Floor Statements

Mr. President, today too many Medicare beneficiaries are being saddled with thousands of dollars of unnecessary out-of-pocket costs for stays at skilled nursing facilities, SNF, solely because of the technical classification of their hospital stay.

Hospitals are increasingly serving Medicare beneficiaries using an ``outpatient observation status'' rather than admitting them as an inpatient--a billing technicality. Because of this, patients are enduring longer hospital stays in observation status and may unknowingly be treated under outpatient observation status for the entirety of their hospital visit.

While the classification of a hospital stay does not affect either the type or level of care a beneficiary receives, it has significant repercussions on Medicare coverage of SNF care. Under current law, Medicare covers SNF care only if beneficiaries have 3 consecutive days of hospitalization as an inpatient, not counting the day of discharge.

Although the Medicare Program manuals limit observation status to 24 to 48 hours, many beneficiaries nationwide are experiencing extended stays in acute care hospitals under observation status. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, MedPAC, the number of beneficiaries receiving outpatient observation services for longer than 48 hours rapidly increased, by more than 70 percent, from 2006 to 2008.

The growth in observation care has not only generated considerable beneficiary confusion as to why Medicare does not cover their SNF care after a hospitalization, but also it has also become a substantial financial barrier to medically necessary post-acute care. Beneficiaries are left facing thousands of dollars in unreimbursed out-of-pocket charges for their care. Those who cannot afford to pay privately for their stay in a SNF may decide to forgo care altogether.

I have heard countless stories of hardship from Medicare beneficiaries in Massachusetts because of this unfair policy. I would like to share the inexcusable experience of one of my constituents, Rosemary Crossin. Rosemary is 81 years old and suffers from Parkinson's disease, arthritis, and diabetes. She was treated at a Boston hospital following a fall that left her with a broken shoulder and a broken hand.

Upon arrival at the hospital, she was examined in the ER for over 6 hours, where she waited on a hard stretcher and received a CT scan, an x ray, and two doses of morphine. At the end of her examination, Rosemary, disoriented and unable to walk on her own due to the combination of her chronic conditions, morphine, and broken bones, was treated in the hospital under observation status.

At no time did the hospital inform Rosemary's family what observation status meant. Rosemary remained in the hospital for over 4 days while she recovered, after which time a physician determined that Rosemary be transferred to an extended stay facility to complete her rehabilitation.

Despite spending over 4 days in the hospital, after the hospital itself determined she was not fit to return home, Rosemary was never admitted as an inpatient. Because she was never classified as an inpatient for billing purposes, she was told that her costs would not be covered by Medicare. Rosemary was told that she would have to prepay $7998 to the skilled nursing facility or remain at the hospital at a cost of $1200 per day. This is wrong, and it needs to be changed.

Currently, Rosemary continues to rehabilitate her injuries at the skilled nursing facility. Unfortunately, because she was in observation status for her entire hospital stay, all subsequent costs will need to be paid for out-of-pocket.

Rosemary could have to spend up to $18,000 out-of-pocket following her fall, all because the hospital kept her under observation status for more than 96 hours after it determined she was not fit to go home.

Unfortunately, Rosemary's experience is not unique. That is why Senator Snowe and I are working together to prevent billing technicalities from hampering access to skilled nursing care. Today, we are introducing the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act of 2011, which would eliminate financial barriers to skilled nursing care in Medicare by allowing observation stays to be counted toward the 3-day mandatory inpatient stay for Medicare coverage of SNF services.

This legislation is supported by a number of national organizations from both the provider and beneficiary communities. I would like to thank a number of organizations that have been integral to the development of the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act of 2011 and that have endorsed our legislation today, including the AARP, the American Health Care Association, the American Medical Association, the American Medical Directors Association, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, LeadingAge, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

The Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act will ensure that vulnerable patients like Rosemary will no longer have to suffer or worry about affording medically needed care because of a hospital billing classification issue.

I urge my colleagues to support our legislation to eliminate unnecessary barriers to skilled nursing care and to bring peace of mind to patients and their families.

Mr. President, today too many Medicare beneficiaries are being saddled with thousands of dollars of unnecessary out-of-pocket costs for stays at skilled nursing facilities, SNF, solely because of the technical classification of their hospital stay.

Hospitals are increasingly serving Medicare beneficiaries using an ``outpatient observation status'' rather than admitting them as an inpatient--a billing technicality. Because of this, patients are enduring longer hospital stays in observation status and may unknowingly be treated under outpatient observation status for the entirety of their hospital visit.

While the classification of a hospital stay does not affect either the type or level of care a beneficiary receives, it has significant repercussions on Medicare coverage of SNF care. Under current law, Medicare covers SNF care only if beneficiaries have 3 consecutive days of hospitalization as an inpatient, not counting the day of discharge.

Although the Medicare Program manuals limit observation status to 24 to 48 hours, many beneficiaries nationwide are experiencing extended stays in acute care hospitals under observation status. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, MedPAC, the number of beneficiaries receiving outpatient observation services for longer than 48 hours rapidly increased, by more than 70 percent, from 2006 to 2008.

The growth in observation care has not only generated considerable beneficiary confusion as to why Medicare does not cover their SNF care after a hospitalization, but also it has also become a substantial financial barrier to medically necessary post-acute care. Beneficiaries are left facing thousands of dollars in unreimbursed out-of-pocket charges for their care. Those who cannot afford to pay privately for their stay in a SNF may decide to forgo care altogether.

I have heard countless stories of hardship from Medicare beneficiaries in Massachusetts because of this unfair policy. I would like to share the inexcusable experience of one of my constituents, Rosemary Crossin. Rosemary is 81 years old and suffers from Parkinson's disease, arthritis, and diabetes. She was treated at a Boston hospital following a fall that left her with a broken shoulder and a broken hand.

Upon arrival at the hospital, she was examined in the ER for over 6 hours, where she waited on a hard stretcher and received a CT scan, an x ray, and two doses of morphine. At the end of her examination, Rosemary, disoriented and unable to walk on her own due to the combination of her chronic conditions, morphine, and broken bones, was treated in the hospital under observation status.

At no time did the hospital inform Rosemary's family what observation status meant. Rosemary remained in the hospital for over 4 days while she recovered, after which time a physician determined that Rosemary be transferred to an extended stay facility to complete her rehabilitation.

Despite spending over 4 days in the hospital, after the hospital itself determined she was not fit to return home, Rosemary was never admitted as an inpatient. Because she was never classified as an inpatient for billing purposes, she was told that her costs would not be covered by Medicare. Rosemary was told that she would have to prepay $7998 to the skilled nursing facility or remain at the hospital at a cost of $1200 per day. This is wrong, and it needs to be changed.

Currently, Rosemary continues to rehabilitate her injuries at the skilled nursing facility. Unfortunately, because she was in observation status for her entire hospital stay, all subsequent costs will need to be paid for out-of-pocket.

Rosemary could have to spend up to $18,000 out-of-pocket following her fall, all because the hospital kept her under observation status for more than 96 hours after it determined she was not fit to go home.

Unfortunately, Rosemary's experience is not unique. That is why Senator Snowe and I are working together to prevent billing technicalities from hampering access to skilled nursing care. Today, we are introducing the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act of 2011, which would eliminate financial barriers to skilled nursing care in Medicare by allowing observation stays to be counted toward the 3-day mandatory inpatient stay for Medicare coverage of SNF services.

This legislation is supported by a number of national organizations from both the provider and beneficiary communities. I would like to thank a number of organizations that have been integral to the development of the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act of 2011 and that have endorsed our legislation today, including the AARP, the American Health Care Association, the American Medical Association, the American Medical Directors Association, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, LeadingAge, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

The Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act will ensure that vulnerable patients like Rosemary will no longer have to suffer or worry about affording medically needed care because of a hospital billing classification issue.

I urge my colleagues to support our legislation to eliminate unnecessary barriers to skilled nursing care and to bring peace of mind to patients and their families.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to S. 724.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I withdraw my request.

Mr. President, that is sort of an indication of the kind of problem we have around here, which is the ability to accommodate a simple request that used to be accommodated around here all the time.

Let me say very quickly, what the Senator from South Dakota just said is a massive oversimplification of what is happening. The President of the United States made it very clear, we are not going to fund the government week to week to week to week to week. It costs more money. It is a completely incompetent way to fund the Government of the United States of America. People need to make plans. People need to let contracts. People need to be able to know how much they are going to be spending, how much can they hire, who can they hire. That is an incompetent way to manage the United States.

The President made it clear, we have already done two short-term fundings of the government, and he said we are not going to do it again. It is time to reach an agreement. It is time to show the maturity and the capacity to be able to do the business of our Nation. They are just asking for another delay. But they are not just asking for that, they have also put their ideological wish list into that particular request.

This is a dangerous moment for our economy and for our country. Frankly, it is an embarrassing moment for the Congress of the United States. It is an embarrassing moment, I think, for the American people, who have to watch their Congress struggling to do what we were sent here to compromise and find a way to do the business of our country.

There is a reason we are standing on the precipice of this argument. I believe we can still get an agreement in these next hours. I believe we may well get that agreement in these next hours. But what a show to get there. How extraordinary it is that for the first time since the 1990s, when, incidentally, the Republicans ran the House--does it ring a bell? That is the last time we had a shutdown in the U.S. Congress, and here we are back again with the same threats, the same need to do brinksmanship that puts an ideological wish list on the table, that you cannot pass any other way, to try to force it down the throats of Americans at the last minute by threatening to shut down the government.

I have to tell you, in China, they have to be laughing at us right now. They have to be clapping. How terrific that the United States of America cannot make a decision. Boy, does that send a wonderful message to businesses all around the world: They can't make a decision. They can't decide an energy policy. They can't decide an infrastructure policy. They can't fix their schools. They can't do anything, and now they can't even get a budget. That is a hell of a message around the world. While we are running the world preaching the virtues of democracy, people have to be scratching their heads and saying, That is what we are going to get?

This is not because both sides of the political aisle cannot agree about a plan for cutting the deficit. This is not about the deficit. We only have to listen to Speaker Boehner and to the President, the majority leader and others, and add up the math. It is beyond dispute that Democrats have agreed to make the largest budget cuts in American history in discretionary spending. It is also beyond dispute that we have agreed to travel far more than halfway. We are at about 73 percent of what they requested in terms of spending reductions.

Last night, the President of the United States sat with Speaker Boehner and said, I agree to your number. This is not about the number. We agree with the number, providing we can also look beyond discretionary spending and look to the larger budget, which is the way we ought to be doing budgeting for the United States. We have compromised. We have agreed to well more than what is reasonable with respect to some of these reductions.

So this is not about making cuts to the deficit. That is not what it is about. America needs to understand that. In a negotiation, there is always a back and forth. There is a give and a take. But we are at this extraordinary moment in American history where a small group of people seems to be intimidating their own leadership.

I keep hearing about what a tough position the Speaker is in. He is not in a tough position. He is the Speaker of the House of the United States of America. It is a job he always wanted. It is a job he wants to have. He asked for it. His position is no tougher than anybody else here who has to make a cut on these kinds of issues. What are you for? But he is allowing this small group, a minority within a group--maybe a minority of a minority, I don't know--to dictate and they are saying, Oh, we have to do this. We have to take America right up to the brink, right up to the edge, and show the world we are not able to do our business in a quiet and responsible and thoughtful way.

Rigid ideology is threatening to shut down the Federal Government of the United States. Let's not play games and pretend with some short- term stopgap measure when the President has said we are not going to do that anymore. It is no way to run the government and it costs more money. They are doing this with impunity because all the voices of moderation and common sense--all the voices on the other side of the aisle who say we don't want to shut down the government--and they really don't. I know some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They get it. They don't want to do this. But either they are not being listened to or something has happened over there where there is a level of anarchy within the institutional process of the Congress that is dictating where we are.

So why is it that 100 percent--100 percent--of the cuts we are being asked to make are coming from only 12 percent of the budget? There isn't an American who will sit there and say, What do you mean? You mean only 12 percent of the budget is up for grabs, and they are taking 100 percent of their cuts from the 12 percent of the budget? That doesn't make a lot of sense. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Defense spending at the Pentagon: Are you telling me that every system we are buying over there, the procurement process of the Pentagon is so perfect that we can't make some cuts? But they are not trying to cut defense. That is not on the table.

Everybody knows the big items of our budget deficit are Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Those aren't on the table. They are not being considered. How can they say this is not ideological when the only things that are being cut in their proposals are the very things some people have been trying to cut for 40 years? They have opposed them as a matter of principle their entire political life and they can't get them any other way, so now they are trying to jam them down the American throat by saying we are threatening to shut down the Government of the United States.

This isn't about the budget deficit. If it were, we would have made the largest cuts in American history because we have agreed to those cuts. Every single one of us understands why we are in the predicament we are in. Yes, we have a huge budget deficit and huge debt. I can't get over how quickly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are able to forget about how we got here. When President George Bush became President, we had a path toward a $5.6 trillion surplus. We had balanced the budget. We did what we needed to do. Then they came in and passed two huge tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country that they didn't ask for and didn't need, and all of a sudden we had a deficit. Of course, it was because they gave tax cuts on the credit card. Then we had two wars, one of which was a war we never had to have--the war in Iraq at a cost of $1 trillion. That is our deficit. Then they had all their cronies guarding the financial system with the foxes guarding the chicken coops. The result was Wall Street ran away with American economic interests, and we had the housing crisis and the Wall Street crash--the greatest loss of wealth in modern times. As a result was the deficit and the debt went up. When President Obama came into office we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. They forget that. They forget their complicity in that.

So we are where we are now. The fact is this fight--do my colleagues know what they have been trying to do? They have been trying to shut down the government if they don't get Environmental Protection Agency restraints which they weren't able to win otherwise. They have about 65 different ideological wish list items now being reduced, but that is what the fight has been about for these last weeks. Folks, we had that debate. It is fresh in our minds.

This week the Senate debated Senator McConnell's amendment to cut off EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act. It lost. Three other amendments with similar approaches had up-or-down votes. Each one of them failed. The process worked. Amendments were debated and votes were counted.

So now it is do it or we will shut down the government. I don't remember a lot of Americans voting for dirtier air or water they can't drink or longer droughts for farmers but now they are saying the government is going to be shut down if we don't handcuff the EPA.

We have been here before. In December 1995, one of the reasons that the Federal Government shutdown was the Republican attempts to include a ``. . . excessive number of anti-environmental riders.'' And here we go again. The Budget Committee chairman, Senator Conrad, reports that last night in the middle of the night, the other side put mountaintop mining riders on the table. What does that have to do with reducing the deficit?

And that is just the start of this ideological excess. Planned Parenthood, we are fighting over whether Planned Parenthood can get any money from the Federal Government for cancer screenings for low-income women.

We had that debate over here. We voted on the House budget to kill Planned Parenthood. It lost. It lost overwhelmingly. Senate Republicans opposed it. So now the gang from the House say defund Planned Parenthood or we shut down the government. Strip Planned Parenthood of money it uses to provide lifesaving, preventative care to millions of women each year or we shut down the government.

Is this about abortion? No. They want to prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving any Federal funds, including Medicaid--a proposal that would cut 1.4 million women off from their health care provider.

This isn't even good fiscal policy--the preventative care saves taxpayers dollars in the long run. Every dollar ends up saving $3.74 of health-related costs to Federal and State governments.

We are talking about women like Jennifer, a woman from Boston who credits Planned Parenthood with saving her life. She had little money and no doctor. She went to Planned Parenthood for a checkup, and the doctors found a precancerous condition of the uterus. She says now, ``Because of Planned Parenthood's early intervention, I was able to have two children and a healthy life.'' But today, here we are--here is the choice they are ramming down our throats: defund that care or shut down the government.

Last year, both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees did their job. However, in December 2010, the Republicans objected to even considering

this year's budget and forced us into this situation.

That is ideology that has nothing--nothing--to do with balancing the budget.

So if a small ideological group shuts down the government over all this, what happens? What happens?

Well, for all the talk here about jobs and the economy, you would think somebody might be thinking hard about that, especially now that our economy is starting to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs every month.

So just yesterday, one of our leading economists said: ``The economic damage from a government shutdown would mount very quickly. And the longer it drags on, the greater the odds of a renewed recession.''

Goldman Sachs analysts say a shutdown will cost the economy $8 billion every week. The Business Roundtable, whose companies account for $6 trillion in annual revenues, forecast increased sales and hiring by businesses over the next 6 months, but they say even a short shutdown would put that in jeopardy. ``I don't think any of the CEOs would welcome a government shutdown,'' said Ivan Seidenberg. Even Speaker Boehner says, ``if you shut the government down, it'll end up costing more than you'll save.'' The Republican economist Mark Zandi, says a shutdown would not only ``disrupt a wide range of government operations and significantly cut the output of government workers, but the hit to confidence could be serious . . . it could easily undermine confidence as questions grow about policymakers' ability to govern. This would be fodder for a new recession.''

A new recession because ideologues continue to object to the compromises necessary to pass a budget? But here we are hours away from shutting down the government over abortion.

And folks, that is the big danger--that the actions of these ideologues will stop the recovery.

But it has a human face too.

Just yesterday I read an e-mail from a constituent of mine named Tim. He lives in Norwood, MA, and he is a Federal employee at Homeland Security working in Boston. On March 26, he and his wife moved into their first home. Now, if the government shuts down, he will be furloughed. He is worried that he won't be able to pay his mortgage and he is terrified about the consequences this will have on his credit rating.

I have no idea whether Tim is a Democrat or Republican, but I know he didn't vote in November to not be able to do his job or pay his mortgage.

But that is what he is worried about this morning. He is one of 800,000 families that will not be able to go to work and do their jobs. I heard one of them asked yesterday about it and about all the talk that after the shutdown she will get paid, and she said, ``Tell my two- year-old he can eat retroactively.''

But why isn't the job getting done? Because of issues wholly unrelated to the deficit.

And what does it mean to the country?

Well, the last time we had a government shutdown, they told us that at the NIH the scientists doing the research on cancer and cures had to go home. They couldn't work. The only person deemed essential was the guy who came in to feed the lab rats so they would still be alive when the government came to its senses.

Did anyone vote last November for us to stop researching cures to diseases? I don't remember that being a part of the tea party platform. Bu here we are.

At the height of filing season, IRS processing of tax refunds for returns could be suspended. So families who have been waiting for their refund checks won't get them.

During the spring home-buying season, 15,000 homeowners could be prevented from getting a new home loan every week.

We talk about honoring our men and women in uniform and those who have served our country, but we know that during the last shutdown more than 400,000 veterans saw their disability, pension or educational benefits delayed.

We talk about honoring our seniors, but more than 100,000 new Social Security claims were delayed in 1995.

We say we care about the disabled, but during the last shutdown services to 1.2 million people with disabilities were interrupted.

And that is just the immediate consequences of a shutdown. But what about the long term? What happens when the world watches a small group of ideologues making it impossible to pass a budget for 1 year? We are preaching democracy all over the world and we can't make our own work. Our economic competitors are going to take advantage of this opportunity to strengthen their economy at our expense.

Does it make businesses more likely to invest here, or go invest in China and in Latin America where governments are racing ahead investing in infrastructure and energy to own the markets of the future? They are going to laugh all the way to the bank.

But instead here we are, about to shut down the government--and willing to slam the brakes on the investments and the research and development we need to make so America doesn't fall behind other countries. While we have these ideological fights, we eat America's seed corn today, even if it means going hungry tomorrow.

This is about ideology. This is the takeover of our national dialogue by people who actually want to shut down the government--for them, it is a goal not an unintended consequence.

Don't take my word for it. Just listen to them.

Representative Ron Paul of Texas said: ``I don't think it would hurt one bit'': and that ``life would go on without the Federal government.''

Representative Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia said the Republicans are simply ``listening to the American people'' and doing what they want.

Now, I will grant you that Congress needs a ``jolt'' but it should not be a jolt that causes a government shutdown. It should be a ``jolt'' to do the job that we were elected to do.

There is a better way. We can balance our budget and we can grow our economy to benefit everyone and we can do both at the same time. How do I know? Because many of us were there when we did it before. We tackled a budget deficit and created jobs at the same time. And we didn't do it by cutting our budget to the bone.

In the 1990s we grew our way to a stronger economy under the Clinton economic plan. We invested in the workforce, in research, in development, in new industries. As a result, we saw the longest economic expansion in history, creating more than 22 million jobs and generating unprecedented wealth in America, with every income bracket rising. And working with Republicans, we came up with a budget framework that put our Nation on track to be debt free by 2012 for the first time since Andrew Jackson's administration. Of course, it didn't work out quite that way, what with huge tax cuts, two wars and the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 8 years that came before these last 2 difficult and divisive years.

We can do it again. But it is going to take a serious dialogue within the Congress about our fiscal situation, discretionary spending, entitlements, and revenues--a dialogue that is long overdue. We need to work towards a long-term solution to reduce both our current budget deficit and our staggering debt. We will need to reduce Federal spending and make appropriate changes to our entitlement programs to meet the fiscal challenges facing our country.

But that is not what is being debated here today. That is not what the House ideologues are doing. And it is not what the Senate is supposed to be doing. I have been here 27 years. I know that the world's greatest deliberative body can still be a decisive one. But we are not today.

Before we entered into this show-down with the clock ticking towards a shut-down, Senator Inouye and I were going to be in Boston for the groundbreaking of the Edward Kennedy Institute dedicated to the study of how to make the Senate work as an institution.

Ted Kennedy knew what the Senate could do when we made this place work. He understood the differences of 100 Senators from States as different as Alaska and Hawaii, California and South Carolina, Ohio and Oregon. He embraced different accents and different world views even as he was proud of his own. He became living, legislating proof that a most fiercely independent, plain-talking, direct and determined partisan could resolve the hardest issues, staking out common

ground with those they disagreed with on almost everything else.

Ted knew that the historic breakthroughs in American politics have been brokered not by a mushy middle or by splitting the difference, but by people who had a pretty healthy sense of ideology. Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch were a powerful team precisely because they spent a lot of time opposing each other. But he knew that they were opponents, never enemies; that they could be friends in life even as they were foes in politics. And again and again, over and over, when this ultimate odd couple found things they were willing to fight for together, arm in arm, all of us in the Senate leaned in and listened--and followed them.

Make no mistake. Were Ted Kennedy serving in the Senate today he would be down on the Senate floor--red faced, fists pounding the bully pulpit--exhorting his colleagues that it is wrong to balance the budget on the backs of working people, that Senators should stop the political gamesmanship, and that we need to get back to doing the business of the American people.

But he would be doing something else, too. He would be working the cloakroom quietly pulling aside Democrats and Republicans. He would be reading the rhythms of the institution. He would be appealing to the better angels of the Senate's nature--because as deeply as he believed in the issues, Ted believed just as deeply in the capacity of his colleagues, at critical times, to put country ahead of party.

Ted Kennedy would be proud of today's groundbreaking for the Kennedy Institute for the Senate. But I know he would be insistent too that we have to break new and common ground in the institution that is the U.S. Senate itself.

Generations of young Americans to come will come to the Kennedy Institute and learn to understand what the U.S. Senate was intended to be.

But 100 Senators don't need to wait that long. We can do what Ted Kennedy and Bob Dole and so many other Senators of both parties used to know how to do--which is find common ground and insist on common sense.

We don't have to shut down the government. We don't have to continue the ideological bloodletting. We can do better than we are doing. The question is whether we are going to get back to work and ensure that the great center of American politics holds once again. Our country deserves that--and nothing less.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I will vote in favor of the continuing resolution to keep our government and all its essential services open and operating for the next 3 weeks. I am supporting another short-term extension for the last time. I am only supporting this legislation today because I have been guaranteed by the leadership on both sides of the aisle that this will be the last time we will be forced into adopting a short-term fix to our budget problems and because the only other option would be to shut down the operations of the government.

I believe a government shutdown is in no ones interests but I remain deeply disappointed in the political process that has put us in this untenable position. A 3-week extension that merely defers tough decisions on funding for the fiscal year that started almost 6 months ago is hardly progress. The American people deserve better than a stalled process which delays important decisions of how we can reduce our Federal budget deficit while maintaining our important investments in infrastructure, research, education, technology, and clean energy which will result in new jobs and will bolster our long-term competitiveness.

The American people deserve a serious dialogue within the Congress about our fiscal situation, discretionary spending, entitlements, and revenues. We need to work towards a long-term solution to reduce both our current budget deficit and our staggering debt. We will need to reduce federal spending and make appropriate changes to our entitlement programs to meet the fiscal challenges facing our country. To do this appropriately, everything--revenue, tax reform, spending and entitlements--needs to be on the table.

The question now is what are the tough decisions we are going to make today? What are the issues we are going to wrestle with together at a moment of enormous challenge? This process cannot be done in 3 weeks, but it should have already begun--and it needs to begin today. The American people deserve no less.

impacts of cuts to the national oceanic and atmospheric administration

Mr. President, today Senator Crapo and I are reintroducing legislation to assist small brewers across the country. The Brewer's Employment and Excise Relief, BEER, Act of 2011 would reduce the excise tax on domestic small beer producers as well as update the definition of what constitutes a small brewer to reflect today's market. Senators Wyden, Snowe, Schumer, Cornyn, Leahy, Burr, Mikulski, Scott Brown, Merkley, Wicker, Sherrod Brown, Chambliss, Tester, Cochran, and Cantwell are cosponsors of this legislation.

As our economy continues on a track to recovery, we should remain focused on reducing unemployment and putting American's back to work. This legislation will do just that by helping an industry that is hiring and plans on expanding. Massachusetts is home to 38 small breweries.

Though there has been a continued increase in consumer demand for the unique brews created by these small brewers, these beer producers operate at a distinct disadvantage when compared to the largest brewers in this country. While demand is growing, small brewers account for just 5 percent of beer sales nationwide and they face higher costs for production, raw materials, and market entry when compared to their much larger counterparts.

The BEER Act legislation will revise the classification of a domestic small brewer, a definition that has not been updated since 1976. Under current law, small brewers are limited to those that produce 2 million barrels of beer per year. This legislation would update and raise the ceiling for the small brewer tax rate to 6 million barrels per year to reflect the original intent of differentiation between the large and small brewers. The largest beer producer in America used to produce 45 million barrels annually and that has increased to over 100 million barrels.

This legislation will also lower the excise tax rate on these small brewers on their first 60,000 barrels produced from $7 per barrel to $3.50 per barrel. Currently for the production over 60,000 barrels up to 2 million barrels, these brewers pay $18 per barrel in taxes, the same amount that the large brewers pay. This legislation would reduce that rate for small brewers to $16 per barrel.

Small brewers employ nearly 100,000 people nationwide. This legislation will provide tax relief for this important industry, and allow these companies to expand both their production and their work force. A March 2010 economic analysis of this legislation done by Dr. John Friedman of Harvard University has estimated that the legislation will stimulate job creation at a rate of 2,700 new jobs in the first year to 18 months, with an additional 375 new jobs each year for the following 4 years.

The benefits do not simply begin and end with the ability for these small breweries to grow. This legislation would benefit the consumer buying a 6 pack of Sierra Nevada or Harpoon in their local supermarket where prices on craft beer would be reduced by about 20 cents per case. The farms in the states that produce the barely, hops, and other materials that go into these fine brews would also see an increased demand for their products.

This legislation would provide important benefits to America's small brewers and spur economic activity. It will provide relief and allow them to expand to meet the demands of a growing marketplace. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and support small, domestic beer producers.

Mr. President, today Senator Crapo and I are reintroducing legislation to assist small brewers across the country. The Brewer's Employment and Excise Relief, BEER, Act of 2011 would reduce the excise tax on domestic small beer producers as well as update the definition of what constitutes a small brewer to reflect today's market. Senators Wyden, Snowe, Schumer, Cornyn, Leahy, Burr, Mikulski, Scott Brown, Merkley, Wicker, Sherrod Brown, Chambliss, Tester, Cochran, and Cantwell are cosponsors of this legislation.

As our economy continues on a track to recovery, we should remain focused on reducing unemployment and putting American's back to work. This legislation will do just that by helping an industry that is hiring and plans on expanding. Massachusetts is home to 38 small breweries.

Though there has been a continued increase in consumer demand for the unique brews created by these small brewers, these beer producers operate at a distinct disadvantage when compared to the largest brewers in this country. While demand is growing, small brewers account for just 5 percent of beer sales nationwide and they face higher costs for production, raw materials, and market entry when compared to their much larger counterparts.

The BEER Act legislation will revise the classification of a domestic small brewer, a definition that has not been updated since 1976. Under current law, small brewers are limited to those that produce 2 million barrels of beer per year. This legislation would update and raise the ceiling for the small brewer tax rate to 6 million barrels per year to reflect the original intent of differentiation between the large and small brewers. The largest beer producer in America used to produce 45 million barrels annually and that has increased to over 100 million barrels.

This legislation will also lower the excise tax rate on these small brewers on their first 60,000 barrels produced from $7 per barrel to $3.50 per barrel. Currently for the production over 60,000 barrels up to 2 million barrels, these brewers pay $18 per barrel in taxes, the same amount that the large brewers pay. This legislation would reduce that rate for small brewers to $16 per barrel.

Small brewers employ nearly 100,000 people nationwide. This legislation will provide tax relief for this important industry, and allow these companies to expand both their production and their work force. A March 2010 economic analysis of this legislation done by Dr. John Friedman of Harvard University has estimated that the legislation will stimulate job creation at a rate of 2,700 new jobs in the first year to 18 months, with an additional 375 new jobs each year for the following 4 years.

The benefits do not simply begin and end with the ability for these small breweries to grow. This legislation would benefit the consumer buying a 6 pack of Sierra Nevada or Harpoon in their local supermarket where prices on craft beer would be reduced by about 20 cents per case. The farms in the states that produce the barely, hops, and other materials that go into these fine brews would also see an increased demand for their products.

This legislation would provide important benefits to America's small brewers and spur economic activity. It will provide relief and allow them to expand to meet the demands of a growing marketplace. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and support small, domestic beer producers.

Madam President, I understand I have 30 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent to use the full 30 minutes.

Madam President, I thank my colleagues, the Senator from California and other colleagues, who have been involved in an important discussion here. I will say a few more words about that in the course of my comments.

Let me begin by observing that last week, like a lot of colleagues here, I voted in favor of a 2-week continuing resolution in order to avoid a government shutdown. But I will say that I did so extremely reluctantly, and I am not inclined to continue to do that in a series of hatchet budgets that continue to make cuts without regard to the larger budget considerations we need to be considering. I know colleagues on both sides of the aisle voted reluctantly. Frankly, it is insulting and frustrating that we are reduced to passing incremental allowances just to keep the government functioning. This is just the work of this year's budget--something that should have been passed for an entire year last year.

The impact of this kind of staggered, stop-and-start, keep-them- guessing budgeting on programs and projects that, frankly, need to do some long-term planning actually costs Americans money and costs Americans long-term competitive capacity. Run a business the way we are running these kinds of programs, and you would go under if you had a month-to-month, week-to-week, 2-weeks-to-2-weeks budget process. No department head can plan for the long term because they don't know what they are going to have, how much they are going to spend. Projects that need to begin don't begin, and that costs America leadership. It costs us money. No wonder Americans are frustrated. All we do

is bounce from one short-term, stopgap solution, band aid approach to another, always deferring the tough decisions and the adult conversation, which is exactly what the American people sent us here to engage in.

I come here today to appeal to the common sense and conscience of our colleagues. This is not the time to create a fundamentally political budget document, steeped in ideology. It is not the time to put forward a set of choices, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with reducing the deficit or debt but everything to do with ideological goals long sought by some, now cloaked in the guise of deficit crisis in order to achieve what they have never been able to achieve to date.

Everyone here knows--you have private conversations with colleagues, and they will nod their heads and acknowledge to you how serious this budget situation is. We need a serious conversation about our fiscal situation. It begins with a comprehensive discussion about discretionary spending. Yes, that has to be on the table. But what about entitlements? What about revenues? Everybody here knows we have to work toward a long-term solution in order to reduce the budget deficit and the staggering debt of our country. We are going to have to reduce some Federal spending and make appropriate changes in entitlement programs in order to do that. When we are honest about it, it means you have to talk about everything--revenue, tax reform, spending, and entitlements.

A lot of Americans appropriately ask: What are we doing with 57,000 or 60,000 pages of a tax code? How many Americans have their own page? You can run through it and find an awful lot of big interests, big business, folks who can afford big lobbyists--they get their own pages. But the average American appropriately feels left out and abused by that process. That ought to be on this agenda--the simplification of the code and the fairness of the code.

In addition, we obviously need to talk about Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Social Security, frankly, is easy to fix. We fixed it in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan. I was here then. We can do this again. That is not challenging. We can make that safe and whole throughout the century so that our children and grandchildren and their children have the opportunity to trust in the Social Security system. That is doable with minor tweaks.

What is far more complicated and challenging is Medicaid and Medicare. I assure colleagues who are out to undo the health care bill passed by President Obama, if that is undone, those Medicare costs are going to soar and the medical choices before our country are going to become even more complicated.

Back in December, a number of our colleagues understood and embraced exactly what I am saying right now. Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, including Senators Durbin, Conrad, Coburn, and Crapo, had the courage and willpower to put on the table the whole set of choices when they embraced the debt commission's report, which was appropriately entitled ``The Moment of Truth.'' Nobody liked every proposal set forth by the commission--not even the Commissioners themselves--but they did it in order to put everything on the table for a discussion by us.

The Congress is responsible for making these choices. Unfortunately, the budget sent to us by the House is an unbelievably irresponsible exercise in avoidance, and includes a set of choices that will take America backward. I am not exaggerating about that. I will go into that in a moment.

Let me cite what the commission said to remind us about our responsibility. They said that throughout our Nation's history, Americans have found the courage to do right by our children's future. Deep down, every American knows we face a moment of truth once again. We cannot play games or put off hard choices any longer. Without regard to party, they said, we have a patriotic duty to keep the promise of America to give our children and grandchildren a better life. Our challenge is clear and inescapable. America cannot be great if we go broke. Our businesses will not be able to grow and create jobs, and our workers will not be able to compete successfully for the jobs of the future without a plan to get this crushing debt burden off our backs. I think every Senator probably agrees with that, but is every Senator prepared to do something about it? Certainly, this budget sent to us by the House is an avoidance of that kind of discussion and the responsibility the debt commission placed on our heads. So we ought to get serious.

For fiscal year 2011, the administration's budget projects a deficit of $1.6 trillion. Without changes in our current policies, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that our Federal debt will be 95 percent of GDP the gross domestic product of our Nation. Today, as we are here, we are borrowing 40 cents of every single dollar we spend-- borrowing 40 cents. We borrow a lot of it to be able to afford to buy the source of our energy from other countries, and much of the dollars we borrow in order to go into debt to buy energy from other countries winds up making us less secure. This is not a smart cycle, not a virtuous cycle. Certainly, it is not something we are locked into. We have a whole set of other choices.

Let me point out to my colleagues that spending is at the highest level as a share of our economy than it has been in more than 60 years. We are spending more than we have spent as a share of our economy at any time in 60 years. But we are also collecting less revenue than we have ever collected in the last 60 years. There is something wrong with that equation.

It seems to me clear--and many of us objected and opposed the tax cut that wound up putting us in this predicament--that we have been on a binge of political sloganeering. It has been appealing to the easiest instinct of every American. Who doesn't feel they don't pay too much? The fact is that the burden we pay is far less than many other countries. It is at about the lowest level in our history--the least amount of revenue in the last 60 years. That is part of what contributes to our debt. It also robs us of a whole set of other choices in terms of American competitiveness.

Let me point out, to listen to the Members of the House and some of our colleagues, you would think the President didn't do anything about this. In fact, the President is the only person who put a realistic budget before us. The President is the only person who really put in a plan to reduce the overall debt, not just a CR on a temporary basis but an overall budget with a plan for how you grow America and reduce our deficit. The President's budget does significantly reduce deficits.

I remember in the 1990s when we faced this very question. I remind my colleagues that we did balance the budget. The last President and party to balance the budget was President Bill Clinton and the Democrats. We did it jointly, working together in a responsible way. It wasn't just that we increased revenues and reduced spending. What was critical was--they all met within 1, 2, or 3 years--that we sent a message to the marketplace and the American people that we were serious about turning our deficit into a surplus.

I believe that as we go forward we have a responsibility to understand that we need to have a responsible set of choices put in front of us. We are locked in a debate that is not actually trying to find common ground right now. Ask this question: Is everything on the table in a serious effort to create jobs and advance America's economic leadership? Is it really impossible for us to sit down together across the aisle and come to an agreement as to what helps us grow and what doesn't? Is it really true that American Senators have the inability to be able to agree as to where the benefit comes to the economy in the multiplier effect with respect to science research or technology research or other kinds of things we can excite in the private sector?

Completely absent from this debate is an honest discussion of what actions only the government is actually equipped to take in order to bolster our global competitiveness. Every CEO in America knows there are some things that only the government can do. Look at President Eisenhower's National System of Interstate Highways in the 1950s. By today's standards, we could not build it. It would not happen by today's standards. But the fact is, more than 30 or 40 percent, maybe 50 percent, of America's productivity increases came as a consequence of the building

of the Interstate Highway System, not to mention billions of dollars' worth of spinoff jobs and tax revenues to our communities. We are still living off that inheritance. We are living off the infrastructure investments of those who went before us.

Today, China is investing 9 percent of its GDP into infrastructure. Europe is investing 5 percent of its GDP into infrastructure. The United States, just about 2 percent, slightly less. We have a $2.2 trillion infrastructure deficit.

What we have not been discussing in this debate is what we need to invest in, a coherent strategy, a policy to make certain we are not held hostage to oil and instability in the Middle East.

The United States could become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 and ensure that 80 percent of our electricity comes from clean energy sources and with that comes jobs. We need a cutting-edge, high-speed wireless data network. We still do not have one. We are going backward. We invented the technologies. We used to be No. 3 or No. 4. Now we are drifting back to No. 16 or No. 21, depending on whose measurement we look at. By any measurement and any standard, we are going backward, while other countries are going forward, and it is because we are not investing and making it attractive for the private sector or private citizens to achieve this.

America has always been a competitive country. Our DNA is innovation and creativity and entrepreneurial activity. The fact is, we are not doing the things we could do in joint venture with the private sector to attract the best jobs and create the best opportunities. We have to become that nation again. That is what our budget ought to be discussing, and we ought to be able to agree across party lines as to how we do that.

The budget passed by the House of Representatives not only does not present a realistic set of choices with respect to how we make America competitive and create higher paying jobs and grow our economy, not only does it not do that, it actually strips away the opportunities to do that. It takes us backward.

The House budget is going to lower the deficit by only 6 percent because they are focused only on domestic discretionary spending. They do not focus on defense spending. They do not focus on Medicaid, Medicare, entitlements. They do not focus on some of the waste and duplication within the system. They just strip away at a whole bunch of programs that many of them have opposed for their entire life in politics and voted against in the first place. They are using the opportunity of this budget to press an ideological agenda. That is why only 13 percent of the budget is being focused on in what they are doing.

They have sworn off any discussion of the very hard choices. Here we are 3 months after the Commission put forward its important proposals, and the Senate is trapped in a political moment when what we need is a moment of truth.

We have to find a way to make these tougher choices. I wish to be clear about what I think they are. I ask my colleagues: Do we want a government that is too limited to have invented the Internet? A lot of people do not think about that, but the fact is, the government invented the Internet. It was a spinoff from DARPA, from research into how we might be able to communicate in the case of nuclear war. We were creating this communications network which became the Internet. Then the private sector saw the opportunities and took those opportunities and translated them into what we have today, which has revolutionized the way people communicate and do business. But it came from the government, just as digitalization came from government research, the space program, which also produced Gortex and microwave and Teflon and a host of other products that are now out in the marketplace where we have created millions of jobs. The Internet created more than a million jobs and has added greatly to the gross domestic product of our country.

We want to have a country that is so limited that we do not do those kinds of things? Taxes so low that everybody feels good, thinks they are better off, but we do not do the research that is necessary to create jobs and new industries and fill the Treasury with the revenue that educates our children, cures to diseases and provides opportunities for poor people to break out of poverty and touch the brass ring of America.

We have to get past the slogans and the sound bites. We have to reason together and talk about the things America does best.

If we are going to balance the budget and create jobs, we cannot pretend we are going to do it by eliminating earmarks and government waste. We have to look at how we did it previously.

In the early 1990s, our economy was faltering because deficits were too big and debt was freezing capital. We had to send a signal to the market that we were capable of being fiscally responsible. Guess what. We did it, and we did it without a reckless assault on a whole series of things that make a difference to the quality of life of our country and to our ability to create jobs. We saw our economy turn around in the 1990s, and we created 22 million jobs. We created unprecedented wealth in America. Every single income level in our country saw their income go up in the 1990s. We created more wealth in the 1990s than we created in the 1920s and 1930s with the great barons of wealth of that period--the Carnegies, Mellons, and so forth. We did it by committing the country to a disciplined path, where we spoke to the potential of the American people.

Working with the Republicans--it was bipartisan--we came up with a framework that put our country on a track to be debt free by 2012, for the first time since Andrew Jackson's administration. The fact is, Alan Greenspan was warning America and the Senate that we were paying down our debt too fast and that could have implications on the marketplace.

We know how to do this in a responsible way. How we got off track from that is a story I am not going to go back into right now. It is pretty well known. But the truth of how we generated the 1990s economic boom is a story that has to be retold again and again.

Let me point out the difference. We are not going to do this process in 2 weeks. We know that. We ought to have a responsible CR that allows us to go forward and give ourselves a proper amount of time to tackle these larger issues and put something serious on the table with tax reform spending, entitlements--all those issues on the table.

What we have in this House budget--let me point out, rather than say it takes us backward. I believe there are reckless cuts in this budget that would do great harm to our country because it strips away our ability to create the future. Research and development in technology, research and development in science, the National Institutes of Health--a host of these things are cut in a draconian way.

I had lunch the other day with the Secretary of the Navy. He was telling me how the House budget has cut ARPA-E program. It has cut it from about $250 million down to $50 million. The House bill effectively shuts off all the projects.

Do you know what some of those projects are? One is our military's ability to have greater capacity in the field, to have solar or wind or battery storage so they do not have to run convoys of fuel to keep vehicles and supply our troops with the administrative support they need.

They say the military has done a study. For every 24 convoys for fuel, we lose one marine or soldier--one marine or soldier for every 24 convoys. They are looking at ways to reduce having those convoys, and they are cutting the money so our military will be more dependent on the fossil fuel that comes from unstable countries in various parts of the world.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, China is racing ahead with respect to these kinds of investments. The fact is, they are sending their students to the United States for degrees in math, science, and engineering, but the House is cutting Pell grants so there is a 15-percent cut below the maximum level, which would affect over 100,000 students in college, making it less affordable, less accessible for low- and moderate-income students. That is not a

budget that helps our economy. It does nothing with dealing with the deficit and jobs.

They tie the hands of the Consumer Product Safety Commission so they cannot launch a database for consumer products. If you are an average American, you do not need to know if the products you buy are safe or will harm you. That does not matter anymore, even though it has nothing to do with dealing with the budget problem.

They reduce Federal funds from being spent for Planned Parenthood, for doctors and nurses to conduct 1 million lifesaving screenings for cervical cancer and more than 830,000 breast cancer exams. I guess it is much more important that millionaires, people earning more than $1 million a year, get their tax cut than 830,000 women to have breast cancer screenings. This value system is something that I think is absolutely essential for us to examine.

The House cuts almost $2 billion from the clean water and drinking water State funds that allow us to capitalize on low-interest loans and no-interest loans so we can build and refurbish clean water systems.

All across our country, we have communities that are under court orders to clean up the water for our citizens. The House is cutting the ability of those communities to be able to provide for that because most of them do not have the tax base to do it on their own.

The House bill prohibits the EPA--that discussion took place, and I will skip over it. It has nothing to do with deficit reduction. It just prohibits the EPA from enforcing clean air laws, after the American people decided in 1970 they wanted clean air, and people's lives have been improved because we have provided it. We are going to go backward there.

I mentioned the ARPA-E cuts. The House bill cuts $780 million below the current level for energy efficiency and renewable energy, which is going to cut critical programs that advance our job base.

I met yesterday with the CEO of a major solar company. They are going to create a huge number of jobs in the Southwest of our country. The largest facilities are going to be in Arizona and California. But by cutting the loan guarantee program, we are going to lose 1,200 jobs just on the California project, and that does not include the $\1/2\ billion of equipment from U.S. suppliers in nine States, including Arizona, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Colorado, and Kansas. That is a loss of jobs in every single one of those States.

The House bill reduces funding for the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, which is going to reduce research and hurt job creation. It slashes funding for the National Science Foundation by more than $300 million. That is 1,800 fewer research and education grants.

The House bill provides $787 million below the current level for energy efficiency and renewable energy. It would significantly delay needed investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D, demonstration and deployment programs critical to the transition to a clean energy economy.

The U.S. stands to be the world leader in concentrated solar with the addition of these two projects, but this title is in jeopardy thanks to more irresponsible and irrational cuts in H.R. 1.The proposed elimination of the DOE loan guarantee program for clean energy cost jobs, American competitiveness, and immediate economic benefits. For example, yesterday I met with Abengoa Solar, a company trying to help the U.S. become the world leader in concentrated solar with two of the largest facilities in Arizona and California. But by cutting the loan guarantee program we stand to lose 1,200 jobs from just the California project. In addition this doesn't include the $\1/2\ billion of equipment from U.S. suppliers in nine States across the U.S. including Arizona, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Colorado, and Kansas.

The House bill slashes $1.3 billion from the National Institutes of Health, NIH, which would force NIH to reduce support for more than 25,000 existing research grants and scale back clinical trials and research projects. These drastic cuts will devastate biomedical research; cures will be delayed, jobs will be eliminated, and American leadership and innovation will be jeopardized. NIH is the primary Federal agency responsible for conducting and supporting medical research, most of which is done at medical schools, hospitals, universities and research institutes distributed in every State in the country. NIH-funded research drives scientific innovation and develops new and better diagnostics, prevention strategies, and more effective treatments. NIH-funded research also contributes to the Nation's economic strength by creating skilled, high-paying jobs; new products and industries; and improved technologies.

They do that even as we know that continued commitment to NIH is essential for securing a strong national economy and for maintaining our leadership as the global leader in research and development. Everyone applauded when President Obama said in his 2011 State of the Union Address that ``one key to future growth in the U.S. economy will be to encourage American innovation and job creation by investing in research and development--including biomedical research at the NIH.'' And Massachusetts received more than $2.5 billion in NIH grants last year alone. But here we are gutting the NIH because we are afraid to look at the things that need to be addressed that yield real savings.

Folks, this is killing our economic competitiveness in the cradle-- and in the laboratories. Investment in the NIH produces a steady stream of talented researchers who lead the way to treatments and cures for some of the world's most devastating diseases. In fact, a report by Families USA estimated NIH awards to the States results in over 351,000 jobs that pay an average annual wage of more than $52,000, and results in $50.5 billion in increased output of goods and services to the U.S. The jobs, the spinoff industries, and the local development that are sustained by NIH awards will disappear or relocate to more competitive nations--such as China or India--without continued and stable funding for the NIH.

The House bill reduces funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology by $223 million which will reduce research and hurt job creation. The House bill slashes funding for the National Science Foundation by more than $300 million below current levels meaning 1,800 fewer research and education grants.

Earlier this month, 300 of America's leading economists, including Alan Blinder and Laura Tyson, sent an open letter to President Obama and Members of Congress concerning these cuts, and they said it is shortsighted to make cuts that eliminate necessary investments in our human capital, our infrastructure, and the next generation of scientific and technological advances. They said: Republican-planned cuts threaten our economy's long-term economic competitiveness and the strength of our current economic recovery. The letter goes on to say that we need to look and sustain the critical investments in the productive capacity of the United States.

Mr. President, you are a farmer, and there ain't a farmer in the country who doesn't know you don't eat your seed corn. But that is what we are doing here. We are eating our seed corn. We are stripping away America's already challenged ability to compete against a China, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, and countless countries that are indicating far more seriousness than we are about their desire to build out and build a future.

We have a train that runs from Washington to New York called the Acela. It can go 150 miles an hour. But it only goes 150 miles an hour for 18 miles of that trip between here and New York. Why? Because if it goes too fast into the tunnel in Baltimore, the tunnel may cave in; because if it goes too fast over the bridges of the Chesapeake, they may fall down. But you can go to China and ride on a train that goes 200 miles an hour and the water in your glass doesn't even move; or 300 miles an hour in the Maglev train from Shanghai airport to downtown Shanghai. Go to Abu Dhabi, go to Dubai, go to Paris, or any major airport in Europe and you will find an airport that outshines the airports of the United States and you will find public transit systems that outshine the public transit systems of the United States. Because once again, we are living off what our parents and grandparents built because we are not willing to pay for anything, which is why revenue in the United States is at a 60-year low.

We need to be smart about where we are going here. The GDP of our country is measured by our total expenditures of consumption of the American people, it is measured by our investments, it is measured by government spending and investment, and by our exports minus our imports. That is the GDP. That is how you measure GDP. How can these folks sit here and say if you cut the government spending you are not going to cut the GDP, which is what every major economic analysis has said?

So yes, we have to cut waste; yes, we have to cut some spending; yes, we have to be responsible. But let us be responsible in a responsible way, by looking at the overall budget and the places we can reduce, at a tempo that doesn't do injury to our ability to invest in America's future, to create the jobs for the future, but nevertheless send the right message to the marketplace and to the American people.

We have done that before. We saw the longest expansion in America's history. Staring us in the face is the largest economic opportunity of a lifetime. The energy marketplace is a $6 trillion market with 6 billion potential users today, rising to about 9 billion over the next 30 years. But we are not engaged in that. Two years ago, China produced 5 percent of the world's solar panels. Today, they produce 60 percent, and the United States doesn't have one company in the top 10 companies of the world's solar panel producers. What are we doing? The biggest transformational market staring the United States in the face is the energy market, and we should be here putting an energy policy in place, an education policy in place, an infrastructure investment policy in place, and a research policy for technology and medical that soars, that takes America into the future, creates the jobs we need for the next generations, and reduces the deficit in responsible ways, not in this unbelievable reckless, meat axe, hatchet budget that is being presented to us by the House of Representatives. We need to find common ground.

The minority continues to criticize President Obama about the lack of progress in creating jobs. Last month, the economy added 192,000 jobs and the unemployment rate declined from 9 percent to 8.9 percent. This is one of the best job reports since the recession began more than 3 years ago. It shows that the economic recovery is beginning to gain momentum. However the unemployment rate is still too high and we need both small and big businesses to increase jobs if we are going to see a meaningful decrease in unemployment. The House continuing resolution will make that more difficult.

Republican economist Mark Zandi says that now is not the time to implement the cuts included in the House continuing resolution. In a recent report, Zandi said. ``The economy is adding between 100,000 and 150,000 per month--but it must add closer to 200,000 jobs per month before we can say the economy is truly expanding again. Imposing additional government spending cuts before this has happened, as House Republicans want, would be taking an unnecessary chance with the recovery.''

Zandi estimates that the cuts included in the Republican continuing resolution would lead to 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said last week that the Republican continuing resolution would reduce growth and cost our economy about a couple hundred thousand jobs.

Last month, a Goldman Sachs economist warned that the Republican cuts could reduce economic growth in the United States by 1.5 to 2 percentage points this year.

Additional spending cuts would also go against the thrust of our economic policies. The Federal Reserve is holding short-term interest rates close to zero and purchasing hundreds of billions of dollars in long-term Treasury bonds, in an effort to hold down long-term interest rates. The tax cut agreement we made last year is also helping to create jobs and boost our economy. It doesn't raise taxes, includes a 2 percent payroll tax holiday, extends emergency unemployment insurance benefits and allows businesses to expense their investments this year.

The American people deserve better than the approach taken by the House of Representatives that cuts critically needed research funding, eliminates jobs and reduce economic growth, hurts our competitiveness and could push our economy into a ``double dip'' recession.

There is a better way for us to resolve our budget problems. Let's go back to what worked before and can work again if we are willing to bite the bullet. In the early 1990s, our economy was faltering because deficits and debt were freezing capital. We had to send a signal to the market that we were capable of being fiscally responsible. We did just that and as result we saw the longest economic expansion in history, created more than 22 million jobs, and generated unprecedented wealth in America, with every income bracket rising. But we did it by making tough choices.

Now is the moment for America to reach for the brass energy ring--to go for the Moon here on Earth by building our new energy future--and, in doing so, create millions of steady, higher paying jobs at every level of the economy. Make no mistake: Jobs that produce energy in America are jobs that stay in America. The amount of work to be done here is just stunning. It is the work of many lifetimes. And it must begin now. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, but instead of coming together to meet the defining test of a new energy economy and our future.

There is a bipartisan consensus just waiting to lift our country and our future if Senators are willing to sit down and forge it and make it real. The President's fiscal commission made very clear that our budget cannot be balanced by cutting spending alone. The American people deserve a serious dialogue and adult conversation within the Congress about our fiscal situation, discretionary spending, entitlements, and revenues. We need to work together in a bipartisan process to develop a long-term solution to reduce both our current budget deficit and our staggering debt. And, yes, we will need to reduce Federal spending and make appropriate changes to our entitlement programs to meet the fiscal challenges facing our country. But everything everything--tax reform, spending and entitlements--needs to be on the table.

Mr. President, this is one of the moments the Senate was intended to live up to to provide leadership. To find common ground. To level with the American people and be honest with each other. We will no doubt continue to be frustrated and angry from time to time, but I believe that more often than not, we can rise to the common ground of great national purpose. A lot of us like to talk about American exceptionalism. But now we need to get beyond the permanent campaign and the ideological agenda--and instead do the exceptional things that will keep America exceptional for generations to come.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are living through one of the most important transformations in the history of the modern world. Some have likened the wave of protests sweeping the Middle East to the revolutions of 1848, which changed Europe's political landscape forever. They certainly call to mind the dramatic events of 1989, when

the nations of Eastern Europe threw off the yoke of communism to embrace free markets and democracy. Like those upheavals, there is no doubt that the events of this year will be studied for decades to come.

The challenges we face are great. We are being called upon to forge new relationships in a part of the world that has been and will remain vital to our national security. And we have been given the opportunity to demonstrate conclusively to the young men and women of the Muslim world and beyond that al-Qaida's belief that change requires violence and radicalization is wrong.

But, even as we try to navigate these momentous developments, we are contemplating drastic cuts to our international affairs programs. I understand that we face a budget crisis in our own country. But we can either pay now to help brave people build a better, democratic future for themselves, or we will certainly pay later with increased threats to our own national security.

The international affairs budget lays the foundation for our ability to fulfill our responsibilities abroad. The approximately $50 billion that funds all our diplomats, development professionals, embassies, missions, consular services, global health programs, food aid, and disaster relief is a tiny investment for the great return we receive. Consider that this year we will spend approximately $700 billion on our military. By contrast, the international affairs budget is less than one-tenth of the Pentagon's. As Secretary Gates once pointed out, if you took the entire Foreign Service roster, you could barely crew one aircraft carrier.

And yet our diplomats are serving on the frontlines of multiple revolutions and wars. They are making vital contributions in Afghanistan, and in Iraq they are planning the transition from a military mission to a diplomatic one so that we can cement the political progress that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives.

In Africa, they are helping to midwife the birth of a new nation in South Sudan, to resolve the situation in Darfur, and, as we make progress on those fronts, to forge a new relationship with the government in Khartoum. They are leading the fight against global challenges, like nuclear proliferation and climate change. And in countless communities around the world they are providing essential humanitarian assistance preventing the spread of cholera in Haiti, distributing food to refugees in northern Kenya, and providing shelter to flood victims in Pakistan.

This is not a time for America to pull back from the world. This is a time to step forward.

Yet H.R. 1 imposes draconian cuts that would completely undermine our core national security priorities and our humanitarian commitments. The bill threatens our ability to stabilize Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq by slashing economic support funds by $2.2 billion, or nearly 30 percent below fiscal year 2011 levels. In Afghanistan, for example, these cuts would make it extremely difficult to support high-priority infrastructure programs that are critical to our counterinsurgency and stabilization efforts. And they would curtail our ability to support governance, economic development programs, and basic services to districts cleared by the military.

H.R. 1 would also threaten our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan by zeroing out funding to meet our obligation to take up the U.S. shares in the Asian Development Bank, ADB. If we don't provide funding by April of this year, we will give up our leadership position at ADB and allow Chinese influence at the bank to surpass our own. The impact of that loss of influence cannot be overstated. The ADB funds projects throughout Pakistan and Afghanistan, supporting U.S. efforts in this critical region. GEN David Petraeus himself wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to praise the Asian Development Bank for supporting U.S. interests, stating that ``strong partnership with the ADB is part of our overall United States purpose and goals in these areas of critical importance.''

The House bill also cuts our humanitarian aid by 50 percent, decimating our ability to provide food, shelter, and medicine after natural disasters and putting hundreds of thousands of lives at risk. In Pakistan, USAID would be unable to meet emergency and recovery needs in the south, where an estimated 4 million people remain displaced and require critical support. In Haiti, over 1 million displaced persons living in transitional shelters may lose funding and support. And with these cuts, more than 1.6 million internally displaced persons in Darfur will not receive critical health care, access to water, or help in meeting other basic needs.

H.R. 1 decreases global health funding by over $1 billion, which means that over 400,000 people who would have been able to enroll in life-saving treatment programs through PEPFAR will now linger on waiting lists as their HIV diagnosis becomes a death sentence. It also means that 300,000 orphans and children will not receive care and support, and that 100,000 women who would have received medication to prevent the transmission of HIV to their newborn children will not, resulting in tens of thousands of babies that will be born HIV- positive.

H.R. 1 also slashes support for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The Global Fund is a public-private partnership where every American tax dollar is leveraged twice over by the rest of the world. Its programs are also deeply intertwined with U.S. efforts: In Haiti, for example, Global Fund grants support the purchase of anti-retroviral drugs for AIDS patients, while PEPFAR ensures their delivery to patients. Thus, these drastic reductions to the Global Fund will affect U.S. efforts as well.

Our global health programs represent some of our most successful and effective international policies. In Pakistan, as I discussed today with Bill Gates, working with the government there, we could eliminate polio entirely. Our malaria programs have already virtually eliminated that killer of children in parts of Africa. The Centers for Disease Control are working to reduce the spread of drug-resistant diseases, such as tuberculosis, before they come to our own shores. Cutting off these programs is poor foreign policy, it is poor public health policy, and it stands in sharp contradiction to American values.

The House bill also cuts nearly two-thirds of the funds devoted to promoting clean energy and increasing resilience to climate change in the most vulnerable regions of the world. This includes eliminating funding for the climate investment funds, which support exports of clean energy technology, help developing countries respond to the impacts of climate change, and promote increased carbon sequestration from forests. H.R. 1 also eliminates government positions needed to negotiate international agreements on climate change that are favorable to the United States, while ensuring that other nations live up to their commitments to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

H.R. 1 also slashes food and education for the world's poorest children by 50 percent. It eliminates feeding programs for 18 million of the world's poorest and hungriest people, and approximately 2.5 million young children benefiting from the McGovern-Dole program would lose their daily school meal. Another 15 million people, primarily women and children, would lose access to the sustenance provided through title II. These cuts are not abstractions. These are people.

The House bill would even eliminate fiscal year 2011 funding for the United States Institute of Peace, USIP. USIP is more than a Washington think tank. Created by Congress and President Ronald Reagan, it is a working instrument, utilized by the Department of Defense as well as the Department of State. Defunding USIP would significantly reduce America's ability to find nonviolent solutions to conflict, just as we are trying to resolve wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. USIP's personnel operate on the ground in dangerous areas where America's security is threatened. For example, in 2007 USIP's reconciliation efforts between Shia authorities and Sunni sheiks helped dramatically reduce U.S. troop deaths in the ``Triangle of Death'' near Baghdad. That in turn allowed the U.S. Army to reduce its presence in the area by about 2,000 troops and save a significant amount of money. In a letter to the Office of Management and Budget, General Petraeus called this a ``striking success story.''

I have long been impressed with USIP's work in Sudan, where the Institute's training in electoral violence prevention contributed to the relatively peaceful referendum and the low levels of violence in its aftermath. USIP is now actively assisting in the development of a new constitution for Southern Sudan through its Rule of Law Program. Recognizing the volatility of the north/south border areas and the potential for an outbreak of contagious violence, USIP has instituted a cross-border grazing corridor project and designed a popular consultations process in the troubled border states of Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan.

In Pakistan, another area of great concern to me, USIP is developing a network of conflict management facilitators to work at the local level, training Pakistani parliamentarians and women leaders in conflict resolution and developing a curriculum for schools based on principles of gender equality, tolerance, pluralism, and peace.

Under the Senate substitute, USIP's funding would be reduced by almost 20 percent. But any greater reduction would threaten this Federal institute that has proven it saves American lives and money. The drastic action of the House to defund USIP must not stand.

These sorts of severe cuts, which will reduce our capacity from Afghanistan to Sudan, from war zones to earthquake zones, will do almost nothing to rein in our budget deficit. But they will costs thousands of lives overseas, and they will increase the threats to our own country. At a time of great challenge to American interests abroad, we must step up at home and provide the vital funds that our diplomats need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I voted in favor of the continuing resolution to keep our government and all its essential services open and operating for the next 2 weeks. I cast this vote because I believe a government shutdown is in no one's interests, but I am deeply disappointed in the political process that has put us in this position and my patience is nearly exhausted with yet another short-term solution and band-aid approach. A 2-week extension that merely defers tough decisions on funding the fiscal year that started more than 5 months ago is hardly progress. A 2-week extension is preferable to a government shutdown, but it does not provide the certainty that is needed. The American people deserve better than a stalled process which delays important decisions of how we can reduce our Federal budget deficit while maintaining our important investments in infrastructure, research, education, technology, and clean energy which will result in new jobs and will bolster our long-term competitiveness.

The American people deserve a serious dialogue and adult conversation within the Congress about our fiscal situation, discretionary spending, entitlements, and revenues. We need to work towards a long-term solution to reduce both our current budget deficit and our staggering debt. We will need to reduce Federal spending and make appropriate changes to our entitlement programs to meet the fiscal challenges facing our country. To do this appropriately, everything--revenue, tax reform, spending and entitlements--needs to be on the table.

As we make these difficult decisions, we must keep in mind that this cannot be done by just eliminating programs which protect vulnerable citizens or simply by increasing taxes on our wealthiest citizens. Instead, we must find a way to share the sacrifices necessary to bring our budget into balance over the long-term while continuing to invest in scientific and medical research, education, infrastructure and energy that will help create new industries and jobs in the future.

I want to be crystal clear about what is wrong with today's dialogue. For the last months we have heard the sound bites. We have heard elected officials say they are for small government, lower taxes, and more freedom. But what do they really mean?

Do they want a government too limited to have invented the Internet, now a vital part of our commerce and communications? A government too small to give America's auto industry and all its workers a second chance to fight for their survival? Taxes too low to invest in the research that creates jobs and industries and fills the Treasury with the revenue that educates our children, cures disease, and defends our country? We have to get past slogans and sound bites, reason together, and talk in real terms about how America can do its best.

If we are going to balance the budget and create jobs, we can't pretend that we can do it by just eliminating earmarks and government waste. We have to look at the plain facts of how we did it before, and by the way, you don't have to look far. In the early 1990s, our economy was faltering because deficits and debt were freezing capital. We had to send a signal to the market that we were capable of being fiscally responsible. We did just that and as a result we saw the longest economic expansion in history, created over 22 million jobs, and generated unprecedented wealth in America, with every income bracket rising. But we did it by making tough choices. The Clinton economic plan committed the country to a path of discipline that helped unleash the productive potential of the American people. We invested in the workforce, in research, in development. We helped new industries. Then, working with Republicans, we came up with a budget framework that put our nation on track to be debt free by 2012 for the first time since Andrew Jackson's administration.

How we got off track is a story that doesn't require retelling. But the truth of how we generated the 1990s economic boom does need to be told. We didn't just cut our way to a balanced budget; we grew our way there. The question now is, What are the tough decisions we are going to make today? What are the issues we are going to wrestle with together at a moment of enormous challenge?

This process cannot be done in two weeks, but it should have already begun--and it needs to begin today. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. President, today Senator Rockefeller and I are reintroducing the Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2011. Since 1975, the earned income tax credit, EITC, has been an innovative tax credit which helps low-income working families. President Reagan referred to the EITC as ``the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.'' According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the EITC lifts more children out of poverty than any other government program. It lifted 6.5 million people, including 3.3 million children, above the poverty line in 2009.

Last Congress, we were successful in making temporary improvements to the EITC by providing marriage penalty relief and increasing the credit rate for families with three or more children. Both of these provisions have been part of our legislation.

It is time for us to reexamine the EITC and determine where we can strengthen it. The Finance Committee of which I am a member has started a series of hearings on tax reform. I believe the tax code should be thoroughly reviewed to see what is working and not working and what can be made simpler. This legislation expands the EITC permanently, but as part of tax reform I would be open to changing the program. However, those currently benefiting from the EITC should not be harmed in tax reform and there should still be tax relief which encourages work and helps low-income families with children.

We need to help the low-income workers who struggle day after day trying to make ends meet. They have been left behind in the economic policies of the last eight years. We need to begin a discussion on how to help those that have been left behind. The EITC is the perfect place to start.

The Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2011 strengthens the EITC by making the following changes: makes permanent marriage penalty relief; makes permanent the credit for families with three or more children; expands the credit for individuals with no children; simplifies the credit; and increases the penalty for tax preparers.

The legislation would make the marriage penalty relief included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act permanent. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the phase-out income level for married taxpayers that file a joint return would be $5,000 higher than the income level for unmarried filers starting in 2009 and in 2010. This level would be indexed for inflation after 2009. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 extended this provision through 2012. Without this provision, many single individuals that marry find themselves faced with a reduction in their EITC. In Massachusetts, approximately 100,500 children a year benefit from the EITC because of this provision.

Second, the legislation makes permanent the credit for families with three or more children. Under prior law, the credit amount is based on one child or two or more children. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created a third child category for 2009 and 2010 and Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 extended this provision through 2012. This change benefits approximately 116,000 children a year in Massachusetts.

Third, this legislation would increase the credit amount for childless workers. The EITC was designed to help childless workers offset their payroll tax liability. The credit phase-in was set to equal the employee share of the payroll tax, 7.65 percent. However, in reality, the employee bears the burden of both the employee and employer portion of the payroll tax. A typical single childless adult will begin to owe Federal income taxes in addition to payroll taxes when his or her income is only $10,655, which is below the poverty line. These changes will result in a full time worker receiving the minimum wage to be eligible for the maximum earned income credit amount.

This legislation doubles the credit rate for individual taxpayer and married taxpayers without children. The credit rate and phase-out rate of 7.65 percent is doubled to 15.3 percent. For 2007, the maximum credit amount for an individual would increase from $457 to $929. In addition, the legislation would increase the credit phase-out income level from $7,590 to $12,690 for individuals and from $12,670 to $17,770 for married couples. This increase is indexed for inflation and includes the marriage penalty relief. Under current law, workers under age 25 are ineligible for the childless workers EITC. The Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2011 would change the age

to 21. This age change will provide an incentive for labor for less- educated younger adults.

Fourth, the Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2011 simplifies the EITC by modifying the abandoned spouse rule, clarifying the qualifying child rules, and repealing the disqualified investment test.

Finally, the legislation includes a provision which increases the penalty imposed on paid preparers who fail to comply with EITC due diligence requirements from $100 to $500. Unfortunately, about a quarter of EITC returns include errors and more than a majority of EITC returns are prepared by a preparer. This should help ensure that preparers comply with the due diligence requirements.

This legislation will help those who most need our help. It will put more money in their pay check. We need to invest in our families and help individuals who want to make a living by working. I urge my colleagues to support an expansion of the EITC.

Mr. President, today Senator Rockefeller and I are reintroducing the Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2011. Since 1975, the earned income tax credit, EITC, has been an innovative tax credit which helps low-income working families. President Reagan referred to the EITC as ``the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.'' According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the EITC lifts more children out of poverty than any other government program. It lifted 6.5 million people, including 3.3 million children, above the poverty line in 2009.

Last Congress, we were successful in making temporary improvements to the EITC by providing marriage penalty relief and increasing the credit rate for families with three or more children. Both of these provisions have been part of our legislation.

It is time for us to reexamine the EITC and determine where we can strengthen it. The Finance Committee of which I am a member has started a series of hearings on tax reform. I believe the tax code should be thoroughly reviewed to see what is working and not working and what can be made simpler. This legislation expands the EITC permanently, but as part of tax reform I would be open to changing the program. However, those currently benefiting from the EITC should not be harmed in tax reform and there should still be tax relief which encourages work and helps low-income families with children.

We need to help the low-income workers who struggle day after day trying to make ends meet. They have been left behind in the economic policies of the last eight years. We need to begin a discussion on how to help those that have been left behind. The EITC is the perfect place to start.

The Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2011 strengthens the EITC by making the following changes: makes permanent marriage penalty relief; makes permanent the credit for families with three or more children; expands the credit for individuals with no children; simplifies the credit; and increases the penalty for tax preparers.

The legislation would make the marriage penalty relief included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act permanent. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the phase-out income level for married taxpayers that file a joint return would be $5,000 higher than the income level for unmarried filers starting in 2009 and in 2010. This level would be indexed for inflation after 2009. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 extended this provision through 2012. Without this provision, many single individuals that marry find themselves faced with a reduction in their EITC. In Massachusetts, approximately 100,500 children a year benefit from the EITC because of this provision.

Second, the legislation makes permanent the credit for families with three or more children. Under prior law, the credit amount is based on one child or two or more children. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created a third child category for 2009 and 2010 and Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 extended this provision through 2012. This change benefits approximately 116,000 children a year in Massachusetts.

Third, this legislation would increase the credit amount for childless workers. The EITC was designed to help childless workers offset their payroll tax liability. The credit phase-in was set to equal the employee share of the payroll tax, 7.65 percent. However, in reality, the employee bears the burden of both the employee and employer portion of the payroll tax. A typical single childless adult will begin to owe Federal income taxes in addition to payroll taxes when his or her income is only $10,655, which is below the poverty line. These changes will result in a full time worker receiving the minimum wage to be eligible for the maximum earned income credit amount.

This legislation doubles the credit rate for individual taxpayer and married taxpayers without children. The credit rate and phase-out rate of 7.65 percent is doubled to 15.3 percent. For 2007, the maximum credit amount for an individual would increase from $457 to $929. In addition, the legislation would increase the credit phase-out income level from $7,590 to $12,690 for individuals and from $12,670 to $17,770 for married couples. This increase is indexed for inflation and includes the marriage penalty relief. Under current law, workers under age 25 are ineligible for the childless workers EITC. The Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2011 would change the age

to 21. This age change will provide an incentive for labor for less- educated younger adults.

Fourth, the Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2011 simplifies the EITC by modifying the abandoned spouse rule, clarifying the qualifying child rules, and repealing the disqualified investment test.

Finally, the legislation includes a provision which increases the penalty imposed on paid preparers who fail to comply with EITC due diligence requirements from $100 to $500. Unfortunately, about a quarter of EITC returns include errors and more than a majority of EITC returns are prepared by a preparer. This should help ensure that preparers comply with the due diligence requirements.

This legislation will help those who most need our help. It will put more money in their pay check. We need to invest in our families and help individuals who want to make a living by working. I urge my colleagues to support an expansion of the EITC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record ``Rules of the Committee on Foreign Relations.''

Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the cloture vote on S. 223. If I had attended today's session, I would have voted to invoke cloture.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the votes on the FAA Authorization bill regarding the McCain amendment No. 4 to repeal the Essential Air Service Program and Paul amendment No. 18 to strike the clarifying memorandum of understanding between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Had I attended today's session, I would have opposed or supported any motion to table both the McCain and the Paul amendments.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the following votes: (1) vote in relation to Coburn amendment No. 91 to decrease the Federal share of project costs under airport improvement program for nonprimary airports; (2) vote in relation to Coburn amendment No. 80 to limit essential air service to locations that are 100 or more miles away from the nearest medium or large hub airport; (3) vote in relation to Coburn amendment No. 81 to limit essential air service to locations that average 10 or more enplanements per day; (4) vote on Leahy-Inhofe amendment No. 50 to amend title 1 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to include nonprofits and volunteer ground and air ambulance crew members and first responders for certain benefits, and to clarify the liability protection for volunteer pilots that fly for public benefits; and (5) final passage of the FAA reauthorization act,

Mr. President, every day in the Senate we owe an enormous amount of gratitude to our staff and to the staff here on the floor which work long hours--often behind the scenes and away from the headlines--to make possible the smooth functioning of this institution.

Today I would like to offer particular gratitude for one of the Senate pages who was among the youngest members of that extraordinary and unheralded team--a page I was privileged to sponsor here, 16-year- old Rachel Bailey from Glendale, MD.

Rachel found herself serving as a page during last year's lameduck session--one of a pair of the only Senate pages, in fact, on hand during that historically busy period.

As we know, typically, the Senate has 30 pages working at any given time. And with 100 Senators, the pace can get pretty hectic.

So imagine how hectic it became for Rachel when the rest of her page class went home for the holidays, leaving her and one fellow page to handle all the page duties in what proved to be an extremely productive and busy session.

Together they handled it all with a smile, carrying the workload of 30 pages and never missing a beat, even though it meant no days off and working up to 14 hours each day. And Rachel did so in a manner that was calm, professional and bipartisan, working with both the Democratic and Republican cloakrooms.

Pages play an important role in the daily operation of the Senate. They deliver correspondence and legislative material throughout the Capitol. They take messages for Senators or call them to the phone. They prepare the Chamber for Senate sessions, and they carry bills and amendments to the desk. All of this is in addition to their regular school work.

But as demanding as it is, being a page also gives a student a rare opportunity to learn about--and contribute--to the legislative branch of our government and to witness firsthand the debates in the U.S. Senate, often described as the ``greatest deliberative body in the world.'' And in the lameduck session, Rachel had an up close look at a flurry of major legislation, including the Senate's bipartisan ratification of the New START Treaty, a long-sought arms reduction agreement with Russia.

Serving as a page has inspired numerous young Americans to pursue careers in public service, even in politics and in the Senate. My friend Chris Dodd, who just retired after more than three decades in Congress, once served as a Senate page. So did one of my current colleagues, Mark Pryor of Arkansas. So perhaps someday we will see Rachel in the Senate again, in some role other than page.

But in the meantime, let me thank Rachel's parents, Susan and Karl, for sharing her with the Senate during the Christmas holiday, and sustaining her in her first foray in public service--and please also allow me to thank Rachel for her extra special efforts and to express my admiration for the way she conducted herself throughout our lameduck session. She has set the bar high for herself--and for all the Senate pages who will follow.