Floor Statements

Mr. President, the American people are tired. They are tired of the government spending money that it does not have while they are forced to make tough decisions about their own family's budgets.

But more importantly, the American people are tired of the government stepping in, blank check in hand, to bail out giant Wall Street firms that were irresponsible with their money. The American people are sick and tired of seeing their hard-earned taxpayer dollars squandered in the name of too big to fail.

One of the most important lessons that we learned from this financial crisis, hopefully we learned, is that the bailouts were unfair. They allowed the government to manipulate the market by picking winners and losers, and they used taxpayer dollars to do so.

Republicans have made this point repeatedly during this debate. Those on the other side of the aisle have accused us of trying to hold up reform. But what we have been trying to do is to listen to the American people when they demand no more bailouts.

This bill does not address the concerns of the American people. Despite the enormous size of this bill, and its complexity--and believe me, it is truly complex--I do not believe anybody in this Chamber--as a matter of fact, I do not believe anybody on Capitol Hill fully understands this bill.

This bill makes more explicit the ability of the government to continue to pick winners and losers when bailing out irresponsible Wall Street firms. I come from a State where gambling is a big part of our economy. Yet a Las Vegas casino could not get away with half of the gambling that Wall Street does. When people walk into a casino to gamble, they do so knowing that the odds are against them.

But Wall Street takes gambling to a whole new level. They do it because they actually manipulate the odds while someone is playing the game. What is more, Wall Street then asks the government to cover their bets when they can no longer afford to do so on their own.

Can you imagine a casino booking a bad bet and losing money, and then asking the government to bail them out? That is basically what Wall Street did. And this bill continues that ability.

The proof of this is self-evident because we are now debating an amendment that tries to fix that, the Boxer amendment. If this bill did what it claimed to do, we wouldn't be here debating this amendment which, although this amendment sounds very nice, it actually does very little to address the problem of preventing future bailouts. This bill still creates a new government bureaucracy for the purpose of managing bailed-out banks and their creditors. The language of this amendment does nothing to prevent taxpayer money from being used to pay off debts of failed financial institutions. For example, billions of dollars in taxpayer money were used to pay AIG's obligations to Goldman Sachs after the insurance giant collapsed. This amendment does nothing to stop the Federal Reserve from risking even more taxpayer money on these firms in the future. The language of this amendment does not even prevent the government from imposing fees on companies that can be spent to bail out firms.

I regret this flawed bill is on the floor now instead of a bipartisan piece of legislation the American people have been asking for and, quite frankly, deserve. I hope in the process of debate, we can offer amendments that will fix this legislation, that will finally end this too-big-to-fail concept. Instead, the American people are left dealing with the reality that another partisan bill has come to the floor and will probably become law. Another government bureaucracy will be created as a result of this legislation with little regard to the will of the people.

Here we go again. Unfortunately, too much partisanship has gone on in this body. There are several of us working on bipartisan amendments. I hope we can dramatically improve this bill. Both sides have the same objectives. We want to clean up Wall Street. We don't want to do that while hurting Main Street. We want to hold Wall Street accountable, but we don't want to do it in a way that harms people who had nothing to do with the financial crisis.

I hope we actually can end up with a system that ends too big to fail. We already have several financial institutions that are already too big to fail. What to do about those firms is very difficult, very complex, and we have to do it in a way that doesn't mess up our entire financial system and system of credit. I believe we need to take our time, because the expertise to get this right is difficult to get. I don't believe necessarily the Senate or the House has that kind of expertise. We need to take our time on this bill to get it right, to make sure we are doing what we are intending to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Carper. I appreciate him and his staff. Wendy was absolutely terrific in setting up this trip and all the various briefings and places where we traveled in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. I thought we had a great team put together among the Senator from Delaware, myself, Senator Brown, Senator Udall, and the Congressman from the First District of Virginia, Congressman Wittman, whom I did not know before the trip but with whom I was very impressed.

My general impression of what is going on in Afghanistan--I was initially very skeptical when I went over there. I thought we got an honest assessment. I thought they talked about the positives, the negatives, and the challenges ahead.

I agree with the Senator from Delaware. I was very impressed with both the civilian and military leadership we have in the country. I was impressed with the plan they put in place. The key to the plan, which is very similar to what we had in Iraq, is we have to clear, basically provide security. Then we have to hold that security, not just go and clear and then leave. We have to clear and then hold it. Then we have to build. We have to give people opportunities, economic opportunities, and some reason to hope. Once we build, then we need to transfer the authority to, in this case, the Afghan people, the Afghan Government.

The first part is a lot of our responsibility, although a lot of the clearing and holding is in combination with the Afghan Army. As a matter of fact, I don't think a lot of Americans realize

there have been more Afghan soldiers killed in Afghanistan than American soldiers or coalition soldiers. But the challenge is going to be in the transfer. We saw that the Afghan Army is being built up and trained fairly well.

Two big areas of concern are, one, the Afghan police. It has taken a lot longer to train them than we hoped. We experienced some of the same problems in Iraq. The Afghan police are not even close to being fully trained. There is a lot of corruption in the police. There are a lot of challenges to overcome there, but they are challenges that, given the right plan, given the right amount of time and resources, can be overcome.

Another huge problem in Afghanistan is development of infrastructure. I have heard Afghanistan described as an 18th century or 19th century country. However, one can really describe it as a second century country. There are many parts of it where people are living in mud structures with no electricity, with no running water, with none of the modern conveniences or technologies we think about.

In those areas, and the vast majority of the country, there is no governmental infrastructure. There is no rule of law. There is nothing to build on there. It literally has to be built from the ground up. There is neither a lot of experience not the necessary resources in Afghanistan to do that. That may be the major problem going forward in that transfer that I think the members of the delegation learned while we were over there. It is also why we questioned, when we came back, if we have the right strategy with the best chance of being successful. None of us know whether our strategy is actually going to be successful in the future. But it is worth attempting. It is in our vital national interest to do it. Then we have to pray it is successful in the future.

I think all of us came away thinking the American part of it, the international coalition part of it, will be successful. What we do not know will be successful is the transfer of authority to the Afghan government, the part at the end.

Is that the same impression the Senator from Delaware had?

If the Senator will yield.

First of all, we were flying over the Kandahar Province in the southern part of Afghanistan in these Black Hawk helicopters, visiting a few of the forward operating bases--one for training, the other one for trying to provide stability for the region. As we were flying over, it was surprising how many agricultural fields there were in that part of the country. It was a very fertile area, and it seemed to me that 80 to 90 percent of the crops I saw from the air were poppies. This is just an estimate, but it was pretty easy to see them because the poppies were in bloom. They were everywhere, including right next to our bases, because we have stopped the eradication program. There has been a change in policy. This change was the one element of policy which I disagreed with over there. I think we do need to reevaluate, as the Senator from Delaware talked about, this tough love approach. I do think that is the way to go because you do have to have the positive incentives in there to grow other crops. But I don't believe you can do that without the negative consequences if farmers do decide to grow the poppies. In other words, if the positives are not strong enough, they may decide they are going to grow poppies anyway.

A couple problems with the poppies is, one, the Taliban wants to grow them because it helps fund the Taliban; and two, poppies are a very drought-resistant crop and Afghanistan has been in a drought for about 8 years. So growing poppies is a stable source of income for the Afghan farmers.

The other thing the Senator from Delaware mentioned is that other countries in the area would love to have their produce. The problem is getting that produce to market. They do not have anywhere to store the produce. They have a guaranteed market there for the poppies with the transportation. The Taliban is not going to attack their transport, if that is what they are growing. So this is very much a difficult situation, but it isn't a situation that is, I believe, without a solution. I believe we can come to a solution on this, and that is why I think we need to reevaluate what we are doing in Afghanistan by not including eradication as part of the process. Because when we talk about the police--and I see Senator Brown has joined us, one of our colleagues who was on the trip--there is corruption in the police force. Well, in every country in the world that has a serious drug problem, it leads to corruption in the police, which leads to corruption of any kind of judicial system, officials in the government and on and on and on.

I would be curious to hear from my colleague, our newest Senator, the Senator from Massachusetts, who was a real joy to have with us on the trip.

I have a couple of other observations and comments to make. I expressed this to General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry when we had one of our briefings regarding the various aspects of the international coalition including USAID, the State Department, the military, all the members that make up what are called PRTs, provincial reconstruction teams. In that meeting, I asked the question about how much money we were spending now. It was very clearly a concern, when we were talking about the economy of Afghanistan and whether it would be able to support this large army and large police force we are putting into place. So I asked the question: How much money are we spending now, how much money is going to be needed in the future, and for how long is that money going to be needed?

President Obama has talked about us starting to withdraw troops about the middle of 2011. As we are to start drawing down some troops there around July 2011, it became obvious to me that we are going to have a commitment there for some time, and I think it is important for us to be honest with the American people, first of all, about how much it is going to cost. I think a conservative estimate, for many years to come, is that we are going to be talking about spending at least $10 billion a year--around $6 billion to support their army and their police force and another $4 billion as far as helping build their economy.

The Afghan economy can eventually take over if their natural resources come to be what the U.S. Geological Service says some of their minerals are worth; what they think the oil and gas reserves potentially are. China is coming in to build probably the largest copper mine in the world there, but it is going to take years to develop these resources. So that is one of the things I came back with. We need to be a little more open with the American people that we are going to be there for a while and it is going to cost us quite a bit of money. We should be able to say to our constituents back home: Here is how much we are going to be spending and here is why it is in our vital national interest.

The other thing we haven't taken a lot of time to talk about is Pakistan. First of all, we have some great leaders over there, as well as Ambassador Patterson and Vice Admiral LeFever. They are the military leaders over there, and their teams are impressive as well.

As Senator Brown mentioned, we visited a refugee camp, and we also visited a base that we built over there for Pakistanis to train. The Pakistanis who train there are called the frontier scouts and they work in the tribal areas to help fight the Taliban. It is in our interest to be able to do that.

I was very encouraged by what I saw in Pakistan, by the new leaders there giving up some of their power voluntarily, the new President, and seeing Pakistan as much more of an ally to the United States in the future. In general, I thought that part of our trip to Pakistan was very much worthwhile.

I would conclude my remarks with that, and turn it over to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3593.

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

Madam President, very briefly, this is an amendment to improve the health care system in America. We talk about making health care more affordable. One of the ways to do that is to encourage people to give away health care.

In my veterinary practice, I used to give away about 10 to 20 percent of my business. I did not have to be worried about being sued. Every doctor, every health care provider I have talked with, if they give away, if they do it pro bono, if they do it out of compassion, that is one of the first times they are going to get sued.

What this amendment says is, unless there is gross negligence, if a health care provider is giving their services away out of the compassion of their heart, they cannot be sued. It is a very simple amendment.

We have had this debate on the Senate floor before. This would greatly improve our medical system by encouraging people to be compassionate for those who cannot afford medical care, but they should not have to be worried about being sued if they happen to be compassionate enough to give their services away.

This is a commonsense amendment. I encourage all our colleagues to vote for this amendment. This will improve our health care system in the United States.

Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(g)(3) of the statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I call up amendment No. 3710.

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

I call the attention of the Senate to this clever cartoon. This cartoon has captured a very important part of this health care bill. It is a Trojan horse that says ``health care reform'' on it. You see a bunch of IRS agents coming out.

My amendment goes to the heart of one of the problems with this bill. There is an individual mandate that puts fines on people that can also attach civil penalties. And 16,500 new IRS agents are going to be required to be hired because of the health care reform bill.

Do we want IRS agents showing up at people's houses, not only to audit them because of their taxes but because now they are not paying an individual mandate fine? I do not think America wants expansion of the IRS. We should be focusing on jobs, not new jobs for IRS agents.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment that would eliminate the individual fines on the individual mandates and civil penalties.

Mr. President, tourism is the backbone of the economy of my State of Nevada. It has taken a nosedive over the last year with the crash of the Nation's economy. More than ever, the industry has needed a lifeline that was recently given to my State when the legislation I authored with Senator Dorgan, the Travel Promotion Act, was signed into law by the President. Our legislation will revitalize the tourism industry across our country and in my State of Nevada by reintroducing our rural class destinations to people all over the world.

On the piece of legislation before us, I have offered two important amendments to the FAA bill that will also help tourism in my State and will create jobs in this important industry.

Last week, Senator Reid and I sponsored an amendment that will encourage more construction on land around McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, which will ultimately create more jobs for the area. Our legislation lifts an outdated deed restriction for land surrounding McCarran International Airport which previously prevented development on this land because of an agreement with the Bureau of Land Management that enforced noise mitigation for airlines flying overhead.

However, because of technology, aircrafts are not as noisy as they were 10 years ago, when this restriction was put in place. While our amendment does not alter the noise threshold in the area, it does broaden the types of buildings that can be constructed on the land because airline noise no longer threatens to violate the threshold.

Clark County can now sell the lands to be used for hotels, arenas, auditoriums, and concert halls. Not only are we making this land more attractive and more valuable, we are creating jobs by increasing construction in the area and increasing the use of the land. I was happy this amendment was accepted by both the majority and the minority.

The second amendment Senator McCain has been working on for a long time, as well as myself, Senator Reid, and others was unfortunately pulled, but it deals with the issue of flights--helicopter flights, especially, and fixed-wing flights--over the Grand Canyon, which is something I have been working on since I was in the House of Representatives. I thought we were close to getting this amendment finalized because it is very important not only for tourism, but it is also important for those who cannot necessarily hike the Grand Canyon, who cannot experience the wonderful aspects of it--those in wheelchairs, the elderly--and this amendment would have made sure they would have continued to have access.

I hope we can work on that and get that amendment either in conference or in some other way. It is not only good for the economy, but it is also good for those who are disabled or those who for other reasons cannot go and enjoy the Grand Canyon such as hikers and others can.

Amendment No. 3476, as Modified

The last piece I wish to talk about is the amendment we have before us today. It is called the DC perimeter amendment. Once again, this is something I have been working on for many years. The initial rule was put into place in 1966, to put a limit on how far flights could fly out of Reagan, then

known as Washington National Airport. It was to divert air traffic over to the new Dulles Airport, basically making National a short-haul and Dulles a long-haul airport.

To carry out this purpose, there was a restriction of 1,250 miles put from National Airport. While Congress has granted certain limited exceptions to the perimeter rule over the years, the rule continues to place arbitrary limits that restrict air traffic between the airport and the Western United States. Today, there are only a dozen nonstop flights between Reagan National and the entire Western United States. I encourage my colleagues to work on this amendment in conference. In a little while, we are probably going to be withdrawing the amendment, but we want to work on it in conference so that more areas, more places in the United States will have direct access to Reagan National Airport, which is much more convenient to use than Washington Dulles or the Baltimore airport.

I will say this: It really is a matter of fairness. Should only the east coast or the Midwest have access to Reagan National or should the rest of the country have the convenience of flying into Reagan National?

My amendment actually would not have increased the number of landing slots available. My amendment would have allowed airlines to take the slots. They fly from certain airports, the large hub airports, and transfer those to other slots that work better for their business plan as well as gives other people in America the right to fly into Reagan National Airport, which is, as I mentioned, so much more convenient.

So after 40 years of implementation of the perimeter rule, it is outdated. The last time I checked--and I fly Dulles all the time-- Dulles is thriving. As a matter of fact, it is packed. I circled for over an hour today because of the number of flights coming into Dulles. It is an extremely busy airport. I don't think we have to make sure Dulles stays busy any longer. It has more than it can actually handle. But it is time to scale back the perimeter restrictions at Reagan National.

So I really hope in conference we can get together and work on reasonable changes to the DC perimeter rule that will give other Americans, other than those living within the perimeter rule today, access to the closest airport to our Nation's Capital.

With that, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their willingness to work with us on this amendment as well as generally. This is important legislation they have worked on. We have a lot of outdated technology in our current FAA system, and this is a very important piece of legislation. I applaud the efforts they have made in bringing the legislation to this point.

I yield the floor.

The amendment allows any carrier which currently has slots at DCA to convert flights now serving large hub airports inside the perimeter into flights serving any airport outside the perimeter.

This would mean that more passengers travelling from the West could fly into and out of National, avoiding the inconvenience and additional expense associated with getting into the city from Dulles.

The amendment does not reduce the number of flights between DCA and small cities within the 1,250-mile perimeter; it does not affect the slot regulations at DCA; it does not increase the number of allowable flight operations at the airport; and it does not impact the small and medium size airports inside the perimeter.

Rather, the amendment is a reasonable pro-competition solution that gives tourists and business travelers from around the nation another option for visiting the nation's Capital.

There are only a dozen nonstop flights between Ronald Reagan National Airport and the entire western United States. To put that number in perspective, that is 12 beyond the perimeter flights at DCA out of approximately 400 flights daily. The beyond the perimeter flights represent just 3 percent of all daily, domestic operations at

No. In 1962, Dulles only served approximately 52,000 passengers. Today, however, Dulles is thriving. In 2009, the airport served approximately 23 million passengers. According to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, ``Dulles has emerged as one of the fastest growing airports in the world and a major East Coast gateway for domestic and international travelers as well as cargo activities.''

Yes, the Wright amendment of 1979 was a Federal law restricting flights at Dallas' Love Field Airport. It originally limited most nonstop flights from Love Field to destinations within Texas and neighboring States. In 2006, Congress passed the Wright Amendment Reform Act, which issued a full repeal of the Love Field perimeter rule with conditions. Lifting the restrictions at Love Field gave the traveling public more flight options, cut prices, and made traveling more efficient.

The slot conversion provision ensures that service to small and medium hub airports within the perimeter would not be affected. There is no restriction, however, on converting a flight that currently serves a large hub airport within the perimeter to a small or medium hub airport beyond the perimeter. So, presumably the Ensign amendment could expand service to small and medium hub airports beyond the perimeter.

No. The number of flights currently serving DCA remains the same. Residents around the airport will not hear an increase in noise from takeoffs and landings and will not see larger planes operating at DCA. The only change is that a few of the planes would have a different destination.

Yes, because Senator Dorgan and our other colleagues have agreed to address the DCA perimeter rule as the FAA reauthorization process moves forward.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 3476, as modified, be withdrawn.

Madam President, first of all, I appreciate all of the great work that the chairman has done on this piece of legislation. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation that we are talking about today. We are talking about the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

Why is it on the bill that deals with the FAA, people would ask? Well, it is on there because we have been trying to get this reauthorized for a long time. In the Senate, we have to take whatever vehicle we can get.

I appreciate the leadership of Senator Lieberman and the work he has done, as well as many of my other colleagues. Unfortunately, there are forces on the other side who apparently think giving opportunity scholarships for 1,300 poor children in the District of Columbia is somehow a threat to our public education system in America.

I heard the chairman talk about Michelle Rhee. Michelle is one of the true reformers of education. She is a believer in the public education system in America, as I am. I know that Chairman Lieberman is a big believer in the public education system. That is one of the reasons we want to explore and test various reform proposals to actually see if they will work, or see if they do not work.

Well, so far, there have been 1,300 students participating in the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. Based on the satisfaction of their parents, it is serving the students well. Remember, when they get a scholarship, they do not have to go. Let me repeat that. If they are in a public school system, they are zoned for that public school system. They cannot afford to go anyplace else; they do not have any choice. But if they get one of these DC scholarships, nobody forces them to use it. Nobody forces them to go to one of those other private schools.

Why do the parents and the kids like it? They like it because they are escaping from a bad school.

As Senator Lieberman discussed, 85 percent of the kids who participate in

this program are from failing schools; failing based on objective criteria. The average household income is about $25,000 a year for the families of these kids who are participating in the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. These are kids are from low-income families. They cannot afford to take their kids out of these failing schools by themselves. That is why we wanted to experiment to see whether the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program worked. Did it help the kids' educational system? Education in America has been called the new civil right. Well, I think that is exactly right. I think we need to look at education as a way to lift people out of poverty. But just because kids are getting an education at school, it does not give them the opportunities that other kids are getting. It is not a question of money. The DC Public School System spends $15,000 per year per student. It is one of the highest, if not the highest, in the country. It is about $4,600 a year more than the national average. It is almost three times more than what Nevada spends per student.

But I can guarantee you, I do not know of anybody in Nevada who would rather have their kids going here in Washington, DC, Public Schools than going to public school in Nevada. It is because of the poor performance of Washington, DC Public Schools.

Now, Michelle Rhee, to her credit, is doing a good job improving the public schools. But they have so far to go. The Mayor of Washington, DC, supports the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. The parents of these children--there were over 7,000 people who just signed a petition in Washington, DC, to continue this program. I have met many of these students. When you talk to them, and you look in their faces and you say: Do you want this program to continue? Is this something that has helped you in your life? The students who have participated in the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program say it is one of the best things that ever happened to them in their life. DC Opportunity Scholarship Program allowed the students to get out of a school that had high crime rates, that had low performance, and where sometimes the teachers did not have great attitudes. The students went to a caring, loving atmosphere where they had a chance to succeed.

That is really what this whole thing is about. Recent data shows that about 26 percent of eighth graders in the DC Public Schools score below basic in math. Students of DC Public Schools rank near the bottom in the Nation in both SAT and ACT scores. About half of the DC students do not even graduate from high school.

On the other side of the coin, when you look at what has happened with the DC Opportunity Scholarship kids, a rigorous study by the Institute of Education Services found that students in the program experienced statistically significant improvements in reading that were equal to more than 3 months of additional schooling.

The study also found that students in five out of ten subgroups improved in reading, and parents experienced increased satisfaction with the quality and the safety of their children's schools.

Dr. Wolf, who was the principal investigator for the Department of Education study, has stated:

. . . the D.C. scholarship program has proven to be the

most effective education policy evaluated by the federal

government's official education research arm so far.

You know, Rome was not built in a day. I believe we owe it to DC's children to continue this program and to continue the research on these promising gains.

Do we know that the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program will work in the future? No. But it is promising research so far. So we should not discontinue the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. We should fund it, make sure that it continues and continue to study it.

Unfortunately, what has happened is that in the public school system, there are forces who believe that giving parents choice is somehow a threat to our public school system. To me, it is just about the kids and their education. That is who should come first in our education system, the children. Let's put their education and future first. Let's not have special interests decide who is going to control education.

That is what the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program is all about. I see Senator Collins is on the Senate floor. I appreciate her work, Senator Lieberman, Senator Voinovich, and many others in the Senate who have worked in a bipartisan fashion. Let's not let this bill go down.

Secretary Duncan is a reformer. There is no question he has brought some reform proposals that I think deserve looking at.

He has talked a lot about putting our kids first in our education system. This is one way we can do it. We need to support Michelle Rhee in her efforts to improve the public school system, but we also need to keep this valuable program, the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, intact for those 1,300 kids and their families who are enjoying its benefits.

I yield the floor and thank the chairman for allowing me to speak.

Madam President, first, let me start by complimenting the Senator from Wisconsin for addressing the spending going on in Washington, DC. I applaud his efforts. He understands this is a modest effort, but we have to start someplace. For my whole 10 years in the Senate, I have been talking about spending and getting our debt under control, not passing debt on to our children across America. This is a huge debt burden we are passing on to them. I applaud the efforts, even though they are small. Anything we can do around here to address the deficits and the debt I think is very important.

I want to talk about unemployment and foreclosures, especially how they are affecting Nevada and the overall economy. I think everybody admits the our economy is hurting. There are people all over the country in need of employment. Many are hurting because of foreclosures or potential foreclosures on their houses.

In new unemployment numbers just released, Nevada has a 13-percent unemployment rate, with Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, now at almost a record high of 13.8 percent; Washoe County, which is where Reno is, a 13.5-percent unemployment rate. The Review Journal, the largest paper in Nevada, pointed out this week that the salary and job outlook for Nevadans is going from bad to worse. Wages are declining across industries in our State, and experts recently told the paper if we were to count discouraged workers who have given up looking for employment and part-time employees who wish to work full time, the real unemployment rate in Nevada would actually hover somewhere around 25 percent.

In fact, if we were to count those who are self-employed--for instance, if you are a realtor and you are not selling homes, you may still be classified as employed but you are effectively unemployed. If we counted all the self-employed people who are not counted in the normal unemployment rates, these numbers would even be higher.

Housing in Nevada is still hurting severely. We are leading the Nation in home foreclosures and there does not seem to be a solution to this problem coming out of Congress. Instead, Congress has gone off on a wayward path in trying to muscle through health care reform when the immediate focus of this institution should be on the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs, are at risk of losing their homes, or even worse--both.

In fact, nearly 5 million Americans have lost their jobs during the time Congress has shifted its focus away from the economy onto health care. I will point out, however, if you live in the Washington, DC, area you are actually OK. There have been 100,000 new jobs created in this city in the last year. These are government jobs; not private sector jobs, government jobs. This is a direct result of a massive expansion of the Federal Government.

I do not believe that growing the Federal Government and creating jobs in Washington does anything to help the unemployment in Nevada or around the rest of the country. Health care reform proposals that the majority is trying to push through both Houses are not designed to incentivize job creation at a time when we need a lifeline. Instead, their bills will be job killers.

The National Federation of Independent Business, which is the largest organization that represents small businesses in America, believes their health care reform proposals will actually cost millions of jobs in small businesses over the next 4 years. It also will greatly add to the Nation's debt when we are already borrowing from future generations, as the Senator from Wisconsin just talked about.

It is time for Congress to shift our focus back to creating jobs, and do it in a responsible way by reducing wasteful government spending and thinking about the future of our country. One spending bill after another that comes before this Senate is not going to solve the economic problems our country is facing. It is actually just going to make the situation worse over the next several years because as we borrow more money, inflation and interest rates will increase.

There are concerns about the strength of the dollar in the world. Adding to our debt intensifies those worries. We all, as Republicans and as Democrats--really, as Americans--ought to be concerned about what this debt is going to do to the future of our country.

We need real solutions to our economic problems. We need to get the country back on track. To do that, we need to get control of out-of- control spending, especially wasteful spending.

Job creation needs to be our number one focus, and we cannot incentivize job creation when our Nation is buried in debt. This means we are all going to have to start taking some difficult votes to reverse the wild spending spree we are on. Here in Washington it is much easier to get reelected if you are giving money away to people. It is much more difficult politically to take votes that actually cut spending because for every government program that is out, there is a constituency that lobbies to keep that gravy train coming from the Federal Government.

Last week we had two options in the Senate. We had the option to pay for the extension of unemployment insurance benefits with unspent stimulus funds, money we have already taken out of the pockets of taxpayers, or we had the option of adding more debt to the credit card of this Nation. I voted to extend unemployment insurance without having American families foot yet another government bill. Unfortunately, the majority party did not pass this bill. Instead, they voted to continue adding to our Nation's debt. Over $100 billion was added to our Nation's debt just yesterday by this Senate.

By the way, $100 billion used to be a lot of money around this place. It is tossed around like it is almost nothing now. $100 billion is a huge amount of money. It passed and hardly got any notice around the country. That is what we added to our deficit and our debt yesterday.

I stress again that job creation needs to be our number one focus, but we cannot begin to incentivize job creation just by adding more debt. I have been focused on introducing legislation that will help create jobs in Nevada while not increasing the debt--for example, the recent passage of my legislation with Senator Dorgan, called the Travel Promotion Act. This will incentivize tourists from across the world to come to the United States and visit our world-class destinations. This will spur job growth across Nevada and our entire Nation. These will not be government jobs; these will be private sector jobs. These jobs will not be paid for by the American taxpayer; these will be jobs that will be a lifeline for our economy.

Legislation like the Travel Promotion Act illustrates that we need to get past the idea that government spending creates jobs and showcases that we need to institute policies that incentivize the private sector to create jobs. We can do this by lowering taxes on small businesses. They are the engine of our economy. We can start creating employment opportunities throughout the United States. These private sector jobs will help get our country back on the road to recovery and will not add to the financial burden of the United States.

The majority party seems to believe the only way to spur job creation is to

pass spending bill after spending bill. As we have witnessed over the past year, this does not seem to be working. But this has not lessened the resolve of those across the aisle. This week, House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller announced that he will unveil a jobs bill--that is what he called it, a jobs bill--aimed to save or create a lot of jobs in local governments. It is a $100 billion bill-- another $100 billion.

The problem with this is these jobs are going to be paid for by the Community Development Block Grant Program, which, in simple English, means we are adding to the debt. This is money the taxpayers are going to have to pay for in the future--borrowing once again from our children and adding to our Nation's credit card debt. This is not a solution to create jobs in the long run.

The Federal Government spending money on legislation whose only connection to job creation is putting the phrase in the title of the bill is not working. In the short term, will it save some local government jobs? No question, in Nevada it probably would. But Nevada is making tough choices right now. They are actually looking where there is waste. They are looking how they can make government more efficient. We are not doing that at the Federal level. We are actually discouraging it by sending more and more money to the States. But at the Federal Government level we are certainly not looking for any efficiencies because all we continue to do is spend more and more money, add more and more government agencies, more and more government programs.

We should be tightening our belts like every family, every business, local government, and State government are doing across the country. That is one of the reasons many of us have cosponsored legislation for a balanced budget amendment. If we were required to balance the budget we would be required to take those tough votes. That is why we get elected, to do something, to make a positive difference for our country. Adding to our debt is not that positive difference. We need to think about the future of our country instead of just getting reelected by being able to give money away to some of our constituents.

I will conclude with this: Job number one needs to be about creating jobs in a responsible way--not government jobs, private sector jobs. We need to stop adding to the deficit, get government spending under control, and cut taxes for small businesses so that entrepreneurs across this country can create jobs. These are what the priorities of this body should be.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the tax extenders legislation and the consequences of our fiscal recklessness. I cannot stress enough that our spending is completely out of control. It seems every week this body passes more legislation and spends more money and adds more debt onto the backs of our children. Unfortunately, the Democratic majority continues to sing from the same old sheet of music--more debt, more spending, and more fiscal recklessness. Last week the nonpartisan CBO provided their analysis of President Obama's budget, and it is nothing short of a fiscal train wreck and a roadmap to banana republic status. It pains me to stand on the floor of the Senate and tell the American people that President Obama is leading us down a path of bankruptcy.

I believe this budget is simply reckless, with enormous budget deficits as far as the eye can see. This year, the government has overspent by more than trillion dollars; the same amount last year. We are passing trillions of dollars in debt onto our children and grandchildren. Nevadans and people across the country are facing very hard

economic times. For the Federal Government to be spending this much money is an insult to American families everywhere.

In 2020, the last year of the President's budget, our Nation's credit card bill will account for 90 percent of the economy. What does this mean in terms real people can understand? Because these numbers are so large and enormous, it is difficult to put them in perspective. Let me talk in terms of the consequences of this fiscal recklessness. At a certain point, foreign countries will not buy our IOUs, our bonds, or they will demand higher interest rates because they are riskier. Our standard of living will decrease. Actually for the first time in American history, future generations will be worse off than prior generations. As to the American dream of owning a home as a young adult, one will have to wait until their 40s or 50s to buy a home. Families, in order to maintain a similar standard of living, will have to become smaller. With a less dynamic economy, we will enjoy less of the fruits of innovation and technological progress.

I know this is hard to hear, but one day, if we continue down the current path, this scenario will become a reality. We cannot keep spending and spending and spending without consequences. Democrats claim we need to spend money because our economy is sluggish. We need stimulus after stimulus to put us back on the right track.

We are not on the right track. Unemployment in my State is still 13 percent. There isn't much light on the horizon. We have lost our way and have wandered down a path of fiscal crisis. More spending doesn't fix the economic crisis.

I wish to talk about the depression of 1920 to 1921. Shortly after the end of World War I, we went into economic crisis. The Department of Commerce estimates the economy declined by nearly 7 percent during that period. Unemployment rose sharply during the recession. Estimates are the rate of unemployment went from around 5 to almost 12 percent. From May of 1920 to July of 1921, automobile production declined by 60 percent, and total industrial production across the country decreased by 30 percent. Stocks also fell dramatically. The Dow Jones Industrials was cut by almost half. Business failures tripled between 1919 and 1922.

But instead of ``fiscal stimulus,'' here is what President Harding did. He cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. Marginal tax rates were slashed across all income groups. So he cut taxes and cut government spending at the same time. This encouraged businesses to grow and to add jobs in the private sector. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

In the 1920 acceptance speech for the Republican nomination, Harding said:

We will attempt intelligent and courageous deflation, and

strike a government borrowing which enlarges the evil, and we

will attack the high cost of government with every energy and

facility which attend Republican capacity.

We promise that relief which will attend the halting of

waste and extravagance, and the renewal of the practice of

public economy, not alone because it will relieve tax burdens

but because it will be an example to stimulate thrift and

economy in private life.

You see, Harding's laissez-faire economic policies, rapid government downsizing, and low tax rates spurred a private market recovery and led to a readjustment in investment and consumption for a peacetime economy.

The unemployment rate went from almost 12 percent in a little over a year to less than 2 percent. Let me repeat that. The unemployment rate went from almost 12 percent to under 2 percent. I do not think that is what is happening today.

This episode in history provides a counterexample to the argument that we need massive government spending to stimulate our Nation's economy. You see, we do not hear about the Great Depression of 1920. Instead, we hear about the Roaring Twenties because sound fiscal policy, cutting tax rates, cutting spending led to economic resurgence.

This is an example that shows when the burden of government is lessened through less spending, less taxes, and less debt, the private sector will respond with investment and job creation, which lead to economic growth.

So why is the legislation on the floor today not the answer? If creating jobs is priority No. 1--and it should be for this body--why is the majority party letting tax incentives for job-creating businesses expire? These noncontroversial provisions expired 3 months ago. Why is helping businesses an afterthought for the majority?

The tax extender portion of this bill could have passed by unanimous consent months ago. But the majority did not want to bother with that. It will have to be extended again later this year because the provisions will again expire on December 31.

This is not the right policy for creating a stable and certain environment for employers who are wanting to hire more employees. The tax extender provisions of the bill amount to only $25 billion of this massive $144 billion bill.

The tax extenders are good. They include energy production credits, research credits, accelerated depreciation for certain businesses, State and local sales tax deductions, and low-income housing tax credits.

I have said these are good provisions. But we should have done much more. Foremost, we should be cutting individual and corporate income tax rates so people and businesses could use their money to get the economy moving again and could invest in job creation and wealth- creating enterprises. But, at the same time, we need to cut government spending so we are not massively increasing the debt. You see, I hate to break it to you, but America is falling behind other countries in that regard. Tax relief is wrongly criticized by those across the aisle. They have been arguing for job creation, but their policies are making it tougher on private businesses.

In order to help these businesses find a stable footing once again, we need to make tax relief permanent and not wait for these extensions to expire again and again.

Let me conclude. To get this economy moving, we do not need to pass a bill that is going to add over $100 billion to our deficit and our debt. That is what the bill before us today does. It adds over $100 billion to our deficit and our debt.

A few years ago, $100 billion was a lot of money around this place. We throw that amount around here like it is nothing anymore. That is debt that is adding to the coming fiscal crisis this country is going to be facing.

I believe the prescription to get this economy going is to cut taxes, cut government spending. I believe in the spirit of the American people and the American entrepreneurs instead of creating jobs here in Washington, DC. I do not know if the American people know that over 100,000 jobs were created in this city last year--over 100,000 jobs in Washington, DC. That is about as many jobs as my State lost. That is not the prescription for economic prosperity.

Government jobs have to be sustained with tax dollars year after year. When the private sector creates those jobs, the whole economy grows and feeds off itself, and you do not need taxpayer dollars to continue to subsidize those jobs. As a matter of fact, they feed in money to the Federal Treasury.

The bill before us today, I think, is fiscally irresponsible. It is the exact opposite direction we should be going. What we should be doing is acting in accord as Americans--not as Republicans, not as Democrats--but let's look at history and learn from it and get this economy going by focusing on actually what has worked in the past and what will work in the future.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the beginning of an exciting chapter for the Las Vegas Asian Chamber of Commerce. For more than 20 years, this group of entrepreneurial southern Nevadans has worked together to provide resources

and promote economic growth in the Asian community. Today, they will install the first woman to be president of their esteemed organization. Vida Chan Lin steps into this role--respected by her peers and energized by her passion for furthering the goals of the Las Vegas Asian Chamber of Commerce.

While this leadership role is a new opportunity for Ms. Lin, her lifetime of experience has prepared her to take on this role. As a child, she was exposed to running a business as she saw firsthand the daily challenges and joys in the restaurants her family owned. She then found great satisfaction in the insurance industry where she continued to exceed expectations and eventually start her own company.

Ms. Lin has always balanced her business drive and success with her commitment to community service. She has been an instrumental force behind the Las Vegas Asian Chamber of Commerce for many years. Her ability to bring people together, develop innovative programming, and mentor young leaders has helped ensure the long-term success of the Asian Chamber well beyond just her tenure.

She has been recognized by countless organizations for her business acumen and her heartfelt commitment to public service. I am proud to congratulate Vida Lin on this special day, and I wish her great success in the coming term of her presidency.

Mr. President, I rise today because our economy is struggling. Unemployment remains high, and the recession's hold on cities across America is as strong as ever. My home State of Nevada has been one of the hardest hit, and our tourism-dependent economy is barely hanging on. Unfortunately, this is true for tourism-dependent cities across our country.

During these difficult economic times, it simply isn't enough to try to stimulate domestic spending by passing one massive spending bill after another. We need to incentivize tourists from across the world to visit the truly unique destinations across America. From one coast of this country to the other, there are endless opportunities to tour historic sights, take advantage of recreational opportunities, observe great architecture, visit theme parks, dine in some of the finest restaurants in the world, view natural and manmade miracles, and soak up everything that is so uniquely found in America. We all know we live in the best country in the world. Now is the time for people across the world to enjoy all we have to offer while repairing our economy at the same time.

My colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, understands the importance of reasserting our tourism industry on the world stage. Together, he and I have sponsored the Travel Promotion Act, which is before us today. This bipartisan piece of legislation would help to make our travel and tourism industry more successful and more competitive internationally. So I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, for his great leadership on this important issue.

Tourism is our country's truest form of economic stimulus. The average overseas visitor to the United States spends roughly $4,500 per trip to pay for hotels, transportation, dining, shopping, and other things. Unfortunately, tourism took a massive hit on 9/11, and it has not yet recovered. This lost decade has only been made worse by last year's recession.

If the United States had managed to keep pace with global travel trends, 68 million more travelers would have visited the United States between 2000 and 2009. These travelers would have generated an estimated 250,000 new U.S. jobs in 2008 alone.

At a time when unemployment is at record-high numbers in this country, we cannot afford to throw away anymore tourism-related job creation. We could take a cue from Canada on successful ways to spur this tourism that we need so badly. If you have been watching the Olympics, you have seen these ads about British Columbia. I don't know about the rest of you, but it has made me actually want to go up and visit. But it is not just watching the Olympics. It is the ads that have been the most successful part of making me want to go to that part of the world. They have beautiful things to advertise, to show you: Doesn't that look like an incredible place to go visit?

Think about all we have in America that we can advertise to the rest of the world that may not have thought about it. I didn't think about going up to Vancouver and British Columbia, but those ads spurred my interest in it, and I am sure they have for many Americans and other people around the world. Tourism-related jobs can be created simply by spreading the word about the wonderful destinations that are literally scattered across the United States of America, and we can do it without raising taxes on hard-working American families or by digging ourselves even further into debt.

Unfortunately, the United States has dropped the ball when it comes to tourism and the industry has been virtually left behind. Declines in visits to the United States since 2000 have cost our country an estimated $500 billion in lost spending and at least $30 billion in lost tax receipts.

My speech today is not all gloom and doom, however. Instead, I stand here to offer a solution, a solution that can help get our hard-hit tourism industry back on its feet. What we need is a comprehensive strategy coordinated by public-private partnerships between the Government and the expert leaders

from our travel and tourism industry. This effort needs to center on a major initiative that will make the wonderful destinations throughout our great country known to foreign audiences. Actually, we do not want them to just be aware of these magnificent places. We want them to feel compelled to visit them.

September 11, 2001, forever changed our country and the security measures along with it. But we need to teach potential visitors about the new security policies of today so they can travel to and from our country with ease.

The bottom line is, the United States stands to make great gains economically and diplomatically if we strengthen our travel and tourism industry. So how do we go about doing this? The Travel Promotion Act which is before us today would create a public-private corporation for travel promotion to promote the United States as a travel destination to overseas travelers. This corporation would develop and execute a plan to do the following: It would promote the United States to foreign travelers by using coordinated advertising campaigns and other promotional activities, similar to what we see in the Olympics with Canada; the corporation would identify and correct misperceptions about U.S. travel policies; it would also help provide travel information to foreign visitors to the United States such as information about entry requirements, fees, and documents; and last, the corporation would focus its efforts to ensure that all 50 States benefit from overseas tourism, including areas not traditionally visited by international travelers.

Understand this, no taxpayer funds would be used to finance the corporation for travel promotion. Let me repeat that. No taxpayer funds would be used to finance the corporation for travel promotion. All the funding would come from private industry and from user fees paid by some international visitors. This would finally put the United States on equal footing with many other developed countries.

This legislation would be a true lifeline to my home State of Nevada, which depends so heavily on travel and tourism. I mentioned earlier my State was one of the hardest hit. But I do not think that description does the situation in Nevada justice. The tourism industry in Nevada, especially Las Vegas, has truly been crippled by the economy. Nevadans who were already struggling through home foreclosures have been forced to carry the burden of the downturned economy. Taxicab drivers, valets, housekeepers, waiters and waitresses and construction workers are drowning in this recession because Americans are not traveling like they used to. These workers are barely keeping their heads above water and some are not even able to do that. They are losing their homes, which has truly annihilated the housing market in my State.

Boosting overseas travel will provide for growth in an otherwise shrinking segment of our economy, and it will help heal local economies around our country. This will, in turn, greatly advance our overall economy at a time when we cannot afford to turn away the potential of hundreds of billions of dollars.

With domestic travel and convention travel down, overseas travel could be the silver lining we all need. At a time when our country faces record deficit and spending levels, I know this money may seem like a lot. Believe me when I say to you that I take my pledge of fiscal responsibility very seriously. I vote against spending bills that come across this floor all the time because they simply are an irresponsible waste of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. However, this bill is a responsible use of dollars. It does not apply a government spending bandaid to tough economic situations. It creates a solution that will greatly benefit our economy, and it does it without taxpayer dollars.

The Travel Promotion Act, which has the overwhelming support of Democrats and Republicans alike, is a relatively small investment that will significantly boost our economy, create jobs, and make us more competitive in the world. The bill will not increase the deficit. This bill does not increase the deficit. But it could spur billions in additional economic activity, benefiting Americans all around the country.

The Congressional Budget Office--nonpartisan, the official scorekeeper around here--confirms it will not place any additional burden on the taxpayer. People across my State and across the country have had to make difficult decisions when it comes to their own families' budgets. In fact, the legislature in my home State of Nevada is coming to terms with steep spending cuts and slashing services across the board as we speak, in a special session, because it is too far in the hole to sustain the current spending spree. So Americans are looking to us to boost the economy and so far we have not been able to do that.

Yes, we have spent money--and a lot of money at that, in fact--but our economic situation remains the same. I am asking that we look to the tourism industry as a lifeline for our economy, as I know it will be for my State and for so many others. The Travel Promotion Act will be that lifeline. It will create jobs, create opportunity, and show the world the beauty and the diversity of America.

Each one of us, who together represent all 50 States, knows we have incredible places to show the rest of the world. My home State of Nevada is actually the gateway to the Grand Canyon, which is located in Arizona. We have Lake Tahoe. We have, obviously, Las Vegas. We have so many other places to visit around our great State. But every single Senator could tell those stories. What we need to do is tell them in a way that makes foreign travelers want to come to America. The Travel Promotion Act is going to help us do that.

Let me remind folks, if you watch the Olympics, ask yourself these questions when those commercials about British Colombia come on: Does that make you more or less likely to go, especially if you can afford it? I think the answer is pretty obvious. They make an attractive case to visit their country.

This is the United States of America, with some of the most beautiful, incredible places to see. Are you telling me we cannot advertise this in a way that makes people want to come here? Of course we can. We can have tourism boosted like never before in this country and all Americans will benefit by doing that because when foreign travelers come here, they spend money, boost the economy, and boost every single State in this country.

I encourage this Senate to pass this bill as quickly as possible and get it over to the President for signature so we can get on with boosting the economy.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, in a moment, I will ask unanimous consent to be able to offer an amendment, but

first I wish to talk about that amendment because I understand the other side is going to object.

Currently, there are seven States that collect no income tax from their residents. Those States are my home the State of Nevada, Florida, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.

Under current Federal tax law, in all the States that have an income tax, individuals are allowed to deduct those income taxes from their Federal tax form. Your property taxes can also be deducted. Even when you register your car and pay your registration fee on your car, you are allowed to deduct that because that is a local tax. The tax that you are not allowed to deduct, if we don't extend current law, will be the sales tax.

My State relies more on a sales tax for its revenue sources. That is what it decided to do. Other States have chosen to set their taxes up differently. But States have the flexibility to set up their taxes in the way they feel is best for their residents. My State actually has a constitutional amendment against collecting a State income tax from its residents.

Nevadans don't want a State income tax, but they want to be treated fairly. So a few years ago, we passed a law so that Nevada and these six other States would be treated fairly; so that residents would have the option of deducting a sales tax or an income tax. It is just a matter of fairness, but it also allows people to keep more of their own income. At the end of last year, the deductibility for the sales tax expired, and I would like to be able to offer an amendment to extend it in this jobs bill.

I believe if people have more of their own money--money they can count on--they will make good decisions, and they will actually go out and spend some of that money. I believe this would actually be a good measure to put in the jobs bill. It was in the original bipartisan bill that Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley came up with and introduced. So I am hoping the other side will not object, although I understand they are going to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to offer an amendment to allow for the deduction of State and local sales tax.

Mr. President, I knew that was going to happen because the majority party has decided to allow no amendments on this bill, which is a shame. It is the reason I voted against cloture on the bill yesterday, because I think it is only fair that we get to offer amendments on such an important and expensive bill. This is one of the amendments that I think should be allowed.

We will be making other efforts during the year to get the sales tax deductibility enacted into law because it is a question of fairness for these seven States. I know the Senators from those seven States join me in fighting for this. We fought together before, and we are going to continue to fight to try to make sure this deductibility, as a matter of fairness for our citizens, is maintained in Federal law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am honored to rise today to pay tribute to the brave men who literally fought off evil on January 4, 2010, at the Lloyd D. George Federal Building in Las Vegas, NV. On that tragic day, an armed assailant entered the lobby of the courthouse with clear objectives, to kill as many innocent people as he possibly could. Court Security Officer Stanley Cooper went to work that day with the same vision and determination he had every day; that was to keep the employees and visitors to the Federal building safe as they went about their lives. Tragically, Stan was fatally wounded by the gunman as he faithfully stood his watch at the security check point that morning.

Stanley Cooper was a quiet and gentle man who dedicated his life to the service and protection of others. He retired after 26 years as an officer with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and then chose a life of service again as a court security officer. Stan will always be remembered as a hero, not only because he gave his life in that one terrible moment on January 4 but also because he gave his life every day in the selfless act of serving others.

The other court security officers on duty that day, along with members of the U.S. Marshals Service and a detention officer, acted swiftly and bravely to subdue the gunman and protect the countless innocent lives that were in harm's way. Deputy U.S. Marshal Richard J. ``Joe'' Gardner was wounded in the ensuing battle as he and the other officers valiantly fought off the deadly attack.

It is with utmost gratitude that I take a moment to remember and commend the life of a true hero, Officer Stanley Cooper, and to thank Deputy U.S. Marshal Joe Gardner, the court security officers, the U.S. deputy marshals, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers, and all law enforcement officers who responded to the heinous assault at the Lloyd D. George Federal Building on January 4, 2010, for their brave and courageous actions. Stan and the other officers answered the call of duty that day without concern for themselves or their own safety. Their sacrifice and courage will not be forgotten.

May God grant Stan's beloved family and friends peace and comfort in this time of loss, and may He continue to protect all the men and women in law enforcement who selflessly serve and protect others.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I came to the floor a little more than a month ago to discuss perhaps one of the most critical issues facing our great country: the skyrocketing national debt. I had hoped that once Democrats went home and heard the concerns of their constituents, they would return to Washington with a new perspective. Believe me, I heard from Nevadans in the townhall meetings I held this month that increased spending and more debt is simply not acceptable.

Voters in Massachusetts echoed those same feelings last week when they voted to put a stop to a bloated health care bill and protest out- of-control spending. I don't see how the message can be any clearer. The debt we are accumulating is unsustainable; it will bankrupt this Nation and force future generations to suffer for our fiscal irresponsibility.

Based on the votes today on the Senate floor, it appears that Democrats have decided to turn a deaf ear to the concerns of American voters. We have voted to raise the debt limit once again to make room for more spending. Ironically, the debt limit was put into place to provide Congress with constitutional control of the American purse strings. The debt limit was designed as a form of fiscal accountability to be used by the President and Congress to ensure that the Federal Government does not spend or borrow more than it collects in revenue.

I, along with many Americans, have tried to impose this simple yet vital rule to our children. Don't spend more than you can afford. Don't go into debt. But Congress is teaching them the exact opposite lesson: spend what you want and someone else will take care of it.

Although the debt limit has increased regularly over the years in order to accommodate annual Federal deficits, it has absolutely skyrocketed in the last several years. For example, from 1996 to 2002, the debt limit increased by 16 percent. But from 2003 to 2009 the debt limit increased 84 percent. And if we pass this legislation before us, the total increase from 2002 to January of 2010 will be over 120 percent.

I would like to recap the last month and a half with regard to the debt limit. It was raised by $290 billion in December of last year. Today, the Senate Democrats voted to raise the debt limit by another $1.9 trillion. After just 1 year in office, the Obama administration's spending has left American families in quite the financial hole. Since his inauguration, the national debt has increased by $1.7 trillion.

And when you look at the burden on hard-working American families, the news is just as bad. The Federal debt per household in 2009 was $68,000, and that is projected to increase to $137,000 in 2019 under the Obama administration's budget. Nevadans are hurting enough right now--they don't need this added burden. Under the Democrats' leadership, debt limit increases will become a regular occurrence. The debt subject to limit is projected to grow to $24.5 trillion by 2019.

This vote accomplishes only one thing: passing the responsibility for paying for the massive spending to future generations. We need to do better than that--we need to think of our grandchildren's future when deciding how to vote.

Democrats claim the massive spending this year was necessary because of the ``Republican recession,'' but the Democrats' wasteful spending this year does too little to create jobs. In fact, since President Obama's inauguration the private sector has lost 3.4 million jobs.

And Nevada right now is going through an unprecedented economic downturn. Our unemployment rate just went up again to 13 percent, and that number doesn't account for those who have stopped looking for work. We have to stop this spending and start focusing on the real solution to the slow economy--jobs.

Witin 5 years, Democratic policies will more than double the amount of debt held by the public at the end of fiscal year 2008 and will more than triple it by 2019, according to both OMB and CBO estimates. A single Obama term will add about as much new debt held by the public as all other Presidents in U.S. history combined. That statistic should be shocking to everyone, even to the current White House.

And we should all remember that this debt is only one part of the crisis. The Federal Government has promised more than $70 trillion in entitlements that it cannot pay for. That is a staggering number.

Between Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other liabilities, each American household shoulders roughly $600,000 in IOUs. That is separate and apart from each household's share of the national debt. Keep in mind that this does not include health care reform.

And where is all this borrowed money coming from? Well, almost half of it comes from foreign countries. China is our country's largest foreign creditor, holding roughly 10 percent of our Nation's debt. And like any loan that you or I would get at the local bank, the Chinese don't lend money for free. Federal interest payment on foreign-owned debt has nearly doubled since 2000. We are sending a whole lot of taxpayer money abroad.

Today, I introduced a bill, the Commission for Fiscal Sustainability Act of 2010, to take an effective step toward a solution. This legislation would establish a commission with the goal of fiscal sustainability to guarantee the long-term fiscal strength and economic security of the United States. The legislation would require that the commission focus solely on recommendations to decrease Federal spending without the need for tax increases.

Now we hear of a new proposal from the White House to freeze discretionary spending. I am hopeful that President Obama is sincere in his desire to freeze spending, but I find it very hard to believe that he will be able to contain the fiscally irresponsible Democratic majority which has yet to show restraint in this area.

I don't like to sound pessimistic because this is the greatest country in the history of the world. And I truly

believe that. And I believe that these challenges can be solved. But we must act. We must show leadership--fiscally conservative leadership and stop this out of control spending. American families have had to make tough choices to balance their budget. They understand that they cannot have it all. But we in Congress want to have it all--even when we can't pay for it. That is simply unsustainable.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, it isn't very often that we encounter an angel walking among us. However, Ms. Ricki Chandrinos was most certainly that. She was a tireless advocate working on behalf of veterans in our community, and her commitment to them will not soon be forgotten.

It wasn't until the love of her life, John Chandrinos, her husband of 35 years, began battling a terminal illness that she became passionately involved with the inner workings of the Veterans Affairs medical system. She muddled through the bureaucratic red tape to ensure that he received the care and benefits that he so richly deserved after defending the freedoms of our country for so many years. Tragically, her husband lost his battle, but her passion for America's heroes remained.

After moving to Las Vegas, following the death of her husband, she found her calling late in life. Ricki became deeply involved with the veterans living within her neighborhood, Siena. It is estimated that she personally assisted about 500 of our Nation's most heroic citizens, but she undoubtedly touched more hearts than that during her lifetime.

This extraordinary woman educated herself on VA policy in order to provide the best assistance to these men and women and went so far as to accompany many of them to the VA to ensure that they were served as thoroughly as possible. However, she knew that this wasn't enough for her and that she could serve these veterans even more.

Ricki arranged for speakers from the VA, American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, State of Nevada, and others to address the members of the Siena Veterans Club. Ricki knew that she would not rest until she had served the needs of these veterans, and serve them she did.

Ricki left this Earth for a place much better, but her time on Earth was heaven-sent for all those whose lives she touched. She began her advocacy by her husband's side, and she has finished this tireless crusade to be by his side once again.