Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Education for All Act in order to preserve educational and economic opportunities for all Americans.

The U.S. Department of Education is proposing new ``gainful employment'' rules that would deny federal financial aid to students who attend proprietary colleges and vocational certificate programs. These rules would disqualify students from receiving federal education loans if their chosen programs do not meet a complex formula comparing student debt to future earning potential. Why should students be discouraged from attending a school they want or a profession they chose because of Washington bureaucrats?

The bill I am introducing today would prohibit these regulations from going into effect.

The ``gainful employment'' rules could deny hundreds of thousands of students access to the training and skills development they need to secure a job in today's troubled economy. There is high demand in some sectors for highly skilled workers and propriety schools are uniquely qualified to meet the training needs of these employers. It is simply irresponsible for the government to throw roadblocks in front of students and institutions at a time when job creation in America should be the administration's number one priority.

Further, the ``gainful employment'' rules will disproportionately harm low-income and minority students. These students often depend more heavily on education loans regardless of the type of institution they attend and take longer to repay.

The rules would also significantly impact health care programs. Nearly half of all healthcare workers are trained at proprietary schools. With an aging baby boom population, demand for trained health care providers is already critical and will only get worse. President Obama's healthcare law adds to this burden as well. We ought to be expanding educational capacity for health care workers, not enacting regulations that threaten access.

In short, this legislation will preserve educational and economic opportunities for all Americans. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come here today on behalf of myself and my colleague, Senator Crapo, from Idaho to introduce the State Wolf Management Act. This act as drawn is aimed at some particular issues we have in Idaho with the management of wolves, and that other adjoining States that share Idaho's boundaries have with the Federal Government.

First of all, I want to thank the Governor of the great State of Idaho, the Honorable Butch Otter, for his assistance in crafting this bill. I can tell you, Governor Otter, as the chief executive of Idaho, his predecessor, who happens to be yours truly, and my predecessor, as Governors of the great State of Idaho have all joined in the effort to obtain delisting of the wolf in Idaho. That is particularly true as we attempt to wrest management of this particular species away from the Federal Government.

What the act does is it identifies as a distinct population a segment of the gray wolf population. Specifically, it identifies this specific population in eastern Washington and eastern Oregon, in which there are few if any wolves, and the State of Montana and the State of Idaho, all of those States in which there are a lot of wolves and indeed are too many wolves.

First of all, let me say, the official estimates, in 2008, for Idaho are that there were 846 wolves in Idaho, with 39 breeding pairs. Virtually everyone in the State agrees that estimate is very low. In the year 2010, again virtually everyone agrees there are well over 1,000 gray wolves in Idaho and well over 39 breeding pairs.

How did we get to where we are?

Wolves have been gone from the State of Idaho and adjoining areas for many years. In 1995, someone--I cannot identify who--in their infinite wisdom, who lived back here on the banks of the Potomac River, decided we in Idaho needed wolves again.

The State of Idaho was indeed not very happy about the decision. The chief executive of the State, the executive branch of the State, the legislative branch of the State, and the vast majority of Idahoans were absolutely opposed to reintroducing wolves back into the State of Idaho.

After litigation, and after the usual things you go through, nonetheless, 34 wolves were captured in Canada and brought to the State of Idaho and introduced into the State of Idaho against the objections of almost everyone. Indeed, there was a group of people who did want to see wolves brought to Idaho, and they got their way.

To give you a little bit of background as to what happened, we in the State of Idaho are very proud of our big game management. Under common law in this country, and indeed in England before this country, all wild game belonged to the sovereign. The United States of America is probably surprised to hear they are not the sovereign, that indeed the States are the sovereign. As a result of that, over the centuries--the couple of centuries we have been in existence as the United States of America--litigation after litigation has determined that indeed all wildlife in the State belongs to the sovereign; that is, the State in which they are located.

Idaho has a long and proud history and culture of hunting and outdoor life. We have managed our wildlife to the point that we are getting--or had been getting--the maximum out of our wildlife for big game harvest every year. Before Europeans inhabited Idaho, there were very few deer and even less elk. Elk were a plains species. They were not a mountain species. After settlement of the State, the elk were pretty much removed from the plains and took up residence in the mountains, where they have done very well and adapted very well.

Again, over the years, the premier species in Idaho, as determined by the people of the State of Idaho, has been elk. Elk are difficult to manage; that is, they are not as easy to manage as deer. They are not as prolific as deer. As a result, they require relatively intensive management.

As a result, the State has broken into many different game units for elk, and each of these units is carefully managed by the fish and game department to determine the birthrate of the elk each year and the survival rate over the winter and a determination of how many elk can be harvested. As a result, we have had a robust and relatively stable population of elk in the State of Idaho.

Fast forward to 1995. The Federal Government released its 34 wolves into the State of Idaho, and contrary to what some people believe, they are not vegetarians. Also contrary to what some people believe, they need to eat every day. And when they eat, they eat our elk.

As a result, there has been considerable depredation on our elk herds and for that matter on domestic livestock. The domestic livestock losses are not large in number, unless, of course, it is your livestock they are preying on, of which a number of us in the livestock business have experienced losses in that regard.

Back to the elk. We want to continue to manage our elk. We want to continue to manage our deer. Indeed, we manage a lot of big game species. We manage moose, we manage bears, we manage cats, we manage all big game in the State of Idaho and do a pretty decent job of that.

On top of the Federal Government's introduction of these 34 wolves into Idaho, which have now exploded into 1,000 wolves, with regulations that at the outset were very, very intrusive, to the point where you couldn't shoot wolves--even if you found them attacking your livestock, it was unlawful to take a wolf. Of course, the regulations that were imposed on us by the Federal Government have created a considerable amount of animosity and bad blood.

What we want at this point is the ability to manage the wolves just as we manage every other population of big game and animal species in Idaho. The fact is that the wolves are there. They are going to be there. We obviously made the effort at the outset to not have them. We did our best to keep them out. We lost that fight, so now we have to accept the fact that they are there. But the fact that they are there does not mean that we, in the sovereign State of Idaho, should not have the ability to manage our own game species.

Recently, because the numbers have exploded in the amount that they have--when I was Governor, I pressed

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to start the delisting process, which happened on my watch. The start of the delisting happened on my watch as Governor. As time went on, my successor, Governor Otter, did an excellent job of continuing to press the case for delisting. After all, the Federal Government has absolutely no business in the State of Idaho dealing with wolves other than the hook it has of the Endangered Species Act. To argue that a species that has been introduced--34 of them--and then explodes to well over 1,000 is endangered simply flies in the face of not only science, but it also flies in the face of logic.

Let me tell my colleagues what we were told and what we were promised by the Federal Government at the time they brought in the wolves. They told us that once we got to the point of 300 wolves and got to the point of 30 breeding pairs, the party was over and they would delist. Well, we reached that point in 3 years, and we have been trying to delist ever since. We got them delisted. The matter went to court. We actually had a hunting season last year. But now it has gone back to court, and, again, those who are trying to protect the number of wolves, to the great disadvantage of elk, won again, and they got the judge to order that the wolves be listed again in Idaho and Montana.

That is as a result of a dispute the State of Wyoming also has with the Federal Government, and they have been unable to reach an agreement as to how wolves should be managed. The Federal Government, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of the Interior were perfectly happy with the plans from Idaho and Montana, but because they have been unable to settle with Wyoming, we now find ourselves at a tremendous disadvantage. This simply isn't fair.

This bill will very simply turn management of the wolves back over to the State of Idaho unless and until the time that the Federal Government can again or can ever claim that they are an endangered species. When that happens, the State again will be subject to the lawsuits that will inevitably come if, indeed, they are endangered. But in the meantime, I will urge every Senator to vote for this bill. This is a States rights issue. We are a sovereign State. We are entitled to take over management of these wolves. I can promise everyone that the State of Idaho will do a substantially better job, a cheaper job, and a much more efficient job of managing the wolves in the State of Idaho than the Federal Government could ever do or will ever do, and we will be able to do it with due deference to all the other species in the State of Idaho.

Mr. President, I come here today on behalf of myself and my colleague, Senator Crapo, from Idaho to introduce the State Wolf Management Act. This act as drawn is aimed at some particular issues we have in Idaho with the management of wolves, and that other adjoining States that share Idaho's boundaries have with the Federal Government.

First of all, I want to thank the Governor of the great State of Idaho, the Honorable Butch Otter, for his assistance in crafting this bill. I can tell you, Governor Otter, as the chief executive of Idaho, his predecessor, who happens to be yours truly, and my predecessor, as Governors of the great State of Idaho have all joined in the effort to obtain delisting of the wolf in Idaho. That is particularly true as we attempt to wrest management of this particular species away from the Federal Government.

What the act does is it identifies as a distinct population a segment of the gray wolf population. Specifically, it identifies this specific population in eastern Washington and eastern Oregon, in which there are few if any wolves, and the State of Montana and the State of Idaho, all of those States in which there are a lot of wolves and indeed are too many wolves.

First of all, let me say, the official estimates, in 2008, for Idaho are that there were 846 wolves in Idaho, with 39 breeding pairs. Virtually everyone in the State agrees that estimate is very low. In the year 2010, again virtually everyone agrees there are well over 1,000 gray wolves in Idaho and well over 39 breeding pairs.

How did we get to where we are?

Wolves have been gone from the State of Idaho and adjoining areas for many years. In 1995, someone--I cannot identify who--in their infinite wisdom, who lived back here on the banks of the Potomac River, decided we in Idaho needed wolves again.

The State of Idaho was indeed not very happy about the decision. The chief executive of the State, the executive branch of the State, the legislative branch of the State, and the vast majority of Idahoans were absolutely opposed to reintroducing wolves back into the State of Idaho.

After litigation, and after the usual things you go through, nonetheless, 34 wolves were captured in Canada and brought to the State of Idaho and introduced into the State of Idaho against the objections of almost everyone. Indeed, there was a group of people who did want to see wolves brought to Idaho, and they got their way.

To give you a little bit of background as to what happened, we in the State of Idaho are very proud of our big game management. Under common law in this country, and indeed in England before this country, all wild game belonged to the sovereign. The United States of America is probably surprised to hear they are not the sovereign, that indeed the States are the sovereign. As a result of that, over the centuries--the couple of centuries we have been in existence as the United States of America--litigation after litigation has determined that indeed all wildlife in the State belongs to the sovereign; that is, the State in which they are located.

Idaho has a long and proud history and culture of hunting and outdoor life. We have managed our wildlife to the point that we are getting--or had been getting--the maximum out of our wildlife for big game harvest every year. Before Europeans inhabited Idaho, there were very few deer and even less elk. Elk were a plains species. They were not a mountain species. After settlement of the State, the elk were pretty much removed from the plains and took up residence in the mountains, where they have done very well and adapted very well.

Again, over the years, the premier species in Idaho, as determined by the people of the State of Idaho, has been elk. Elk are difficult to manage; that is, they are not as easy to manage as deer. They are not as prolific as deer. As a result, they require relatively intensive management.

As a result, the State has broken into many different game units for elk, and each of these units is carefully managed by the fish and game department to determine the birthrate of the elk each year and the survival rate over the winter and a determination of how many elk can be harvested. As a result, we have had a robust and relatively stable population of elk in the State of Idaho.

Fast forward to 1995. The Federal Government released its 34 wolves into the State of Idaho, and contrary to what some people believe, they are not vegetarians. Also contrary to what some people believe, they need to eat every day. And when they eat, they eat our elk.

As a result, there has been considerable depredation on our elk herds and for that matter on domestic livestock. The domestic livestock losses are not large in number, unless, of course, it is your livestock they are preying on, of which a number of us in the livestock business have experienced losses in that regard.

Back to the elk. We want to continue to manage our elk. We want to continue to manage our deer. Indeed, we manage a lot of big game species. We manage moose, we manage bears, we manage cats, we manage all big game in the State of Idaho and do a pretty decent job of that.

On top of the Federal Government's introduction of these 34 wolves into Idaho, which have now exploded into 1,000 wolves, with regulations that at the outset were very, very intrusive, to the point where you couldn't shoot wolves--even if you found them attacking your livestock, it was unlawful to take a wolf. Of course, the regulations that were imposed on us by the Federal Government have created a considerable amount of animosity and bad blood.

What we want at this point is the ability to manage the wolves just as we manage every other population of big game and animal species in Idaho. The fact is that the wolves are there. They are going to be there. We obviously made the effort at the outset to not have them. We did our best to keep them out. We lost that fight, so now we have to accept the fact that they are there. But the fact that they are there does not mean that we, in the sovereign State of Idaho, should not have the ability to manage our own game species.

Recently, because the numbers have exploded in the amount that they have--when I was Governor, I pressed

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to start the delisting process, which happened on my watch. The start of the delisting happened on my watch as Governor. As time went on, my successor, Governor Otter, did an excellent job of continuing to press the case for delisting. After all, the Federal Government has absolutely no business in the State of Idaho dealing with wolves other than the hook it has of the Endangered Species Act. To argue that a species that has been introduced--34 of them--and then explodes to well over 1,000 is endangered simply flies in the face of not only science, but it also flies in the face of logic.

Let me tell my colleagues what we were told and what we were promised by the Federal Government at the time they brought in the wolves. They told us that once we got to the point of 300 wolves and got to the point of 30 breeding pairs, the party was over and they would delist. Well, we reached that point in 3 years, and we have been trying to delist ever since. We got them delisted. The matter went to court. We actually had a hunting season last year. But now it has gone back to court, and, again, those who are trying to protect the number of wolves, to the great disadvantage of elk, won again, and they got the judge to order that the wolves be listed again in Idaho and Montana.

That is as a result of a dispute the State of Wyoming also has with the Federal Government, and they have been unable to reach an agreement as to how wolves should be managed. The Federal Government, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of the Interior were perfectly happy with the plans from Idaho and Montana, but because they have been unable to settle with Wyoming, we now find ourselves at a tremendous disadvantage. This simply isn't fair.

This bill will very simply turn management of the wolves back over to the State of Idaho unless and until the time that the Federal Government can again or can ever claim that they are an endangered species. When that happens, the State again will be subject to the lawsuits that will inevitably come if, indeed, they are endangered. But in the meantime, I will urge every Senator to vote for this bill. This is a States rights issue. We are a sovereign State. We are entitled to take over management of these wolves. I can promise everyone that the State of Idaho will do a substantially better job, a cheaper job, and a much more efficient job of managing the wolves in the State of Idaho than the Federal Government could ever do or will ever do, and we will be able to do it with due deference to all the other species in the State of Idaho.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the centennial of the town of Springfield in my home State of Idaho.

On September 13, 1910, the County Commission of Bingham County approved a plat plan for the town-site of Springfield. It was an ambitious vision of a city on the shores of Springfield Lake--a body of water created years earlier to supply irrigation water from Danilsen creek. The area was a popular stopping place on Goodale's cutoff along the Oregon Trail.

In Springfield, 1910 was a busy and exciting time. Water from the Aberdeen-Springfield Canal reached Springfield. The Oregon Short-Line railroad came through and provided service to the community. And in June, a group of women organized the Springfield Domestic Science Club with a focus on community service.

The club quickly became a force in the community, establishing a hot lunch program at the local school and creating and managing the Springfield Cemetery, something members did until 1946. The club also sponsored many educational, cultural and entertainment events.

The Aberdeen-Springfield Canal was a major asset to the area. Not only did it provide much-needed water to the surrounding agricultural land, it provided jobs for many of the early settlers. The canal, begun in 1895, was dug using horse-drawn equipment and manual labor.

Today, the canal is a tribute to private enterprise. No government money was used during its construction. It is owned by its shareholders under a Carey Act corporation and is a ``not for profit'' organization, which financed it by the sale of shares in the company. The canal was completed at a cost of about $886,000, irrigates about 63,000 acres of field and helps produce crops valued at roughly $140 million each year.

On August 28, 2010, the Springfield community will honor its early pioneers with a centennial celebration. During the festivities, a monument in honor of the early settlers will be unveiled. The monument identifies those settlers who formed the backbone of the community by building the canal, operating the markets and shops and organizing the schools and churches. The names of these early pioneer families with the vision of seeing the desert bloom are:

Anderson, Baird, Bedwell, Berg, Blackburn, Bradley, H. Chandler, W. Chandler, Criddle, Cushman, Edwards, Evans, Gravatt, Grover, Hawker, Holland, Houghland, Judge, Line, Leach, Lloyd, Lofgreen, Loomis, Parmalee, Reid, Rupe, Sainz, Sellers, Shelman, Stoddard, Stufflebean, Snyder, Sommercorn, Thurston, Wells, Whyte, Willis.

Although the present day Springfield town-site did not quite live up to the vision laid out in the original plat, those living in the community strive to honor their heritage. Out of that sturdy pioneer stock have come doctors, lawyers, politicians, farmers, ranchers, chemists, accountants, educators, firemen, homemakers, artists, laborers, mechanics, business owners, civil servants, religious leaders and military servicemembers.

I congratulate the people of Springfield on this occasion and pay tribute to those pioneers and others like them across our land, who, with vision, determination and hard work, created what we now enjoy.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum calls be equally divided between both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank my colleague, Senator Barrasso. You were cheating, looking at my notes over my shoulder. A well made point.

I come at this whole proposition from a little different way than perhaps a lot of my colleagues do. All of this debate has been about global warming and about whether we should regulate carbon and how we should do that and what have you. But that is not really the issue on this resolution. This resolution is about the separation of powers. The Constitution of this great land that we all took an oath to uphold is very specific in separating the powers of the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. The Founding Fathers wisely separated the different branches so that none could overpower the other. What are we doing here? The movement by the administration and by the Environmental Protection Agency is to take from the legislative branch the power that belongs to the legislative branch.

It is obvious in the debate that is going on here that we have deep differences, which we should have, because this is a major policy decision

that will affect every single American. It has profound effects on the economy. It has profound effects on the movement of jobs overseas. These are things that should be debated and are things that should be decided by elected persons--not by the people at the EPA, who are not elected and who are not answerable to the electorate.

When this happens, what you get is a deterioration of the Constitution of this great country. Each of the branches is constantly tugging at the other, attempting to pull power away from the other and attempting to consolidate power within itself. This movement by the EPA to effect policy is one of those power struggles. Every single Member of this body should be concerned about the shift of power from the legislative branch to the administrative branch.

What has happened here, as everyone can see, is this has become polarized. Again, it has become a partisan argument that we should allow the EPA to do this because we can't seem to get it through the legislative branch as quickly or as efficiently or leaning to the left as we want. That is wrong. It is just plain wrong. It should be decided right here. Those policy decisions should be debated here. Those policy decisions should be made on the floor of this body and on the floor of the House of Representatives. This is not a job for nonelected persons. It is a job for the people who have been elected and who have to go home again and face reelection and listen to the voters say: You did a great job controlling global warming or, you doofus, what are you doing? You can't possibly do it the way you want to do it.

That is a debate which should be held here. Why has this become so partisan? At the end of the day, we all know how this is going to come out. There are going to be 55 votes, give or take a couple, to defeat Senator Murkowski's resolution. It is going to be generally on a party- line basis. At the end, the administration will claim a great and glorious victory again. But it will not be a great and glorious victory for the American people; it will be a defeat for the American people. And more important, it will be a defeat and another erosion of the Constitution of this great country and movement of power from the legislative branch where it belongs to the administrative branch, to the bureaucrats, to the people who are not elected. That is a wrong way to do this. It should stay right here in the legislative body.

I yield the floor back to my good friend, Senator Barrasso.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of Bayview, Idaho, a beautiful

little hamlet on the shores of Lake Pend Oreille in north Idaho. On May 29, 2010, the residents of Bayview will gather to dedicate the Centennial Gift to Bayview, a beautiful entrance sign funded by local donations and designed by local artists. In addition to this ceremony, several other events are scheduled throughout the year to celebrate this great milestone.

In 1910, the Prairie Development Company was formed by five businessmen from Spokane, WA. They platted the town on the shores of Lake Pend Oreille, with visions of a bustling resort where Spokane's well-to-do could step right off the train and enjoy a weekend retreat or summer residence. A shortline railroad was completed in 1911, and the crowds soon followed.

Bayview is a place full of well-kept secrets. You could say Bayview built Spokane. The limestone deposits above the town and in nearby Lakeview supplied the processed lime that was used to construct many of the buildings in Spokane from the turn of the 20th century, well into the 1930s.

Another little-known fact is that nearby Farragut State Park stands on the site of what was once Idaho's largest city. In 1942, the U.S. Navy built Farragut Naval Training Station to train sailors for the fight against the Axis powers. Nearly 300,000 sailors were trained there, and at any given time from 1942 to 1946, the population exceeded 50,000 people.

More recently, few people know Bayview's role in helping the U.S. Navy build the quietest submarines in the world. After World War II ended, the Navy began to dismantle the training station, selling off the buildings and turning the land over to the State of Idaho. The Navy, however, did retain 20 acres on the shores of Lake Pend Oreille, where they built research facilities as well as an underwater acoustic testing range. At a depth of nearly 1,200 feet, the cold, calm waters of the lake provide an ideal range to test various hull designs, hull coatings and propulsion systems at a fraction of the cost of full-scale ocean-based testing.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the fantastic Independence Day celebration in Bayview, where the fireworks echo off the surrounding cliffs and mountains, adding a thrilling dimension to the show.

Despite the stunning beauty of its setting, Bayview remains a well- kept secret. I suspect its faithful residents prefer it that way. And even though it is a small town, it has made an outsized impact on the Inland Northwest and the security of the entire Nation. Congratulations, Bayview, on 100 years of proud, colorful history, and here's wishing you 100 more.

Reserving the right to object, I do not have any problem with the substance, but I know Senator DeMint has serious issues with it. We would like to have an opportunity to talk with him.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

Madam President, today I congratulate and acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the founding of the city of Middleton, ID. On April 10, 2010, the citizens of Middleton will gather at Roadside Park to commemorate the 100th year of its founding. This is a very historic and special day for this western Idaho community.

From its early days as a settlement in 1863, Middleton's history has embodied the frontier spirit and entrepreneurship that makes the United States a promised land of opportunity. After a gold rush struck Boise Basin, Middleton became the earliest settlement in what is now Canyon County. Middleton was named for its location on the old Oregon Trail midway between Boise City and Olds Ferry on the Snake River.

Primarily an agricultural community, Middleton became a center for milling in the West in 1871 when J.M. Stephenson and J.C. Isaacs opened their flour mill. The turn of the century brought the Idaho Northern Railway to Middleton and with it a bank, hotel and other business development. A few short years later, the town was officially incorporated on April 10, 1910.

Today, Middleton remains rooted in agriculture with potatoes, sugar beets, corn, mint, grains and dairy among its products. At the same time, it is one of Idaho's fastest-growing communities with greater portions of the Treasure Valley workforce moving there to enjoy the amenities of country living and small-town friendliness.

In 2006, Middleton celebrated the election of a hometown girl, Donna Jones, Idaho's first female State controller. Donna was raised in Middleton, went to school there, and married in the historic Methodist church.

Middleton gained national prominence in the summer of 2007, when the community came together to build a home for the Stockdale family on the television show ``Extreme Makeover Home Edition.'' Over the course of a week, hundreds of volunteers worked side by side in 100-degree heat to accomplish the task, demonstrating the true spirit of their community.

Middleton has much to celebrate and look forward to in its next century as it provides important goods and services at home and abroad. Congratulations to the city of Middleton for 100 years of service and success.

Oh, thank you so much, Mr. President.

Amendment No. 3645

I call up amendment No. 3645 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Fellow Senators, I cannot imagine anyone wanting to vote against this amendment. Let me tell you what we have here. It is very simple. Apparently, you made an error when you drafted the original bill because what you did was you levied a tax on people who make less than $200,000 a year. Very simply, what this amendment does is it corrects that.

Right now, under the bill the President signed on Monday, it raised the threshold to 10 percent from 7.5 percent at which you can deduct medical expenses. That tax falls on the most vulnerable people in America--mostly the elderly, mostly very low income. And it raises taxes on 14.7 million people who make less than $200,000 a year. The President of the United States said--he told us, he committed--he would not raise taxes on people who make less than $200,000 a year. I am sure he was just confused when he signed the bill on Monday.

Let's adopt this amendment and get the bill corrected.

Thank you, Mr. President. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I completely agree with the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho, and I associate myself with his statements fully. Senator Crapo and I want to confirm with the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee that section 308 prohibits the FAA from proceeding with the consolidation of the Boise TRACON into the Salt Lake City TRACON until after the board completes its recommendations concerning all air traffic control facility realignments and consolidations nationwide. From where we stand, it is necessary to have a thorough review of the Boise consolidation and an independent determination of the cost effectiveness of transferring the Boise TRACON to Salt Lake City.

Mr. President, here is what this has come to. In the next 48 hours, this 2,400-some page bill is going to pass the Senate. But how did we get there? Was it done the way things are usually done in this body? Not at all. One party has been able to gather 60 votes for this. Not one person from the other party is going to vote for it. How did they get those 60 votes? Did they get it by arguing this out? They did not do that. They have bluntly, boldly, and on the front of virtually every newspaper in this country bought the votes to pass this bill, to get to the 60. They bought the last handful of votes, and they did not even buy it with their money, they bought it with the American people's money. Now, that is wrong.

The explanation I heard from the majority leader the other day is: Well, that is the way this is done. That may be the way this is done in banana republics, that may be the way this is done in Third World countries, but this is America. The American people are outraged over this. The other party ought to be outraged.

I heard one Member quoted as saying: Well, I was too stupid to get any money for my State in there. I heard the majority leader say: You are not doing your job if you don't have something in there for you. Where is the outrage from the other side, not only about the process but how they are getting snookered by some other members of their party? Where is the outrage?

I watched the debate on the other side and have seen Members come down and say: The American people want this. Are they living in a cave? Sure, there are a handful of American people who want this. Let me tell you who does not. The U.S. Conference of Bishops does not want it. The National Right to Life people do not want this. Not one Republican wants this. The Democrats do not want it.

Listen to what Howard Dean, the former leader of the Democratic Party, said:

At this point, the bill does more harm than good.

Ask any Democratic Governor in America. This bill transfers $25 billion in costs in unfunded mandates to the Governors and to their taxpayers. They have to come up with $25 billion. They don't want it.

I have stood here and listened to the other side say: This is wonderful for small business. Small business is going to come out so well on this. Then why does the National Federation of Independent Business--small businesses--say:

The Senate bill fails small businesses.

The National Association of Wholesale Distributors. The Small Business Entrepreneurship Council says:

Small business group say Reid health bill more of the

same--more taxes, mandates, big spending, and nothing to help

lower insurance costs.

Associated Builders and Contractors is against it. The National Association of Manufacturers is against it, the Independent Electrical Contractors, the International Franchise Association. Even the labor unions have said: Don't tax our health care benefits. We agree with them. We are on the side of the labor unions. We should not be taxing health care benefits.

But set all that stuff aside. These are all people who have an ax to grind. The American people do not want this bill. These people who are coming out here saying the American people want this bill, I don't know whether they are not reading the newspapers, whether they are not reading their own e-mails at their office. The Quinnipiac poll that was out this morning, Tuesday through Sunday, says: 36 percent of the American public support the health care spending bill; 53 percent oppose. That is an 18-percent difference. Gallup says 61 percent of the American people don't want this bill.

Stop coming out here saying the American people want this bill. The American people do not want it. You want it, but the American people do not want it. Leaders in your own party do not want it. The labor unions do not want it. Nobody wants this thing, and most of all small business does not want this bill.

I have listened to anecdote after anecdote from the other side. There are some very touching stories, and everybody over here is empathetic with them. But you don't legislate using anecdotes because you are only hearing one side of the story, you are not hearing all the facts dealing with the anecdotes, and to then pat this 2,400-page bill and say this will solve that, that is not the way you legislate, and it is certainly not the way you argue a point.

I heard the other side come out here and pat the bill and say: When we pass this bill, 94 percent of American people will have insurance, will be covered by health insurance. In court, they say you have to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that is exactly why. You cannot pat this bill and say now 94 percent of the American people are going to be covered.

Somebody listening to that will say: Gosh, what a wonderful bill. What is it going to cost? It costs $2.5 trillion to cover 94 percent of the American people. But they don't say the bill only adds another 7 percent. The fact is, they don't tell you that 87 percent of Americans are already covered by some kind of health insurance. So don't say this is a grand and glorious victory because we are now going to cover 94 percent when 87 percent are already covered.

This is gimmickry at its worst, to tax for 4 years without giving any major benefits. Giving some minor benefits but holding off the major benefits

until later is plain gimmickry. They say: Oh, look how wonderful this is. It is not going to add to the national deficits because we are going to collect taxes for 4 years, and only then are we going to start the benefits.

What do we have here? When all is said and done and you strip it away, you have $2.5 trillion and 2,400 pages that most people do not understand, higher taxes, and higher insurance premiums.

I can give you one fact that is the best reason to vote against this bill; that is, it cuts $\1/2\ trillion out of Medicare benefits. If you are a senior watching, $\1/2\ trillion of Medicare benefits is going to disappear. I heard the President say and I heard my friends on the other side say: Look, if you like your program, if you like your insurance plan, you are going to be able to keep it. Try to tell that to the people who are on Medicare Advantage. It is being stripped. It is being eliminated under this bill. Indeed, if you read the rules and regulations under this bill, the plan you have will not even exist when it is done.

You know, I have heard the other side say: Oh, you Republicans are just playing on fears of the American people. Let me tell you something. The American people are frightened. They are afraid. It isn't just this health care bill, they have sat here for the last year, and they have watched stimulus packages costing $1 trillion. They have watched multibillion-dollar bailouts. They have seen buyouts. They have seen trillion-dollar deficits running up. They have seen the national debt now running into the trillions. And, yes, they are afraid.

But it isn't us that is doing it to them, it is you that have done it to them. It is you that have committed the actions that have put the fear into the hearts of the American people. Don't do this. Stop this nonsense. You have the opportunity still to stop this. You can do it. The American people don't want this. Stop the insanity.

I yield the floor.

I say to Senator McCain, probably one of the great ironies of all this is going to be at 8 o'clock on December 24--when this bill passes with the 60 votes, all Democrats--immediately following that vote is going to be a vote, again all 60 Democrats and only Democrats, raising the national debt. What an irony, to put $2.5 trillion in spending of a new social entitlement program, adding it to the three already huge entitlement programs that are in the process of bankrupting America, adding this to it and then turning right around and increasing the debt ceiling. When they increase it, it is going to be--nobody knows exactly how much it is going to be, hundreds of billions. But that is only in the last 2 months. They are going to have to come back again in February and increase the national debt ceiling again. What irony.

I say to Senator Barrasso, you know there are already some courageous Democrats stepping up. I hope every Democrat on the other side calls their Governor and says: Governor, what do you think about this? Help me out here. I am in caucus, they bought enough votes to get to the 60. But I have to tell you I don't like the way they did it, No. 1; and, No. 2, what about the rest of us? We didn't get the $300 million. We didn't get the X number of million. Help me out, Governor. They say they are going to shift $25 billion to the States that you are going to have to come up with. What do you think? Do you think I ought to vote for this--or maybe if one of us steps forward and says I am going to vote no and I want to set the reset button and I want to put people back to the table and say let's do this right, we can do this right.

We are Americans. We know how to do this. We are the most innovative people in the world. All we have to do is get together and do it. But to jam this down the throats of the American people--and make no doubt about it, this is being jammed down the throats of the American people on the eve of Christmas, in the middle of the night, in the face of poll after poll that says don't do this to us.

That is what is happening. There are courageous Democrats out there. Not one of them is sitting here.

Mr. President, first of all, let me say this raid on the States is just that. This is going to be a tax increase, and it is not included anywhere, it is not talked about anywhere. There is no way the States can deal with this except with massive tax increases or massive cuts in education.

In most States, I am sure, like Idaho, about two-thirds of the budget is spent on education, about 10 percent of it is on public safety, and you have about 20 percent that is on social services. Unless you have been a Governor, you can't understand how difficult it is to control what has become an expanding black hole in Medicaid.

The first social program this Congress came along with was Social Security. They decided they would do it, and they funded it. The second was Medicare. They decided they would do it, and they funded it. Along came Medicaid, and some genius here decided the Feds will only pay 70 percent or so and we will make the States pay 30 percent. Well, everywhere across this country, Governors are saying: Don't do this to us.

The dozen of us here who are former Governors were asked to participate in a conference call a couple weeks ago. I listened, but I didn't talk. I didn't need to because there was great bipartisan support for killing this bill. The most vocal people were Democrats. The most vocal Governors were Democrats, who were saying we cannot tolerate this kind of an increase. That is what is going to happen under this bill.

I am sorry none of my friends from the other side of the aisle are here, with the exception of the Presiding Officer.

Could the Senator from Mississippi take the top chart off. If my friends were here, I would tell them to pay attention to the polls because that is what America is going to look like on CNN next November 2, in the evening, if you continue down this road.

I thank the Chair.

I thank the Senator. I am astonished at the process that is involved here. If one steps back and has a look at this from 30,000 feet and you look at what we are doing here, what we are doing here is--and I say ``we'' but it is actually the other side of the aisle-- what the other side of the aisle is doing here is attempting to entirely revamp the health care system of this country and they are doing it all in one bill, which we think is a mistake. It should be broken into its component parts. The bill contains and attempts to address quality, cost, accessibility, and the insurance industry all put into one bucket and stirred and expected to resolve all of these problems at one time.

If you look at what has happened here, the House produced three bills, a multithousand-page bill. Those bills were stirred around over there, and eventually in the dead of night they finally got one of them passed with one or two votes to spare. Then it came over here. There were already two bills over here.

The two bills were produced through the committee process. The committee process is a very good process by which we produce bills. Admittedly, both of those bills were heavily skewed to the Democratic side, and all of the Republican amendments--or virtually all of the Republican amendments, certainly all the significant amendments--were voted down on a party-line basis.

Those two bills came out of those committees. One would expect that then they came to the floor and would go through the process. But, no, the two bills were taken over to the majority leader's office, doors shut, curtains closed, and various people were brought in. We don't know who, we don't know how, we don't know what the negotiations were, but at the end of the day, a third bill over here was produced, and it is 2,074 pages long. It is usually kicking around here on the desks. I see they removed most of them. I suspect they removed most of them because most people were afraid they were going to fall over and hurt somebody. These were 2,074 pages that were put together. Nobody really knows exactly what is in them. There are some generalities that we know, but we don't know all the specifics.

Then what happened is a week ago, they decide they will put 10 people in a room, leave the rest of the 90 of us out, and they will try to come up with some type of compromise. And they did. The next day, I got calls from home: I guess it is over; they put out an announcement; they have a compromise. I said: That is news to me. I don't know what is in it. I started to make some calls. Nobody would release the details of what this supposed compromise is.

Remember, in the last election we were promised things would be changed. Change we could believe in. These things would be done out in the open, without lobbyists coming and getting their input in the bill behind closed doors. That is exactly what has been produced. You have a secret document that has been produced that we have not even seen.

In spite of all this, the other side is saying: By golly, we are going to produce a bill before Christmastime. Christmas is coming, and Christmas is very close.

I can tell you, after looking at these 2,074 pages--not looking at the compromise because we are told we cannot see it--it would be reckless, absolutely reckless to shove down the throat of the American people something that has been put together in secret, something that has been put together in the dead of night, something they will not let us look at and examine, and to say: We are going to take this now and shove it down the American people's throats before Christmastime.

This is not a Christmas present the American people want. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is look at the polling. The polling shows every single day support for this bill deteriorates. It deteriorates amongst Republicans, amongst Democrats, and amongst Independents. The last poll, I think, was up to 61 percent of the American people said: Don't do this to us.

We need health care reform in this country. We want health care reform in this country. But this monstrosity that has been produced, and whatever it is they are going to drag out of the alley tomorrow and say: This is what we are going to vote on now, is not what the American people want.

I have a message for those on the other side from the American people: Don't do this to us. Stop. Bring some sanity into this. Do it right.

I yield the floor back to my good friend from Tennessee.

I want to add to what the Republican leader has said. I think there is this push to get this done before Christmas because they think people are not watching. People are watching. If you look at the poll, the poll is moving. It is moving in the wrong direction for them, but it is clearly moving.

More important, I have news for the people on the other side. If they think this is going to go away after Christmas, they have another ``think'' coming. This is one of the largest issues to be debated in this room for a long time. Every senior citizen in America is going to wake up after Christmas and say: Wait a minute, let me get this straight. Those people in Washington, DC cut $500 billion out of Medicare? Don't they care about me? The system is already going broke and they took $500 billion out of Medicare, benefits I have paid into all my working life, and transferred it over to start a new program, a new social program that also is not sustainable? What is wrong with those people?

This discussion is going to go on. Because of the complexity of this, because of the size of this bill, there are going to be news stories every single day from now until November 2 of 2010. My friends, November 2 of 2010 is coming a lot quicker than you think. By the time you get there you are not going to be able to run from this vote. The American people are wisely going to respond and they are going to tell Washington, DC, through their voting what they think of what happened in this debacle that is called health care reform. It is misnamed, health care reform. It is higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, it is stealing from the Medicare Program, and it is creating a new giant Washington, DC bureaucracy.

The American people do not want this.

I yield to my friend from Wyoming.