase. That figure was developed by a think tank, and it is based on a microsimulation model. Treasury studies show the figure to be considerably higher. But to focus solely on the filer percentage is to miss the forest for the trees. It is to assume that all small businesses have the same level of activity, that they employ the same workers, that they buy the same number of machines, that they make the same number of sales. Common sense has to prevail, and common sense will tell you that can't be the case.

In fact, it is not the case. The data on small business activity tells a different story. I come to that conclusion this way. According to a recent Gallup survey, over half the small business owners employing over 20 workers would pay higher taxes under the President's budget. This chart depicts the number of small businesses hit by this tax increase. We point to different levels of employment of small business being affected by this. We get to a point out here where we have 950,000 businesses, one-sixth of small businesses, with 1 to 499 employees are hit by it. Do we want to destroy that employment machine? I don't think so. But this tax proposal will do that.

I have another chart that shows that roughly half the firms that employ two-thirds of small business workers, those with 20 or more workers, are hit by the tax rate hikes in the President's budget. I will not go through all of them, but we can see here, 50 percent of the employers with employees of somewhere between 20 and 499 are hit by that big, fat tax increase.

According to Treasury Department data, not mine, these small businesses account for nearly 70 percent of small business income. So there is a big tax hit on small businesses that employ 20 or more workers. It is a marginal tax rate increase of 20 percent. Everybody, Democrat or Republican, ought to think about how these dynamic small businesses, responsible for two-thirds of small businesses, will react. That 20 percent in new taxes has to come from somewhere.

We Republicans will also scrutinize the budget for other major new taxes. We have discussed the new cutbacks on itemized deductions. I am referring to home mortgage interest, charities and State and local taxes. We Republicans will question a broad-based energy tax that actually cuts jobs and could, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, cost consumers and businesses trillions.

In these troubled economic times, we ought to err on the side of keeping taxes and spending low and reduce the deficit. Keeping taxes and spending low, along with reversing the growth in Federal debt, will push the economy back to growth. It is the only way we will provide more opportunities for all Americans.

Getting our private sector going, making small business strong is the basis for getting out of this recession and continuing to grow. I hope throughout this process of the budget debate, we will remember a firm fact that ought to be common sense, but I am not sure in this town it is seen as common sense: Government does not create wealth. Government consumes wealth.

I hope my colleagues will listen to my friend from Idaho as he gives his version of the budget. He is an outstanding member of our Finance Committee, and I appreciate his work.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I think our colleagues know that the issue of health care reform is hopefully on a fast track in the sense of getting something done this year. This is a very big project to get underway. Senator Baucus and I have laid out an ambitious schedule for enacting a bipartisan health reform bill, and I think there are a lot of facets of it that we have to expect people who are not on the committees--Senator Kennedy's committee on the one hand and Senator Baucus's committee on the other hand--will have to take into consideration. I am asking, through a series of speeches I will give this spring, for people who perhaps don't think about the issue of health care reform because they do not serve on the committees to think of various things.

Today, I wish to address an issue we often read about in newspaper accounts--and the most recent one comes from a Wall Street Journal article I had a chance to read--that comes up as a reminder when people think about health care reform that we ought to take into consideration. I often refer to Canada, I suppose because a lot of Americans are familiar with the health care system in Canada, and we have a lot of our constituents who ask us why we don't put in place what they have in Canada. We refer to that system as single payer. We often run into people who say: Well, don't do what they are doing in Canada. I think a lot of our colleagues here would support single payer. So obviously, when these things are discussed in America at the grass roots level, I think we ought to be constantly reminded of this here as we debate health care reform, and a lot of our colleagues need to be thinking about this a long time before legislation comes to the floor.

We have a lot of work ahead of us if we want to see meaningful legislation that will accomplish our three main goals of health care reform: lower cost, expanded coverage, and better quality.

Let me say that again: Lower cost, expanded coverage, and better quality.

As we roll up our sleeves, it is helpful to look to our neighbor to the north, Canada, for some lessons about what works and what does not work. Some of the proposals that are being discussed--the public plan option, rationing of care, and a Federal health board--will make our current market-based health care system that we have in the United States more similar to the Canadian health care system. Some like that. Some do not like it. My purpose is to be raising questions that our colleagues ought to be considering.

The Canadian health care system might seem like a good idea to some of my colleagues, but this should make anyone who values access to care and the doctor-patient relationship very nervous. Canadian patients often wait months or even years for necessary care. It has become so bad that some patients are suing the Government in Canada to gain access to care. One Ontario man suffering from headaches and seizures was told he would have to wait 4\1/2\ months for an MRI. Instead of standing in line, he did what a lot of Canadians do. He traveled across the border to Buffalo for an MRI. It was there he discovered he had a malignant brain tumor. When he returned to Canada, he was told again it would be months before he could have surgery, so once again he traveled to Buffalo, for surgery. Another Canadian man waited in pain for a year before he could see a doctor about his arthritic hip. Once he finally saw the right specialist he was told that he would need a state-of-the- art procedure to resurface his hip, but sadly the Canadian Government told the 57-year-old gentleman he was ``too old'' to get the procedure. He was also prohibited from paying for the surgery with his own money. Similar to so many other Canadian patients, he is taking his case to court.

These court cases gained traction in 2005, when the Canadian supreme court ruled that patients suffer physically and psychologically while waiting for treatment in Canada's Government-run system. The court also concluded that the Government's controls over basic health care services impose a risk of irreparable harm and even death.

As some people propose that the Government take a more active role in our Nation's health care system, I hope we can agree that access to a waiting list is not access to health care. We all agree we need to fix our health care system but, as we try to fix it, let's not make it worse. Let's learn from our neighbors to the north. Let's not force patients in America into a one-size-fits-all Government-run system.

Comparative Effectiveness Research

I would like to speak on another matter, about an important provision tucked away in the $1 trillion spending bill that passed last month. During the debate, Members spent a lot of time talking about big-ticket health care provisions--Medicaid, COBRA, Health IT. But one issue that did not receive enough attention was a term that a lot of our colleagues are not familiar with, but every colleague needs to become familiar with--this phrase ``comparative effectiveness research.'' I still haven't figured out how spending money on comparative effectiveness research is actually stimulative, but this is one of those things that probably should not have been in the stimulus bill-- but it was there and is now law.

I am even willing to guess that a lot of Members do not even know what comparative effectiveness research actually is, but in the so- called stimulus bill, we increased our investment in this research from about $30 million to $1 billion. That is over a 3,000-percent increase for something a lot of Members don't know about and can't even define-- and I am not sure I want anybody to ask me right now to define it in the purest sense. This makes me a little nervous.

Mr. President, $1 billion is a lot of money, but maybe it is money that even people in comparative research might not even know what they are spending the money for.

Some policy experts have expressed concerns that this drastic increase in funding will help establish the United States version of England's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, also referred to as--I don't know whether the English pronounce it ``nice'' or ``niece,'' I am going to say NICE.

So you are not misled, many patient groups consider NICE to be anything but nice. NICE was created by the British Government in 1999 to decide what treatments, prescription drugs, and medical devices the British Government is going to pay for. In other words, you are having bureaucrats and/or politicians interfere in decisions that in America we normally leave to the doctor and the patient. Put another way, NICE was created for the Government to ration care and ultimately save money.

If the Congress of the United States was passing something to ration care, I will bet a good number of people in this country would get up in arms. For example, a news story printed in August entitled ``UK's''--meaning United Kingdom's--``NICE says `No' to four new cancer drugs.'' It detailed how the NICE panel concluded that the four drugs would extend people's lives, but somehow you cannot use them because they are not cost-effective.

So, under England's single-payer Government system, patients were prohibited from getting those drugs, regardless of what the patient or their doctor might have thought. It was not until there was public outrage about that decision that made newspaper headlines around the world that NICE then reversed its decision about at least one of those drugs. The three other drugs are still considered too costly to give to patients.

Another article in the New York Times on December 8, 2008, was entitled ``British Balance Benefit vs. Cost of Latest Drugs.'' This article told the story of Bruce Hardy, a British citizen who was diagnosed with kidney cancer. Mr. Hardy was unable to get a particular drug that would have extended his life because NICE determined the drug was not ``cost-effective.'' That is because NICE has decided the British Government can only afford to pay about $22,000 for every 6 months of life.

Get this. The Government of England is putting a value on life of about $22,000 for every 6 months of life. This may be acceptable in a government-run single-payer health care system, but here in the United States only two people should be involved in deciding what treatment, drug or device to use, and those two people would be, on the one hand, the doctor; on the other hand, the patient.

We do not need the Federal Government standing between patients and their doctors. We do not need bureaucrats in Washington denying patients with terminal cancer access to the newest and most promising experimental drugs. We do not need the drug companies to have undue influence over our system either.

I think my work overseeing, as congressional responsibility dictates, the Food and Drug Administration, gives me some authority to speak in this area, that drug companies should not have undue influence. I have been a leading advocate for increasing oversight of drugs and device manufacturers. In fact, I have introduced legislation to make manufacturers report payments to patients so we can make sure we do not have conflicts of interest getting in the way of high-quality care. I have also supported drug importation and legislation to prohibit brand- name manufacturers from gaming the system to prevent lower cost generic drugs from getting to the market. So I am not down here today to defend the drug companies or device industry. They can do that on their own, and I think they do it very well. But I think it is legitimate to be concerned about patients. I don't want some faceless, unelected Government panel keeping patients in Iowa or anywhere from getting the lifesaving treatment they need.

At this time, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter I received from 60 patient groups, from the breast cancer advocates to muscular dystrophy, to name two, expressing concerns about using comparative effectiveness to ration care.

I agree we need to lower the overall cost of our health care system. We need to improve quality. It is true we spend more money, about twice as much more than other developed nations in the world, and still rank poorly in many health care indicators. But having the Government ration care is not the answer. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that comparative effectiveness research would only save 1/10th of 1 percent of the total health care spending.

Let me remind you when I started out I was saying I want my colleagues to become familiar with comparative effectiveness research because this is something we are going to be dealing with in the legislation later on this year, and we just put $1 billion into this project as opposed to $30 million previously.

If Congress is going to spend this $1 billion on this research, let's not bill it as some magic bullet to control health care spending because the Congressional Budget Office--and I hope you know they are God around here, they are God around here because if they say something costs something, it costs something. If you want to overrule them, it takes 60 votes to overrule. So what they say counts. If we are going to spend that $1 billion, we have to make sure it is improving quality and informing patients and providers. If Congress is going to spend $1 billion on this, let's not establish the United States version of the United Kingdom's government-run National Institutes of Health and Clinical Excellence that I have been referring to by the acronym NICE. Let's not set up a system for Washington dictating to your doctor what treatment to prescribe. If we are going to do this, we have to do it right. Comparative effectiveness research should be about comparing clinical treatments and then letting your doctor decide the best way to treat it.

I am not up here saying there should not be any comparative effectiveness research. I am here to say it should not be a subterfuge for some bureaucrat or politician deciding who is going to live and who is going to die. It is information for doctors and patients. It should be done in the most open and transparent process possible.

Finally, the research should be used to get information to doctors and patients about the best treatment.

It should not be used for Washington to make policy or to decide what treatments the government will or will not cover. I hope we can agree the Federal Government should not be in the business of determining the value of a person's life, as I indicated to you this outfit in the United Kingdom decides that your life is worth $22,000 per 6 months.

Clinical comparative effectiveness can be a valuable tool in creating a more efficient health care system, but let's make sure we use this tool wisely.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today is St. Patrick's Day. St. Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, is revered by Irish and non-Irish alike, for many things. Among the many legends is one regarding snakes. St. Patrick drove snakes off the Emerald Isle. In looking at the President's budget, you could see that we might need St. Patrick to come back and drive all the extra taxes out of the budget. Certainly, like the snakes in Ireland, all of these new taxes, if left unchecked, could bite a lot of hard-working American taxpayers.

Nineteen days ago, President Obama sent his first budget up to Capitol Hill. The deficits and debt proposed in that budget are eye- popping. President Obama is correct when he says that he inherited a record budget deficit of $1.2 trillion. I have a chart here that shows the pattern of the Federal debt.

But, from the statements from the congressional Democratic leadership, you would think they just got the levers of power this January. You would think they had no role in creating that deficit President Obama inherited. In fact, congressional Democrats and the last Republican administration agreed on the fiscal policy in the last Congress. The congressional Democratic leadership, together with the George W. Bush administration, wrote the stimulus bills, housing bills, and the financial bailout. The congressional Democratic leadership wrote the budgets and spending bills in 2007 and 2008. So let's be clear. President Obama inherited the deficit and debt, but the inheritance had bipartisan origins--the Democratic Congress and the last Republican administration. What's more, the budget the President sent up would make this extraordinary level of debt an ordinary level of debt. What is now an extraordinary burden on our children and grandchildren would become an ordinary burden.

In the last year of the budget, debt held by the public would be two- thirds, 67 percent of our gross domestic product.

The President's budget does contain some common ground. Whenever President Obama wants to pursue tax relief, he will find no better ally than we Republicans. Likewise, if President Obama wants to embrace fiscal responsibility and reduce the deficit by cutting wasteful spending, Republicans on Capitol Hill will back him vigorously. From our perspective, good fiscal policy keeps the tax burden low on American families, workers, and small businesses and keeps wasteful spending in check. For the hard-working American taxpayer, there is some good news in the budget. President Obama's budget proposes to make permanent the lion's share of the bipartisan tax relief plans

that are set to expire in less than 2 years. Republicans have been trying to make this bipartisan tax relief permanent since it was first passed.

It will mean families can count on marriage penalty relief and a doubled child tax credit. It means workers will be able to count on lower marginal tax rates. It means low-income seniors, who rely on capital gains and dividend income, will be able to rely on low rates of taxation as they draw on their savings. It means middle-income families will be able to count on relief from the alternative minimum tax, AMT. President Obama will find many Republican allies in his efforts to make these tax relief policies permanent.

Unfortunately, President Obama's budget also contains bad news for the American taxpayer. For every American who puts gas in a car, heats or cools a home, uses electricity to cook a meal, turn on the lights, or power a computer, there is a new energy tax for you in this budget. This tax could exceed a trillion dollars. The budget also raises taxes on those making over $250,000. That sounds like a lot of money to most Americans. But, we are not just talking about the idle rich.

We are not talking about coupon clippers on Park Avenue. We are not talking about the high-paid, high-corporate-jet-flying, well-paid hedge fund managers in Chicago, San Francisco, or other high-income liberal meccas. Many of the Americans targeted for a hefty tax hike are successful small business owners. And unlike the financial engineers of the flush liberal meccas of New York, Chicago, or San Francisco, a lot of these small businesses add value beyond shuffling paper.

There is bipartisan agreement that small businesses are the main drivers of our dynamic economy. Small businesses create 74 percent of all new private sector jobs, according to the latest statistics. My President, President Obama, used a similar figure of 70 percent yesterday. Both sides agree that we ought not hurt the key job producers, small business. President Obama also mentioned his zero capital gains proposal for small business start-ups. Republicans agree with him on that.

We are still scratching our heads on why the Democratic leadership doesn't agree with the President on that small business-friendly proposal. So if we all agree that small business is the key to creating new jobs, why does the Democratic leadership and the President's budget propose a new tax increase directed at the American small businesses most likely to create new jobs?

How do I come to that conclusion? Here's how. According to a recent Gallup survey, about half of the small business owners employing over 20 workers would pay higher taxes under the President's budget. I have a chart that shows that nearly 1 million small businesses will be hit by this tax increase. Here is another chart that shows that roughly half the firms that employ two-thirds of small business workers, those with 20 or more workers, are hit by the tax rate hikes in the President's budget.

According to Treasury Department data, these small businesses, account for nearly 70 percent of small business income. In addition, the budget would reduce itemized deductions for donations to charity, home mortgage interest, and State and local taxes. Combating tax shelters and closing corporate loopholes can be good tax policy, but higher general business taxes during a recession doesn't make much sense.

If these higher taxes were dedicated to reducing the deficit, the Democratic leadership could argue this was their version of fiscal responsibility. We Republicans would disagree with this approach, but at least we would agree with the goal. But, a close examination of the budget reveals higher taxes and higher spending. So, from an overall standpoint, deficits will remain as far as the eye can see. Drawing on our principles, Republicans will work with President Obama on making permanent tax relief for families.

We, however, will oppose tax increases that harm America's small businesses. We Republicans also will scrutinize and question a broad- based energy tax that cuts jobs and could, according to MIT, cost consumers and businesses trillions. In these troubled economic times, we ought to err on the side of keeping both taxes and spending low and reduce the deficits. That will be a necessary condition to returning our economy back to growth and providing more opportunities for all Americans.

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

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

Madam President, I would like to say a few words in opposition to the nomination of David Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice.

There is no doubt that Mr. Ogden is an experienced lawyer. However, I have serious concerns about Mr. Ogden's views and some of the cases he has argued. Mr. Ogden is an attorney who has specialized in first amendment cases, in particular pornography and obscenity cases, and has represented several entities in the pornography industry. He has argued against legislation designed to ban child pornography, including the Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000 and the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1998. These laws were enacted to protect children from obscene materials in public libraries and to require producers of pornography to personally verify that their models are not minors. I supported both these important pieces of legislation.

In addition, Mr. Ogden authored a brief in the 1993 case Knox v. United States, where he advocated for the same arguments to shield child pornography under the first amendment that the Senate unanimously rejected by a vote of 100 to 0 and the House rejected by a vote of 425 to 3. In the Knox case, the Bush I Justice Department successfully had prosecuted Knox for violating Federal antipornography laws; but on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Clinton Justice Department reversed course and refused to defend the conviction. After significant public outrage, President Clinton publicly chastised the Solicitor General, and Attorney General Reno overturned the position. At the time, I was involved in the congressional effort opposing this switch in the Justice Department's position on child pornography.

Mr. Ogden also has filed briefs opposing parental notification before a minor's abortion, opposing spousal notification before an abortion, and opposing the military's policy against public homosexuals serving in uniform.

Significant concerns have been raised in regard to Mr. Ogden's nomination. I have heard from a very large number of Iowa constituents, including the Iowa Christian Alliance, who are extremely concerned with Mr. Ogden's ties to the pornography industry and the positions he has taken against protecting women and children from this terrible scourge. The Family Research Council, Concerned Women of America, Eagle Forum, Fidelis, the Alliance Defense Fund, and the Heritage Foundation, among others, have all expressed serious concerns about Mr. Ogden's advocacy against restrictions on pornography and obscenity.

The majority of Americans support protecting children from pornography exploitation, protecting children from Internet pornography in libraries, and allowing for parental notification before a minor's abortion. So do I. I feel very strongly about protecting women and children from the evils of pornography. I have always been a strong supporter of efforts to restrict the dissemination of pornography in all environments. As a parent and grandparent, I am particularly concerned that children will be exposed to pornographic images while pursing educational endeavors or simply using the Internet for recreational purposes. Throughout my tenure in Congress I have supported bills to protect children from inappropriate exposure to pornography and other obscenities in the media, and I support the rights of parents to raise children and to be active participants in decisions affecting their medical care. Mr. Ogden has consistently taken positions against these child protection laws and this troubles me.

Because of my concerns, I must oppose the nomination of David Ogden.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I didn't make a complete request, as I should have, for a quorum, so I ask unanimous consent that the time be evenly divided.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the same bill the Senator from Michigan spoke on, but I ought to compliment him. He is most known for being a leader in the area of military affairs because of being chairman of that committee. But for sure, for years he has been also a chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and so much of the work that comes out of this legislation comes out of his work on that committee. I think he ought to be commended for the work he does through investigations there as well.

I am happy to join Senator Levin and Senator McCaskill in cosponsoring the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act. This bill requires States to obtain corporate ownership information at the time of formation and help law enforcement investigate shell companies which are set up for the sole purpose of conducting illegal activities.

Earlier this year, Senator Levin joined me when I introduced a bill that we entitled the Hedge Fund Transparency Act. I said then that the major cause of the current financial crisis is a lack of transparency among hedge funds. That same thing can be said about corporate ownership. In too many States, very little ownership information is needed to register a corporation, and the actual owners of that corporation are often hidden behind the agents and lawyers who register the corporation on behalf of owners.

One example of how these criminals take advantage of this lack of transparency is the practice of setting up and using shell corporations to hide corporate ownership information. These individuals set up shell corporations that have the benefits of corporate registration and function legitimately. But these same corporations are being used to hide illegal activities. These activities include a variety of elaborate schemes to disguise money laundering, tax evasion, and securities fraud. Law enforcement officials from the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service have testified before Congress about how the lack of corporate information has been a very significant impediment to their ability to conduct criminal investigations.

For example, when a corporation is involved in illegal activities, the legitimate corporate owners are often hidden, making it difficult for law enforcement agencies to determine who is actually responsible. That, in turn, makes it difficult to bring the real culprits to justice. States differ as to what corporate information is required to register a corporation and how long it takes to process that paperwork. Most States require only the name of the company, the name and address of the agent, a signature, and, of course, a fee.

In fact, the Government Accountability Office found that most States will take the time to verify that the fee has been paid but do not take the time to verify the identities of the incorporators, officers, and directors. Perhaps even more important, no State checks the names of incorporators, officers, or directors against criminal records and the watch lists that sometimes Federal agencies have. As a result, we have no way of knowing if the beneficial owners are criminals, or they could even be terrorists, for that matter. Many States now have introduced electronic registration procedures that enable a new corporation to be registered on line within 24 hours. States offer this expedited service in exchange for yet an additional fee. In fact, there are two States where an individual can form a corporation within 1 hour of making the request. The promise of quick registration and little oversight has proven to be a very popular revenue generator for some States. But this process is not necessarily in the best interest of protecting our financial system or our national security.

Some States have raised concerns that if their incorporation laws are tightened, corporations will simply register in other States where there are less stringent registration requirements. This bill is to take care of that problem. It is designed to bring some sanity to this whole process. It makes the registration requirement uniform over all 50 States, as well as the District of Columbia. This way corporations will simply not be able to ``shop around'' for the State with the most relaxed standards and simply play one State against the other. Further, much of the information set forth in this bill is already required by the European Union and many offshore jurisdictions. This bill simply updates our laws to match those of other nations combating the same problems with money laundering, tax evasion, and terrorist financing.

The legislation I am introducing today with Senators Levin and McCaskill requires that States obtain a list of the beneficial owners of each corporation or limited liability company formed under their laws before the corporation is registered in that particular State. The bill also requires that States ensure required information is updated annually and that States provide the information to civil or criminal law enforcement agencies upon receipt of a subpoena or summons. This also establishes a civil penalty of up to $10,000 and a criminal penalty of up to 3 years in prison for providing false information.

Additionally, the bill would exempt publicly traded companies that are already regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Further, the bill requires non-U.S. beneficial owners to provide certification from an in-State agent that verifies the identity of the beneficial owner.

Finally, this bill requires the Government Accountability Office to complete a study of State beneficial ownership information requirements for in-State partnerships and trusts and gives the States until October 2011 to require beneficial ownership information for the corporations and limited liability companies formed under their laws.

I urge colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation as we try to bring greater transparency to our financial system.

Madam President, I rise to speak on another amendment. I spoke on Senator Vitter's amendment yesterday, and I spoke in support of it. I will now speak on the Sessions amendment.

I rise in support of the Sessions amendment to extend the E-Verify Program for a period of 5 years. The E-Verify Program is an effective Web-based tool that provides employers with a process for the purpose of verifying the Social Security numbers and, at the same time, for the main purpose of determining the legal status of newly hired employees.

As my colleagues know, it is unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens not eligible to work in the United States. Under current law, if the documents provided by an employee reasonably appear on their face to be genuine, then the employer has met the obligation to review the worker's documents. Unfortunately, counterfeit documents and stolen identities have made a mockery of this law. But with the E- Verify Program, employers can electronically verify a new hire's employment authorization through the Social Security Administration and, if necessary, follow it up with the Department of Homeland Security databases.

E-Verify has been an extremely successful program for employers who are seeking to comply with the law. The program is voluntary and free for all employers. Right now, over 100,000 employers have signed up for the program, and, in addition, each week more than 2,000 employers sign up. E-Verify has a proven track record--more than 5 million queries by employers were made last year and, of those, 96.1 percent were verified automatically.

The small percentage of applicants who receive a tentative nonconfirmation must sort out their records with the Social Security Administration. I would think if the Social Security Administration has bad information about you, you would want to clear that up for sure anyway. Many times this is a simple misunderstanding with the Social Security Administration or a case in which records were not updated. In the event a person receives a tentative nonconfirmation after his employment application, that person can still continue to work and cannot be fired.

The Sessions amendment would extend the E-Verify Program for 5 more years. Now, frankly, I would like to see more reforms to the E-Verify Program. For example, I would like to make E-Verify mandatory for all businesses. I would like employers to check all their employees through E-Verify, not just new hires. I would also like to see the program made a permanent provision in our immigration laws. But for now, I am happy to support this first baby step in extending E-Verify for 5 years.

There is a bottom line to everything we do around here, and the bottom line is that this amendment is a jobs amendment. Our economy is on the skids. Americans are losing their jobs. The E-Verify Program will help stimulate the economy by preserving jobs for a legal workforce. It will help root out illegal workers who are taking jobs from Americans. We need the E-Verify Program to encourage employers to use the system to prevent them from hiring foreign labor that has come here illegally.

I wish to make clear this has nothing to do with whether we have people coming to this country. It has nothing to do with whether we have people coming to this country to work. It only has to do with laws being followed--following the rule of law--to make sure people are working here legally and are conforming with our laws. That is all this is about, and E-Verify is a process--not mandatory, but a process to help people who are employers to verify whether the people who apply for the jobs are here legally and are registered with our Social Security system in a legal way.

I urge my colleagues, then, to support the Sessions amendment. Of course I appreciate very much the leadership of Senator Sessions in this E-Verify Program extension for 5 years, which is what the amendment calls for.

I yield the floor and I don't see anybody yet ready to speak so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, for Senator Vitter, I ask his amendment be called up. It is amendment No. 621.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.