Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. President. I have been coming to the floor to remind my colleagues and the American people about the fiscal realities our Nation faces and to explain how this health reform legislation would make our fiscal situation worse and our economy suffer even more. I have been here before to highlight how this health care bill is chock-full of budget gimmicks to hide its true unmanageable costs.

As I have said before on the floor of the Senate, as a former mayor and a former Governor, many people have come to me over the years and said: Mayor, you have to do this; Governor, you have to do this. The plea they had was genuine, and the need they expressed was genuine, but the fact is we couldn't afford what they were asking us to do, and I had to say no. Unfortunately, this legislation, in my opinion, will increase the cost of health care, drive up our national debt, and contribute to unbalanced budgets as far as the eye can see in the United States.

As a former Governor and chairman of the National Governors Association, the past chairman of the National League of Cities, one gimmick I am particularly concerned about is the one that puts 14 million additional individuals into the Medicaid Program and then asks the States to pick up a portion of the tab. I am very familiar with what unfunded mandates can do to State and local governments, and I wish to highlight some of the potential consequences of the Medicaid expansion for my colleagues.

At a $374 billion cost to Federal taxpayers, the health care bill before us would expand Medicaid coverage to all people under 133 percent of the Federal poverty level. Because Medicaid costs are shared by the Federal and State governments, the States will be on the hook for $25 billion of this expansion during the first 10 years.

To put the $25 billion into perspective, let me spend a minute explaining the current fiscal situation of most States in this country. Most States such as my State--and I am sure the same is true in the Presiding Officer's State--are struggling to make ends meet. I have never seen anything like it in my entire life.

According to the National Governors Association, the States are in the deepest and longest economic downturn since the Great Depression. In the first two quarters of 2009, State revenues were down 11.7 and 16.6 percent, respectively. At the same time, Medicaid spending is growing, which already makes up, on average, approximately 22 percent of States' budgets, and enrollment in the program is skyrocketing at the levels it is today because more and more people are becoming eligible for Medicaid under the current Federal law.

In Ohio, for example, where the unemployment rate is hovering around 10.5 percent, 154,000 Ohioans enrolled in the Medicaid Program in the last year alone, an 8-percent increase over last year. This is hard to believe, but Medicaid now provides health coverage to nearly 2 million Ohioans, almost one out of five residents. Unbelievable.

Recognizing this increased demand, States have had some help from the Federal Government. Earlier this year,

Congress provided $87 billion in Federal aid to States in the so-called stimulus bill to help States deal with Medicaid costs. Yet this money was not intended to last forever. As it stands right now, in December 2010, States will face--that is next December--States will face a steep budget cliff when the temporary Medicaid payments coming from the stimulus package expire. In facing these realities, Governors across the country are already wondering how they will cover the cost of their existing programs.

I recently met with Ray Scheppach, who is the executive director of the National Governors Association. He said: Senator, Governor, Mayor, we are going to need some help when the money runs out or we will not be able to handle the Medicaid challenges we have.

Not surprisingly, my State's current Governor, Ted Strickland, a Democrat, has told me if Medicaid is expanded, he hopes the Federal Government will assume most, if not all, the costs. In fact, he told the Columbus Dispatch that he has warned officials in Washington that ``with our financial challenges right now, we are not in a position to accept additional Medicaid responsibilities.''

I suspect that almost every Governor in the country would make that same statement to us in the Senate. By the way, this is both Republican and Democratic Governors.

I ask: How can we in good conscience move forward with this bill and the new mandate it places on States? How can we force the States to make the difficult choices that we are unwilling or unable to make in Washington? Pass it on to them, we will pay for it a while, and then you guys pick up the cost.

I served the people of Ohio as Governor for 8 years, and I was forced to cut my budget in the beginning four times. I will never forget it. There were about 5,000 people outside my office screaming because we had made it more difficult or increased the cost of tuition for our colleges. I had to make countless difficult decisions across the board to be fiscally responsible. I understand the demands of soaring health care costs, and as I called that program then, it devoured--Medicaid devoured up to 30 percent of our State budget, and I referred to it as the Medicaid Pac-Man. I think some people remember Pac-Man. That was the Pac-Man just eating up money like crazy. It took away money from primary and secondary education, higher education, roads, bridges, county and local government projects, and safety service programs that we wanted to provide for the citizens of Ohio. We had to do it. It was a mandate. It just sucked up that money, and that meant we didn't have money for higher education, secondary and primary education, and some of the other responsibilities of the State.

With this experience, I became particularly concerned with the cost of Federal mandates, and I worked tirelessly with State and local governments to help pass the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In fact, the first time I ever set foot on the floor of the Senate is the day the unfunded mandates bill passed the Senate. It was a wonderful day for Ohio and for this country. I was in the Rose Garden representing State and local governments when President Clinton signed the legislation into law in 1995.

After that experience, you can imagine how it pains me to be standing here today debating legislation that provides for the largest single expansion of the Medicaid Program in our country's history and a brandnew fiscal liability for States at a time when the States can least afford it. I have serious concerns if this bill becomes law and States are required to take on more just as the extra stimulus funds disappear--which they are going to have to do or we will have to come up with the money--Congress will be forced to spend billions more to keep the Medicaid safety net from failing completely in the not too distant future.

So what I am basically saying is that when the stimulus money ends in December of next year, the Governors are going to be down here with a bathtub asking us to fill it because if we don't do it, they are going to have to knock off thousands of people, millions in the country, because they don't have the money to provide for the program.

Now, providing extra dollars to States--and I predict it is going to happen. It will become an annual ritual for Congress, just as the doctors fix has become an annual ritual for doctors. Every year they come in. We are not going to cut the annual reimbursement. Next year it is 23 percent, I think. We are not going to fill the hole, and the Governors are going to be asking for the same kind of help. It is not only a mandate for them, it is going to become a mandate for us at a time when we are least able to handle anything like that.

So as a former Governor and a former mayor, a former county commissioner, I urge my colleagues to consider the impact this bill will have on their respective States. Think about it. Talk to your Governors. See what it is going to do to your States. I hope each of my colleagues will give careful thought to the potentially devastating effects it could have on each of their State budgets and to consult, as I said, with their Governors and to talk about the fact that if this happens, what is going to happen in terms of the Pac-Man eating up more money in their State and their inability to take care of primary and secondary education, higher education, and all of the other responsibilities State governments have.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to spend a minute discussing the very emotional and divisive issue of abortion. I personally believe that all children, born or unborn, are a precious gift from God, and we have a moral responsibility to protect them. It grieves me to think that there have been more than 40 million abortions performed in this country since 1973.

I am pleased to support the Nelson amendment that would apply the long-standing Hyde amendment, which currently prohibits Federal funding to pay for abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, to the health care reform bill.

The issue of abortion is one that results in very strong emotions on both sides of this issue. Because of the concerns that millions of Americans have with using Federal taxpayer dollars for abortion, Congress enacted the Hyde amendment. As my colleagues know, the Hyde amendment has restricted Federal Medicaid dollars from paying for abortion services since 1977, and has been applied to all other federally funded health care programs, including the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

Think about that, this language has been in place since the Ford administration, and has survived through the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush. That is 33 years, and all of a sudden, my colleagues want to change our policy on Federal funding of abortion.

We shouldn't be making this type of sweeping policy change in the health care legislation, and the Nelson amendment is a necessary addition to the bill in order to protect our current policy and the unborn.

I understand that not everyone in this country agrees with my position on abortion, but I am deeply concerned about the possible implications of spending taxpayer dollars on abortions when the issue so deeply divides Americans on ethical grounds.

While as I have said, I don't agree with abortion and believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned, the Nelson amendment does not prohibit anyone from seeking an abortion, it does not overturn Roe v. Wade, and it does not place any new restrictions on access to abortions.

It simply ensures that the taxpayer dollars will not pay for services that cause such deep moral divisions in our Nation. I think it is notable that this amendment is one of the few bipartisan amendments that the Senate will consider as part of this debate.

I am pleased that a similar amendment in the House of Representatives passed with a convincing margin, and I urge my colleagues to support the Nelson-Hatch amendment before the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate a distinguished American public administrator, Dr. James A. (Dolph) Norton, who is being awarded the 2009 George Graham Award for Exceptional Service by the National Academy of Public Administration, NAPA. NAPA is a congressionally chartered national institution created to help governments serve the public better and achieve excellence. Dr. Norton's career in public service stands as a shining example and testament to the high ideals of public administration that NAPA represents. His diverse and numerous accomplishments serve as an inspiration to those who may also aspire to careers in public administration.

During the course of his outstanding career, Dr. Norton earned degrees from both Louisiana State University and Harvard University. He served with distinction on the faculties at Florida State University, Case Western Reserve University, and the University of Virginia. He went on to become the chief executive officer of several organizations during times of notable achievement. He directed a comprehensive research study on urban governance for the city of Cleveland, served as director of the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation and director of the Cleveland Foundation, the Nation's oldest and then-largest community foundation, and as chancellor of the Ohio Board of Regents as the State innovated funding for centers of excellence at universities.

In retirement he answered the call to serve from several institutions of higher education throughout the Nation by providing the unique skills necessary to manage their transition from one generation of leadership to another. He served with distinction as interim chancellor of the University of Maryland System, interim president of Hiram College in Ohio, interim president of Adelphi University in New York, interim president of Bryant College in Rhode Island, interim chancellor of Lamar University System in Texas, and interim president of Central Washington University.

I commend Dr. Norton for his lifelong dedication to public service and outstanding leadership, and congratulate him on his award.

Mr. President, over the past several months I have come to the floor on a couple of occasions to remind my colleagues and the American people about the unsustainable fiscal crisis confronting this country.

Our national debt has exceeded $12 trillion for the first time in history. In fact from 2008 to 2009 alone, the Federal debt will increase 22 percent, boosting the country's debt-to-income ratio--or national debt as a percentage of GDP--from 70 percent last year to 86 percent this year. We have not seen this kind of debt to GDP ratio since the Second World War 65 years ago.

The American people know that this is unsustainable, but my Senate colleagues from on the other side of the aisle continue to ignore this reality. I pledged that I would continue to cry ``the emperor has no clothes'' until we did something to address this crisis.

I should explain. Most people know the story, ``The Emperor's New Clothes,'' by Hans Christian Anderson.

In the tale, an emperor goes about the land wearing a nonexistent suit sold to him by a new tailor who convinced the monarch the suit is made of the finest silks. The tailors--two swindlers--tell the emperor that the threads of his robes will be so fine that they will look invisible to those dimwitted, or unfit for their position. The emperor and his ministers, themselves unable to see the clothing, lavish the tailor with praise for the suit, because they do not want to appear dimwitted or incompetent.

Word spread across the kingdom of the emperor's beautiful new robes. To show off the extraordinary suit, a parade was formed. People lined the streets to see the emperor show off his new clothes. In this case, the health care reform bill before the Senate.

Again, afraid to appear stupid or unfit, everyone pretends to see the suit. It is only when a child cries out ``the emperor wears no clothes'' does the crowd acknowledge that the emperor is, in fact, naked.

Like the little boy crying out, those of us on this side of the aisle are pointing out this bill is fiscally not responsible.

Yet, while not addressing our current health care challenges, the so- called health care reform bill we are debating also creates new programs at a time when we aren't paying for the one we already have, and it adds $2.5 trillion to what we are already spending.

I learned as a mayor and as a Governor, if you cannot afford what you are doing, how can you take on new responsibilities?

We could be using this opportunity to fix our health care system by finally working to lower health care costs and pass those savings on to citizens who are already overburdened by an expensive health care system.

Yet instead of commonsense incremental reforms that increase access to affordable, quality health care, reduce the costs of health care for all Americans, and lower our national health care spending, we have this bill before us.

Unfortunately, the bill violates the medical principle, first, do no harm. Instead, it is more of the same--more spending and more taxes--on an already struggling economy, this at a time when we are currently witnessing the worst recession this country has experienced since the Great Depression.

The legislation we are considering when fully implemented, as I pointed out, spends $2.5 trillion to restructure our health care system. Yet it fails to rein in the cost of health spending in the next decade. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Government's commitment to health care; that is, the cost of health care paid for by the Federal Government, would actually increase. In other words, we are adding more on to this extraordinary debt we have-- unfunded mandates we have--in terms of Medicare.

The bill's proponents will tell you it is paid for. But as David Broder points out in his November 22 Washington Post editorial:

While CBO said that both the House-passed bill and the one

Reid has drafted meet Obama's test by being budget neutral,

every expert I have talked to says the public has it right.

These bills, as they stand, are budget-busters.

And that is what many people are hearing right now from their constituents, particularly many of those individuals who are taking advantage of the Medicare Advantage Program.

Furthermore, as former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, this bill uses ``every budget gimmick and trick in the books.''

What are these gimmicks? Most troubling to me and what my colleagues on the floor have been discussing for the last few days is what the bill does to the Medicare Program.

I think we need to be honest with the American people. The Medicare Program is already on shaky footing. Despite $37 trillion in unfunded-- unfunded--future Medicare costs and the prediction that the Medicare trust fund is expected to be insolvent by 2017, this bill calls for $465 billion in cuts to Medicare, not to fix the program but, as I said, to create new programs.

For example, this health care bill fails to acknowledge the $250 billion that is necessary to reform the Medicare physician payment formula to ensure that our Nation's seniors will be able to see the doctor of their choice in the future. I have heard it firsthand from family and friends that in some places in Ohio, Medicare beneficiaries already face delays for physician services.

Right in my hometown, I have had doctors tell me: George, if I have somebody before they are Medicare eligible and they go on Medicare, I will take care of them. I am not taking anymore new Medicare patients because of the reimbursement system. I heard the same thing in terms of Medicaid.

We have a problem out there. Sadly, my friends on the other side of the aisle do not want to be honest with the American people and include the cost of the physician payment fix in the bill. It should be there. Let's be honest about it. Let's be transparent. It is another example, I think, of the smoke and mirrors and budget gimmicks and tricks that former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin mentioned.

Like I said, we must fix our health care system to help millions of Americans who find themselves without insurance and those struggling to pay their health insurance premiums. We must increase competition in the private market, make it easier for small businesses and individuals to purchase insurance and reform our medical liability system. I call this malpractice lawsuit abuse reform. We should have done that a long time ago. But the fact is that the trial lawyers do not want that to happen. So we are doing nothing about a problem that is causing physicians to give unnecessary tests that are driving up the cost of health care in this country.

Most important, we need to focus our efforts on jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs because one of the best things we can do to increase health care coverage is to help businesses start to hire again. I need a job. One of the reasons I need a job is when I have a job, in most instances, I have some form of health care. We have a lot of people who are being dropped off. We need more jobs. We should be concentrating on that if we want to up the number of people who can get health care.

To repeat, we do not need to create another set of government programs that spends an additional $2.5 trillion to build a new entitlement system when we cannot afford the one we have now. That is the biggest thing with me. If you cannot afford what you have, how can you take on more? When we do that, we are being fiscally irresponsible. We should deal with what we have. It is amazing to me. If you look around the country, States are cutting their expenses and they are raising taxes. And what are we doing in Washington? We are taking on more expensive programs we cannot afford. That is what I think is troublesome to me as a debt hawk.

We need to understand what we are doing. The American people are paying attention and they know that the emperor has no clothes when it comes to doing something about our unsustainable fiscal crisis.

We are losing our credibility and our credit worldwide. They know it is immoral to be putting this debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. I believe this health care bill does that exactly. It exacerbates our current fiscal situation.

There are lots of good things out there, a lot of good things we all would like to do. But just like a family, if you cannot afford what you are doing now, how can you afford to take on more responsibility in terms of debt?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friend and Chairman on the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, Senator Akaka, to ensure that security clearance reform efforts begun in recent years continue by cosponsoring the Security Clearance Modernization and Reporting Act of 2009.

Since the 1990s, the Government's Accountability Office, GAO, has documented problems with the Department of Defense's, DoD, personnel security clearance program, and in 2005 added the program to its high- risk list. DoD's personnel security clearance program has remained on the 2007 and 2009 high risk lists.

In an effort to address this matter and improve the security clearance process, Congress set benchmarks for the time taken to issue clearances in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, IRTPA. IRTPA also required the President to select a single agency or office to oversee the security clearance process across the federal government and required uniform policies regarding the security clearance process, reciprocal recognition of security clearances among agencies, an evaluation of technology to expedite security clearance processes, and a plan to reduce the length of the security clearance process. While progress has been made to decrease the amount of time it takes to obtain a security clearance, more improvement is needed to fully reform the security clearance process, but reform efforts have been delayed this year by an interagency review of the security clearance reform initiatives undertaken over the past several years.

To ensure that the good work begun with passage of IRTPA in 2004, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Akaka's legislation that extends IRTPA's reporting requirements relating to security clearance reform efforts beyond their current 2011 expiration date and requires more details in those reports about the amount of time required by individual agencies to conduct both security clearance investigations and adjudications. To ensure that efforts begun over the past several years continue, the bill codifies portions of Executive Order 13467, which deals with reforming processes related to eligibility for access to classified information. The bill also calls for the development of the strategic plan GAO has been asking for since the DoD personnel security clearance program was put on its high risk list in 2005 and requires a more detailed information technology strategy relating to security clearance reform efforts.

I am proud to cosponsor this bill and thank the Senator from Hawaii for his work on this legislation to address such an important issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friend and Chairman on the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, Senator Akaka, to ensure that security clearance reform efforts begun in recent years continue by cosponsoring the Security Clearance Modernization and Reporting Act of 2009.

Since the 1990s, the Government's Accountability Office, GAO, has documented problems with the Department of Defense's, DoD, personnel security clearance program, and in 2005 added the program to its high- risk list. DoD's personnel security clearance program has remained on the 2007 and 2009 high risk lists.

In an effort to address this matter and improve the security clearance process, Congress set benchmarks for the time taken to issue clearances in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, IRTPA. IRTPA also required the President to select a single agency or office to oversee the security clearance process across the federal government and required uniform policies regarding the security clearance process, reciprocal recognition of security clearances among agencies, an evaluation of technology to expedite security clearance processes, and a plan to reduce the length of the security clearance process. While progress has been made to decrease the amount of time it takes to obtain a security clearance, more improvement is needed to fully reform the security clearance process, but reform efforts have been delayed this year by an interagency review of the security clearance reform initiatives undertaken over the past several years.

To ensure that the good work begun with passage of IRTPA in 2004, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Akaka's legislation that extends IRTPA's reporting requirements relating to security clearance reform efforts beyond their current 2011 expiration date and requires more details in those reports about the amount of time required by individual agencies to conduct both security clearance investigations and adjudications. To ensure that efforts begun over the past several years continue, the bill codifies portions of Executive Order 13467, which deals with reforming processes related to eligibility for access to classified information. The bill also calls for the development of the strategic plan GAO has been asking for since the DoD personnel security clearance program was put on its high risk list in 2005 and requires a more detailed information technology strategy relating to security clearance reform efforts.

I am proud to cosponsor this bill and thank the Senator from Hawaii for his work on this legislation to address such an important issue.

Mr. President, since arriving in the Senate in 1999, I have made improving the Federal workforce a priority. In that time, I have served as both chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, and have participated in many hearings to examine the personnel needs of the Federal Government. In fact, I recently attended my 52nd hearing examining Federal human capital issues.

As my colleagues surely know, over the next several years the Federal workforce will experience an unprecedented demographic transition. By December 2012, 250,000 Federal employees are expected to retire. To maintain current staff levels amidst the impending wave of Baby Boomer retirements, and to cope with the increasing workload being placed on civil servants by Congress and the administration, more than 600,000 positions will need to be filled over this time period.

This hiring challenge will be particularly significant for those positions designated by Federal agencies as ``mission-critical,'' or necessary for carrying out basic agency responsibilities. In its recently released survey of the coming hiring challenge, Where the Jobs Are, the Partnership for Public Service estimates that 273,000 new public servants--from doctors to intelligence analysts, program managers to police officers--will need to be brought on board to maintain current staffing levels, a 40 percent increase from the previous 3-year period.

Successfully meeting this human capital challenge will require a sustained, multi-pronged effort addressing a host of issues. The Federal hiring process needs streamlining, improvements must continue in the processing of security clearances, and agencies will need to approach future hiring decisions in a strategic fashion rather than a tactical, reactive one.

No matter how effectively the Federal hiring process is planned for and managed, however, an effective workforce cannot be built in the absence of talented individuals willing to pursue careers in public service. The need for well-qualified young people with aspirations to careers in public service is particularly important for mission-

critical occupations, which tend to require highly specialized skill sets that too often are in short supply.

At the same time, the average debt load undergraduate and graduate students must bear to finance their education continues to increase. As a result, many young Americans who would otherwise be eager to join the civil service are prevented from doing so.

In an effort to help established a talent pipeline for such mission- critical positions, today I join with the distinguished Senator from New York, Senator Gillibrand, and the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Senator Kaufman, to introduce legislation aimed at encouraging and enabling young people with valuable, mission-critical skills to pursue careers in public service.

The Roosevelt Scholars Act of 2009 would establish a foundation named in honor of our 26th President and a principal architect of the modern civil service, Theodore Roosevelt. The Theodore Roosevelt Scholarship Foundation would be charged with awarding scholarships to outstanding undergraduate and graduate students pursuing fields of study identified by Federal agencies as mission-critical. In return for tuition support and a small stipend, selected students--dubbed Roosevelt Scholars-- would be required to engage in 3 to 5 years of service with a Federal agency in need of an individual with a Roosevelt Scholar's unique skill set. Scholarships would be provided through the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Scholarship Trust Fund, whose endowment would eventually provide a self-sustaining funding mechanism for Roosevelt Scholarships.

I am pleased to be joined in offering this legislation by enthusiastic partners. Senator Gillibrand is a strong supporter of encouraging Americans to pursue careers in public service, and I am thankful for her diligent work in advancing this legislation. Likewise, Senator Kaufman has demonstrated his strong support of our Nation's civil servants by his frequent appearances on the floor of this chamber to recognize the accomplishments of outstanding Federal employees. And on the other side of the Capitol Rotunda, Representatives David Price and Michael Castle are already hard at work promoting this important legislation.

The higher education community has been quick to see the promise offered by the Roosevelt Scholars Act. More than 100 public and private universities have endorsed this legislation, and the list continues to grow.

I will be the first to tell my colleagues that problems as daunting as those facing the Federal workforce are not solved overnight. I have learned from 18 years as a public executive--first as mayor of Cleveland, then as Governor of Ohio--that progress on such challenges is made incrementally. Opportunities offered by legislation like the Roosevelt Scholars Act are important components in a larger strategy.

I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring the Roosevelt Scholars Act, and look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to provide young people the opportunity to pursue a career in public service as Roosevelt Scholars.

Madam President, I wish to recognize the promotion of U.S. Army Reserve BG Mark C. Arnold.

On November 14, 2009, Mark Arnold will be promoted to brigadier general. He has more than 32 years of military service including time served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was commissioned a distinguished military graduate and holds a bachelor of science degree from Ohio University, my alma mater, and he also holds a master of business administration degree from Cleveland State University.

Brigadier General Arnold began his military career as an infantryman and has completed the airborne course, jumpmaster course, pathfinder course, air assault course, ranger course, special forces qualification course, psychological operations course, civil affairs course, Combined Arms Services Staff School, Command and General Staff College, and the Army War College where he completed his master of strategic studies.

Brigadier General Arnold is presently assigned as the deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Reserve 81st Regional Support Command at Fort Jackson, SC. He is also the president and chief executive officer of GSE, which is a $500 million multinational manufacturing firm. He has demonstrated that he is a ``Warrior- Citizen'' who is equally committed to the defense of our great Nation and the advancement of his community. I applaud his commitment to public service as well as his commitment to his community.

The State of Ohio and all Americans congratulate Brigadier General Arnold for his tireless dedicated duty to protect freedom, ensure liberty, and defend the principles of the United States. Leaders like Brigadier General Arnold will ensure the United States will continue to prosper as the world's greatest Nation.

I want to extend congratulations and my sincere regards and best wishes to Brigadier General Arnold and his family in honor of his promotion.

Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Akaka for leading this amendment to recognize FEBs' role in preparing the Federal workforce for emergencies. FEBs participate in a number of activities in this regard, including working with the Department of Health and Human Services to brief the Federal workforce on points of distribution that can be set up to dispense medication during health emergencies and working with the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, and the Chief Human Officers Council to distribute information on human resources flexibilities available during snow storms and other emergencies. Our floor amendment clarifies that these activities can and should continue.

Mr. President, I concur with my colleague. Our floor amendment requires FEBs to coordinate with appropriate agencies for preparedness, response, and COOP. We do not mean that OPM must enter into a memorandum of understanding with every agency that participates in an FEB or every agency that is affected by an FEB. We believe OPM should have the discretion and flexibility to determine which agencies are the ``appropriate agencies'' to coordinate with in any particular situation as well as the discretion to decide when that coordination needs to be defined in memoranda of understanding or other formal agreement.

Mr. President, I am honored to serve as the congressional cochairman of National Bible Week 2009. National Bible Week, which will be held from November 22 to 29, was created to underscore the importance of regular Bible study and scripture reading. The Bible is the word of God. I know that many of us could not face the challenges, stress, and heavy burden of serving during this critical time for our country, if it were not for the daily guidance God provides us through scripture--and for those of us in the Catholic faith, reception of the Blessed Sacrament. I believe that my colleagues and I need to pay special attention to the lessons the Bible teaches us, as we work together to make a difference for our country.

The enormity of what confronts us makes it is easy to become frustrated, discouraged and tired. Thankfully, the Bible provides us with inspiration, strength, and wisdom to motivate us. Prominently displayed in my office is a picture showing an eagle soaring high in the sky. One of my favorite Bible verses, Isaiah 40:31 adorns the frame, it reads:

Those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They

will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow

weary, they will walk and not be faint.

As I read those words so often, I am reminded that the Holy Spirit is always present and willing to inspire and help us. Isaiah reminds us that we can certainly try to tackle the big issues on our own, but that without the Holy Spirit by our side, the road will be long and arduous.

My colleagues have often heard me express my desire to address the ballooning Federal deficit, to create an economic climate that is conducive to

higher job-growth, and to improve the standard of living and quality of life of our children and grandchildren--undertakings that take much time and effort. Isaiah's message makes the importance and urgency of these undertakings no less daunting, but does reassure us that if we trust in the Holy Spirit, he will allow us to persevere.

I urge all Americans to celebrate National Bible Week to discover the lessons, inspiration and guidance that God's scripture provides for each of us.

Madam President, I rise in support of the Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2010. This legislation will help our Nation perform a variety of vital functions that serve to protect the Nation's environment, properly manage its natural resources and provide funding for critical water infrastructure projects. The bill will fund the activities of a number of important initiatives such as the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. This bill will help to ensure that we wisely spend our Federal monies in the most effective and efficient manner possible.

In particular, I would like to address the specific language in the conference report addressing the request for a study regarding the use of hydraulic fracturing, an extremely important tool that will help us unlock the vast potential of our own domestic oil and gas supplies. As we all know, it is in the best interests of our Nation to become more energy secure and to reduce our reliance on foreign oil supplies. Harmful reliance on foreign supplies can certainly have adverse national security and economic implications for our country. No country can remain a leading player in the community of nations if it must increasingly rely on other nations for one of the bedrock elements of its economy. Current events compel us to proceed forward with the efficient development of our own domestic energy resources. Our continued economic prosperity, as well as the national security of the country itself, depends on the development of clean, secure and affordable energy supplies such as natural gas.

One of the most significant ways to help us tap our natural gas is through the use of hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is a technique that has been commonly used in industry for many decades to allow our gas reserves below ground to move freely from the rock pores where it is trapped to a producing well that can readily bring the gas to the surface. This technique is particularly used to help us tap the vast potential of our unconventional gas supplies in the United States, including tight geological formations like some coalbeds, sandstones and shales where huge amounts of gas presently are located. To obtain this gas, a well is drilled into this area and a fracturing fluid, usually consisting primarily of water and sand. This highly-reliable and cost-effective technology was developed in the late 1940s and has been continuously improved and applied since that time.

Hydraulic fracturing will undoubtedly play an important role in our future energy plans. Hydraulic fracturing will help us to develop our vast potential of oil and gas supplies more efficiently and will allow us to develop many resources that we would not otherwise be able to retrieve. Application of hydraulic fracturing to increase recovery is estimated to account for 30 percent of U.S. recoverable oil and gas reserves and has been responsible for the addition of more than 7 billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to meet the Nation's energy needs. The National Petroleum Council estimates that 60 to 80 percent of all the wells drilled in the next decade to meet natural gas demand will require fracturing.

In 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a report on hydraulic fracturing which the Agency characterized as the most extensive study of the technique ever performed. That study focused on hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane wells, which was viewed as a ``worst case'' scenario in terms of the potential impacts on drinking water aquifers because hydraulic fracturing of these coalbed methane wells tends to take place at shallower depths than hydraulic fracturing of shales or other types of formations. This study carefully investigated all of the facts of hydraulic fracturing and was extensively reviewed by numerous EPA offices, other Federal agencies, a panel of technical experts and members of the public. Based on its investigation, this study again confirmed that there is no evidence that hydraulic fracturing has resulted in the contamination of drinking water supplies and that this technique poses little threat to human health and the environment.

In light of this work, the Congress reaffirmed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that hydraulic fracturing should not be regulated as underground injection under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act except in very limited circumstances. Federal regulation would not result in any additional environmental benefits and could impose unnecessary burdens on the use of this critical technology that would impede development of our domestic energy resources.

This new study that Congress is requesting of the Environmental Protection Agency is intended to review the risks, if any, that hydraulic fracturing poses to drinking water sources. Just like the Agency's prior study, this study should be conducted using a systematic, scientific approach that assures transparency, validity, and accuracy. The study should be based on accepted quality assurance guidelines to ensure that the information on which the study is based is of sufficient quality to support the study's conclusions. It should be properly peer-reviewed by qualified experts in accordance with standard practices, and should also draw on the expertise of those both inside and outside the Federal Government who can contribute relevant information to a high quality study. These contributors should include other appropriate Federal agencies as well as the State regulators who have many years of experience with hydraulic fracturing. This study should eventually be made available for review and comment by interested members of the public prior to being finalized.

At the same time, since we have already studied hydraulic fracturing, it would be prudent for any proposed study to fully take into account other studies that have already been undertaken by Federal or State governmental agencies, councils, commissions, or advisory committees. For example, given the significant effort associated with the Agency's prior 2004 study, it would certainly be prudent to fully consider this study in undertaking any further examination of hydraulic fracturing. The 2004 study spent a considerable amount of time examining the hydraulic fracturing process, including the depth at which hydraulic fracturing activities take place as compared to the much shallower depths of drinking water aquifers, the physical characteristics of the rock formations that separate the zones targeted for oil and gas production and the drinking water aquifers and the creation of fractures during the hydraulic fracturing process.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the study should be based on well-recognized principles of risk assessment to determine whether there is any realistic risk that individuals may be exposed to substances used in the hydraulic fracturing process at levels that could possibly be considered harmful.

I believe that a targeted study of hydraulic fracturing is the most efficient way to use our resources to accomplish the goals of this study. We need to continue to develop our domestic energy resources, including clean-burning natural gas. A focused approach to the study will allow us to address concerns about hydraulic fracturing while facilitating the continued use of this critical technology.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, several weeks ago I came to the floor to remind my colleagues and all Americans about the fiscal realities in which we find ourselves. I promised I would continue these efforts until we did something to address this crisis, so my colleagues are going to see a lot of me between now and the end of the year. Hopefully something will get done on this issue before the end of the year.

Unfortunately, I return today to tell my colleagues that the bill to repeal the Medicare physician payment formula the Senate considered earlier today is a step in the opposite direction, and I was very pleased with the vote on that. There were 47 votes for cloture and 53 votes in opposition, so we had more opposed than we had for cloture.

When I spoke here earlier this fall, I discussed one of my children's favorite stories, ``The Emperor's New Clothes'' by Hans Christian Anderson. This little piece of artwork I have in the Chamber is in that fairytale.

In the tale, an emperor goes about the land wearing a nonexistent suit sold to him by a new tailor who convinced the monarch the suit was made of the finest silks. The tailors--two swindlers--tell the emperor that the threads of his robes will be so fine that they will look invisible to those dimwitted or unfit for their position. The emperor and his ministers, themselves unable to see the clothing, lavish the tailor with praise for the suit because they do not want to appear to be dimwitted or incompetent.

Word spread across the kingdom of the emperor's beautiful new clothes. To show off the extraordinary suit, a parade was formed. People lined the streets to see the emperor show off his new clothes. Again, afraid to appear stupid or unfit, everyone pretends to see the suit. It is only when a child cries out ``the emperor wears no clothes'' does the crowd acknowledge that the emperor is, in fact, naked.

Mr. President, much like the emperor in this story, America's elected leaders know we face a fiscal train wreck, but we are choosing to ignore our current economic reality. The American people know ``we are naked,'' and so does the rest of the world, and our credibility and our credit are at risk, but we refuse to acknowledge what is obvious: When it comes to fiscal responsibility, ``the emperor wears no clothes.'' Yet earlier today we had a vote on whether to proceed to a bill that would have added $247 billion to our Nation's debt. The interest alone adds another $50 billion in debt over the next 10 years. We are just going to put it on the national credit card and let our children and grandchildren take care of it. We are the biggest credit card abusers in the world, and the credit cards we are using are the credit cards of my children and grandchildren and other Americans. I am pleased, as I said, that a majority of my colleagues joined me in opposing moving forward with this legislation.

The President has said the health care reform bill would not add one

dime to the deficit. Yet the bill we voted on earlier today should be a larger part of reform legislation, and it is going to spend over $\1/4\ trillion without paying for it--that is what would have happened.

I suppose it is easy to make claims about health care reform legislation not adding to the deficit when Congress takes the parts that cost money off the table, but to do so is fiscally irresponsible and morally corrupt.

The physician fix was left out of the Finance Committee, I suspect, not because my colleagues do not agree it is a fundamental part of health care reform but because it would have cost money my colleagues did not want to account for in the bill. If the Finance Committee would have included the fix in their bill, the $81 billion surplus they say the bill will create would have quickly turned into a deficit. That is unacceptable, and I am not the only one who feels that way. The Washington Post discussed the effort to take the fix for the sustainable growth formula--the formula that calculates reimbursement for physicians under Medicare--out of the larger health care bill as a ``shell game'' and ``budgetary smoke and mirrors.'' This is just another illustration of our out-of-control spending that has caused our national debt to skyrocket.

One of the reasons I ran for the Senate and came to Washington a long time ago was to reduce the Federal debt and balance our budgets. That is what I did when I was mayor of Cleveland. That is what I did when I was Governor of Ohio. When I arrived in the Senate in 1999, the gross national debt stood at $5.6 trillion, or 61 percent of the GDP. Today, the gross national debt is nearly $11.8 trillion, and the President will be coming before us to raise the national debt to, I think, over $12 trillion. The 2009 deficit stands at about $1.4 trillion.

I just got back 2 weeks ago from Athens, Greece, and an Organization for Security and Co-operation meeting in Athens. When I shared with my colleagues that we borrowed $1.4 trillion to run the government--and they were all asking for help--they were astounded. They just could not believe it. I also reminded them that debt was like the debt we racked up during the Second World War. In other words, that is the period to which you can compare it. So the 2009 deficit stands at $1.4 trillion and at $9.1 trillion over the next decade, which does not include the borrowing from the trust funds and which is three times the largest deficit in our history.

It does not take an economist to realize our current course is unsustainable. The Medicare Program is scheduled to be bankrupt by 2017. I cannot understand why we are not talking about that. That means the supply of money coming in is not going to be enough to take care of the demand--just what is happening now in Social Security. In the next couple years, the money coming in is not going to be adequate to take care of people who are on Social Security, so we are going to have to borrow that money in order to take care of their needs. We need to take a comprehensive look at the program.

I will be the first to admit we must honor our commitment to our Nation's seniors and ensure they have access to quality health care services. I have heard it firsthand from family and friends that in some places in Ohio, Medicare beneficiaries face delays for physician services right now. In fact, 6.8 percent of Ohioans live in a designated primary care shortage area. We need more doctors and nurses. The situation is only going to get worse. Thirty-nine percent of physicians are over the age of 50 and considering limiting the amount of time they see patients.

For these reasons, I have been advocating for the past several years that we need a permanent and commonsense fix for the flawed sustainable growth rate formula, which we refer to as the doc fix. I do not think there is anyone on either side of the aisle who disagrees. We need to do that. Yet this bill we just considered is not the way to do it. Any fix must be part of a larger conversation, and it must be done in a way that does not simply add to the burden we are already placing on our children and grandchildren.

I am pleased that in a letter last week to Senator Reid, 10 Senate Democrats joined me in this conclusion, asking the majority leader that he get serious about the Federal debt and tax and entitlement reform. They believe, as I do, that we cannot continue to keep spending without consequence. As I have been advocating, we must give larger reform serious thought before it is too late. We must act on the tough issues today.

As Gerald Seib noted in the Wall Street Journal yesterday:

Administration officials also know they have little choice

but to start showing early next year that they take the

deficit seriously, for both political and economic reasons.

That is why Senator Lieberman and I have introduced legislation called Securing America's Future Economy, which basically creates a bipartisan commission that would deal with the deficit and deal with tax reform; that if a supermajority of those agree to the solution, that would get expedited procedure on the floor of the Senate and move to an up-or-down vote, very much like we do with the BRAC process. We have been trying to do this now for 4 years. We have talked to the OMB Director, Peter Orszag. It is interesting. Two years ago he was with a lot of former CBO Directors and said, We have to have a commission. It is the only way we are going to deal with entitlements; it is the only way we are going to deal with tax reform, yet we are not able to convince the administration to move forward with us to tackle this very heavy responsibility.

Time is running out. The dollar is going down. People are talking about not using the dollar as an exchange anymore. Most of the economic experts say if we keep going on this unsustainable course, we are going to see interest rates start to skyrocket in this country. Over half our debt is in the hands of the Chinese and the Indians and the OPEC nations and Japan. We are in bad shape. The public understands it. They understand. They understand that the emperor has no clothes. We are not doing anything about the problem, and they get it today.

I happen to believe that the undertow that is out there in the country today in terms of health care reform and in terms of climate change is the fact that the American people understand that things aren't right. The American people in the Presiding Officer's State, in my State, do you know what they are doing? They are buying less. They are not putting it on their cards. They are trying to save some money. They know they have been on a binge. They look to us and they say, What are you doing? What are you doing? We care about ourselves, but we also care about our children and grandchildren. It is not fair to those individuals to do what we are doing.

We have a moral obligation to do what we can to try to make sure this generation's standard of living will not be less than those who came before them. Many people believe that is going to be the case. The passage of the legislation to fix the physician payment formula by borrowing more money will only help guarantee that they are right.

We have a serious problem. I will be coming to the floor over and over to see if we can't do it. I am going to do what I can to convince the President that he ought to participate in setting up this commission, working with Senator Gregg and Senator Kent Conrad, to see if we can't get them together to agree on what this commission would look like. We are hoping the President is alert enough to know that if he doesn't deal with this problem, it is not only a substantive problem that needs to be dealt with but a major political problem that he is going to have. The American public demands that we start talking about doing something about this problem and they know we are running out of time.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from West Virginia in presenting the fiscal year 2010 appropriations conference report for the Department of Homeland Security.

As my colleagues know, it is after October 1--the start of a new fiscal year--and the Department of Homeland Security's programs and activities are being funded under a continuing resolution because we did not complete our work on time. I think this is unfortunate. The House adopted its version of the bill on June 24 and the Senate adopted it on July 9.

When I was mayor and Governor of Ohio, I would have lost my job if the budget were not done in time or the appropriations not done on time. I think everyone would agree that this is not the way to properly run our operation. I know of no good explanation as to why we could not have resolved our differences to allow this conference agreement to be signed into law before this date.

Senator Byrd said the conference report recommends a total of $44.1 billion in appropriations to support programs and activities of the Department of Homeland Security. Of this amount, $42.8 billion is for discretionary spending, and this is roughly $254 million less than the President's total discretionary request. I wish to make that clear, that it is less than the President requested.

In addition, $1.4 billion is provided for the Coast Guard retired pay--the only mandatory appropriations account in the conference report--and $241.5 million is provided for Coast Guard overseas contingency operations.

The conference report includes significant resources for border security and enforcement of our immigration laws, for continued improvements in security at our Nation's airports and modes of surface transportation, for the Coast Guard operations and recapitalization, for helping our citizens prepare for and recover from natural disasters, and for equipping and training our Nation's first responders. I think Senator Byrd did a beautiful job in terms of his five reasons and the things we ought to be doing, and that is what we have tried to do in this report, to respond to those five goals Senator Byrd outlined.

As Senator Byrd has indicated, there is much in this conference report to recommend. I am not going to list all of the funding recommendations, but I do wish to note some. This is very important: Full funding is provided for border security. This includes funds to support 20,163 Border Patrol agents, 21,124 Customs and border protection officers, and 33,400 detention beds. These are the beds we use when we pick up people and we put them there and hold them until we return them to where they came from. Also included is $800 million to continue work on the virtual border fence and to improve radio communications.

Starting in fiscal year 2005, significant increases have been provided for border and immigration enforcement. Fewer people are illegally crossing our borders. This can be seen in the decrease in apprehensions of aliens along our borders from nearly 1.2 million in fiscal year 2005 to nearly 724,000 in fiscal year 2008. More fencing, roads, and personnel have allowed the Border Patrol to increase the number of miles over which it has effective control from 253 miles in October of 2005 to 729 miles in March of 2009.

Additional agents and detention beds have allowed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to increase total removals of aliens from nearly 247,000 removals in fiscal year 2005 to approximately 347,000 in fiscal year 2008. We are making significant progress in terms of our border protection and going after these illegal aliens.

This fiscal year 2010 conference report provides nearly $16 billion in appropriations for these activities. This will allow us to continue making progress, but we still have a long way to go and at a great expense. One of these days I am going to come to the Senate floor and talk about how much money we have spent and how much money we are going to have to continue to spend if we are going to do anything about the problems of illegal aliens in this country.

While this conference report is significant for what it includes, it excludes two important provisions added to this bill when it was considered by this Senate, including a permanent extension of the E- Verify program and the extension of E-Verify to current employees. I would have preferred to have the conference agreement to include both provisions, but my House colleagues were not so inclined. Even though this conference agreement does not permanently authorize E-Verify programs as opposed to the Senate bill, it does extend the program's authorization for an additional 3 years, allowing its continued development as a crucial tool for employers to ensure a legal workforce. However, it does not include the Senate provision offered by my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, which would have given employers the flexibility to voluntarily check their entire workforce and not solely new hires.

The administration expressed concerns that the provision could tax the capacity of E-Verify. Let me tell my colleagues, E-Verify has the capacity to handle more than 60 million queries a year and it has received less than 8.7 in fiscal year 2009. Capacity does not seem to be a barrier of this program, and this is an issue I hope we are going to revisit one of these days.

I wish to thank the chairman of the Senate subcommittee, my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. It has been an honor for me to work with Senator Byrd this year. This is my first year on Appropriations, and who do I have as my chairman but the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Madam President, I wish to thank Mr. Price, the ranking member of the House committee, and Mr. Rogers for their substantial contributions to this bill. It has taken many hours of hard work by these Members and their staffs to reach the agreements which are presented to the Senate today. While everything is not settled to my liking, I believe this is a balanced set of recommendations which reflects many of the Department's priorities and achieves a reasonable degree of compromise in some of the more contentious issues.

I again wish to join Senator Byrd in commending our staff. Mr. Kieffer has been wonderful to work with. The folks on my side, Carol and Rebecca. I am a new member of the Appropriations Committee. I have never seen staff work as conscientiously as we have had for the Appropriations Committee. Senator Byrd, it is almost like magic they do such a good job for us. So again, I wish to thank them for their good work.

Madam President, I recommend this conference report to my colleagues for their consideration, and I support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of our subcommittee, Senator Byrd, for the outstanding job he has done in finally putting together this conference report so it can be considered by the Senate.

I also acknowledge the tremendous help we have gotten from our staff on this piece of legislation. I am sorry that Carol Cribbs cannot be here today. Carol worked very hard on this legislation. She is at home after taking a big fall and cutting her face, and I want to mention her name and let her know we miss her and we appreciate the good job she has done for us. Rebecca Davies has worked very hard on this legislation, and I appreciate it. She was bringing in a neophyte. This is my first opportunity to be on the Appropriations Committee.

There have been several issues raised here by some of my colleagues on our side of the aisle that are things that should be taken into consideration. The Senator from Arizona continues to make the case in terms of earmarks, and I am sure he will continue to do that, and we do respect what he has to say about that issue. But I believe the way this legislation is put together carefully justifies people on my side of the aisle supporting this legislation, in spite of some of the things the Senator from Arizona talked about.

In addition to the provisions that deal with Guantanamo Bay, I wish to point out that the language in this conference report is the same language that appeared in the June Defense supplemental that was passed in 2009, which continues to be the law under the continuing resolution. Fundamentally, what we do is put that same language here in this conference report.

If somebody reads the conference report, on page 38, they can see, in spite of the fine words of the Senator from Illinois, there is a large barrier the President has to go over before he could let anyone here into this country. And if he does let them here, as Senator Durbin has said, they would be here for prosecution. But there are seven hurdles that have to be met by the President. Once he does that, then 45 days thereafter he could bring someone in for prosecution. So I think anyone who is concerned about bringing a bunch of the Gitmo people here in the United States for any other reason but prosecution should be comforted by the fact of this language. Also, I point out, there is language in the Senate Defense appropriations bill that also deals with this subject.

So for all intents and purposes, I think we have done a fairly good job. Frankly, I wish we had adopted this conference report a month and a half ago. But we did not. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.