Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to deliver a very difficult speech. This will be my farewell speech to the Senate. Serving as Nevada's 24th Senator has truly been the greatest professional privilege of my life. Growing up with a single mom in very humble surroundings, I simply never imagined that one day I would end up as a Member of such an august body.

Unfortunately, the amazing experiences that stem from the more than 10 years of my Senate service cannot be summed up in one single speech. I owe a humble thank you to many people who helped to get me here and who have helped me serve effectively, from campaign volunteers, staff, and donors, to some of the best people with whom I have ever worked, my Senate staff. I cannot thank you enough for the honor of the past many years. Each of you has helped me to achieve more than my individual talents alone could have ever accomplished. When I look back over my time, both here and in the House of Representatives, I am very proud of the many accomplishments that we together have been able to achieve. I wish to take a moment to mention a few.

The beauty of the State of Nevada has been greatly enhanced and protected for the enjoyment of future generations because of my work in authoring the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act and several other important lands bills. Because of these lands bills, Nevada has been able to

keep over $3 billion that has been raised from land sales in southern Nevada. This is money that did not have to come out of the U.S. Treasury.

In the past, BLM land; that is, the public land in Nevada, was exchanged for sensitive land around the State. But as a result of the lands bills we worked on, we were able to, instead, auction this BLM land, raising far more money for the State of Nevada than the land exchanges ever were able to do. This land revenue has been used to purchase sensitive land to protect it for future generations, but also to construct over 100 beautiful parks and trails in southern Nevada. I cannot tell you how proud I am when I drive around Las Vegas and see so many families enjoying these beautiful areas. These lands bills have made the great quality of life we enjoy in Nevada that much better.

Additionally, for those in northern Nevada, my love for Lake Tahoe has been evident throughout the years. I have worked hard to ensure that the beauty of those tranquil waters and surroundings will be just as beautiful decades from now as they are today, and our lands bills helped to achieve this goal. Through this legislation, hundreds of millions of dollars have been devoted to preserve its ecosystem, and important fuel reduction projects around our State will help prevent catastrophic wildfires that so threaten the future of our State and its breathtaking landscape.

Additionally, I have been a passionate advocate for education reform. Our lands bills have directed millions of dollars to Nevada schools as an endowment our State will benefit from for many years yet to come. I thank Senators Reid and Bryan for their cooperation in helping draft this legislation that so greatly benefits our State. I also thank the folks on my staff, especially John Lopez, who worked so hard to turn these pieces of legislation into law.

Speaking of legislation that became law, I wish also to highlight another accomplishment of which I am so proud.

As the only bipartisan provision in the so-called ObamaCare bill, Senator Tom Carper and I worked against some powerful interest groups to get the Healthy Behaviors Act added to the health reform bill.

Our provision was modeled after efforts by Safeway in the private sector to both improve health care quality and to reduce the cost of health care. Essentially, our provision rewards people in the form of lower health care premiums for making healthy choices, such as quitting smoking. If we as Americans continue to eat too much, exercise too little, and to smoke, it really does not matter what kind of health care reform we enact in this country; costs will continue to escalate. I hope this provision will highlight the individual contribution we can all make to reduce our health care costs.

Certainly this legislation would not have become law if it were not for the spectacular job Michelle Spence from my office did. As I mentioned earlier, I simply cannot list the number of things or the number of people on my staff who have helped me with legislation. We have accomplished a lot. I wish I could do it in just one speech, but it is not possible. I could speak at length about my fight for lower taxes and individual freedoms, protection of constitutional rights, the dignity of our service men and women, education reform, and so much more, but there is not enough time. I hope my voting record and legislative record in the Senate will continue to speak for me long after I have left this Chamber. I would like to speak, though, about a few observations I have made through the course of my time here.

When I first ran for office back in 1994, I was rather naive. I was also very idealistic. I simply wanted to make a difference in this great country. Throughout the years, I may have lost my naivete, but I never lost my idealism. I still strongly believe the United States is the greatest country in the history of the world, and it is worth fighting for and worth protecting.

I will leave this place knowing there are some really outstanding people here who are just as idealistic or maybe more so than I ever was, and they are willing to take the tough political votes that are necessary to save this country from total bankruptcy. My prayer is that more people will join them in that courage. Our children and our grandchildren deserve to have the same country we enjoyed, and it is up to the House, the Senate, and the White House to stand together with the American people to save the future of the United States from self- destruction.

When I first arrived in the Senate, I observed several people who were so caught up in their own self-importance and busyness that arrogance literally dripped from them. Unfortunately, they were blind to it, and everyone could see it but them. When one takes a position of leadership, there is a very real danger of getting caught up in the hype surrounding that status. Oftentimes, the more power and prestige a person achieves, the more arrogant a person can become.

As easy as it was for me to view this in other people, unfortunately, I was blind to how arrogant and self-centered I had become. I did not recognize that I thought mostly of myself. The worst part about this is that I even tried not to become caught up in my own self-importance. Unfortunately, the urge to believe in it was stronger than the power to fight it. This is how dangerous the feeling of power and adulation can be.

My caution to all of my colleagues is to surround yourselves with people who will be honest with you about how you really are and what you are becoming, and then make them promise to not hold back no matter how much you may try to prevent them from telling you the truth. I wish I had done this sooner, but this is one of the hardest lessons I have had to learn. I believe that if I had learned this lesson earlier, I would have prevented myself from judging two of my colleagues when I had no place to do so.

When I was chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, I was confronted with the personal issues facing Senator Larry Craig and Senator Ted Stevens. Following Larry's admission and Ted's guilty verdict, I too believed in the power of my leadership position, and I called on both of them to resign. I sincerely struggled with those decisions afterward, so much so that I went to each of them a few weeks afterward and admitted what I did was wrong, and I asked both of them for forgiveness. Each of these men was gracious enough to forgive me even though publicly I did not show them the same grace. I am very grateful to both of these men. When I announced my personal failure 2 years ago, Larry Craig was one of the first to call and to express his support. I truly cannot tell you what that meant then and what it means to me today.

The purpose of me speaking about this is to humbly show that in life a person understands mercy a lot more when they need it and when it is shown to them. Again, this is a hard lesson I have had to learn, but I hope I can now show mercy to people who come into my life who truly need it.

As I conclude, I have a few others I want to thank.

My colleague from the State of Nevada, Senator Reid. I ran against Senator Reid in 1998. He beat me by a little over 400 votes. Afterward, 2 years later, when I was fortunate enough to win the election, Senator Reid and I sat down and we kind of made a pact between us that we were going to get along even though we were of different parties, we were going to put the past behind us, and we were going to work together for the people of the State of Nevada. A funny thing happened along the way over these last 10-plus years: Senator Reid and I developed a friendship--two people with opposite voting records, opposite views on major national issues, but we worked together on a lot of issues that affected our State. A friendship formed between our staffs, and a true friendship formed between Senator Reid and myself. And for that, I want to thank him.

To my Senate colleagues, I would like to take a moment to apologize for what you have had to go through as a result of my actions. I know many of you were put in difficult situations because of me, and for that I sincerely apologize.

My wife Darlene, who has been through so much with me and has fought through so many struggles, is owed more than I could ever repay. I do not deserve a woman like her, but I love her, and I am so grateful the Lord has put her in my life.

Our children, Trevor, Siena, and Michael, have never known anything other than their dad leaving each week to come back to Washington, DC, for my work. All three of them are incredible, and it has been a blessing and a privilege just to be their dad.

I have also been very blessed with a great set of parents who have stood by me through thick and thin, and also the rest of my extended family. I also have wonderful friends who have been there with me and my family through the highs and the lows.

Lastly, most importantly, I want to thank God for allowing me to be here. I have been encouraged by some not to mention God because it looks hypocritical because of my own personal failings, but I would argue that I have not mentioned him enough. I am glad the Lord not only forgives, but he actually likes it when we give Him thanks. So, Lord, thank you for all you have done in my life. I hope I can do better in the future. I hope I can learn to love You with all my heart, soul, and to love others as myself.

My colleagues, I bid you farewell. Know that you will all be in my prayers.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I say hello to my good friend from Delaware. He made some very good comments. I want to follow up and talk about this debate we are having.

The Senator from Tennessee, Senator Corker, talked about the need to forget about whether you are a Republican or a Democrat and think about what is best for the country, and that is what we should be doing right now.

People around the country understand we have a serious debt problem. Spending has been run up under Republicans and Democrats. People can blame whichever party they want, but the reality is we now have a $14 trillion national debt. This year alone, $1.6 trillion is how much more we are going to spend than we take in. That is 40 cents, or a little over 40 cents, out of every dollar we are spending this year we are borrowing from countries like China. That is such a dangerous thing to do, because we are now dependent on other countries and our economy is on very shaky ground. Everyone in this body understands this is completely unsustainable.

Let's look at the path the President has set us on as far as his budget is concerned. If we took up his budget, this year alone we will spend about $250 billion in interest on our national debt. That is kind of like having a credit card and you are spending $250 billion in interest on that credit card. If we follow the President's plan over the next 10 years, that $250 billion will go to almost $900 billion a year. That is more than Social Security, more than Medicare, and more than national defense. That is why this is completely unsustainable.

So now we are in a debate over a few billion dollars compared to trillions of dollars? It is a drop in the bucket. That is why I believe it is important for both sides to get this behind us so we can focus on the much larger issues.

I have a 100-percent pro-life voting record. I believe very strongly that life is precious; that God created each of us in his image, and that life should be protected. But we have to face reality. The Democrats are in control of the Senate and in control of the White House. There is no way they are going to allow Planned Parenthood, which is the largest abortion provider in the United States--and I disagree with what they do--the Democrats will never allow us to defund Planned Parenthood while they are in charge. So we have to look at what we can do. What is achievable?

Right now, I think one of the biggest moral issues we face in this country is the debt. What we are doing to our children and grandchildren is handing them a country they cannot afford. The taxes will have to be too high. We could default on our debt and end in a depression which is worse than the Great Depression simply because this body, the body on the other side of the Capitol, and the White House have spent too much money for too long. We have spent money we do not have.

Next year's budget and the debt ceiling are much bigger issues than we are dealing with here. We don't need to shut down the government. We just need to sit down, make the compromises necessary so we can move this process forward and get to the much larger issues on spending and debt.

We have seen in the news that Portugal, Greece, and Ireland have had serious problems. They have actually had their debt downgraded to almost junk status. One of the countries is actually considered junk bond status. The others have now had their bonds seriously downgraded. What does that mean? That means they are paying higher interest rates.

Yesterday, the EU raised their interest rates. The European Union raised their interest rates because of fears of inflation. Here in the United States, our Federal Reserve is keeping interest rates low. But we know inflation is coming, and eventually they are going to have to raise interest rates because of inflation and overspending by the United States. What does a rise in interest rates mean to the average American? It means that the home mortgage is going to go up.

Remember, a lot of Americans have these adjustable rate mortgages. So the next time they refinance those mortgages, their payments will be higher. They are already having trouble meeting these payments.

What does that mean for job creation? The small business owner who wants to get a loan will have to pay higher interest rates. That affects the cost of capital and whether they may be able to even start a business in the first place. It will hurt job creation right in the middle of this very little, very delicate bit of job recovery that we are having in the United States.

This spending and the debt is not some esoteric argument. It is real and it affects real people's lives. It isn't

something we can put off for another 3, 4, 5 years. We must deal with it now. We know that entitlements are the biggest part of the budget. Yes, discretionary is important. We have to deal with discretionary and we have to deal with defense. We overspend in defense in so many wasteful programs, but the big issue is going to be entitlement spending.

Congressman Ryan put out a very bold budget the other day--the first person to come forward with a bold proposal to deal with entitlement spending in this country. The President's debt commission put out a proposal, but the President, unfortunately, ignored his own debt commission and didn't put any of their recommendations in his budget. But both Republicans and Democrats are going to have to deal with this spending problem--this spending binge we have been on--otherwise we are not going to have the same United States of America we have all been enjoying our entire lives. We are literally going to become an economy that cannot exist the way we exist today because we cannot afford it. Our debt will literally collapse the economy of the United States.

A recent study came out, done by two incredible economists named Rogoff and Reinhart. These are viewed by both sides of the aisle as well-respected studies. They studied sovereign debt over the last 200 years of about 64 countries. What they found is any time the debt reaches 90 percent of the economy, or 90 percent of the GDP, it causes a net decrease of about 30 percent of economic growth going forward.

Those are numbers. But what does it mean? It means a loss of jobs. In the United States, we have over a million jobs that will be lost, that would otherwise be created. So this is real stuff. Where are we in the United States? Currently, we are about 94 percent of GDP. So we are already there, and it is going to get worse and worse.

That is why this debate we are having over spending is so critical, and critical that we get it under control. We need to forget about which party is going to have a political advantage. I am one of those Senators--and there are quite a few of us--who is not running for reelection. Everybody in this body needs to forget about whether they get reelected and do what is right for the country. It is so critical right now that we put our country first.

House Republicans have sent over a proposal that would do a couple of things. One, it would fund the troops. Let's not let our military come to work and not get paid. That would be ridiculous. Let's at least fund the troops and pass this 1-week spending proposal that would fund the government. It does cut $12 billion out. The only significant rider in there is the DC abortion rider that says DC can have funds to provide abortions. This is something that was in law and that President Obama signed, in a bill that many Democrats on the other side have signed, so it should not be that controversial.

In the meantime, since we have agreed on the spending number, we can work out some of these other controversial things in the next week. I believe that is the right thing to do to keep the government open, so people can continue to get their paychecks, so people can continue to visit national parks, and on and on and on. I think we all know the problems if the government shuts down.

I think it is critical that we start doing what is right for the country instead of what is right for somebody's reelection. Let's sit down and make the serious and tough choices so we can put this country on the right path.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in reaction to President Obama's speech this week outlining what he believes to be in our Nation's interest in Libya. Last week, while working in Nevada, many of my constituents asked what my thoughts were on the military action we have taken in Libya. My answer to them was simply that I did not believe the President had outlined a vital U.S.-American interest in our engagement in Libya, and that the United States cannot afford to be the police force of the world.

This week, with the President's address to the Nation, I had hoped I would hear something to change my mind or, better yet, something that would instill confidence about the President's decision, but, unfortunately, this address provided the American people with many more questions than answers. President Obama left me wondering why any vital U.S.-American interest in Libya would justify military action.

He said refugees would stream into Tunisia and Egypt, but we often aid refugees without F-15s. He said we needed to preserve the writ of the United Nations Security Council, but he did not explain why the safety of our men and women in uniform should ever be put at the service of that body. He said we needed to show dictators across the region that they cannot use violence to cling to power, but if President Obama's policy fails to get rid of Qadhafi, that is exactly the lesson they will learn.

The President left me wondering about the definition of ``military success.'' He said our military mission is limited, but how do we know when we have hit our limit? Is it when Qadhafi poses no threat to civilians? Is it when all of Qadhafi's thugs are gone, or is it when Qadhafi steps down?

This week's address from President Obama makes it clear that we may be headed for another decade-long military operation in the Middle East. Our service men and women cannot afford to be engaged in another Middle East dispute; they are stretched thin enough as it is.

This weekend, Secretary of Defense Gates said, when asked about whether Libya is in our vital interest:

No, I don't think [Libya] is a vital interest for the

United States. . . .

So what are we doing? I understand the President may sincerely want to

save lives in Libya, but our country cannot afford to be the police force for the rest of the world. We did not step in when there was genocide in Darfur. As a matter of fact, there is a story today which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

The headline reads:

Darfuries feel betrayed by Libya no-fly zone.

We didn't step in in Darfur. We also didn't help the people of Rwanda. The last time we did try to police a situation such as this was in Somalia, and we all know how that ended.

That is probably why we haven't intervened in the Ivory Coast, even though there are more than 1 million people who have fled their homes and hundreds of thousands have crossed into neighboring countries.

Other nations such as France wanted to take the lead on addressing the Libyan situation. I believe we should have allowed them to do so. The President's address made it clear that our military action in Libya is less about humanitarianism and more about realizing a multilateralist fantasy.

While Secretary Clinton has continued to refer to S. Res. 85 as the Senate's endorsement of the President's establishment of a no-fly zone, I would like to point out to the American people that this talking point is misleading. This is what she said:

The U.S. Senate called for a no-fly zone in a resolution

that it passed, I think, on March the 1st, and that mission

is on the brink of having been accomplished. And there was a

lot of congressional support to do something.

This Senate resolution received the same amount of consideration that a bill to name a post office has. This legislation was hotlined. There was no debate allowed, no legislative language provided to consider. There was no vote. S. Res. 85 described a no-fly zone as a possible course of action for the U.N. Security Council's consideration. It did not instruct the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to take action, let alone authorize a military operation. Using the hotline process for this resolution as a congressional endorsement for the President's policy is simply not an adequate use of Congress's role in authorizing military action. The administration unilaterally developed, planned, and executed its no-fly zone policy. The President consulted with the United Nations, he consulted with NATO, he consulted with the Arab League, but he did not consult with the body that is mandated under the Constitution: the U.S. Congress. There was no congressional approval or oversight of this military commitment.

The Senate resolution simply does not authorize or endorse the use of force. It urges a multilateral body to consider a no-fly zone as a possible course of action. This is not the legal equivalent of an authorization to use force. This is not the political equivalent of that authorization. So what is it?

I believe it is a disrespectful checking of the box for congressional approval by the administration's unilateral action. As Secretary Gates has stated, there is not a vital interest for our Nation in Libya, which means now that we are engaged there, the United States is at risk of mission creep and the possibility of a ``take two'' of what happened in Somalia.

Before our military intervention, U.S. interests in Libya were minimal. Our intervention has overinflated our interests in Libya's civil war. If Qadhafi stays in power--and many believe he will--and continues to fire on innocent civilians, demands for U.S. military capabilities will go up. This sounds strikingly similar to what happened in Somalia. Furthermore, this engagement has explicitly announced our support for the rebel cause. Yet we don't even know who or what these rebels are or what their ideology is. President Obama's military strategy risks damaging our already shaky credibility in this unstable region of the world. Even with complete military success, President Obama's policy may appear to fail because he has disconnected military means--a no-fly zone--from his strategic ends--Qadhafi's removal.

The Obama administration has confused our priorities in the Middle East. Operations in Libya divert our focus from unstable situations in Syria, Yemen, and Iran, all of which are more important for U.S. interests. Operations in Libya muddle our interests and undermine our ability to lead across the region. If turmoil in Libya calls for a no- fly zone, are we prepared to make the same commitments in Syria and Iran, where we have far greater strategic interests? If not, what kind of message does this send to reformers in those countries?

Last year, when there was an uprising in Iran, the President basically said: Hands off. It is not in our interest. We can't do anything about it. What kind of a message does that send?

Some have argued that oil is the underlying reason for our engagement in Libya. Whether this is the case or not, the perception is there. Instead of lessening our dependence on dangerous foreign oil, this administration has steadfastly refused to allow the United States to tap into its own oil reserves.

In Alaska alone there are three places that would supply the United States with 65 years' worth of what we import from the Persian Gulf.

Unfortunately, as strongly as I believe in renewable energy, it is going to take us 30 to 40 years for renewable energy infrastructure to be up and running enough to start contributing significantly to our Nation's energy supply, which is why we need to act to get

more oil, natural gas, and other types of American fossil fuels into our energy supply today.

I would argue that there is a vital U.S.-American interest to harvest our own energy or we risk engaging in a military conflict every time those in an unstable Middle East cannot get along.

This is absolutely a critical debate. There are legitimate differences on both sides of the debate, but this is a debate that Congress should be willing to have: whether the President should have consulted and whether this is in our vital U.S.-American interest to go forward.

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

Mr. President, I want to talk for a while on the Hutchison amendment which says that, while the health care reform bill President Obama and the majority passed last year is going through the courts, any related provisions would be put on hold until the courts decide whether the law is constitutional.

This is an important amendment because States and private companies are being forced to spend a lot of money putting programs into place that may not have to be put into place if this bill is indeed struck down as unconstitutional. During the health care debate last year, I raised a constitutional point of order against the individual mandate because, frankly, I believe strongly that it is unconstitutional. A few of the courts around the country have agreed with me and ruled that it is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, that constitutional point of order was voted down along party lines. There is still a very good possibility--and I am hoping the courts will see it this way--that this bill will be struck down as unconstitutional because there are no ``severability clauses'' in the legislation. In other words, if one part is found unconstitutional, the entire bill is unconstitutional.

The individual mandate is the place most people are focusing on. If that is struck down as unconstitutional, the whole bill will come down. Yet States, with all of the programs and exchanges they have to set up, will literally be spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to comply with a law that may be unconstitutional. We should not have them go through that. We should actually have an expedited procedure to go through the courts and put everything else on hold so we can determine whether this law is constitutional.

Let me talk a little bit about some of the problems we are seeing with the health care bill. First of all, we know it is raising premiums. It was promised that the average premium in the United States would go down by about $2,500 per year.

I will give you one quick anecdote I heard yesterday. I was on the phone with one of Nevada's largest employers, Steve Wynn, of Wynn Resorts. He is known to be probably the most union-friendly, the most employee-friendly employer in the State of Nevada. He has been for years. His employees love him. He pays well and offers good benefits. He told me yesterday they did a study from 2005 to 2010 of their health care costs. They increased, on average, about 8 percent a year. This year, he said that, specifically because of this health care bill, their increase was 12 percent. That is a 50-percent increase in the rate of growth of their health care costs.

What did that mean to the average employee who works for Wynn Resorts? Wynn Resorts shouldered a lot of the costs, but the economy in Nevada is pretty tough right now. It is tough on employers, so they passed some of those costs to the employees. It means an additional cost of $900 a year to the average employee who works for Wynn Resorts. This is a story I have heard repeated across Nevada over and over again.

Two-thirds of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If you take $900 out of the pockets of the average employee in my State--and I am sure that is being repeated across the country--that is less money people have to spend to encourage economic growth.

We know that this bill was over 2,000 pages. Very few people, if any, have read it. If they did read it, I can guarantee you that almost no one understood it, even the people who wrote it. This bill now has over 6,000 pages of regulations which, once again, are incredibly complex. Unless you are a large company that has experts and lawyers who can search through this law to figure out what it means to you, it is very difficult to understand.

There was over $500 billion taken out of Medicare. It wasn't taken to shore up Medicare; it was actually taken out to create a brand new entitlement program. This health reform law takes $500 billion out of Medicare and puts it toward a new entitlement program instead of shoring up Medicare and making Medicare a better system.

There were also hundreds of billions of dollars in higher taxes in this bill. Sure, the majority passed it. They said it was just the health insurance companies they were going to tax, and just medical devices were going to be taxed. There were 11 new taxes in this health care bill, which is one of the reasons I opposed it.

Here is a real-life example of what those taxes mean to patients and those developing future cures. One company produces an extraordinary device for people who have uncontrollable seizures--epilepsy is a common name for that condition. One of the treatments developed by this company to treat epilepsy is an electronic device that helps reprogram the brain. It is implanted in the brain: instead of a pacemaker for the heart, it is like a pacemaker for the brain. It is an expensive device, which costs over $20,000. The company that makes this device puts most of the money they make back into research and development so they can make better devices. Because of this new tax, they are not going to have nearly the same resources to put back into R&D to develop better products and help more patients in the future. If we had not had this device in the first place, many people who have completely uncontrollable seizures would

not have had this help. With this device, over half of those people are actually able to control their seizures. No other medication works for them. Half of them are able to control their seizures because of this device.

These are the types of things in this bill that are doing damage to our health care system, which is by all accounts the finest health care system in the world. The biggest problem with this health care bill is that it didn't go after the No. 1 problem we have in health care: the cost. Health care is too expensive in the United States. Even though it is of the finest quality, it is too expensive. We should strike down this bill as unconstitutional, or repeal it. Then, we should start with a health care reform bill that goes after the true problem in health care, and that is the cost.

What can we do about the cost of health care? We should absolutely do something that many States are already doing; the State of Texas is a good example of where it has been successful. We should change our medical liability laws, to rein in out-of-control trial lawyers across the country who are driving up all our health care costs. We know doctors prescribe all kinds of unnecessary tests just to cover themselves in case of a lawsuit.

When good medical liability reform bills are put into place, the true victims of medical malpractice actually get compensation because there are not as many frivolous lawsuits clogging up the courts. The other thing that happens is the cost of medical liability insurance and the cost to our health care system goes down.

The Congressional Budget Office reported that there would be approximately $70 billion to $80 billion in savings over the next 10 years if we enacted medical liability reform. I think that estimate is very low, but the number is not insignificant.

There are many other things we can do to create a health care reform bill that brings down costs. First of all, we need to put the patient back at the center of the health care universe. Today we have what is called a third-party payer system. The person receiving the care is not the person paying for the care. We need to put the person who is receiving care back with, what is known as, skin in the game. Then, they will start talking with their doctor and their doctor will talk with them. This can be done through health savings accounts.

Health savings accounts combine a high-deductible policy with a health savings account that either an individual's employer contributes to or the individual contributes to, and the individual actually negotiates with their doctors. The beautiful part about that is that they do not have to worry about a gatekeeper. Anybody who belongs to an HMO knows they have to go to a gatekeeper before getting to a specialist. If it is your money, you can go to any doctor you want, and the doctor has to be accountable to you because it is your money.

If we had over 300 million people in the United States shopping for health care, then market forces would drive down the cost of care and bring up the quality. Unfortunately, the government already controls most health care in the United States. The government pays almost 60 percent of total bills. When we add it all up, about 60 percent of the bills are paid for by the Government of the United States. The government already controls health care. That is the reason we continue to see costs in health care skyrocketing over many years, until recently when the costs are going up even faster.

This health care reform bill that passed last year--some people call it ObamaCare--is actually making the situation worse, not better, for the health care system in the United States.

I believe strongly that the Hutchison amendment, which would freeze any implementation of the health care bill until it is decided in the courts whether it is constitutional, is a vital amendment. It will make sure that States and private sector companies do not waste a lot of money complying with a bill that might be struck down as unconstitutional. This is money we cannot get back. Once it is spent, it is gone. We cannot get that money back.

We already know how many States are struggling with their budgets right now. We see what is happening in Wisconsin, Ohio, and my State of Nevada. It is happening all over the country. We need to put this bill on hold until we know whether it is going to be ruled constitutional.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I wish to talk about gasoline prices and energy. Just a few years ago, this Nation was in the middle of an energy crisis not unlike the one we are in today. Back then Nevadans were confronted with record prices at the gas pump, and this body did nothing to relieve their burden.

When I joined my colleagues to demand that we explore our own domestic energy possibilities, the call fell on deaf ears. In May of 2007, I said that ``moving America toward energy independence needs to be more than a bumper sticker and a campaign slogan.'' Unfortunately, it remained just that.

Campaign promises to protect our Nation's security interests remain on the campaign trail, and cheers at political rallies to increase America's energy independence are left behind with deflated balloons and forgotten confetti. Well, here we are. My colleagues on this side warned against what an unstable Middle East could mean for our gasoline needs. Yet, today, what are we witnessing? Turmoil in that region and escalating gasoline prices at home once again.

Unfortunately, this time around, our economy is also in trouble. My State of Nevada has continued to suffer the most during this recession, and economists are not predicting a quick turnaround anytime soon.

The problem with this new energy crisis is that a record number of people in Nevada and around the country are now without jobs and without homes. So how are they supposed to afford $4-a-gallon gasoline or maybe even $5-a-gallon gasoline at the pump? I will tell you simply, they cannot afford this.

Recent unrest in Egypt, Libya, and other countries has forced gas prices to rise nearly 40 cents a gallon in the recent weeks. For those struggling in my State, that is verging on unfavorable. For those who are worse off, it already is. The price of gas is at a 2-year high. The average price of a gallon of gasoline in America is now $3.52. When President Obama first took office, the average price for a gallon of gasoline was $1.84. That is a 91-percent increase. What are we doing? Nothing. In Nevada, gas prices are rising and are now above $3.60 a gallon. The biggest concern with the rising cost of gasoline is that it translates into higher prices at the grocery store, utility bills, and virtually everything we do.

I have spoken at length over the past few years about people in my State who are being forced to decide between paying the rent or putting food on the table to feed their families. But what are they going to do if they can afford to do either? This is a sad thought for me but a reality for many others.

Throughout this economic downturn, Members from both sides of the aisle have come to the floor to talk about people in their home States who are suffering. Philosophical differences aside, both parties have put forth legislation that they believe will help the economic plight of many Americans. What have we done about energy prices that threaten to derail recovering families? Nothing.

Rising gas prices affect nearly every sector of our economy. Everywhere we look in America today, our economy continues to be directly affected by the skyrocketing price of fuel. At a time when unemployment is over 14 percent in my home State and Americans are already struggling financially, we can no longer allow this problem to be ignored or to be set aside. We need real solutions that develop our domestic energy and oil production, and we need those solutions to decrease our dependence on dangerous foreign oil.

We send over $500 billion a year out of this country to buy foreign oil. A lot of that money ends up financing the very people who would do us harm. What America needs is everything but foreign oil from dangerous countries. That needs to be our energy policy so that we can ensure that the price of gas does not further cripple our crumbling economy.

In 2008, I spoke on the Senate floor and said these following words:

The American people are looking to us for solutions. We

have a responsibility to make decisions here in order to

provide them much needed relief at home. For many months,

Republicans have been working to provide that relief. We have

been focused on a three-pronged approach: boosting renewable

energy and alternative energy, encouraging energy efficiency,

and growing our American energy supply. This line of attack

balances the need for us to be responsible stewards of our

environment with the need for reliable, affordable energy to

fuel our lives and our economy.

Again, that is what I said in 2008 when Republicans wanted to address the need for American energy independence. But the Democratic majority had other priorities.

We simply cannot continue to pass the buck on to another Congress and kick the can down the road. We need to take action, and we need to do it now.

Like the spending cuts, everything needs to be on the table when discussing American energy independence. By working to eradicate our dangerous dependence on foreign oil from the Middle East and Venezuela, we can protect Americans from choosing between paying the rent, providing food for their families, or paying for gas to drive to work.

What does an ``everything but dangerous foreign oil'' approach look like? It means 10 billion barrels of oil from ANWR in Alaska. It means 28 billion barrels from deep-sea exploration; about 1.8 trillion barrels possibly from oil shale in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming; trillions of cubic feet in American natural gas. It also means a 230- year supply of coal and great potential for nuclear energy. These are American sources of energy. If we combine those with conservation and aggressive investment in renewable and green energy--solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, fuel cells, and electric vehicles--they are all key to our American energy independence.

I recently visited a couple of different places in my home State of Nevada that are producing electric cars. Those are great, but you still have to produce the energy to produce the electricity to run those electric cars. That is why we need this ``all of the above'' approach for American energy independence.

My home State of Nevada is actually a shining example of many innovations being made on these fronts. Nevada Solar One in Boulder City is one of the largest capacity solar powerplants built in the world and generates enough electricity to power at least 14,000 households a year. Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas has the Nation's biggest photovoltaic solar power system, which supplies 30 percent of the energy used at the base. Henderson has Nevada's first solar community, where each home has a rooftop solar electric system. Late in 2007, Ausra, Inc., selected Las Vegas as the site for the first U.S. manufacturing plant for solar thermal power systems. The world's third largest geothermal power producer is headquartered in Reno, NV. And Nevada is home to the only associate degree program in the Nation in energy efficiency. It is absurd to think that people in Nevada are going to be crippled by increasing prices at the gas pump at the same time that our State is leading the way in renewable energy innovation simply because Congress will not act to address this crisis.

Throughout this last year, bills were passed filled with unintended consequences because every dip in the economy was deemed by some to be a crisis that required an immediate solution. Yet we knowingly continue to ignore the energy crisis that will continue to plague our country every time the Middle East cannot get along.

According to the Department of Energy, oil is the source of more than 40 percent of our total energy demands and more than 99 percent of the fuel we use in our cars and trucks.

The Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, was just on the floor talking about how we all want to transition to a more green economy. But the fact is, that is going to be years and even decades away, so we have to have American sources of energy here now.

The United States consumed about 19 billion barrels of petroleum products a day in 2009. We receive over half of this oil--51 percent-- from foreign sources, predominantly from the Middle East, Africa, and Central America. We cannot continue to ignore this issue. Inaction is no longer an option.

The Obama administration's approach to developing domestic energy production has been to impose regulations, withdraw permits, and shut off access to lands that contain valuable oil and natural gas deposits. In addition, the EPA is currently regulating domestic energy resources for greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. We can no longer afford organizations, such as the EPA, claiming authority to cut off our access to resources because of arbitrary rules based on unsound science. These backdoor climate regulations could increase the cost of gasoline and electricity by 50 percent. These policies work to promote our dependence on foreign oil, and they do nothing to reduce the cost for ordinary Americans.

Ten billion barrels in ANWR in Alaska means that not drilling is not an option. ANWR is roughly the size of South Carolina, but drilling in ANWR will only be about the size of McCarran Airport in the city of Las Vegas. That is about 2,000 acres out of the size of South Carolina. If I had a map here, it literally would be a dot on a huge map. That is how tiny an area we have to disturb to get this 10 billion barrels of oil out of ANWR.

We can even access ANWR during the winter months. We can drive out on ice roads that are 6 feet thick, and then in the spring, when everything starts to melt and the animals need to come out for their breeding in the springtime, we can cap the wells, take all of the equipment out, and let nature take its course in the summer months.

Additionally, at least 40 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas means that Alaska alone can replace crude imports from the Persian Gulf for nearly 65 years. Let me repeat that. New oil in Alaska can replace what we import from the Persian Gulf for the next 65 years. If that is not in the interest of America--our national security interests and our national economic interests--I don't know what is. I bet that is a statistic the Obama administration would rather keep hidden. As a matter of fact, they are keeping it hidden because the EPA is blocking the ability of Americans to go in and get those oil and natural gas reserves.

Also, in Louisiana, drilling for natural gas in the Haynesville Shale resulted in an estimated $5.7 billion in new household earnings for Louisiana residents in 2009, and it created over 50,000 jobs. I mention this because going after American energy produces American jobs. I think everybody in this Chamber agrees we need American jobs today.

Now we are finding that there are more reserves located in central Louisiana and southern Mississippi, and they may contain 7 billion more barrels of natural gas. But we have also found many natural gas reserves in the rest of the country. Shale reserves in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Oklahoma, and West Virginia could provide us with literally billions more barrels of natural gas.

Yet, in the midst of this abundance, the administration has strapped down these reserves with regulations and too-long-to-comply-with permits. The solution to this situation is simple: We need to streamline the process to allow America to access its own resources without the hindrance of bureaucratic redtape. If we are allowed to fully tap into the potential of these reserves, we will be one step closer to developing affordable and environmentally safe compressed natural gas vehicles. This will not only curb our reliance on dangerous foreign oil but also create even more jobs and put us at the forefront of alternative-fuel technology. By using our own natural gas reserves, we can build more powerplants, improve our transportation needs through buses and trucks that run on natural gas, power our fleets, and improve our country's ability to manufacture steel, fabric, glass, and plastic that we need instead of outsourcing these jobs overseas, which is what has been happening.

Madam President, 28 billion barrels of deep-sea oil means that the Obama administration cannot continue to hold these reserves hostage by banning deep-sea drilling. The Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast areas alone hold commercial oil reserves of 28 billion barrels of oil and up to 140 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These are huge reserves.

Despite the administration lifting its moratorium on permits late last year, only one deepwater well permit has been issued in the last 11 months--only one. We can and we must do better than this.

Yesterday, it was reported that the Obama administration will issue another handful of deepwater drilling permits in the near future. Of course, this comes at a time when the administration is appealing a ruling from a Federal court that has ordered the administration to act on the permits that have been pending and that have been virtually ignored.

Secretary Salazar, in a Senate subcommittee hearing just yesterday, said oil production in the gulf will not drop significantly as a result of the administration's delay. He said we ``may see a blip.'' Well, this country cannot afford to see a downward blip. As a matter of fact, we need to see an upward tick. We need to see more production coming out of the Gulf of Mexico.

Recently, Senator Vitter drafted his No Cost Stimulus Plan, as he calls it--or his 3 Ds. Those 3 Ds are domestic energy, domestic jobs, and reducing the deficit. This bill aims to increase our ability to access domestic energy sources to increase our energy independence. It would use these domestic energy sources to create thousands of real, private-sector, long-term jobs in areas such as my State, where we have the potential to lead the Nation in renewable energy.

In 2009, the Obama administration canceled 77 oil and gas leases in Utah, and in 2010 it canceled another 61 oil and gas leases in Montana. This is astounding to me because now, instead of acting on American energy independence, we are trying to stifle the progress we are making. Senator Vitter's legislation would direct the Obama administration to reinstate oil and gas leases that were canceled and to open ANWR to oil production.

Senator Vitter's legislation would also establish an ANWR alternative energy trust fund so we can pay for renewable energy development with our own money instead of borrowing money from China and Saudi Arabia and others to do it. The bill also restricts the EPA from imposing regulations that cut off our access to oil and gas resources instead of utilizing them.

We have been talking about the debt on this floor and overspending. We need legislation to go after American energy. By the way, this legislation would not cost us any money. As a matter of fact, it brings in money to the U.S. Treasury because we get royalties off of American energy. That is the direction in which the Senate, the House, and the President needs to take our country--less dependence on foreign oil, more American security from an energy independence standpoint, more economic security, and more military security as well.

Republicans have solutions and we are eager to start this debate, but we need the majority to bring these bills to the floor of the Senate. The issues are too critical for us to delay. We can't afford to let gasoline continue to go up and up and up, to $4, $5, who knows where it is going to stop.

Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed the bill that would have opened ANWR back in the mid-1990s. I think we were one vote short in passing the ability to open ANWR when President Bush was President. This body failed by one vote. That is unfortunate, because if we had opened ANWR, we wouldn't be in nearly as bad shape as we are in today. But it isn't just ANWR, it is many other places where we can have American energy and we need to act and we need to act now.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back in order to start the voting.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that speakers on the Republican side be limited to 10 minutes each, with Senator Coburn controlling up to 25 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the two proposals, the Democratic proposal and the Republican proposal from the House known as H.R. 1. I am going to reluctantly support H.R. 1. It reduces government spending by about $61 billion below last year's levels. The reason I am reluctantly supporting it is because I don't think it goes far enough.

We have heard the other side rail that the cuts are too large, but let me bring to the attention of my colleagues a few quotes.

This is from ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff:

I believe that our debt is the greatest threat to our

national security.

We know our national debt is over $14 trillion. This year, we are spending, in excess of what we take in, almost $1.6 trillion. All we are talking about in the House bill is reducing that amount by $61 billion--a paltry amount.

A few other quotes.

This is from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on February 17:

It is an excessively high interest burden. It's

unsustainable. With the President's plan, even if Congress

were to enact it, and even if Congress were to hold to it and

reduce those deficits as a percentage of GDP over the next 5

years, we would still be left with a very large interest

burden and unsustainable obligations over time.

He also said:

Our deficits are too high. They are unsustainable.

I think everybody agrees.

They are unsustainable and, if left unaddressed, these

deficits will hurt economic growth and make us weaker as a

nation.

One of the bills before the Senate starts to address it. The other bill virtually ignores the deficit.

This is from the President:

What my budget does is to put forward some tough choices,

some significant spending cuts so that by the middle of this

decade our annual spending will match our annual revenues. We

will not be adding more to the national debt.

It is absolutely incredible that the President could make such a comment when looking at his budget. His budget takes us from $14 trillion in debt to $27 trillion in debt over the next decade, almost doubling the national debt. He says we are going to be living within our means?

Here is a graph. In 2010, we are at about $13.5 trillion. We see that over the decade we go up further, further, and down here in 2021, it is $26.3 trillion. This is virtually a doubling of the national debt.

That is why when Timothy Geithner says it is unsustainable--the Secretary of the Treasury appointed by President Obama--we all agree. So when are we going to get spending under control? We literally have to quit spending money we do not have because we are bankrupting the very future of America.

I wish to quote a few Senators from the other side of the aisle.

Senator Joe Manchin said:

The most powerful person in these negotiations, our

President, has failed to lead this debate or offer a serious

proposal for spending cuts.

He also said:

[The Democratic bill] utterly ignores our fiscal reality,

that our Nation is badly in debt and spending at absolutely

unsustainable and out-of-control levels. We must turn our

financial ship around. But the Senate proposal continues to

sail forward as if there is no storm on the horizon.

That is from one of our Democratic colleagues from West Virginia.

The bill proposed by the Democratic majority fails to understand that there is a fiscal crisis in this country. It is a problem of spending.

Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri said:

I feel strongly that the cuts are not large enough.

Senator Mark Warner said:

At some point we need to send some kind of a shock wave

across the Federal Government that this time we really mean

it.

He was talking about spending cuts. He was talking about getting serious about deficit reduction.

The House bill doesn't do enough, but at least it is headed more in the right direction for getting spending under control. While I might not agree with every one of the spending cuts in it, it is going in the right direction, and shows what we need to do as a Congress. The bill the majority has put before us shows a lack of understanding as to how serious the deficit and the debt are as an issue for the country.

I wish to put this deficit reduction into some sort of context. This year, the Congressional Budget Office says we will spend $1.5 trillion more than we take in. That is what the deficit is this year. According to the President, it is over $1.6 trillion. Those are their estimates. The bottom line is that we are spending about 40 cents more per dollar than what we take in.

This graph shows the spending proposals before us. This is how much the deficit is. The House bill will reduce that deficit by this tiny slice of the pie. The Democratic majority bill will reduce it by this little tiny slice of the pie right here. So the House bill is a small slice, but at least it is a larger slice than what the Democratic majority has offered. The bottom line is that this is pathetic and will do nothing to actually put us on a sustainable fiscal path where we can start living within our means and quit spending money we do not have.

The House bill itself is actually a 4-percent reduction in the amount of money we are borrowing. If we think about it, this year, since we are borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we spend, to put that in terms that maybe a family would understand, it would be as if a family making $60,000 a year were going to spend $100,000. Any family would understand that is unsustainable. They could not continue along that path. If that same family were to decrease their spending habits by the same amount the Democrats have proposed, out of that $100,000, they would reduce their spending habits by $168. That is all. That is how pathetic this spending reduction is offered by the other side.

We have to get serious. Recently, Senator Coburn requested a General Accountability Office report that came back and identified over $100 billion in duplicative and wasteful spending programs. This GAO report underscores the negligence of the Federal Government when it comes to managing hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

Let me give a couple of facts from that report. It said that the government spends $18 billion on 47 different job-training programs. Yet the President requested another $400 million for a new program that will replicate proven strategies to develop even more job-training programs. Out of the 47 programs, zero are measured for effectiveness. Yet we are going to create more instead of eliminating a lot of the programs and doing the proper oversight this Congress should be doing.

There are 80 programs providing transportation to disadvantaged persons in 8 different departments. The GAO found $2 billion in costs for just 29 of these programs but, with the extent of fragmentation in this area, was unable to identify total costs for the other 51 programs. In other words, they couldn't even identify what the total costs were for these other programs. That is how messed up it is.

The U.S. Government also spends about $63 billion on 18 different domestic food and nutrition programs and about $3 billion on 20 homelessness programs. The report notes:

This can create unnecessary work for both providers and

applicants and may result in the use of more administrative

resources than needed.

Let me translate. That means we have too much bureaucracy and too much wasteful spending, so the money doesn't actually get to the people it is intended to help. It gets spent in the bureaucracy.

We also have another almost $60 billion spent on over 100 duplicated and fragmented surface transportation programs.

While I am troubled that the $61 billion from the House isn't enough to tackle the problem, I am astounded by what the other side of the aisle has done. It also continues many of the wasteful programs we have talked about.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has come under fire. Obviously, this morning their CEO resigned. We have seen the controversies there.

Their bill also spends tens of millions of dollars to help unions organize--overseas, not even in America. Helping unions organize overseas--is that what we want to be doing with American taxpayer dollars?

Today's votes are a choice between modest progress and making the problem worse.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

The House bill needs to be the floor for what we accomplish out of this process. The House bill isn't nearly enough, and we cannot allow this process to capture a modest improvement in the name of compromise by watering it down to a complete abdication of leadership. The stakes are too high.

Today, I will be reluctantly supporting H.R. 1, the House bill, which cuts $61 billion from last year's spending. It is a modest step in the right direction. The other side has put forward a proposal that should be rejected out of hand because it is completely inadequate. It keeps us spending money we do not have.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, yesterday, along with Senators Hutchison and McConnell, I introduced a Resolution of Disapproval that if adopted, will overturn the FCC's attempt to regulate the Internet through its recent Open Internet Order.

In December, the FCC, defying Congress and the Judiciary, announced an order that will give it sweeping new authority to regulate content on, and access to, the Internet. Particularly in today's economy, the Internet and associated applications should be able to

evolve without unnecessary government interference that could stifle innovation. The last thing the government needs to do is once again burden the private sector with additional burdensome regulatory red tape. While the FCC's action is certainly concerning, it should come as no surprise considering this administration's history of usurping the private sector's role in our economy and replacing it with more heavy- handed federal regulation. As we have learned, such regulation only serves to micro-manage private businesses and limits the ability of companies to grow. On the contrary, this order will serve to smother creative new uses for the Internet and to slow the expansion of advanced broadband networks.

As you know, the Internet has become an indispensable part of our economy and an integral part of our society. It is a source of innovation, information, entertainment, commerce, and communication. Largely unfettered by government laws and regulations, the Internet owes much of its success to innovators and entrepreneurs having the freedom to imagine, explore, and create new uses for the Internet. The innovation and ingenuity associated with the creation and development of the Internet in this country is a prime example of what the private sector is capable of if its hands are not tied by Washington bureaucrats. The problem with the FCC's order is that it puts the FCC in the position of being the final arbiter of what broadband service providers can and cannot do with their networks. As the Internet evolves, new network services and management practices may be necessary or desirable. Yet, I fear that companies will now either be barred from innovating or will have to seek the FCC's permission first.

Under the order, Internet providers ``shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management''. The order also states that these providers ``shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer's broadband Internet access service.'' Guess who gets to make the determinations as to what constitutes ``lawful'' or ``reasonable''? Not the consumer. Not Congress. Rather, it is the unelected bureaucrats at the FCC, alone, that will make those determinations. This gives the Federal Government, for the first time, the power to make decisions that will affect what websites consumers can and cannot access and how they may access them.

I continue to believe that the competitive market is the best means to preserve and advance the future of the Internet. That is why I have continued to fight the FCC's attempts at regulating the Internet under the guise of preserving ``openness''. In 2009, I cosponsored an amendment with Senator Hutchison that would have prohibited the FCC from using any appropriated funds ``to adopt, implement, or otherwise litigate any network neutrality based rules, protocols, or standards.'' Also, late last year, I authored a letter, signed by 28 of my colleagues, to the FCC urging it not to proceed with this order.

With the sweeping new authority the FCC has given itself, one question that should be asked: Is this order even necessary? How many people in this country have been unable to access the Internet like this order would suggest? Do the American people really want more government oversight when it comes to the Internet? The Internet is that last frontier when it comes to innovation without government interference, do we really want to jeopardize this? Isn't this more like a solution looking for a problem?

Consumers today have more access to more Internet services than ever before. Business has invested tens of billions of dollars in new broadband infrastructure. Internet entrepreneurs continue to offer new services, applications, devices, and content to users of broadband Internet networks. In this type of environment, there is little justification for this type of proposed intrusion into the broadband marketplace It appears, then, that this Order is simply a solution in search of a problem that does not exist. As we have seen time and again in Washington, this is a recipe for producing unintended consequences.

I do believe that government does have a significant role to play in guiding the future of the Internet. There is a role for the government in guiding the future of broadband, but net neutrality misses the mark. The new government restrictions provided for under the FCC's order will only serve to reduce the private sector's investment in our nation's broadband infrastructure. Rather, Congress should work with industry to find ways to encourage broadband investment and to promote competition among Internet providers. Investors are eager. During this economic downturn, tens of billions of dollars have been invested in new broadband infrastructure. In turn, this has enabled Internet entrepreneurs to offer new services, applications, devices, and content to more and more users of broadband Internet networks.

President Obama recently announced his initiative to expand broadband deployment so that 98 percent of Americans have access to wireless Internet service. I support this goal. However, for this goal to be achievable, there needs to substantial private sector investment and participation, which cannot coexist with the FCC's order. In fact, I am confident that if Congress and the courts do not act to reverse this order, it will discourage investment, stifle innovation, and cost this country more jobs.

The FCC's order is anti-free market, anti-competitive, will threaten American innovation and cost American jobs. What possible reason would the private sector agree to invest under this type of heavy-handed regulatory environment provided under this order? I cannot think of one. In fact, this order only creates disincentives for private investment and innovation, which will only put us behind the rest of the world. Consumers today use and have access to more Internet services than ever before. While the FCC order will have little positive impact for consumers, it will certainly reduce the potential for innovation and investment in broadband networks. This will dramatically slow the pace of that innovation and jeopardize billions of dollars of future investment into broadband networks.

The good news is that Congress has the tools to correct this. I encourage my colleagues to support the Hutchison-McConnell-Ensign Resolution of Disapproval. This will allow Congress to repeal the FCC's dangerous order on net neutrality. I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the Republican leader to repeal what I believe is an unconstitutional government takeover of our health care system. Make no mistake, we all want to improve access to affordable health insurance for all Americans, including those individuals with preexisting conditions. Unfortunately, this health reform law is not the right prescription.

Over the past year, I have spoken with tens of thousands of Nevadans about this bill. They were very clear when they said that this law is not the cure for our broken health care system.

This law imposes new burdens on most Nevadans and most Americans. It requires that every American citizen purchase health insurance coverage. Those who fail to buy health insurance that meets the minimum requirements are subject to financial penalties.

Two weeks ago, I received an e-mail message from Tommy Felt, a Boy Scout in Las Vegas. This is a picture of Tommy. He is 12 years old. He attends Molasky Junior High School, and he is working to earn his Citizenship in the Nation Merit Badge.

Tommy's e-mail stated:

I'm really concerned that the bill will damage our country.

I think it is unconstitutional for the government to force

citizens to buy health coverage. Also, I believe that the

hidden costs in this bill will drive our country much deeper

into debt. My dad says that this bill will lead to the

elimination of Senior Dimensions and Medicare Advantage plans

for our seniors.

I wish that more than half of my colleagues would heed the words of this young 12-year-old.

I could not agree with Tommy more. I, too, am also concerned that this health reform law will destroy our health system in our country. I am also concerned about the unprecedented overreach of the government's demand that every American purchase health insurance just because they live in America.

A judge in Florida, as we have all heard, ruled that the entire health care law is unconstitutional. Let's ask the question, Is it really Constitutional for the government to tell all Americans they must buy health insurance coverage? What is next? What personal liberty or property will the Congress seek to take away from Americans next? Will the government mandate what cars we are allowed to drive or what food we feed our children? Where do we draw the line? Or will we even draw one at all?

After all, the Constitution is about enumerated powers, the specific powers given to the Congress. This bill blows the lid off those enumerated powers.

I have spoken at length about the unconstitutional provision and even raised a Constitutional Point of Order before the Senate voted to pass this reform bill.

As I previously mentioned, earlier this week, a Florida judge ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional and even went so far as to say that the whole bill is unconstitutional because the mandate cannot be separated out. In December 2010, a Federal judge in Virginia also struck down the individual mandate as unconstitutional.

We know it could take several years for this case to reach the Supreme Court of the United States. My good friend from Florida, Senator Nelson, talked about expediting that procedure--which makes a lot of sense--so that we do not have to wait several years for the Supreme Court to reach its decision. The administration should ask for that. The administration has the right to bypass the Court of Appeals and go directly to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, because it

may take several years, we should act to repeal this law before we begin to suffer under its tyranny.

Now, going back to Tommy. His e-mail addresses the significant costs associated with this health reform bill. Tommy has every right to be concerned. In fact, every American should be concerned. Spending in this country has continued to spiral out-of-control. The health reform law is only adding to our financial demise. Unless we repeal it, the law will further exacerbate the cost of health care, explode our deficit and debt, and forever alter the relationship between the government and the American people.

We hear from the other side that this bill is going to reduce the deficit because there are $500 billion in cuts to Medicare as well as tax increases. By the way, the Congress could repeal those cuts in Medicare and often does. The other side also used fuzzy math when this bill was being debated. A lot of the savings in Medicare were counted twice. That is why a study by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee said that this bill would actually increase the deficit in the first 10 years by $700 billion.

Let's have some common sense. Do you think you can increase the Medicaid rolls by 16 million people in America and actually cut costs? Does that make sense to anyone? Increase the Medicaid rolls, which are paid by the Federal Government and the States, and then say we are actually going to decrease the deficit? That defies common sense.

Many small business owners in my State have already seen a dramatic increase in their health insurance premiums. This bill was supposed to bring down costs. It is doing exactly the opposite.

I have met with many companies across our State. At least three large companies I've met with tell me they are considering, because of the costs, dropping their health insurance and paying the $2,000 fine per employee. It makes sense to them. They can pay their employees a little stipend, they can put their employees on the government system, and they are money ahead.

With businesses struggling just to make it today, this decision could be the difference between staying in business or not. They are looking at huge increases in their premiums, or paying the fine and putting people on the government system. That is one of the reasons I think this bill is going to massively increase the Federal debt.

This law does not help the typical Nevada family who purchases insurance in the individual market either. In fact, in traveling the State, I met with Nevadans who are already seeing increases in their premiums. Those who purchase insurance plans in the individual market could see a 10- to 13-percent increase in their premiums because of this bill. But some of the small businesses that I have talked with are already seeing increases this year around 15 to 30 percent. A few of the small businesses are seeing increases around 8 or 9 percent, but most of them are in the 15- to 30-percent range.

In my State, unfortunately, about 70 percent of all the health plans provided by businesses will not meet the minimum requirements that will be mandated by the government starting in 2014.

In Tommy's e-mail to me, he also mentioned Medicare Advantage. There are more than 100,000 Nevada seniors who choose a Medicare Advantage plan. These Nevadans are not better off because of this reform. Their extra benefits actually will be reduced by more than half.

This bill does not help middle-income workers in Nevada either. Our hard-working hotel housekeepers, casino restaurant workers, airline workers, teachers, and police officers now look forward to collectively sharing the burden of the $200 billion tax on health insurance holders.

Many American workers will pay for new taxes and penalties with reduced wages and lost jobs. Oh, and by the way, there are also new taxes on prescription drugs, clinical lab work, and medical devices that will also get passed on to the American people.

Simply put, I believe this health care bill is a job killer. My State cannot afford to lose more jobs. We have 14.5 percent unemployment in my State, and 9.4 or 9.6 percent across the Nation. We cannot afford to lose more jobs.

I am sure many of us have heard the phrase that the devil is in the details. Truer words could not be spoken when talking about this health care reform bill.

We know when Democrats passed this legislation that they gave enormous discretion to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. But I do not think any of us could have fathomed that the 2,000-page bill would generate potentially up to 20,000 new pages and regulations.

I have printed off many of the rules and regulations as well as the bill itself. Look at the size of this stack, and they are not even close to being done writing all the regulations. I challenge any company or any American to try to understand this bill and its regulations. It is virtually impossible. It takes a team of lawyers and health care experts to even come close to understanding all the implications of this bill.

According to my staff's calculations, so far there are about 6,200 pages of regulations. As I mentioned before, this could go to at least 20,000 pages. It is safe to say that the devil is in the details with this health bill.

The American people are going to learn more about the unintended consequences of this legislation as more and more of these regulations roll out. Remember last year when Nancy Pelosi said, We have to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it. We may be able to find out what is in the bill if you are able to understand it when you get through reading it all. I wonder how many people in this body have read not only the legislation but the rules regulations. It is absolutely daunting.

This health care reform bill is an over 2,700-page bill full of new taxes on Americans, funding cuts for programs they rely on, and raised premiums, which is why we should be repealing this bill. Instead of doing so, however, this administration is granting special waivers to various provisions in this law. These waivers are basically exceptions to the rules, and they allow organizations to circumvent the standards required in this health reform law. If waivers are needed, isn't that proof the health care reform bill is problematic? Isn't it proof this health care reform bill isn't working, or are special interest waivers a greater priority than the plight of the American people? It is interesting to me that some of the biggest supporters of this law have been working behind the scenes so they can obtain special waivers to get out of complying with this law so that they will not be held to the same standards as businesses in Nevada.

Nevadans are not behind this bill. The American people are not behind this bill. But there is no doubt that we need to improve health care in the United States. What is the primary problem with health care in the United States? The new Senator from Kentucky said it best: It is too expensive to buy health insurance in the United States. This bill does nothing but make that problem worse.

The people of this country did not sign up for the kind of change that brings with it billions of dollars in new taxes and a potential loss of their current insurance coverage or the choice to decide which coverage they have. The American people don't want a bureaucrat coming between them and their doctor.

Now, turning my attention back to taxes just for a moment, this bill alone ensures that hard-working Americans hand over even more of their paychecks each month to the government. It is funny how reforming health care means more money for Uncle Sam.

There is a new surtax on investment income--which, yes, does include a gain on home sales--which has many Nevadans infuriated.

There are new limits on the use of flexible spending accounts, which concerns many Nevadans who use these accounts to fund exceptional medical costs, even though President Obama promised that people could keep their current health care plans.

There is also a new tax on certain employer-provided health care--the so-called Cadillac plans. There are taxes on drug companies, medical devices, indoor tanning services, and the onerous 1099 reporting requirements for small businesses that, apparently, even President Obama opposes now.

President Obama said in his State of the Union Address that we need to fix parts of the bill that need fixing and move forward. Well, I believe this whole bill needs fixing. So let's repeal it and replace it with real health care reform that actually attacks cost, the No. 1 problem in health care in the United States. We can go back to the drawing board, take the best ideas from both sides of the aisle, and put together a health reform bill that will take us into the future.

Republicans have come up with many ideas on ways to fix the Nation's broken health care system. The answer is not unbearable taxes, unsustainable growth of the government, or paying for a brandnew entitlement program.

Those aren't the qualities of comprehensive health reform. They are the qualities of a terrible policy that will lead to devastating results for Americans and our health care system, which is the best in the world. There is a better way. It will take time, but if we can change the way Americans think about health care, then we can create a better system.

Imagine a system where Americans get to keep their choices in health care and where they are allowed to buy insurance across State lines. Imagine a system where there is transparency, where you know how much your doctor's visit will cost and how much your surgery will be. Ask yourself: When was the last time you went to a doctor's office and got a written estimate? In this third-party payer system we have, where someone else is paying the bill and you are receiving the service, the doctors don't care what you think of the cost. So there is no transparency in today's system. We need to have a system that is transparent, where you can shop around for the best value for your money.

Imagine a system that rewards individuals for engaging in healthy behaviors. Imagine a system where you are not punished for having a preexisting condition. Imagine a system that allows small businesses to pool their purchasing power together to provide health insurance to their employees through small business health plans.

Imagine a system where doctors can practice medicine to heal patients instead of practicing medicine with the goal of not being sued. And imagine a patient-centered health care system instead of an insurance- centered system or a government-centered system, which is what we have today.

These are all standards we should work toward. We cannot afford to settle for this bill.

I believe this bill will bankrupt our country, our families, and our neighbors.

We simply cannot survive with this agenda of taxing and spending away our future. We can't survive it; we can't afford it.

Mr. President, I believe we should repeal this bill: all of its pages, all of its regulations, all of the regulations to come. I believe we should work together--not as Republicans, not as Democrats-- as Americans to address the primary problem in health care in this country: the cost. It is critical for the future competitiveness of American business, and it is incredibly important for the quality of health care and for the future of our citizens as well.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 4855.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of this amendment, which would clear up any ambiguity by adding the rail mobile definition of START I to the New START treaty.

Specifically, my amendment would amend the protocol annex, part one, in terms and definitions protocol. Specifically under START I the definition of rail mobile launchers of ICBMs means an erector launching mechanism for launching ICBMs, and the rail car or flat car on which it is mounted.

Unfortunately, there is no such definition in New START. According to Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the Duma International Affairs Committee, Senator Kerry's counterpart in the Duma, the understanding on rail mobile ICBMs presumes that: ``The Americans are trying to apply the New START treaty to rail mobile ICBMs in case they are built.''

So their definition, their understanding, the Russians' understanding, is that rail mobile is not included in this treaty. That is according to Mr. Kosachev's statement in the Duma. By making this statement, we can infer that it is absolutely Russia's position that rail mobile ICBMs are not captured by this treaty or subject to the treaty's limitations. So this is an issue we must address and we must clarify.

The administration, in a State Department fact sheet, asserts that rail mobiles are covered under the 700 ceiling of deployed delivery vehicles in article II. However, Mr. Kosachev's statements imply to the contrary. Further, if rail mobiles were to fall under that cap, it would be in the definitions. There is zero mention of rail mobiles in New START.

My amendment simply clarifies this ambiguity. In the absence of New START limitations on rail mobile ICBMs and launchers, an unlimited number of these could be deployed. It may even be possible to take a road mobile SS-27 ICBM, including multiple warhead versions, and put it on a railcar. This would not in any way violate the conditions of the New START limits, because the earlier START I limits on rail mobile launchers and nondeployed mobile ICBMs do not appear in this New START.

Another way to clarify that ambiguity would be if the administration gave us full access to the negotiating records. Since they have not, however, we must amend the treaty to amend the definition back to as it was in START I.

What happens if the Russian Duma, in its ratification process, adds language in its version of their ORR, that excludes rail mobile launchers? What do we do at that time? If they do this, I would think we would have no choice but to simply take it.

Mitt Romney highlighted eloquently in an op-ed that:

The absence of any mention of rail based launchers should

be remedied. U.S. advocates of the treaty say that if Russia

again inaugurates a rail program, as some articles in the

Russian press have suggested it might, rail mobile ICBMs

would count toward the treaty limits. Opponents say that no

treaty language supports such an interpretation. Russian

commentators have said that rail-based systems would be

discussed by the Bilateral Consultative Commission. Such

ambiguity should be resolved before the treaty is approved,

not after.

I will yield to the Senator from Indiana.

Just to address the one point on the clarification in the resolution of ratification, it has been said that our resolution of ratification clarifies and we should not need this language in the definition. Here is the problem I have.

Several years ago when we were debating the Chemical Weapons Convention and riot control agents, there it is right there in the resolution of ratification that these riot control agents can be used in operations to protect civilian life. Yet to this day, our State Department lawyers continue to argue they cannot, even though in the resolution of ratification we clearly stated that these riot control agents, tear gas basically, could be used to protect civilian life. Yet our State Department continues to argue against that. That is why putting it in the definitions within the treaty, we believe, is important to clarify the difference we seem to have with the Russians based on statements they have made to the press.

Madam President, I think the Senator from Arizona wishes to make a statement.

Madam President, to wrap up this debate, let me address, first of all, the whole idea that changing this treaty in any way kills the treaty. Under the Constitution, certainly it is the President's role, the administration's role, to negotiate the treaties. We all recognize that. But under the Constitution, the Senate is tasked with advice and consent. That means we are to look at the treaties, and if we think they should be changed--and we have changed treaties over the years--then we are free to change the treaties. That is why there is a process set up, such as this amendment process, to change the treaties. So if we have fundamental objections to the treaty, I think we can have a debate on whether we should, on a particular amendment, change the treaty on the merits of the amendment, but we shouldn't just say we can't change any part of a treaty because it kills the treaty, because we have a constitutional role in advice and consent on whether we approve treaties.

Just a couple points to make.

First of all, this is from the State Department's Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, let me just read one paragraph from this:

If Russia chose to develop and deploy rail-mobile ICBMs,

such missiles and their launchers would be subject to the

Treaty and its limitations.

That is according to our State Department.

Specific details about the application of verification

provisions would be worked out in the Bilateral Consultative

Commission.

So, in other words, if Russia decides to build these things, then the verification has to be worked out by the Bilateral Consultative Commission. It isn't that it is set in there exactly what would happen, but the verification certainly would have to be worked out.

The bottom line is, we believe there is ambiguity because of the statements made by the Russians themselves. That is the problem. If the Russians, in their statements in the Duma, if they have been saying: Yes, we agree with exactly the interpretation the Americans have been making, it would be a different story and we probably wouldn't need this amendment. But because their statements--Senator Kerry's counterpart in the Russian Duma has said the Americans are trying to bring into this New START treaty mobile launchers, and the Russians don't think they should be in there. So we think we should clarify that language in a very unambiguous way, based on my amendment, to make sure there is no question on each side.

I appreciate what the Senator from Massachusetts is saying, that they have destroyed their--it would be crazy for them to build them again. But as the Senator from Arizona just talked about, they are at least designing. Maybe they have a better system to use for rail-mobile launchers. We don't know that. But what we do know is, they don't think this language applies, the language in the treaty applies to the mobile launchers. So they could get around this treaty and the number of warheads they could have, based on the language that is currently in the treaty.

I just ask our colleagues to seriously consider removing the ambiguity and voting for the Ensign amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about this New START treaty. I have some very serious concerns about it.

I appreciate the work that has been done by my colleagues. This is an incredibly serious issue. I do not question anybody's motives, but I do think there are some serious flaws that lie not only within the four corners of the treaty text but also speak to the manner in which this administration has dealt with Russia. This policy of Russian ``reset'' has meant that the United States is making major concessions, while our Russian counterparts give up virtually nothing.

Further, I have serious reservations about the manner in which the Senate is considering this treaty. This body, the Senate, is supposed to be the most deliberative body in the world. It is supposed to be a chamber that respects the rights of the minority. Senators are supposed to be afforded the right of unlimited debate and the right to have their amendments considered. Rushing a treaty of this magnitude through a lameduck session is not what the Founders had in mind when they gave this body the power of advice and consent in these serious matters.

The American people sent a clear message in November to concentrate on jobs, taxes, and the economy.

While I do not think this lameduck is the time to debate this very important treaty, I do plan on offering multiple amendments to address this treaty's flaws, as well as the resolution of ratification. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle will also offer amendments with topics ranging from how this treaty restrains our missile defense capabilities to ceding the Senate's advice and consent power to the flawed Bilateral Consultative Commission.

For example, there needs to be an amendment which addresses the verification regime in this treaty, or lack thereof. Further, it is astounding to me that tactical nuclear weapons were left out of the treaty, considering that Russia has approximately a 10-to-1 advantage. Additionally, we need to consider how the rail-mobile ICBMs are counted, or not counted, and our Russian policy in a much broader sense.

As the Senate moves forward in examining the intended consequences of this treaty, we also need to pay careful attention to those consequences that are unintended because that is where the danger truly lies. In order to properly examine these, the administration needs to provide the Senate with the full negotiating record which it has yet to do. Only upon examination of this record can we accurately determine how Russia views this accord to ensure that their understanding is the same as ours.

On the topic of missile defense, this is clearly a case of the administration wanting to have its cake and eat it too. There should be zero--zero--mention of missile defense within 100 miles of this treaty. Yet there it is, right in the preamble to New START, which clearly recognizes an interrelationship between offensive nuclear weapons and missile defense. I believe this is unacceptable.

Further, if we examine article 5, paragraph 3, of New START, missile defense is again referenced, plain as day, in a provision prohibiting the United States from converting ICBMs or sea-based launchers for missile defense purposes. Where is the wisdom in removing such an option from our toolkit for the whole life of the treaty? Russia must understand that we will not limit our options for national defense based on current plans, ideas, or technology. Should a breakthrough occur in missile defense technology or launcher development we cannot have already ruled out pursuing new courses of action.

In their attempts to persuade Republicans to support the treaty, proponents have attempted to invoke the name of Ronald Reagan. Let's remember that over two decades ago, President Reagan returned from Iceland and made the following statement:

While both sides seek reduction in the number of nuclear

missiles and warheads threatening the world, the Soviet Union

insisted that we sign an agreement that would deny me and

future presidents for 10 years the right to develop, test and

deploy a defense against nuclear missiles for the people of

the free world. This we could not and would not do.

This clearly states, in his own words, where Ronald Reagan would be on this New START treaty. Another especially troublesome facet of the New START is that it would establish a Bilateral Consultative Commission with the authority to agree upon additional measures to increase the effectiveness of the treaty. This seems like a broad and vague purview for a commission, and it is unclear why the Senate would delegate its advice and consent responsibilities to a commission. This leads me to ask the question: Since missile defense has fallen under the purview of this treaty, wouldn't it be logical that this commission could make decisions as to what we can and cannot do with our missile defense assets? We must make it clear this commission, the BCC, cannot have the authority to further handicap our national defense as it could otherwise do under this treaty without further scrutiny of the Senate.

I hope we agree as a body to insist that the workings of the BCC are completely visible and accessible to the Senate and that we explicitly make these changes to the treaty itself, not just the resolution of ratification.

As we move forward in examining this treaty, a colleague of mine will be sorely missed. The senior Senator from Missouri, Kit Bond, as vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is the foremost expert in the Senate and likely in all of Congress on matters of intelligence. At least that is my opinion. I wish to quote my good friend. The Select Committee on Intelligence has been looking at this issue closely over the past several months.

As the vice chairman of this committee, I have reviewed the

key intelligence on our ability to monitor this treaty and

heard from our intelligence professionals. There is no doubt

in my mind that the United States cannot reliably verify the

treaty's 1,550 limit on deployed warheads. The administration

claims that New START is indispensable to reap the ``Reset''

benefits with Russia. If a fatally flawed arms control

agreement is the price of admission to the Reset game, our

Nation is better off if we sit this one out.

I could not agree more. It is naively optimistic to assume that a world with fewer nuclear weapons is the same thing as a safer world. Our security has long depended on a strong and flexible deterrent. New threats are constantly emerging from every corner of the globe. This has been recently demonstrated by Iran's resistance to denuclearization and North Korea's increasingly violent saber rattling. The United States must be able to rapidly adapt and respond to new threats to our security. Now is the time for more flexible deterrent capability, not less.

New START is riddled with U.S. concessions from which I can see little gain. U.S. leadership in this arena will

be measured by how well we protect our ability to defend ourselves and our friends, not by how quickly we agree to an imperfect treaty.

I yield the floor.

Let me check.

Madam President, I rise to talk about the tax bill that is before us. I was one of just a few on our side who happened to vote against a procedural motion last night, and I wish to talk about why I will be opposing the final passage of this bill.

This threat that is facing our country today is greater than any external threat we have faced for some time. It is an internal threat that is stemming from our own government that threatens the very future of our country. In the words of ADM Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--this is exactly what he said:

The biggest threat we have to our national security is our

debt. . . . It's not sustainable.

Our country is heading toward fiscal ruin. Nail after nail after nail is being put into our coffin of economic catastrophe. The Senate is now gearing up to put hundreds of billions of more debt onto our already debt-laden country. I fear our country's fate could be sealed. So what should we do? Is it too late for the United States to reverse its course? To best answer this question, I am reminded of a famous quote: ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.''

In order to best determine the path our country will take in the future, we need to examine the road we have already gone down.

This chart I have in the Chamber is from the Great Recession of 1920 that most people in America have never heard about. It shows that in 1920 we had a fairly healthy economy, with a little over 5 percent unemployment. The next year it shot up, it over doubled, to almost 12 percent. Well, during that same period of time, the economy declined by nearly 7 percent. In other words, GDP went down by almost 7 percent. From May of 1920 to July of 1921, automobile production declined by 60 percent and industrial production in America dropped by almost a third. The stock market also fell dramatically. As a matter of fact, it lost half its value. So you can see the economic time of 1920 to 1921 was dire, maybe even more dire than what we face today.

Well, we had a Federal Government that decided to take a different course.

Instead of spending money, what they decided to do was to cut tax rates and cut spending at the same time. President Harding actually proposed--and it was enacted by the House and the Senate--a dramatic cut in Federal spending by one-third. To cut the Federal budget by one- third--can you imagine that today, cutting the Federal budget by one- third? Tax rates across the board, marginal tax rates across the board were slashed. The top rate at that time was 75 percent. They cut it to 25 percent. So they did not just cut taxes and raise spending so you balloon the deficit, they cut taxes and cut spending at the same time.

What were the results? Well, what do we know about the 1920s? What is the common term we hear about the 1920s? It is called the Roaring Twenties. It is because the economy boomed during the 1920s. This unemployment rate that was 11.7 percent--within a year and a half, that fell to a little over 1 percent. OK. So it went from 5.2 percent to 11 percent. They cut taxes and Federal spending and, boom, the unemployment rate plummeted--people had jobs.

Guess what happened to the national debt--not the deficit--the national debt. The national debt was cut by one-third during this time.

So if you cut taxes, you cut spending, you incentivize the private sector to create jobs. Guess what happened. When more people make more money and more people are employed, more money comes into the Federal Government to actually not only reduce the deficit but, in this case, actually pay down some of the national debt.

Well, let's move forward just a little bit.

The Great Depression. Many people have said we need to spend money to get us out of an economic downturn. During the Great Depression, we had a President, a Republican President, who started this. He was very much an interventionist President. During the Great Depression, he came in, had trade protectionist policies, raised taxes, and increased Federal spending with all kinds of different government projects on infrastructure.

We always hear about how infrastructure is going to help take the economy out of the recession if we spend more and more money. Well, I will have another point about spending on infrastructure and government spending in another country in just a minute. But we have to remember-- and I ask this simple question to audiences back in Nevada whom I talk to: If government spending was going to take us out of that Great Depression, why did the Great Depression last as long as it did?

I actually posed that question to the new OMB Director. The new OMB Director said he has actually studied the Great Depression at length. So I asked him the question: Why didn't government spending take us out of the Great Depression? His answer was this: He said we did not spend enough money. I was flabbergasted by that statement. But that was his belief, that we did not spend enough money.

Many people believe the stimulus bill we had here almost 2 years ago was not large enough and that is why we have not had an economic recovery. Well, the reason we came out of the Great Depression was not because of government spending. It was because we kind of forgot about the Great Depression because of World War II, and our country completely focused on World War II. The stock market did not recover to 1929 levels for 25 years. FDR was a great wartime President, but his economic policies were not good for this country.

Well, where else can we look in history to find whether government spending actually works to take you out of an economic downturn?

In Japan, during the 1990s--this chart actually shows 1988 to 1998-- they had government spending as a percentage of GDP go up. Yet in Japan--this is the red line. The blue line is spending; the red line is unemployment--it kept going up. Japan tried six different stimulus bills--a total of $6 trillion on infrastructure on all kinds of road projects, bridge projects, everything you hear about that is supposed to be good to take you out of an economic downturn.

Well, the 1990s in Japan is called the lost decade. They had basically zero growth during the 1990s. Actually, they have had another decade of lost economic output. So Japan certainly is not a good example of a place you can point to where government spending actually takes you out of an economic downturn.

As a matter of fact, if you think about the $6 trillion Japan spent-- which is much larger than any economic stimulus we have tried, much larger as a percentage of an economy than what we tried during the Great Depression--so if it was going to work, why didn't it work in Japan? Why didn't it work during the Great Depression? Why didn't it work for the stimulus bill we tried? By the way, President Obama tried a stimulus bill close to $800 billion. President Bush 2 years before that tried an economic stimulus bill of $150 billion, basically sending checks to people hoping to get them to spend it. We need good economic policy to get us out of an economic downturn, and these temporary little spending bills are not the way to go.

So to continue on with this, let me explain a little bit about what else happened in Japan. First of all, Japan's public debt in 1997 grew to over 100 percent of GDP. By 2009, it is now almost 200 percent of GDP. So this spending not only didn't take them out of an economic downturn, it added to their future problems, and that is, unfortunately, what we are threatening to continue to do today.

Let me talk about the tax extensions before us today. Let me clearly state: I believe it would be a huge mistake for us to raise taxes on anybody during an economic downturn. I am for extending the current tax rates and making sure those tax increases don't go into effect. It has been argued by the other side that especially the top rates were the reason we ran up the debt and the deficits during the Bush years. Well, if my colleagues remember when President Bush came into office, similar to what happened when President Obama came into office, he inherited a recession. Then we had 9/11 happen, and it sent us into an even worse recession. In 2001, to stimulate the economy, we did cut taxes. The mistake we did make is we didn't cut spending at the same time, but at least we cut taxes. The blue line are revenues. So when the recession hit, we cut taxes and it takes a little while to recover, but after that, revenues--and these are the 2001 tax cuts and these are the 2003 tax cuts--actually went up.

The reason for our deficit was not that we didn't have enough money coming in to the Federal Government. The reason for our deficit is we spent too much money. Republicans were thrown out of office because we spent too much money. But the deficit was not caused by the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. So it would be a mistake to raise taxes during this economic downturn.

However, I believe we need to cut spending, based on the economic models I have already talked about during the 1920s and how they actually worked. When you cut taxes and cut spending at the same time, it can actually pull your country out of an economic downturn.

There are businesses across my State--I spent a lot of the last couple of months touring around my State talking to businesses. There is one small business owned by two women in Nevada called ``Nothing Bundt Cakes.'' They make little bundt cakes. Unfortunately, they are really good, because I like to eat them and it is not good for my waistline, but they have a great product. I was talking to them and they would love to expand their business right now. Do you know what they said to me? They said, We can't. Two reasons: One is we think our taxes are going to be going up so we can't plan for it; and No. 2 was the effects of the health care bill. We don't know how much that is going to cost us. So it is the uncertainty out there of why they would not expand their business, and they probably could have created another 20, 30, 40 jobs. Those jobs didn't get created because of the uncertainty of what is going on.

So extending the tax cuts, I believe--extending the current tax rates is a better way to say it--is very important to give businesses some certainty. It is not the only thing we need to do to give them certainty, but it is certainly one of the things that is important.

In this bill--which I agree with; I think it is good we are not going to let the death tax go back up to 55 percent. There are a lot of small businesses out

there--try to imagine trying to plan estate planning and things such as that, especially in a small business where you want to see it continue. All of a sudden, maybe it is going to go down. Well, now we are going to do a 2-year extension. It is very difficult to plan for those things for the future. We need to give more certainty. Two years in this bill is better than nothing, but we still need to make that longer term so you can do estate planning and business continuation planning. Because think about this: If a small business is owned by a family versus a business that is owned by a corporation, if somebody dies in the corporation, the business continues. If somebody dies in a small business where the principal owns the business, they may have to sell the business to pay the taxes. That business actually may end up getting closed down and those jobs are lost.

So it is important to give some certainty when it comes to death tax planning, estate tax, whatever term you want to use with it; that is important, especially for small businesses, ranches, and farms across America.

The top rate we keep hearing criticized as far as extending that, they say it is only 1, 2, 3 percent of the people, whatever number I have heard tossed out from the other side. What people fail to realize, though, is that is 25 to 35 million people who are employed by those very small businesses that make the top rate. So if you raise taxes on those people, they have less money to spend to buy that next piece of equipment. Somebody had to make that--if it is in America, that created jobs in America--or they can't hire that next employee. So we don't get the job creation we want. Raising taxes on small businesses would be a mistake. Raising taxes on the middle class would be a mistake. Especially if they can plan long term, if the rates they know are going to be there for the long term, they can put that in part of their budget. If it is just a one-time check, they can't plan for the future. I actually disagree with the payroll tax that is in here, at least the way it is structured, the same way that in President Bush's stimulus package a couple of years ago where we sent $600 back to individuals. This isn't the long term solution that we need.

Think about the mentality of families. If there is a difficult time that families are going through, if they get a check in the mail, and they know they may be losing a job or they are barely getting by as it is, if they get a little money in the bank, are they going to spend that? Or are they maybe going to pay down debt or save it because of the uncertain economic future? A lot of families are making the decision to save it or pay down debt. So it is not stimulating the economy as people think it will. The other problem also with the payroll tax and some of the other taxes in this bill that are extended is adding to our national debt.

The Bush economic growth package, his stimulus bill he put together, we have heard about this being a bipartisan agreement. The bill was passed 81-16. Every single Democrat actually voted for that bill. Sixteen Republicans voted against it, but it was a bipartisan bill. People grabbed hands and added more money to our debt.

People talk about this bill being a compromise. Democrats wanted certain things; Republicans wanted certain things. Here is what a compromise is around this body. A compromise is: You want certain things; I want certain things. We will get what we want and we will pass that debt on to our children and our grandchildren. That is how this body is operating right now. We are being fiscally irresponsible with the bill before us today. Yes, we need to extend the tax rates. But we should have at least sent a message to the rest of the world that said we are going to do something about the debt.

Let's put up the chart. We just had the debt commission a few weeks ago come out with their report--the President's debt commission. This is one of the quotes from it: ``America cannot be great if we go broke.'' That is exactly what we are doing: We are going broke.

Harken back to the first chart, Admiral Mullen. Remember what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said. I want to repeat this. This is so important: ``The biggest threat to our national security is our debt.'' He said, ``It's not sustainable.''

This debt is real. It is a very huge threat to the future prosperity of America.

This bill before us is sending a message to the markets. It is saying, even though the debt commission came out and said we need to trim this by at least $4 trillion, this spending and this deficit we have going, you know what, we are just going to add hundreds of billions more to that problem. So I believe what we have before us is even going to get worse. Before this bill we will vote on today, these are the President's projections: The red bars are interest we pay on the national debt, such as interest on your credit card. A family pays interest on a credit card and doesn't get anything for it. It is because of their overspending habits. Well, this is the result of Congress's overspending habits.

Next year, in 2011, it is going to be close to $250 billion. We get nothing for that. We get no roads, no schools, no veterans benefits, no anything. That is just money we are paying to the Saudis, the Chinese, and other foreign governments who have bought our debt. In 2012 it goes up further and further. In 2020, it is over $900 billion a year in interest on the national debt. That is more than we pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or national defense, and we get nothing for that. This path we are on is unsustainable.

We saw what happened to Greece earlier this year. Within 48 hours, there was an economic implosion, and if they hadn't had the European Union to bail them out, their country literally would have gone bankrupt. Not too long ago in Ireland, within about 7 days, the same thing happened. Once again, they had the European Union to bail them out. What happens if the same thing happens in America?

Just this morning, this is what Moody's, one of the rating agencies, said:

Unless there are offsetting measures--

That means spending cuts--

the package--

The package is the bill we have before us today--

will be credit negative for the U.S. and increase the

likelihood of a negative outlook on the U.S. Government's AAA

rating during the next 2 years.

In common language, what does this say? This says we are becoming a bigger risk and it is threatening our AAA rating which means if this AAA rating goes down, we pay higher interest rates. Just like an individual, you are more of a risk. When you borrow money, you pay a higher interest rate. This number here is based on a AAA rating. These numbers all get much worse if we lose our AAA rating.

The bill we have before us--we should have sent a message while we were continuing the current tax rate, if we wanted to do the unemployment benefits, which I believe we should have extended. We should have done that with spending cuts in other places.

Senator Coburn has a package to vote on that has real spending cuts. I have offered amendment after amendment after amendment on this floor on spending cuts. We always hear during campaigns: I am for fiscal responsibility. I am for this, I am for that. When it comes time for voting, we never seem to get the votes. When are we going to actually show some fiscal responsibility around this place?

This bill should have at least $100 billion, $200 billion in offsets. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation said this bill is going to add $900 billion to the debt--$900 billion. Shouldn't we at least have offset some of that to show the world that we are actually serious about fiscal responsibility? That is all I am saying we should have done and why I am voting against this bill, because I don't think we can continue to add more and more and more debt. The debt commission had it right: America cannot be great if America is broke.

Let me conclude. The 1920s showed you can have economic recovery without adding to the debt actually because the economy grows and you have held the line on spending, and you can actually pay down the debt. That is what we did in the late 1990s. We didn't actually cut spending then, but we at least slowed the rate of growth of spending, with the Republicans in Congress and a Democratic President, and we had economic growth, which got us to not only a balanced budget, but it got us to where we were paying down some of

the debt. That is what we need to do now--start going back to 2008 spending levels. Spending has increased well over double digits over the past couple of years around this place, and we were spending plenty of money in 2008.

So let's go back to 2008 levels--that will save us a couple billion dollars--and then let's work on eliminating some of what Senator Coburn has identified as a lot of wasteful spending programs in this country, which is at least another $150 billion in wasteful programs he has discovered. If this country is actually serious about debt, then we will continue to be the leader of the world, our economy can continue to grow, and America's best days really can be ahead of us. But if we choose to continue to be fiscally irresponsible, then I am afraid we could be headed down a path that we cannot reverse. If what happened to Greece and what happened to Ireland happens to the United States, there is no one to bail us out.

So we need to start acting in a fiscally responsible way, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans, and say to these young people, like we have sitting before us here today, we care about you, we care about your future, and we want America to be as great for you as it has been for us. The only way to do that is to make sure we get our fiscal house in order and quit passing so much debt on to future generations.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.