Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for, hopefully, no more than 15 minutes.

Madam President, yesterday, at the direction of the leadership, the House passed an FAA extension. Unlike the 20 previous FAA extensions, their extension included changes to FAA policy that had not been agreed to by both the House and the Senate--both Chambers. What is the effect? The effect is that move will begin to shut down the Federal Aviation Administration, beginning tomorrow at midnight, if we do not reach agreement on a sensible path forward to pass a clean FAA extension bill.

The consequences of an FAA shutdown will be severe. This is not about me or the content of the extraneous provisions in the House bill. This is about being responsible and doing the necessary work to ensure our aviation system continues to function at its highest level while Congress completes its business.

Over the past 4 years--which is how long we have been negotiating this bill--we have been able to work together to do the right thing each time the FAA authorities were about to expire. Congress has consistently acted to pass extensions to make certain the Nation's air transportation system continues to operate safely. Therefore, we have passed 20 extensions over 4 years waiting to do the work we need to do for an enormous Federal agency. In only one case were policy changes made during the consideration of an FAA extension, and that was last year. Airline safety measures were included because both the House and the Senate negotiators agreed to them, and the extension passed unanimously in both Chambers. You don't pass an extension which has policy riders on it unless they have been agreed to by both Chambers.

It is very unfortunate the House is taking a rash approach to pass a bill when we have made so much progress negotiating a complete FAA reauthorization package. From the time the House passed the FAA reauthorization, we have had more than 3 months of productive negotiations, where staff engaged in more than 30 meetings and spent hundreds of hours developing this legislation.

Over this period, we have worked the entire number of items to be resolved from 281 separate issues to approximately 10 separate provisions of consequence. House and Senate negotiators have compiled more than 300 pages of text for a bill. All of the components of the legislation represent needed aviation policy changes that will improve the country's airspace system.

I remind you that our country, unlike virtually any other in the modern world, basically uses radar as a way to approach landing or takeoff. It is embarrassing. It is ridiculous.

I have been able to negotiate with the two other committees in the House--the Science Committee and the Homeland Security Committee--to develop workable agreements on all of our policy differences. The main items that need to be made final are difficult, yes, partisan provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee--T&I, as they say--and its chairman, John Mica.

The House bill was developed in a partisan manner. It had a number of problematic provisions added during floor consideration. Central to these was the decision to include language that would reverse a National Mediation Board decision from the previous year. The National Mediation Board--the NMB--provision was so tainted that it passed by just seven votes in the House, which is overwhelmingly Republican. It passed by just seven votes. Consideration of the final FAA package passed in the House by a party-line vote of 223-196. Ultimately, the House FAA reauthorization bill garnered the narrowest vote margin for a House FAA reauthorization bill in almost 30 years. I am talking about the House of Representatives.

As the House well knows, the White House has threatened on numerous occasions to veto any FAA package that includes the House's National Mediation Board language. The House's addition of policy riders to the extension that are being considered as part of the FAA reauthorization discussions represent an abandonment, in my judgment, of the good-faith negotiations we have been engaged in for the last 3 months.

The House acted without consulting the Senate on this FAA extension,

without engaging the Senate on putting policy riders into their extension. From their actions and public statements, it is clear this effort is designed to force the hand of the Congress on the National Mediation Board provision that President Obama has singled out as a reason to veto the legislation. That is the legislation which basically says if you have a vote for a union, or for whatever, and if you are not present and don't vote, your vote is automatically counted as no. This is a whole new concept of democracy in America, one which is very strange and very wrong.

The House claims that negotiations on the FAA bill have been stalled over the NMB issue, but they have simply not done their work. It has been over 100 days since the House passed the FAA bill and they have never even appointed conferees. We have done that; they have not. The Senate is ready to break this deadlock, but we have not been able to engage in a formal process because there are no House conferees. The Senate includes all of its conferees in negotiations and works through each provision to reach bipartisan agreement. And as I indicated earlier, we have gone from 281 down to 10 issues. The House only had Chairman Mica, and now the House leadership, calling the shots on each negotiated item. It makes it very awkward to negotiate anything at all.

If the House wants to move forward, it is time they appointed conferees and we will be able to determine where things stand on what remains in the FAA reauthorization bill. But the Senate cannot accept the House sending over items that remain to be negotiated in a piecemeal fashion as part of this FAA extension, which is what they have done; or for that matter, any future extensions. And it may come to that.

The American people expect Congress to work together to reach agreement. That is what I have been in the Senate for, to reach agreement, and not to have 20 extensions over 4 years. What an embarrassment, chopping the FAA continuity up into tiny little chunks so they can't even let out contracts or proceed with their work. The American people expect Congress to reach agreement, and I believe we can do this, but it is going to take some more time.

If the House continues its attempt to hold the Senate hostage on the FAA extension, it will result in a partial shutdown of the Federal Aviation Administration, and people need to consider that very seriously. A majority of the Senate is more than willing to pass a clean FAA extension of any length. This week, I introduced S. 1387, with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Senator Max Baucus, to do just that. Our bill would give the FAA the necessary funding and authority to keep the agency functioning into September--I think September 16.

I have also indicated to the House on at least four occasions that I am willing to drop all of the remaining controversial items that are not included in both bills in order to get us close to a deal. That offer--seemingly reasonable--has been consistently rejected by the House.

Despite the House's lack of appointing conferees on the FAA bill, and willingness to threaten the agency with problematic extensions, I do remain committed to completing this process in a proper and responsible way.

Again, after spending 4 years trying to complete this bill, nobody wants a resolution more than I do. It is not a way to run a train, much less an airline.

I believe we can finish a comprehensive FAA reauthorization by August if the House will come back to the negotiating table in good faith. I am willing to sit down at the table anytime to move the larger FAA package forward or to develop an FAA extension that can pass the Congress. We will try to move a clean FAA extension through the Senate. Having said that, I ask that the other Members do support this effort when that happens, which will be shortly, and allow us to complete the FAA reauthorization bill.

I will say a word on the consequences of an FAA shutdown. An expiration of the FAA will shut down any activities funded out of FAA's four capital accounts, which I will not name. This includes a program to halt the airport improvement program, which provides $3.5 billion for infrastructure projects at airports annually and is estimated to support more than 150,000 jobs a year now. Nonessential employees will be furloughed, and approximately 4,000 FAA employees will be among them.

If the FAA authorities do expire, the agency estimates it could only operate air traffic support services through about mid-August 2011. This would mean services to smaller areas such as mine, West Virginia, would need to draw down in the near term so that the FAA can focus on primary traffic. That is not something we would look forward to.

A shutdown quickly starts to have safety implications too and safety projects at airports. It also places a hold on testing and implementation of NexGen efforts, Next Generation efforts. That is the modern GPS-based system which is clear, precise, and reads where airplanes are and how fast they can land one after the other with great precision. Fewer personnel will be available to dispatch to problem areas. So these are real concerns.

Madam President, I hope my colleagues will hear what I have said. I hope my colleagues in the other body will hear what I have said. I want to proceed in good faith. I have tried. It has not worked. The American people are suffering as a result of it, particularly the aviation industry and the Federal Aviation Administration. I would hope my speech will be listened to.

I thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 46 years ago, Congress made a promise to the thirteen Appalachian Regional Commission member States--New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi--to complete the ADHS. The initial Appalachian Regional Commission recognized that, while the Interstate Highway System was slated to provide historic economic benefits to most of our nation, the system was designed to bypass the Appalachian Region. The Commission found that the limited access to these regions stifled the economic opportunities for countless communities--a problem that can unfortunately still be seen all these years later.

Today, I rise to introduce the Appalachian Development Highway System Act of 2011. This legislation will move us toward the completion of the ADHS and keep that promise. This bill would also allow states that have additional ADHS funds they cannot spend to loan to other states throughout the Appalachian region which have ADHS projects that are the closest to commencing construction. Such a provision will mean that funds are spent in the most efficient and streamlined manner possible.

West Virginia represents a microcosm of the transportation successes and difficulties throughout the country. While our state faces challenges, they aren't unique to West Virginia. Communities throughout Appalachia are also tackling these same difficulties.

Since I was Governor, I have known how important ADHS funding is to the economy of West Virginia. The completion of corridor G in the southern part of the state has become a critical link between Pikeville, Kentucky and Charleston, WV much like Corridor D has in the northern part of the state between Bridgeport and Cincinnati, OH. Today, West Virginia has one more ADHS project left to complete, Corridor H. This four line highway between Weston and the Virginia State Line has approximately 58 miles left to construct until it will be finished.

An effective transportation infrastructure encourages competition, promotes our national security, and creates economic growth. It is also imperative for building our communities by helping bring in businesses, creating jobs, building the economies in our states and cities, and increasing tourism.

As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, my Committee has jurisdiction over a wide variety of issues. My Committee oversees the safety of our nation's highways, skies, pipelines, waterways, and railroads and it sets the tone of the debate when transportation issues come up in the Senate. I am working on a number of fronts to transform our transportation network.

There is still much of the same isolation and lack of infrastructure in parts of Appalachia today as when the ADHS was envisioned. The Federal Government has a responsibility to keep the promise it made decades ago to the people of Appalachia. Besides the essential need for roads, there is also a critical need for the types of jobs and economic stimulus that highway dollars will bring to these underserved areas.

Mr. President, 46 years ago, Congress made a promise to the thirteen Appalachian Regional Commission member States--New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi--to complete the ADHS. The initial Appalachian Regional Commission recognized that, while the Interstate Highway System was slated to provide historic economic benefits to most of our nation, the system was designed to bypass the Appalachian Region. The Commission found that the limited access to these regions stifled the economic opportunities for countless communities--a problem that can unfortunately still be seen all these years later.

Today, I rise to introduce the Appalachian Development Highway System Act of 2011. This legislation will move us toward the completion of the ADHS and keep that promise. This bill would also allow states that have additional ADHS funds they cannot spend to loan to other states throughout the Appalachian region which have ADHS projects that are the closest to commencing construction. Such a provision will mean that funds are spent in the most efficient and streamlined manner possible.

West Virginia represents a microcosm of the transportation successes and difficulties throughout the country. While our state faces challenges, they aren't unique to West Virginia. Communities throughout Appalachia are also tackling these same difficulties.

Since I was Governor, I have known how important ADHS funding is to the economy of West Virginia. The completion of corridor G in the southern part of the state has become a critical link between Pikeville, Kentucky and Charleston, WV much like Corridor D has in the northern part of the state between Bridgeport and Cincinnati, OH. Today, West Virginia has one more ADHS project left to complete, Corridor H. This four line highway between Weston and the Virginia State Line has approximately 58 miles left to construct until it will be finished.

An effective transportation infrastructure encourages competition, promotes our national security, and creates economic growth. It is also imperative for building our communities by helping bring in businesses, creating jobs, building the economies in our states and cities, and increasing tourism.

As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, my Committee has jurisdiction over a wide variety of issues. My Committee oversees the safety of our nation's highways, skies, pipelines, waterways, and railroads and it sets the tone of the debate when transportation issues come up in the Senate. I am working on a number of fronts to transform our transportation network.

There is still much of the same isolation and lack of infrastructure in parts of Appalachia today as when the ADHS was envisioned. The Federal Government has a responsibility to keep the promise it made decades ago to the people of Appalachia. Besides the essential need for roads, there is also a critical need for the types of jobs and economic stimulus that highway dollars will bring to these underserved areas.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the International Tax Competitiveness Act, legislation that will protect American businesses and workers by ensuring that they can compete on a level playing field with competitors who are using tax evasion to boost profits and ship jobs and dollars overseas.

This bill targets companies that cheat the Federal Government out of billions of dollars a year in revenue by taking advantage of tax loopholes. This legislation is designed to put an end to the practice where American companies avoid domestic taxes by moving their headquarters to a post office box overseas, while their executives and much of their workforce remain here in the United States. If you benefit from the protection of American laws and the talent of the American workforce, you should also pay taxes here in the United States.

In March, the television program 60 Minutes aired a story on tax avoidance

that centered on Zug, a town in Switzerland. While Zug has only 26,000 residents, it is home to nearly 30,000 corporations, many of which operate out of mailboxes. This is because the tax rates in Zug are low and companies can create phony headquarters there that allow them to avoid higher taxes in their home country.

The International Tax Competitiveness Act also discourages tax abuse related to transfer pricing. Sometimes, a company will produce a product here in the United States, taking advantage of generous research and development subsidies, and then sell it to a foreign subsidiary for pennies on the dollar. The royalty payments and profits then flow to that foreign company in a low tax jurisdiction, cheating the American government out of this revenue. This legislation would recognize many of these transactions for what they are . . . blatant abuse of the tax code, and treat profits as American-earned for tax purposes.

At a time when members of Congress are working hard to balance the budget and reduce our debt, everyone must contribute to the effort and our laws must be obeyed. It is not fair to cut funding for valuable healthcare and education programs in an effort to cut spending, while allowing corporations to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes.

I want to thank my counterpart from the House of Representatives, Representative Lloyd Doggett, for his leadership in that body on this legislation. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and thank the chair for allowing me to speak on this issue.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the International Tax Competitiveness Act, legislation that will protect American businesses and workers by ensuring that they can compete on a level playing field with competitors who are using tax evasion to boost profits and ship jobs and dollars overseas.

This bill targets companies that cheat the Federal Government out of billions of dollars a year in revenue by taking advantage of tax loopholes. This legislation is designed to put an end to the practice where American companies avoid domestic taxes by moving their headquarters to a post office box overseas, while their executives and much of their workforce remain here in the United States. If you benefit from the protection of American laws and the talent of the American workforce, you should also pay taxes here in the United States.

In March, the television program 60 Minutes aired a story on tax avoidance

that centered on Zug, a town in Switzerland. While Zug has only 26,000 residents, it is home to nearly 30,000 corporations, many of which operate out of mailboxes. This is because the tax rates in Zug are low and companies can create phony headquarters there that allow them to avoid higher taxes in their home country.

The International Tax Competitiveness Act also discourages tax abuse related to transfer pricing. Sometimes, a company will produce a product here in the United States, taking advantage of generous research and development subsidies, and then sell it to a foreign subsidiary for pennies on the dollar. The royalty payments and profits then flow to that foreign company in a low tax jurisdiction, cheating the American government out of this revenue. This legislation would recognize many of these transactions for what they are . . . blatant abuse of the tax code, and treat profits as American-earned for tax purposes.

At a time when members of Congress are working hard to balance the budget and reduce our debt, everyone must contribute to the effort and our laws must be obeyed. It is not fair to cut funding for valuable healthcare and education programs in an effort to cut spending, while allowing corporations to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes.

I want to thank my counterpart from the House of Representatives, Representative Lloyd Doggett, for his leadership in that body on this legislation. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and thank the chair for allowing me to speak on this issue.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the American Jobs Matter Act, legislation that will promote domestic job creation in the field of Federal contracting.

We must do all that we can to stop the outward migration of jobs. This bill takes the important step of directing the Federal Government to notify contract applicants that it may consider American job impact when deciding which bids to accept. The government would then be allowed to use that information in making award decisions.

There should be no greater champion of American-made goods than the Federal Government. Members of Congress come from 50 States and 435 districts and we each know of the special skill sets that our constituents possess and how fortunate the Federal Government would be to have these employees working on Federal projects. Yet our flawed procurement policy has no mechanism to assess the impact of government purchasing on American jobs.

This bill seeks to change that. Under the American Jobs Matter Act, contractors will be allowed to submit information related to the net effect of their offer on American employment. This information could include the number of American jobs expected to be created or retained as a result of the work. Bidders would also be allowed to guarantee that the jobs created would not be moved outside the United States after the contract is awarded. The legislation would finally give Federal agencies the ability to assess the impact of procurement decisions on American jobs. It does not dictate that a contract go to the applicant that will create the most jobs. It just elevates job creation to its right place in the hierarchy of criteria that should be studied before making a decision.

The American Jobs Matter Act would be an important step towards promoting a vibrant manufacturing base which is essential to our standard of living, the health of our communities, and ensuring our long-term economic security.

I want to thank my counterpart from the House of Representatives, Representative Chris Murphy, for his leadership in that body on this legislation. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and thank the chair for allowing me to speak on this issue.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the American Jobs Matter Act, legislation that will promote domestic job creation in the field of Federal contracting.

We must do all that we can to stop the outward migration of jobs. This bill takes the important step of directing the Federal Government to notify contract applicants that it may consider American job impact when deciding which bids to accept. The government would then be allowed to use that information in making award decisions.

There should be no greater champion of American-made goods than the Federal Government. Members of Congress come from 50 States and 435 districts and we each know of the special skill sets that our constituents possess and how fortunate the Federal Government would be to have these employees working on Federal projects. Yet our flawed procurement policy has no mechanism to assess the impact of government purchasing on American jobs.

This bill seeks to change that. Under the American Jobs Matter Act, contractors will be allowed to submit information related to the net effect of their offer on American employment. This information could include the number of American jobs expected to be created or retained as a result of the work. Bidders would also be allowed to guarantee that the jobs created would not be moved outside the United States after the contract is awarded. The legislation would finally give Federal agencies the ability to assess the impact of procurement decisions on American jobs. It does not dictate that a contract go to the applicant that will create the most jobs. It just elevates job creation to its right place in the hierarchy of criteria that should be studied before making a decision.

The American Jobs Matter Act would be an important step towards promoting a vibrant manufacturing base which is essential to our standard of living, the health of our communities, and ensuring our long-term economic security.

I want to thank my counterpart from the House of Representatives, Representative Chris Murphy, for his leadership in that body on this legislation. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and thank the chair for allowing me to speak on this issue.

Madam President, I want to express my strong support for the managers' amendment to S. 679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011. I support this bill to make the conformation process more efficient and more responsive because it will enable many qualified individuals to take government positions without first going through a sometimes long and arduous confirmation process here in the Senate. I believe the confirmation process is an important constitutional duty of the Senate. But it is simply not needed for every position in the U.S. Government. Not every nominee requires the same level of scrutiny and process.

The Founders understood this issue well, as the Constitution is unusually precise in this regard. It specifically enables the Congress to do what we are doing today--to vest the appointment power for inferior officers with the President. And we are doing it because the confirmation process has become so cumbersome that the Federal Government is losing very able and attractive candidates. The confirmation process can take months, from the time the President submits a candidate's name to full consideration by the Senate. This long, drawn-out process prevents the public sector from attracting some of the best and brightest.

Although I have supported the goals of S. 679 since its introduction, a few critical changes were necessary to strengthen the bill. I, as well as several of my fellow committee chairs, shared these concerns with the bill's sponsors.

I appreciate the sponsors working to address our concerns in the managers' amendment. The amendment will still make the appointment process more efficient by taking hundreds of positions out of the confirmation process. But it will also maintain Senate confirmation for some key positions. The amendment will ensure Senate confirmation is required for the chief financial officer position in several agencies. The CFO is a critical position, as I am constantly reminded in my own interactions with one of the agencies in the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction in recent months. The managers' amendment will also retain confirmation for the Assistant Secretaries for Legislative Affairs, who are critical in working with Congress.

I congratulate Senators Schumer, Alexander, Lieberman, and Collins, and their staffs for their hard work on this important bill. We would not be here today without their efforts.

Mr. President, I, along with my colleague Senator Manchin, rise today to introduce the Fair Competition for Hospitals Act of 2011, legislation that will level the playing field for a handful of hospitals in the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia who are burdened by a payment disparity as compared to hospitals in neighboring States serving the same patient population. This legislation will adjust the wage index determination for these hospitals to make sure they are treated the same as the nearby facilities in other States. It will also help hospitals in other areas of the country facing a similar situation.

Medicare's hospital wage index system was created to reflect the variation in the price of labor across the country. Usually, hospitals in different States are located far enough apart that they do not compete for the same patients or workforce, within the same labor market. However, the geography in the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia presents a unique situation; with a geographic area as little as 6 miles wide, hospitals in West Virginia are much more akin to hospitals in Ohio and Pennsylvania, on either side of the panhandle. Therefore, this small group of hospitals is competitively disadvantaged because of wage index differences across state borders. This competitive disadvantage is causing these hospitals to struggle under the weight of providing the same care for a lower payment and making it more difficult to continue the high level of care for which they have become known.

These hospitals are vital cornerstones to the people in their communities. They employ more than 4,000 people and provide health care for tens of thousands more. As an essential part of the community, they should not be significantly disadvantaged by a payment structure that does not take into account the unique makeup of this area.

The solution I am introducing today is budget neutral and fair. It will make sure that these hospitals in my State are treated on a level playing field with their competitors and not disadvantaged by an economically meaningless State border. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I, along with my colleague Senator Manchin, rise today to introduce the Fair Competition for Hospitals Act of 2011, legislation that will level the playing field for a handful of hospitals in the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia who are burdened by a payment disparity as compared to hospitals in neighboring States serving the same patient population. This legislation will adjust the wage index determination for these hospitals to make sure they are treated the same as the nearby facilities in other States. It will also help hospitals in other areas of the country facing a similar situation.

Medicare's hospital wage index system was created to reflect the variation in the price of labor across the country. Usually, hospitals in different States are located far enough apart that they do not compete for the same patients or workforce, within the same labor market. However, the geography in the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia presents a unique situation; with a geographic area as little as 6 miles wide, hospitals in West Virginia are much more akin to hospitals in Ohio and Pennsylvania, on either side of the panhandle. Therefore, this small group of hospitals is competitively disadvantaged because of wage index differences across state borders. This competitive disadvantage is causing these hospitals to struggle under the weight of providing the same care for a lower payment and making it more difficult to continue the high level of care for which they have become known.

These hospitals are vital cornerstones to the people in their communities. They employ more than 4,000 people and provide health care for tens of thousands more. As an essential part of the community, they should not be significantly disadvantaged by a payment structure that does not take into account the unique makeup of this area.

The solution I am introducing today is budget neutral and fair. It will make sure that these hospitals in my State are treated on a level playing field with their competitors and not disadvantaged by an economically meaningless State border. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Drug Savings Act of 2011. I am proud to be joined by my colleagues Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Senator Barbara Boxer of California, in introducing this important piece of legislation.

The Republican budget would end Medicare as we know it, replacing it with a voucher program that would double seniors' out of pocket costs and leave them at the mercy of private insurance companies. It would also decimate the Medicaid program, leaving millions of vulnerable individuals including seniors, children, and people with disabilities with nowhere to turn for care. We need to responsibly reduce our deficit, but taking away health care for seniors and other vulnerable people should be off the table. Rather than dismantling Medicare and Medicaid, we can save hundreds of billions of dollars by holding drug companies accountable and using the purchasing power of the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices.

That is why we are introducing the Medicare Drug Savings Act. The bill will eliminate a special deal from the 2003 Medicare prescription drug law that allows drug companies to charge Medicare higher prices for some seniors' prescription drugs. It would require prescription drug manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare for dually eligible beneficiaries in Medicare and Medicaid. This proposal would reduce the deficit, saving taxpayers an estimated $112 billion over the next ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Similar proposals were also included in the recommendations from the President's Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and the President's framework for deficit reduction.

Prior to the creation of the Medicare prescription drug program, brand-name drug manufacturers paid a drug rebate for dually eligible beneficiaries in Medicare and Medicaid. However, when the new Medicare drug program was established, drug companies no longer had to provide these rebates, resulting in windfall profits for prescription drug manufacturers, at taxpayers' expense.

The Medicare Drug Savings Act would require prescription drug manufacturers to provide a rebate for drugs provided to dually eligible beneficiaries as well as all other enrollees in the low-income-subsidy, LIS, plan in the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program. Manufacturers would be required to pay the difference between the lowest current rebates they are paying to private Part D drug plans, and, the percentage of Average Manufacture Price, AMP, they currently pay under Medicaid, plus an additional rebate if their prices grow additional inflation. They would be required to participate in the rebate program in order for their drugs to be covered by Medicare Part

Mr. President, I rise to say a few words on the introduction of the Data Security and Breach Notification Act. Senator Pryor and I introduced this bill in the 111th Congress, and given the recent high-profile data breaches that have endangered the well-being of millions of ordinary American consumers, today's reintroduction of this comprehensive bill is

timely. I want to thank and commend Senator Pryor for his leadership on this issue and for his terrific work as Chairman of the Consumer Protection Subcommittee on the Commerce Committee.

As the recent breaches at Citigroup, Sony, and Epsilon have taught us, companies that collect and store sensitive consumer information should have two important obligations: to maintain that information in a manner that is safe and secure; and to notify affected consumers as quickly as possible in the wake of a security breach in order to allow them to take necessary steps to protect themselves. Senator Pryor's and my bill addresses both of these obligations. Currently, 47 States have data breach notification laws on the books, but very few address how companies should secure their data from the outset to prevent such breaches.

Our bill calls on the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate regulations that direct companies to establish and maintain reasonable protocols to secure consumer data from unauthorized access. In this regard, the bill also has specific provisions addressing data brokers, which are companies that collect and sell massive amounts of information on individuals, largely without their knowledge. The Data Security and Breach Notification Act would allow consumers to access and, if necessary, correct the personal information that these data brokers maintain and sell.

Furthermore, if a security breach occurs, our bill requires companies to notify affected consumers unless there is no reasonable risk of identity theft, fraud or unlawful conduct. This breach notification standard is very important and reflects the most consumer-protective standard in the country. The presumption is that companies should notify consumers of a breach. However, if the breached entity determines that there is no reasonable risk of harm, for instance, if the company has made the data unusable through advanced encryption technology, then they are spared this obligation. The FTC and state Attorneys General are tasked with enforcing the law.

The Commerce Committee has a long, well-established history of addressing data security issues, and the Committee has reported data security bills in past Congresses. As Chairman of the Commerce Committee, I intend to work with Senator Pryor to enact this bill into law. Majority Leader Reid has introduced a cyber-security bill that provides for the inclusion of a data security section, and the Obama Administration has also released a cybersecurity proposal that contains a breach notification provision. The bill that Senator Pryor and I have introduced is a carefully balanced bill that protects consumers, but also addresses the legitimate needs of business and does not impose needless regulations and obligations. This bill has wide support from both the consumer groups and many sectors in the business community, and I will work with Senator Pryor to address further concerns in order to garner consensus.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Drug Savings Act of 2011. I am proud to be joined by my colleagues Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Senator Barbara Boxer of California, in introducing this important piece of legislation.

The Republican budget would end Medicare as we know it, replacing it with a voucher program that would double seniors' out of pocket costs and leave them at the mercy of private insurance companies. It would also decimate the Medicaid program, leaving millions of vulnerable individuals including seniors, children, and people with disabilities with nowhere to turn for care. We need to responsibly reduce our deficit, but taking away health care for seniors and other vulnerable people should be off the table. Rather than dismantling Medicare and Medicaid, we can save hundreds of billions of dollars by holding drug companies accountable and using the purchasing power of the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices.

That is why we are introducing the Medicare Drug Savings Act. The bill will eliminate a special deal from the 2003 Medicare prescription drug law that allows drug companies to charge Medicare higher prices for some seniors' prescription drugs. It would require prescription drug manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare for dually eligible beneficiaries in Medicare and Medicaid. This proposal would reduce the deficit, saving taxpayers an estimated $112 billion over the next ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Similar proposals were also included in the recommendations from the President's Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and the President's framework for deficit reduction.

Prior to the creation of the Medicare prescription drug program, brand-name drug manufacturers paid a drug rebate for dually eligible beneficiaries in Medicare and Medicaid. However, when the new Medicare drug program was established, drug companies no longer had to provide these rebates, resulting in windfall profits for prescription drug manufacturers, at taxpayers' expense.

The Medicare Drug Savings Act would require prescription drug manufacturers to provide a rebate for drugs provided to dually eligible beneficiaries as well as all other enrollees in the low-income-subsidy, LIS, plan in the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program. Manufacturers would be required to pay the difference between the lowest current rebates they are paying to private Part D drug plans, and, the percentage of Average Manufacture Price, AMP, they currently pay under Medicaid, plus an additional rebate if their prices grow additional inflation. They would be required to participate in the rebate program in order for their drugs to be covered by Medicare Part

Mr. President, I rise to say a few words on the introduction of the Data Security and Breach Notification Act. Senator Pryor and I introduced this bill in the 111th Congress, and given the recent high-profile data breaches that have endangered the well-being of millions of ordinary American consumers, today's reintroduction of this comprehensive bill is

timely. I want to thank and commend Senator Pryor for his leadership on this issue and for his terrific work as Chairman of the Consumer Protection Subcommittee on the Commerce Committee.

As the recent breaches at Citigroup, Sony, and Epsilon have taught us, companies that collect and store sensitive consumer information should have two important obligations: to maintain that information in a manner that is safe and secure; and to notify affected consumers as quickly as possible in the wake of a security breach in order to allow them to take necessary steps to protect themselves. Senator Pryor's and my bill addresses both of these obligations. Currently, 47 States have data breach notification laws on the books, but very few address how companies should secure their data from the outset to prevent such breaches.

Our bill calls on the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate regulations that direct companies to establish and maintain reasonable protocols to secure consumer data from unauthorized access. In this regard, the bill also has specific provisions addressing data brokers, which are companies that collect and sell massive amounts of information on individuals, largely without their knowledge. The Data Security and Breach Notification Act would allow consumers to access and, if necessary, correct the personal information that these data brokers maintain and sell.

Furthermore, if a security breach occurs, our bill requires companies to notify affected consumers unless there is no reasonable risk of identity theft, fraud or unlawful conduct. This breach notification standard is very important and reflects the most consumer-protective standard in the country. The presumption is that companies should notify consumers of a breach. However, if the breached entity determines that there is no reasonable risk of harm, for instance, if the company has made the data unusable through advanced encryption technology, then they are spared this obligation. The FTC and state Attorneys General are tasked with enforcing the law.

The Commerce Committee has a long, well-established history of addressing data security issues, and the Committee has reported data security bills in past Congresses. As Chairman of the Commerce Committee, I intend to work with Senator Pryor to enact this bill into law. Majority Leader Reid has introduced a cyber-security bill that provides for the inclusion of a data security section, and the Obama Administration has also released a cybersecurity proposal that contains a breach notification provision. The bill that Senator Pryor and I have introduced is a carefully balanced bill that protects consumers, but also addresses the legitimate needs of business and does not impose needless regulations and obligations. This bill has wide support from both the consumer groups and many sectors in the business community, and I will work with Senator Pryor to address further concerns in order to garner consensus.

Mr. President, in 1964 President Johnson envisioned an America that ``rests on abundance and liberty for all.'' It was against LBJ's backdrop of the Great Society that we reignited a tradition of community. This was a little spillover of the 1960s and our flight to the Moon and all of that, but the Nation somehow came together, and we sensed that we were a community and that we had a mutual obligation to each other, and that is at the very least characteristic of the American people, more then than now. Programs such as VISTA, Peace Corps, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid were born in those few years, 1961 though 1964.

Sadly, nearly 50 years after LBJ's war on poverty, we have witnessed vicious attempts to roll back government programs designed to give low- income Americans a hand up in life. I do not mean just low-income Americans but disabled Americans, very poor senior Americans who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid--such a difficult journey they have. What we want to do is not to give people a hand up but simply to be a safety net. That is what he said this country owed its people. That is true about defense, and that is true about social policy. We have responsibility, all of us, to do that, to make sure nobody is left out.

There is no question that we must reduce our deficit, and I have a whole series of ways that can be done in abundance, but we should not do so on the backs of working families still struggling under the weight of this recession. Oh, yes, we are in a recession, so everything that was true about people who were having a hard time before is a lot truer now. Yet bill after bill proposed by Republicans seeks to do exactly that.

The House Republican H.R. 1 was a direct attack on America's working families and the successful education, job-training, and community development programs designed to combat poverty.

The Republican budget proposal for next year goes even further. It attacks Medicare and Medicaid, the health programs on which over 100 million American people rely--some more than others, but all have to have that as a safety net.

At a critical moment in our economic recovery, Republicans are more focused on settling old scores--evidently from health care reform and the bitterness of that fight--than they are on creating jobs or protecting people. The Republican plan for getting our deficit under control amounts to an upside-down government. Instead of helping those who depend on government programs to support their families, the Republican plan would guarantee that millionaires, billionaires, and large corporations continue to receive trillions of dollars--to wit, $4 trillion under the new budget--in government subsidies, subsidies that will grow exponentially over time and substantially increase their benefit. They will do very, very well indeed were we to make the tragic mistake of accepting that.

Republicans are not for a fair or balanced approach to deficit reduction, and it is a great mystery to me. It is a quandary to me. I mean, you can say it is theological or whatever, you can make up all kinds of nasty political views of it, but nevertheless that is what it is. What they are there for is a government that only exists to support big business and wealthy Americans--kind of a perpetual TARP for their friends.

Well, I reject that notion, and the American people do too. In my estimation, there is no government program that more fully embodies our Nation's tradition of community than Medicaid, our sense of mutual obligation. Some people are born wealthy. Some people are born very poor. Some people are born in between. Some people are born wealthy and then become poor. Some people are born poor and then become wealthy. But while they are down, they have a safety net, and it is called Medicaid. You don't hear people talking about it very much, particularly, frankly--somewhat disappointedly--from my side of the aisle.

After almost 50 years, Medicaid is still a lifesaving part of what we do as a government, what we are meant to do as a government. Medicaid is simply too important to millions of people.

Nationally, there were 68 million people enrolled in Medicaid in 2010--68 million children, seniors, people with disabilities, pregnant women. These are families who are living on the edge and barely making it. They now have a safety net, more efficient than any private insurance program in existence. They have that.

In West Virginia, there were over 402,000 people enrolled in 2008, 152,000 of those aged and disabled and 191,000 children--children. So almost 50 years later, Medicaid is still a lifesaving part of our Nation's health care system. In West Virginia, Medicaid covers 50 percent of all births. That tells you something.

In our country, 40 percent of all births are taken care of by Medicaid. That says a lot.

Sixty-two percent of long-term care is Medicaid and, along with the Children's Health Insurance Program it covers 34 percent of the children in our country. There are a lot of people who fought very hard over a number of years to get the Children's Health Insurance Program that would insure more children who were not at that point eligible. Well, they are still getting it, but the House wants to get rid of that program altogether. That is 34 percent of the children in our country.

Medicaid provides an essential lifeline to families during difficult economic times, when people lose jobs that have provided them health insurance.

Medicaid is the health care program that helps States during crises-- not just people but States--including, obviously, the September 11 attacks, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the recent floods and tornadoes in the South and the Midwest--all being helped by Medicaid.

Medicaid is part of the fabric of our great Nation, and to be clear at this point, I need to say that the House bill that was passed by the House--and who voted for it and who did not obviously is very much on record--would devastate Medicaid and government in general out of discretionary spending.

Anyway, people who are covered by Medicaid do matter. They are people. They are families. They have their needs, their wants, their ambitions, their dreams, their sadnesses, their depressions, whatever.

Darren Hale, from Princeton, WV, wrote me.

I am a disabled West Virginian whose family relies on

Medicare and Medicaid.

That may be a dual-eligible--you know, poor enough to be on Medicaid, old enough to be on Medicare, not able to survive simply on just one or the other.

I hope and pray that these health programs won't be ended

or totally changed. Please do not support Republican changes

to these programs as a way of cutting costs to the taxpayer.

The poor of West Virginia and elsewhere should not and cannot

bear the burden of the deficit reduction that Republicans

want.

We need to think very seriously about our priorities. That is what this conversation really leads me to.

Let's say I am a 10-year-old boy, and I am being brought up in West Virginia. My means are meager. I step out into a road, and I am hit by a car. I don't die, but perhaps my spine is fractured--probably--legs broken, and I am condemned to a life in a wheelchair.

Now, that child is not protected by the private enterprise system. That child, unless they are an unusual child from a fairly wealthy family who then can provide insurance--but they will spend themselves down, with that insurance being so incredibly important, and they will eventually qualify for Medicaid.

You know, when you are hit by a car, that is not something you plan on. It is not something you failed to do because you did not have a work ethic or whatever the common wisdom would be about that. It is just something that happened. But the fact remains that your health care is cut, your life is changed, and it grows more miserable because you have nothing in the way of a safety net if the Republican budget is passed, if we get too aggressive about cutting Medicaid.

I am troubled. Members of Congress and senior advocates have rightfully rallied in staunch defense of Medicare. You can find wonderful groups here in Washington who rise up in anger when people talk about cutting Medicare. They are for Medicare. They know

what it is. They know what it was intended to do. They know what it does. They know what a difference it makes. But aside from an occasional editorial or story, there has been an unsettling silence about Medicaid, even from members of my own party. This is despite the fact that the five main arguments made in support of Medicare, which seem to have had a rebirth recently, are also true of Medicaid.

No. 1, the public strongly supports Medicaid, just as they do Medicare. Sixty percent of people say they would prefer to keep Medicaid as it is now. That surprises me. I would have thought the figure would have been much lower. I will get into that in a moment.

No. 2, Medicaid also creates jobs, unlike tax cuts for oil companies and rich people, et cetera. Every $1 million in Federal Medicaid spending results in 17.1 new jobs. Sounds boring. Maybe it is, but not to the people who get those jobs. That is at hospitals, that is at nursing homes, community health centers, and doctors' offices because that is what Medicaid covers.

No. 3, a Medicaid block grant or a spending cap, which is proposed by some--the cap is proposed by some to get away from the words ``block grant,'' but the effect--don't be fooled by that--is the same. They would both reduce the Medicaid benefits and increase cost sharing for seniors--for all of the recipients on Medicaid from day one. Understand that clearly, I would say to my colleagues. Much has been said about a Medicare voucher system, but capping Medicaid spending would be just as bad for the 5.5 million seniors and 11 million individuals with disabilities enrolled in Medicaid.

No. 4, instead of reducing the deficit, the savings achieved by drastically cutting Medicaid would also be used to pay for more tax breaks for wealthy Americans and large corporations.

Here is where I come to what I just don't understand about what is going on in this body.

Evidently, it is not going on outside in America. Sixty percent don't want Medicaid touched. The fact that it is a majority in Medicaid is amazing and wonderful to me. I just don't understand, Mr. President. I think it is political. I think people know that poor people and the disabled--I run into them often and seek them out sometimes, the disabled. They gather in clusters of 30, 50, or 75 people in wheelchairs. They depend upon Medicaid. That is what they depend on. We see them in the Capitol. Do people stop to see them? Not particularly, no. They know that. They are not very good lobbyists. They cannot be because it is hard for them to get around. So is it political?

The Ryan budget cuts taxes on the wealthy, on big deal people and big deal corporations, by $4 trillion. But it cuts Medicaid. Is that an act of social conscience or budget wisdom, or is that a thought-through value system? Is it just political, basically because they know that poor people don't vote? That is what I think the answer is.

You get worried about Medicare real fast.

We saw the results. We saw the House back off from that. But Medicaid? Not so. And it won't be so unless people stand up for Medicaid because they don't have lobbyists; they cannot afford them. They don't even speak that much for themselves. I don't get as many letters from them as from others, by a factor of 10. They have a sense that life has it in for them. That is partly an Appalachian characteristic, and I think many other parts of the country. There is a certain fatalism in life--that God has a plan for you, and it is not necessarily very good. If people accept that--which I don't--as a theory, then they are not going to fight for what Lyndon Johnson gave to the Nation and passed overwhelmingly in 1965.

Cuts to Medicaid will also, to the pleasure of some, undermine the health care reform law that we just passed--which is still law. Medicaid is the underpinning of the entire coverage expansion of reform. We talk about 32 million people that we are going to cover. That goes way down, Mr. President, if these Medicaid cuts are made.

So I ask my colleagues, why is Medicaid so often treated like a second-class program? More to the point, why are people who are on Medicaid treated so often as second-class people? How does that work out? Is that a product of the American sense of justice, or is that a thoughtful America looking around them? We all have friends who have been on Medicaid, or are on it, and have made it out.

Unfortunately, sometimes those people forget their Medicaid background and turn away from it because they are on to a new and better life. Somebody has to fight for these people.

Is it the feeling that maybe they are an unwanted burden on society? We have a tendency in America to say if you don't work, it is because you don't want to. If you don't have a decent job and you have a shabby home, it is because that is what you sought, not what was given to you in your, at least, destiny of the moment.

Again, I think, is it because most of the people enrolled are low- income people and many do not vote? I think that sums it up pretty well. But it is more than that. You can't go into the hollows of Appalachia or Nebraska or many other places and organize poor people to vote because their sense is, why? What does it get me?

Decade after decade, a little bit--is there a little disdain on the part of the American people for those on Medicaid? It is a glorious program, but sometimes it is an inglorious word because it implies they don't want to better themselves.

I won't go through my experiences in West Virginia for the 58th time on this floor. But I have seen so many examples of people who are beaten down--not with a cudgel but because all economic opportunity vanished from their lives. The coal mines shut down, or there weren't any other jobs around. They didn't get to go to school because no schoolbus would come because they were too far away and county law said they don't have to be picked up.

So is the deck stacked against them? Yes, it is. Out of that group, there is one--I guess a guy who is about 40; I will not mention his name. He has a terrific job. He works with the CSX System as one of their railroad maintenance people. He has a good family and is a wonderful person. But his parents were killed in a vehicle crash, and his brothers have been fighting all kinds of problems. So it really takes something special to fight your way out of that self-defined position and make your move forward.

I must say to my colleagues, the point of a representative democracy is not to serve the few, not even to serve the many, but to serve all as best we can. Does that mean we don't touch anything in Medicaid? No, but does it mean that we keep Medicaid as a safety net? Yes, it does.

We are not here elected by some people with incomes above X amount of dollars. We are here for all people--even the people who didn't vote for us or didn't vote at all. I take that very seriously, and I take my experience in West Virginia very seriously.

Sixty-eight million people are enrolled in Medicaid. They deserve a voice in this debate, and I, for one, will speak out for them. It is because somehow we feel that Medicaid recipients are not worthy--and I have expressed that in different words--simply because they have fallen on hard times or were born in hard times.

How do you help the fact that your father or mother didn't work because there wasn't any work available? What do you do about that situation? Or you were born in the ghetto. Oh, you just rise above that. Barack Obama did, therefore, anybody can. Life doesn't work like that, and the Presiding Officer knows that very well.

Then I must ask of my colleagues, how could this be? We all have neighbors, friends, and family who have or do benefit from Medicaid-- even perhaps in their distant past. In fact, nearly half of all Americans have a friend or a family member that has received Medicaid assistance at some point, and they are absolutely worthy of our support.

Is it because we believe Medicaid spending is truly out of control? Then I remind colleagues that Medicaid costs per beneficiary grew much lower over the past decade than costs for any private health insurance coverage. The administrative costs in Medicaid are between 1 and 2 percent. An average health insurance company is probably 10, 15, or 20 percent--and all of this despite the fact that Medicaid has more comprehensive benefits. They are much

larger benefits that cover more. They do more for people, and significantly lower cost sharing.

I fervently believe the American tradition of shared responsibility-- everybody working together for the greater good--is a tradition worth upholding and that a government has an ongoing role to play in its preservation. It cannot play that role perfectly, but it can do it as best and most fairly as possible.

Instead of shortchanging Medicaid, we must have the courage to rein in tax breaks for corporate America and for people of great wealth. Medicaid does exactly what it was designed to do all those years ago: provide a safety net for low-income Americans. There are lots of worthwhile and positive ways we can improve the program, I grant you that. But trashing Medicaid, gutting Medicaid--especially if it is sort of flipping it aside for political gain--cannot be an option.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.