Floor Statements

First, I wish to begin by recognizing the extraordinary leadership of majority leader Harry Reid, Chairman Baucus, Chairman Dodd, and Chairman Harkin to get us to this point.

Commonsense and cost-effective health care reform is now the law of the land. The question before the Senate now is whether we will make some important improvements to that reform or whether we will respond to the wishes of the insurance industry and others who want to preserve a broken status quo of higher premiums and dwindling coverage for middle-class families.

Yesterday, President Obama signed into law a health insurance reform bill that will cut the deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years, ensure that health insurance companies actually provide Americans with the coverage that they pay for, and preserve Medicare for our senior citizens. That is no small achievement, and it would be a tragedy if the other side of the aisle persists in its effort to defeat health care reform by seeking to delay and up-end the package of improvements in the bill that we are now debating.

It sometimes gets lost in the heated rhetoric of the other side, but under the status quo, the healthy are faced with ever-increasing costs and the ill are denied care, dropped from coverage, and prevented from purchasing coverage. The new health insurance reforms will provide relief for every American. Indeed, under the law just signed by President Obama, these five reforms will take place by the fall of next year:

No child will be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition.

Small businesses will receive a 35-percent tax credit to purchase insurance for their employees.

Seniors on Medicare who confront the doughnut hole will receive additional assistance.

Health insurers will be required to spend more of their premium revenues on clinical services, with less going to administrative costs and profits, or else they must pay a rebate to policy holders.

And our State's Community Health Centers will receive a boost in Federal resources.

Rhode Islanders will particularly welcome this relief. Just last week, Rhode Islanders learned that health insurance premiums in the State will go up 10 percent this year. In the same week, they also received news that as many as 21 percent of individuals in the State will be without insurance sometime during this year. This is double the rate of uninsured just 10 years ago.

In Rhode Island, these two headlines, coupled with an unemployment rate of nearly 13 percent, have caused a perfect storm.

As the economy took jobs away from Rhode Islanders, it also took away their health insurance. The healthy hoped not to get sick, the sick started showing up in hospital emergency rooms, and those who still had access to insurance stopped being able to afford it.

Hospitals in Rhode Island can no longer shoulder the burden of the uninsured. Community health centers in Rhode Island can no longer shoulder the burden of the uninsured. Indeed, the economy can no longer shoulder the burden of the uninsured.

Today we are considering a bill that makes further improvements to the health insurance reform law. Indeed, these are changes that Americans have consistently said they want, and that is why we should support this bill. It is also why I intend to oppose the legislative maneuvers from the other side of the aisle. They are interested in overturning the reform of our health care system, reforms which have replaced the costly status quo with a system based on more competitive markets. They are in favor of a system where the whim of insurance companies rule. They are in favor of a health care system in which costs continue to rise at astronomical rates each year for families and for businesses.

It may be politically heartening for the other side to try and slow down reform through a series of repetitive amendments, but I think Rhode Islanders and all Americans want us to pass the bill because it contains straightforward proposals.

First, this reconciliation bill, as it is known, would eliminate the so-called Corn-Husker kickback, which would have created an entirely inappropriate Medicaid reimbursement system exclusively for one State. Gone too are other provisions that would have unfairly supported some States and not others.

Second, this bill begins the process of closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap, also known as the doughnut hole, which requires seniors to pay more for their medications than they ordinarily would. This year seniors would receive $250 when they enter the doughnut hole and pay less for drugs they purchase once they enter this coverage gap.

Third, at a time when so many of us are worried about government spending, this bill does more to reduce the budget deficit so that we can save up to $1.3 trillion in the next two decades. Those are real savings. I find it ironic that some on the other side oppose them.

Fourth, the bill makes sure the so-called Cadillac tax, which was intended to affect the most expensive health care plans, is reduced by 80 percent so that it hits its intended targets, not middle-class families.

Fifth, the bill recognizes that we should do even more to help struggling families afford health insurance, and so it provides new tax breaks to help make coverage more affordable.

As I said, in the next few days my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are expected to file and attempt to offer numerous amendments to this bill. These are tactics that are purely dilatory. That is, again, another reason I will oppose the amendments. Some of these amendments may seem as though they are common sense, but each one is designed for the purpose of derailing this legislation, of sending it back to the House, of undercutting the most significant reform of health care in the last several decades.

But there is another aspect to this legislation which is vitally important; that is, the improvement to the student support system for higher education. It is the dream of every parent that their child will have a better life, and a big part of that dream is that they will have the opportunity to go on to college or even an advanced degree. This bill ends the student aid system that gives away billions of Federal subsidies to private banks, including some that helped create the 2008 financial meltdown, and instead puts those taxpayer dollars directly into the hands of students to pay for their education.

During this economic downturn, paying for college has become all the more difficult for many families in Rhode Island and across the Nation. Like health care, one of the top concerns of families as they sit around their kitchen tables during these difficult times is how they will pay for their child's education. The key to ensuring our Nation's economic stability and progress is also providing access to education. It is the engine that moves people forward. It is what expands our capacity and our capabilities in a complex world.

Now we have the opportunity so that we can, in fact, provide additional assistance through Pell grants, and we can do it by saving money from bank subsidies and reinvesting that in Pell grants. Approximately $42 billion will be freed up; over $35 billion will be committed to Pell grants. It will be expanded to additional recipients, and the maximum grant will increase to nearly $6,000. We will also provide in Rhode Island $7.5 million for information so that families and students can locate the best arrangements for their college education, for their financial aid. It will also invest $2 billion in community colleges, which have become a central part of our educational system, particularly for those people who are transitioning into the workforce or through the workforce.

One final point: It is particularly fitting that we are investing in the Pell grant, named after my predecessor Senator Claiborne Pell. His vision to give people the opportunity to higher education and then to stand back and watch them do great things has been legitimized and vindicated over 30 years. I don't think Senator Pell foresaw the Internet. I don't know how much he used it even when it arrived. But he knew if we gave people the skills and talents, they would do great things. They have done great things.

With this legislation, they will do even more.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 24, 2010, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I join my colleague and friend Senator Whitehouse in paying tribute to an extraordinary American, an extraordinary Rhode Islander, George Panichas. Senator Whitehouse, with eloquence and obviously great feeling that I share with him, recognized this extraordinary individual. He has been a friend and a mentor to both of us. He has been a force throughout his life for not only what we believe is central to America--opportunity for all, a sense of fairness and justice and decency--but he also has been intimately involved in his native land, Greece and Cyprus.

He is someone who represents the ideal of what an American should be. As a young man, he was a member of, at that time, the U.S. Army Air Corps. He flew 50 missions. He was a gunner on the aircraft. I think all of us recognize--although we did not participate in such challenging assignments--the kind of courage and mental toughness it takes to get in that aircraft and risk your life 50 times at least and to do so in an atmosphere of tension and danger. And George did it.

Like so many of his generation, when he came home, he did not boast about it. He decided, though, that his service was not going to end with his discharge from the U.S. Army Air Corps. He was going to continue to serve this Nation because he had participated with his colleagues, his contemporaries, in a noble effort. He understood the decency of America. He was part of it, and he understood the great challenges ahead--challenges to build a fair, just, and more equal society. He took it upon himself to do that in many ways.

He was a successful businessman. That was just one aspect of his contribution to the community. He was, as my colleague said, a State representative in our house of representatives. He was the first Greek American elected to the State house in Rhode Island. He was a staunch advocate for veterans. He was the leader of an effort that started many years ago in the sixties and seventies to build a State veterans cemetery in Rhode Island and to continue to maintain the highest quality at our State's veterans home. In fact, those two institutions, particularly the cemetery, are monuments to his efforts.

He undertook this great effort at a time when there was a lot of discussion about the service of veterans, but no one was standing up and doing what George was doing--cajoling and persuading and convincing and using all manner of his charming temperament and his booming voice to start to assemble the resources in Rhode Island, and then nationally, to build what I feel--and I am sure I am speaking for my colleague--is the finest State veterans cemetery in the country. It is a place of reverence. It is a place of inspiration. It is a place the families of Rhode Island veterans feel is appropriate as a resting place of those who served this Nation.

In October of 2008, in recognition of his great dedication and service, the administration building at the cemetery was named after George--a fitting tribute.

In addition to being an active patriot of his country, our country, the United States of America, he never lost sight of the need to be a powerful force in Greek-American relations. His constant efforts to assist, both in terms of business enterprises in Greece and in terms of charitable organizations in Greece, and his continued work to pull together the bonds between Greece and the United States were remarkable. He was someone who was keenly interested and very effective in advocating a wise American policy toward Greece and Cyprus and to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

He was an extraordinary individual, and he will be missed. In all his endeavors, he had the support, the love, and derived strength from his wife Angela, who was a wonderful woman. And of course his daughters, Denise and Joan, have continued the tradition of service in making the community a better place, and his son George, Jr., has a proud name and he carries it proudly. Of course, his grandchildren are remarkable too.

I think the only way to end these few words for a great gentleman is to recall the words of another Greek--Thucydides--who said:

The bravest of the brave are those who see both the glory

and the danger and go forth to meet it.

George Panichas did that as an airman, as a citizen, as an American who used his opportunity to help others.

Mr. President, we miss this great gentleman, and we are so honored to be able to say a few words about him.

I yield the floor.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, shortly, we will have the honor and privilege, myself and Senator Whitehouse, to join in supporting and confirming the nomination of Justice Rogeriee Thompson, who will be confirmed today to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Justice Thompson is an eminent member of our Rhode Island courts. She has been an Associate Justice of the Rhode Island Superior Court since 1997. She is a path breaker in many respects in terms of her talent, but also because she is the first woman of African-American descent to serve on the Rhode Island Superior Court. She will be the first African American to serve on the First Circuit Court of Appeals and only the second woman.

She has achieved these remarkable results because of her intellect, her character, her integrity, and her deep commitment to fairness and to justice. She is a remarkable woman. We are pleased and delighted that her nomination has been forwarded to us by the President. He has made a wise choice. Today, we will have the opportunity to consider the nomination and confirm her. She will do a remarkable job on the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Originally, Justice Thompson was born in South Carolina, but she came to Rhode Island to attend Brown University. She earned her J.D. from the Boston University School of Law and began her career as a staff attorney at Rhode Island Legal Services.

So her progression to the First Circuit is one that has carried her a long way. I think it has included, very importantly, a strong commitment not just to the most fortunate in our country, but also to those who desperately need help and assistance.

She will bring that sense of fairness and decency to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. I urge all of my colleagues to support this worthy woman and her nomination.

I yield the floor.

I am wondering if the Senator can confirm that we have routinely extended unemployment benefits over many decades, over both Republican and Democratic Presidents and Republican and Democratic Congresses, and we have always done it when the unemployment rate was at least above 7.4 percent. I think the lowest unemployment rate in which we suspended unemployment, extending benefits, was 7.4 percent. I say that because in Rhode Island we are up to 12.9 percent and there are other States that are equally disadvantaged.

This not only sort of upsets what I think is the logical way to proceed on this tonight, but it rejects decades and decades of the common sense and common decency of the Congress.

I think and I hope you can confirm that understanding.

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

Madam President, we have today taken a very strong, positive step forward in terms of responding to the No. 1 crisis in our economy, and that is jobs for all of our people. Under Leader Reid's leadership, we were able to get a bill through, with a huge majority, and it signals, I hope, not only attention to jobs but also the willingness and the ability to find common ground to serve the people of our country.

We are now on the travel promotion bill, which is another piece of legislation designed to encourage job creation in the travel industry. All of this is good news. The legislation we propose this morning combines elements of tax breaks for small businesses so they can expense their items, increase their cashflow, and hire more people with credits for hiring people. There is a huge investment in our infrastructure, which will put people to work in the building industry and in industries that supply all these infrastructure projects, and there is also a significant commitment to Build America Bonds. These are good programs, and they are fully paid for.

We are now taking up the challenge to put people to work, to do it in a responsible way, and to do so in a way that we can attract bipartisan support. But there is much more to do. There is the recognition that we have to not only create jobs but for the foreseeable future deal with those people who have been looking unsuccessfully for jobs and who are unemployed. In my home State of Rhode Island, the unemployment rate is 12.9 percent. That is the official rate. Unofficially, it is much higher, as many people have dropped out of the workforce. If you look at sectors in terms of ethnicity or age, the numbers are even more startling. The bill we passed this morning is a good first step forward, but we have to do much more.

I think one of the first jobs we have to address is the extension of unemployment benefits. They will expire this Sunday. We have to recognize that, despite many efforts here, there are millions of Americans who are looking every day and not finding work. They need support.

All of the economists who have looked at these programs indicated that not only do they support individuals and families, they provide a tremendous multiplier of economic activity for every dollar we commit to the program. There is, as they say, a big bang for the buck. People who are without a job will take their benefits and invariably they will have to support themselves in terms of going to the grocery store-- doing the things you have to do just to get by day by day. They are not typically saving this money. That helps in the sense of increasing demand in the economy overall, increasing our economic growth.

If Congress fails to act swiftly, 1,200 Rhode Islanders will start losing their benefits each week. It is a small State

and that is a big number. We have never before in our history, at least postwar history, ever terminated extended unemployment and emergency unemployment benefits until unemployment was at least 7.4 percent. At that point it appears, in most cases, that there is a self-sustaining economic growth that will itself begin to continue to lower the unemployment rate. We are far from 7.4 percent. As I said, in my State it is 12.9. The national average is hovering around 10.

We have to do this. Congress has acted eight times--1958, 1961, 1971, 1974, 1982, 1991, 2002, 2008--to establish temporary federal unemployment benefit programs beyond regular unemployment compensation and extended benefits. Not to extend these benefits would essentially reject the consistent record of this Congress of helping Americans when the unemployment rate has reached such extraordinary proportions as it is today, whether the majority is Republican or Democrat. Last November, we did approve, without opposition, an expansion of up to 20 weeks, but now we need to pass a further extension.

As I said before, this is not just about helping families and individuals, it is also about helping the economy. For every $1 we invest in our unemployment benefits, we see $1.90 in economic activity overall throughout the economy.

One of the reasons I heard to oppose this morning's legislation: There is not enough demand to justify these tax incentives; they will not be used.

One of the things that does generate demand, consumer demand particularly, is the unemployment compensation program. It is not the way we want to do it. What we would like to see is a productive economy with jobs where the demand comes not only from people working but their being compensated and also being able, with discretionary income, to make consumption choices that today they cannot.

As I said before, we have to think about an agenda for jobs. We passed one piece of legislation today. We are discussing the travel legislation at this moment. We have to then move to the legislation with respect to unemployment compensation. We also have to think about supporting the States with additional FMAP, that is, the funds for Medicaid, because, again, not only will that help our States, but without it you are going to see a contraction in our health care industry in terms of hospitals being able to hire or willing to hire. So we have many steps to go forward.

One aspect of this issue, which I would like to mention is that many of these programs we have talked about--for example, the tax credits for hiring--are nationwide and they miss the point that there are some areas that are much more affected by unemployment than other areas. We have States--and their good fortune is something we should be proud of--that have rates as low as 4.7 percent for unemployment. Yet they will qualify for these general, generic programs.

As we go forward and start thinking about additional steps, I think we also have to think about how we can target those programs to areas that have critical unemployment situations. Rhode Island, at 12.9 percent, is one, but there are many others. If you look within States, there are regions that have significant unemployment problems. Again, we have taken steps to extend our benefits, but as we go forward, as we consider additional legislation, let's also think seriously about how to make it more effective, more efficient, more targeted.

I again urge all my colleagues to continue the effort and spirit which resulted today in an overwhelming vote for a program that will help Americans and move our country and our economy forward.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the National Institute of Finance Act of 2010, which would create an Institute to provide our financial regulators with the data and analytic tools needed to prevent and contain future financial crises.

By establishing this new Institute, my bill offers the foundation for a new approach to financial regulation that would better protect Americans from the financial storm they are currently struggling through.

Over the past 18 months, we have learned that our regulators did not have the appropriate tools or knowledge to address risks that cut across different markets and sectors of the financial system. The recently passed House financial regulatory reform bill and other proposals take an important step in filling this huge regulatory gap by establishing centralized systemic risk oversight. However, any new regulatory structure will be ineffective unless we also equip it with a strong, independent, and well-funded data, research, and analytic capacity to fulfill its mission.

The idea for the National Institute of Finance has been endorsed by a dedicated group of the Nation's top academic researchers, economists, and statisticians--including Nobel Laureate Harry Markowitz--who recognize that any financial regulatory reform is incomplete without a much stronger data, research, and analytic capability.

To further explore these issues, I asked the National Academy of Sciences in August to study the data and tools needed for systemic risk regulation. Among the Academy's findings: that the U.S. currently lacks the technical tools to monitor and manage systemic financial risk with sufficient comprehensiveness and precision. That market efficiency, in addition to regulatory capacity, would be enhanced by improved intelligence about what is going on in the system as a whole. And that existing capabilities are not a sufficient foundation for systemic risk management.

The bill I introduce today addresses these significant weaknesses by creating the National Institute of Finance, whose mission will be to support the community of financial regulatory agencies by collecting and standardizing the reporting of financial market data; performing applied and essential long-term research; and developing tools for measuring and monitoring systemic risk.

The Institute would house a data center that would collect, validate and maintain key data to perform its mission, including a central database to map the interconnections between financial institutions, along with details on their transactions and positions, and their valuation of their assets and liabilities. By working with banks and other firms to standardize the format of such data and by providing standard reference data, such as databases of legal entities and financial products, the Institute would reduce the costs to regulators and financial institutions from the currently fragmented and disorganized systems used to collect and store such information.

Second, the Institute would contain a research and analysis center to develop the needed metrics and then measure and monitor systemic risk posed by individual firms and markets. This new Institute would house some of the country's most-well-respected researchers to collect and analyze the data needed to understand what is happening in our financial markets, to conduct investigations of market disruptions, and to work with regulators to identify new and dangerous trends.

It would conduct and help coordinate applied research on financial markets and systemic risk, a field that is not well-represented right now at the Federal Reserve or within our other regulatory agencies. It would also develop the metrics and tools our regulators need to measure and monitor systemic risk and help policymakers by conducting studies and providing advice on the impact of government policies on systemic risk.

Finally, the Institute would provide independent periodic reports to Congress on the state of the financial system, ensuring that we are kept apprised of the overall picture of our markets more effectively than we have been in the past. The domino effect caused by the recession will continue to cripple Rhode Island families and Americans across the country unless we put in place a strong new infrastructure and shore up our financial markets.

I hope my colleagues will join me in strengthening our financial system by cosponsoring this legislation and supporting its passage.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the National Institute of Finance Act of 2010, which would create an Institute to provide our financial regulators with the data and analytic tools needed to prevent and contain future financial crises.

By establishing this new Institute, my bill offers the foundation for a new approach to financial regulation that would better protect Americans from the financial storm they are currently struggling through.

Over the past 18 months, we have learned that our regulators did not have the appropriate tools or knowledge to address risks that cut across different markets and sectors of the financial system. The recently passed House financial regulatory reform bill and other proposals take an important step in filling this huge regulatory gap by establishing centralized systemic risk oversight. However, any new regulatory structure will be ineffective unless we also equip it with a strong, independent, and well-funded data, research, and analytic capacity to fulfill its mission.

The idea for the National Institute of Finance has been endorsed by a dedicated group of the Nation's top academic researchers, economists, and statisticians--including Nobel Laureate Harry Markowitz--who recognize that any financial regulatory reform is incomplete without a much stronger data, research, and analytic capability.

To further explore these issues, I asked the National Academy of Sciences in August to study the data and tools needed for systemic risk regulation. Among the Academy's findings: that the U.S. currently lacks the technical tools to monitor and manage systemic financial risk with sufficient comprehensiveness and precision. That market efficiency, in addition to regulatory capacity, would be enhanced by improved intelligence about what is going on in the system as a whole. And that existing capabilities are not a sufficient foundation for systemic risk management.

The bill I introduce today addresses these significant weaknesses by creating the National Institute of Finance, whose mission will be to support the community of financial regulatory agencies by collecting and standardizing the reporting of financial market data; performing applied and essential long-term research; and developing tools for measuring and monitoring systemic risk.

The Institute would house a data center that would collect, validate and maintain key data to perform its mission, including a central database to map the interconnections between financial institutions, along with details on their transactions and positions, and their valuation of their assets and liabilities. By working with banks and other firms to standardize the format of such data and by providing standard reference data, such as databases of legal entities and financial products, the Institute would reduce the costs to regulators and financial institutions from the currently fragmented and disorganized systems used to collect and store such information.

Second, the Institute would contain a research and analysis center to develop the needed metrics and then measure and monitor systemic risk posed by individual firms and markets. This new Institute would house some of the country's most-well-respected researchers to collect and analyze the data needed to understand what is happening in our financial markets, to conduct investigations of market disruptions, and to work with regulators to identify new and dangerous trends.

It would conduct and help coordinate applied research on financial markets and systemic risk, a field that is not well-represented right now at the Federal Reserve or within our other regulatory agencies. It would also develop the metrics and tools our regulators need to measure and monitor systemic risk and help policymakers by conducting studies and providing advice on the impact of government policies on systemic risk.

Finally, the Institute would provide independent periodic reports to Congress on the state of the financial system, ensuring that we are kept apprised of the overall picture of our markets more effectively than we have been in the past. The domino effect caused by the recession will continue to cripple Rhode Island families and Americans across the country unless we put in place a strong new infrastructure and shore up our financial markets.

I hope my colleagues will join me in strengthening our financial system by cosponsoring this legislation and supporting its passage.

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

Madam President, our Nation faces unprecedented fiscal and economic challenges. This situation did not happen overnight. It did not happen in 2009. It is a situation created by 8 years of mismanagement and complacency under President Bush. For a decade, the easy replaced the difficult, and instead of seizing the chance in 2001 to wipe out our national debt, President Bush and his supporters went in the opposite direction. They focused on the short term, they encouraged lax regulatory oversight, particularly of financial markets, and they adopted an economic doctrine that called for borrowing to fund virtually every major Presidential initiative--tax cuts that were skewed toward the rich, difficult and costly wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and a prescription drug program that failed to negotiate costs with drugmakers and still leaves many seniors without coverage.

Let's be clear: When President Bush took office, he was handed a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion, which was quickly frittered away. In 8 years, the Bush administration added more debt than all the previous administrations combined, all the while middle-income households saw their earning power decline.

Due to these failed and irresponsible economic and fiscal policies, the Obama administration inherited the worst recession since the 1930s and a $1.3 trillion budget deficit. It should be no surprise to anyone that President Obama and Congress cannot reverse this mountain of bad decisions and deficits in a year, but we have been trying. Indeed, according to the very same nonpartisan agency, the Congressional Budget Office, that predicts our budget deficit for this year, the health care reform bill the Senate passed reduced health care spending and would have cut the deficit by $130 billion in the first 10 years and over $1 trillion over 20 years. We also had to take action on a recovery bill that kept States from cutting police, firemen, and teachers, gave our Governors funds to repair and rebuild our infrastructure, and provided $288 billion in tax cuts to help middle-class families and businesses deal with the recession. These were not easy steps, but they were the right steps, and it is fair to note that the other side of the aisle's answer to these proposals has been to oppose these measures and offer no coherent alternative.

Today, because of the shortcomings of the Bush administration and the recession that started in December 2007, we face the question of whether we want to default on the government's financial obligations to Social Security recipients and those who have purchased U.S. bonds. If we follow the course proposed by the other side of the aisle and vote no, the outcome is an even worse economic situation. Ask any economist of any background whether the government should default on its obligation and the answer is a resounding no. Yet that is what is proposed by too many here in the Senate. Although it is troubling to have to raise the debt to pay for a series of irresponsible choices, tax cuts, and a war in Iraq--all of which I opposed--it would be irresponsible to reject this measure.

There is no doubt that we need to address the long-term fiscal challenges facing our Nation. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that producing a budget is not merely adjusting numbers on a ledger; it is allocating resources to serve people. Today, our first order of business has to be ensuring that economic recovery has taken root. While some areas of the country have shown signs of recovery, most Americans have not seen the benefits. In places such as Rhode Island, where State governments lack the resources to help people who are struggling to deal with crushing unemployment levels, the need for Federal assistance remains great.

To balance the budget, we will have to make very difficult decisions, but many of us here have made them before. In 1993, without any support from congressional Republicans, Democrats made the tough decisions and took politically difficult votes that brought the budget surpluses that were handed off to President Bush 8 years later and then quickly squandered. Through the tough decisions we made, we were able to not only turn the economy around but eliminate deficit spending and cut the debt. Indeed, I remember that in 2001 some on the other side used the argument that we were paying off the government's debt too quickly as one reason they supported President Bush's reckless tax cuts for the wealthiest. And I stand ready to work with those who want to do the hard work of making the compromises that are necessary when it comes to spending and revenues. I am ready to support a pay-go rule that says you cannot pass a new bill without offsetting its costs, and I would urge my colleagues to reconsider the largess of the last farm bill, the multibillion dollar giveaway to ethanol makers, and the host of tax cuts for oil companies and companies that shift American jobs overseas.

It is instructive to remember that in 1993 the challenge was met, as it should have been, through the normal legislative process, not by handing off the tough choices to a deficit commission. Congress can do better than give its responsibilities to a commission whose recommendations would very likely tilt toward cuts in programs that are crucial to our seniors and our young people. At the same time, the record shows that similar commissions have been unsuccessful in the past. It is only when elected representatives tackle the tough issues that we see positive results. Conversely, when these issues are ignored, as they were during the last administration, we see how quickly fiscal responsibility can unravel.

President Obama and this Democratic-led Congress have already begun to take the hard and decisive steps to get our fiscal house in order. In response to skyrocketing health care costs, the Senate passed a health care bill that would meet President Obama's goal of reducing health care spending below projected levels, reining in the deficit by $132 billion over the next 10 years and by up to $1.6 trillion over the next 20 years.

We have a difficult series of choices before us. Yet we can respond to the crisis of the moment and get our Nation on a path of fiscal soundness.

Mr. President, I join my colleague, the Senator from North Dakota, in rising to support the confirmation of Chairman Ben Bernanke to a second term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. As has been pointed out throughout the course of this debate, his position at the Federal Reserve prior to September 2008 gave him the opportunity and the obligation to look carefully at a building crisis.

His response was not as perceptive or as adroit as we all in hindsight would wish to see. He did recognize, however, by August of 2007 that this economy was slowing down, and he applied the traditional macroeconomic tools by beginning to lower the interest rate.

By December of 2008, the interest rate was virtually zero, the Federal rate. That has helped, I think, keep the economy moving and has helped us move forward. But the point that so many of my colleagues have made is when it came to critical moments during the fall of 2008, Chairman Bernanke understood the problem and was able to use extraordinary measures, first persuading the Federal Reserve to follow his lead, and then using extraordinary measures to begin to blunt the worst effects of this economic crisis we faced, and continue to face, and his efforts to ensure that there was liquidity in the system-- precisely what was done incorrectly in 1929, 1930 through the early 1930s, where the Federal Reserve pulled back, accelerating the depression rather than cushioning the economy from further decline.

He took innovative steps that seem sort of esoteric, but helped restore stability in capital markets. But he also took very decisive intervention with respect to the money market mutual funds, when the Reserve Fund broke the buck, as they say, when its net asset value dropped below a dollar, there was a tremendous sense of not only uncertainty but potential chaos as everyone was plotting to withdraw their funds from money markets, which would have created huge problems and which would have affected every American in this country. But he moved decisively and aggressively,

along with the Treasury Department, to provide stability and support. He also helped create programs like the TALF program to restart markets for auto, home, credit card, student loan, and small business loans, his ability to interject liquidity into the system, gave us a break, if you will, from a rapidly deteriorating situation.

I sense, and my colleagues have said, that in the future his reaction--calm, decisive, innovative, imaginative--was one of the things that prevented this catastrophic situation from becoming even worse. That is an important aspect that we must consider in regards to his renomination.

There is something else too. If the Chairman is not confirmed, there will be a period of uncertainty as to who is leading the Federal Reserve and what direction will it take. The last thing we need today is uncertainty in our economic future. If the ability of individuals and institutions to invest, to commit their capital and their effort and their work is put on hold, then the progress we have seen--and it is not sufficient but we have seen some--in fact, there are expectations that the reports on gross domestic product tomorrow will show significant increases rather than significant contractions, which is what is what we saw under the last administration.

But if we inject this uncertainty, if we go months and months with no one clearly in charge at the Federal Reserve, it will have a very tangible, rapid, and unfortunate effect on our ability to move forward with the economy.

There is another issue here I think that is important to note. That other issue is that, having done all of these remarkable innovative programs to increase liquidity, to keep the engine of the economy running, albeit not at the level and speed and power we might want, but keep it moving, at some point those programs have to be unraveled, pulled back, because we will face another danger.

We face a danger, perhaps, in terms of inflation rate effects. We face a danger in terms of currency issues, in terms of value of the dollar. This is something we all recognize, this great pivot, as I call it, moving away from low interest rates and liquidity infusion, to higher interest rates, the dismantling of some of these programs. For example, the Fed already announced that it intends to begin to slowly get out of its support for the mortgage market in a few weeks.

All of that has to be as tacitly managed, as carefully understood, as these programs were in the fall of 2008 and 2009 when the Chairman was moving forward. As a result, I think we need someone who understands these programs, and understands them not just theoretically but literally from trial and error, from understanding what worked, what did not work, what the consequences are.

No one has that type of knowledge and insight at this juncture other than Chairman Bernanke. He is, of course, as an individual, a man of remarkable integrity and character who is committed to public service, and who is a pragmatist, not an ideologue, someone who will continue to provide not only guidance but leadership at a place we sorely need it, at the Federal Reserve. From my talks with Chairman Bernanke, I think he understands that people are hurting, and that his role in getting our country back to full employment is just as important as his role in monetary policy. The engines of our economy are small businesses and jobs, and this is what people in my state of Rhode Island expect from the Federal Reserve. At this critical juncture, I hope that my colleagues will support Chairman Bernanke for a second term.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time and also thank him for his great effort on this legislation.

It is a profound privilege to have the opportunity to serve the people of Rhode Island and in that capacity to support the legislation before us. This effort has been decades in the making. Every year that passes without health insurance reform has made the task more difficult and, the need for reform, more essential.

Rhode Islanders have seen their health care costs double in just the last decade. In 2000, the average employer-sponsored family health insurance policy cost about $6,700. In 2008, the same plan cost nearly $12,700. Without reform, by 2016, that family will pay over $24,000 in premiums, consuming 45 percent of their projected median income. Such a course is unsustainable by the families of Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I commend the announcement yesterday that 44 Rhode Island teachers and nearly 9,000 teachers nationwide achieved National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification this year.

The single most effective step we can take to raise student achievement and turn around struggling schools is to ensure that we improve the quality of our teachers. For years I have worked to improve what the Federal Government does to help train and develop teachers. Indeed, I have worked with National Board on nearly every piece of teacher quality legislation I have introduced in the Senate. The National Board has been instrumental in identifying effective teaching practices and infusing those practices throughout our Nations schools. Their certification process is rigorous and includes multiple components that regularly assess and improve a teacher's ability to improve student learning. Since 1994, 82,000 teachers have been National Board certified, including 383 Rhode Island teachers.

Last week, the National Board announced an expansion of their certification process to include principals and other school leaders, recognizing the research that effective leadership is second only to classroom instruction among factors that influence student outcomes. I was pleased that this important expansion was made possible through Federal funding provided through the fiscal year 2009 Labor, Health, and Education appropriations bill.

I congratulate the Rhode Island teachers and teachers nationwide on their significant accomplishment and dedication to their professional development, and I look forward to continuing to work with the National Board to ensure that our children have the most effective teachers, principals, and school leaders.

I ask that the names of the Rhode Island teachers who achieved National Board certification this year be included in the Record.

Mr. President, I think it is important to focus on the fiscal difficulties we have today, but I think it is also important to recognize the probable causes of these huge deficits: two wars, unfunded, no attempt to fund them, spent simply by running up the deficit; tax cuts, which were unfunded and which did not ultimately generate the kind of sustained economic growth and job growth that their supporters advertised, and then the Medicare Part D program, an entitlement program which was also completely unpaid for.

Today we have people talking about entitlement reform, how that is a key aspect of health reform. But so many of my colleagues on the Republican side supported President Bush when he

proposed the Medicare Part D program, a worthy program in concept, but in the context of not paying for it, it is a concept that is costing us greatly today.

Additionally, it is particularly ironic at this moment, because we are considering a McCain motion that would report this health care bill back to the committee with the instructions to restore $400 billion in spending, roughly, over 10 years. I cannot think of anything more contrary to the notion of entitlement reform.

What we have tried to do in this bill is to restructure Medicare so that it will continue providing quality health care, but also recognize the high costs we are facing going forward and the general economic climate we face today. Again, let me remind you, in January 2001, the unemployment rate was about 4.6 percent. When President Obama took office, it was double that and growing and continuing to grow.

We have seen some effects to limit this growth, but it is still a critical issue. Again, this reform package is designed not only to deal with the quality of health care, accessibility to health care, and affordability of health care, but it is designed to, over the long term, begin to rein in costs that are absolutely out of control.

Those suffering the most from this course are the American people and, in some respects, small business men and women. Their health care costs are going up faster than any other costs, and in many instances faster than wages, and it is unsustainable.

If in my State of Rhode Island we do not take effective action, we will see within several years premiums reaching $24,000 to $30,000 a year for a family of four. We cannot sustain that.

If someone is interested in taking the very difficult step of entitlement reform, they would reject the McCain motion. But there are other reasons to reject the amendment, as well. First, the funding that has been eliminated from the current health care system and the system going forward, has been eliminated because it does not improve care. This is particularly true in Medicare Advantage.

This was a program that was developed and sold essentially to the American people as cost containment for Medicare. This was one of the proposals that would rein in out-of-control health care costs by giving insurance companies the ability to manage more effectively.

Of course, what we have seen is a significant increase in payments to Medicare Advantage payments over traditional Medicare. Of course, these insurance companies can manage health care very well as long as they are receiving very significant premium payments from beneficiaries. But, those premiums do not essentially go to better health care. It certainly goes, however, to better profits for the insurance companies.

Indeed, with Medicare Advantage there is a rebate given to each insurance company. This is not the case with traditional Medicare. The rebate was designed essentially to provide, again, lower cost access to health care benefits for the consumers of Medicare Advantage.

The GAO found that 19 percent of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries actually pay more than traditional Medicare for home health care and 16 percent pay more for inpatient services. Here is the irony. We are paying the insurance companies more, but the beneficiaries of Medicare Advantage are, indeed, are also paying more. So there is no cost savings in this regard, in this program at least.

The other point, which is I think critical and I alluded to, is that for the same services you receive in Medicare Advantage, there is, on average, a 14-percent increase overall for those similar services in traditional Medicare.

We have to, I think, take tough steps to eliminate these over- payments, but steps that will enhance the quality of care for seniors, and that is what is being done in this bill. While some of these resources are being used to help redesign a system for all Americans, there will also be significant improvements for seniors, for care that is more effective and efficient, and less costly.

Let me suggest something else. We are all paying right now for the cost of uninsured Americans. It has been estimated that every private insurance plan in this country is paying--every individual payer, businesses or individual--about $1,000 a year for uncompensated care. That is the cost hospitals shift from their uncompensated care on to the insurance providers, the carriers, and that is translated into higher premiums for all Americans.

Under this legislation, the hospitals will now see patients presenting themselves with an insurance card. Mr. President, over 94 percent of Americans, it has been estimated, will be covered under our proposal. So instead of showing up for free care, they will be under an insurance plan. The hospitals will benefit. Medicare, Medicaid, and the whole health care system will benefit.

Again, this is one of the changes that would be reversed by the McCain motion.

Also, we have taken steps so that hospitals will be much more effective in managing their patient flow. Readmissions will hopefully be reduced by some of the provisions in this legislation.

There are many things we should do and will do, but I believe we can successfully balance expanding our coverage system, protecting quality of care, but also recognizing, as has been suggested, the fiscal implications not just for the moment but going forward. I suggest if someone is serious about entitlement control, serious about the fiscal implications of this legislation or any other legislation, they will not simply order the committee to restore these cuts. They would do something much more proactive and, indeed, support what I believe are sensible, sound proposals to provide quality, to ensure that over the long run, Medicare is more solvent.

In fact--the final point--the legislation before us would extend the life of Medicare, the solvency of Medicare over at least 5 years. So for those people who say we are trying to end Medicare, their solution is simply to let it go bankrupt apparently in 2017 or to simply ignore it and let it find its own fate.

We can do better. I urge rejection of the McCain motion. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Transitional Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP, Act, and I am pleased to do so with the support of Senators Brown, Whitehouse, Akaka, Durbin, Klobuchar, and Begich. This bill is an important step in continuing the conversation about how we can help our States, businesses, and individuals as our economy recovers.

In my State of Rhode Island, the economic downturn has been particularly hard hitting on families and businesses. As a result, the State has seen a decline in tax revenue and an increased enrollment in safety net programs like Medicaid. Revenue from the sales tax is down over 7 percent, income tax receipts are down 2.3 percent, and corporate tax revenue is down nearly 10 percent. At the same time, unemployment rates have soared to new heights, topping 13 percent earlier this year. In the past 2 years, 40,000 Rhode Islanders have lost their employer- sponsored health insurance. Many of these individuals have come to rely on Medicaid for health coverage. This has caused great strain on the State's resources and its Medicaid program. In November, we learned that the estimated Medicaid caseload for the year will cost over $40 million more than what the State had initially estimated in its budget.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which I supported, provided States with additional Federal assistance through 2010. States have used these funds to help balance their budgets, minimize harmful cuts in public services, and, very importantly, to prevent tax increases in many cases. However, even with the funding from the Recovery Act, Rhode Island will close the current fiscal year $219.8 million in the red.

A total of 38 States have looked ahead to fiscal year 2011, and they have estimated $92 billion in combined deficits in the coming year. As the State fiscal year nears, and more States have had ample time to analyze their fiscal health it is expected that the total shortfall will likely equal $180 billion.

As Congress debates health reform and works to ensure that every American has access to health insurance in 2014, we must not forget about ensuring that Americans have access to health insurance between now and then, as the economy slowly recovers and as state budgets begin to heal. During this tough time we need to help individuals, businesses, and States, and I am particularly concerned with making sure our States have the resources to provide adequate health care.

Unless Congress acts on FMAP legislation, States will be forced to use their limited resources to cover an expanded Medicaid population beginning in January 2011. Since States are planning their fiscal year 2011 budgets, which will begin in July, many Governors are requesting Congress act now to provide States with additional Federal support.

The Transitional FMAP Act would extend the enhanced FMAP funding which we passed in the Recovery Act for two additional quarters. This extension accounts for the prolonged recession and ensures that the pressure of Medicaid needs do not overwhelm the States. The bill would also begin a slow decrease of enhanced FMAP funding from July 2011 through December 2013. This will help States as they recover and ensure that States do not experience a gap in assistance prior to health reform-related FMAP levels beginning in January 2014.

Mr. President, this additional funding is important for States, businesses, and individuals. I know that Chairman Baucus and Leader Reid are well aware of the importance of FMAP and have a history to working to aid our States. I look forward to working with them and my other colleagues to provide States with necessary additional Federal Medicaid assistance.

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 text of the bill be printed in the Record.