Floor Statements

Mr. President, joining as part of this effort, I think we need to reform No Child Left Behind and that we should focus on making sure we preserve disclosure and the right of parents to know how their schools are doing, without destroying the school, without having an AYP measurement that somehow says most, if not all, schools are failing.

As part of this effort, I am introducing the Empowering Parents Through Quality Charter Schools Act to emphasize charter schools and to make sure their opportunities are more widely available to parents and children, especially in inner cities.

This is a chart I have in the Chamber that shows the top 10 nonselective--meaning they take everyone--public high schools in Chicago. They are ranked in order of ACT scores. You can see from the chart, Lincoln Park High School is No. 1, not a charter school. But in the top 10, 8 of them are charter schools, and these are in some of the toughest neighborhoods in Chicago. That is why this is one of the No. 1 issues being discussed right now in Chicago. Mayor Emanuel is doing an outstanding job of leading a reform effort to make charter schools more available, to expand the day of instruction, and to expand the number of days in the school year because right now Chicagoland suffers from some of the lowest numbers of days of instruction in the country. Right now, for example, in Chicagoland, only about 10 percent of kids have the opportunity to go to a charter school. I think we should set a goal of at least 50 percent having that opportunity.

Recently, I was able to visit the Noble Street School, also another school which was represented about 99 percent African American, with overwhelmingly free and reduced-lunch kids. This school is outperforming all of its peers, despite not having any selection criteria, and being able to take kids from all walks of life, including special-needs kids.

We are seeing something working here. Mayor Emanuel sees it. I see it. That is why in the House of Representatives, when the companion legislation was considered, 365 Representatives, including well over 100 Democratic representatives, supported our charter school bill. We are introducing the companion bill over here. I am hoping for equal amounts of bipartisan support because what we see is working in Chicago can work elsewhere.

The charter school movement has generally focused on inner cities. But I want to make sure charter schools are offered to kids in Peoria, in Springfield, in Rockford, and in Metro East. So the kind of success we are seeing here--8 out of 10 top performers being charter schools for nonselective public high schools--is something I think we should have offered here. That is why I applaud our ranking member and especially Senator Alexander for putting together this group of bills to offer higher education performance for America's kids, especially in the tough global political environment they will be in.

With that, I yield back to our leader on this joint effort and the ranking minority member and thank them for the opportunity to speak.

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

Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly on the subject of our relations with Pakistan.

Mr. President, earlier this week, I gave a talk based on my service in Afghanistan as a reservist, about the growing threat of a new group to our forces in Afghanistan, ISAF, and the Afghan Government. It is not al-Qaida, which is armed and dangerous, but a shadow of its former shadow. It is not the Taliban, which is still extremely armed and dangerous. It is a new group called the Haqqani Network.

Recently, there was a high-profile attack on the Afghan Government and ISAF headquarters in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan. The U.S. Ambassador 2 days ago then announced this was the work of the Haqqani Network. That is a very important factoid. Then yesterday, the Secretary of Defense also highlighted the Haqqani and pointed a direct finger at the Government of Pakistan and its intelligence service, the

Mr. President, I am pleased to stand here today and introduce the Medicare Common Access Card Act of 2011 with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden. Every year, at least $60 billion in the Medicare program is attributed to waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare program. One of the fundamental steps Congress can take to address this is to upgrade the beneficiary's Medicare card using secure smart card technology, similar to the one already used for Department of Defense personnel.

Verifying identity through a secure smart card will protect a beneficiary's personal information, prevent fraud among beneficiaries and providers, and legitimize Medicare claims. The Department of Defense has issued over 20 million secure smart cards as their ``Common Access Card,'' CAC, to authenticate and verify users for access to programs and facilities. To date, DoD reports that not a single Common Access Card has been counterfeited. We cannot stop or prevent fraud in the system until we find a way to know and verify who is authorized to provide and receive benefits.

The Medicare Common Access Card Act of 2011 builds on the success of the DoD CAC card to establish a program that simply and securely verifies the identity of both Medicare beneficiaries and providers. By implementing well-established Common Access Card technology to protect the Medicare program, we can save U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars while securing the privacy of America's seniors. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Medicare Common Access Card Act--a common sense approach to reforming Medicare, protecting seniors and preventing millions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse.

Mr. President, I am pleased to stand here today and introduce the Medicare Common Access Card Act of 2011 with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden. Every year, at least $60 billion in the Medicare program is attributed to waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare program. One of the fundamental steps Congress can take to address this is to upgrade the beneficiary's Medicare card using secure smart card technology, similar to the one already used for Department of Defense personnel.

Verifying identity through a secure smart card will protect a beneficiary's personal information, prevent fraud among beneficiaries and providers, and legitimize Medicare claims. The Department of Defense has issued over 20 million secure smart cards as their ``Common Access Card,'' CAC, to authenticate and verify users for access to programs and facilities. To date, DoD reports that not a single Common Access Card has been counterfeited. We cannot stop or prevent fraud in the system until we find a way to know and verify who is authorized to provide and receive benefits.

The Medicare Common Access Card Act of 2011 builds on the success of the DoD CAC card to establish a program that simply and securely verifies the identity of both Medicare beneficiaries and providers. By implementing well-established Common Access Card technology to protect the Medicare program, we can save U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars while securing the privacy of America's seniors. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Medicare Common Access Card Act--a common sense approach to reforming Medicare, protecting seniors and preventing millions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse.

Mr. President, I want to take some time today to talk about my views on Afghanistan and why we should rethink aid to Pakistan.

I just completed my third 2-week reserve assignment in Afghanistan. While many Members of Congress get a firsthand look at the situation on factfinding missions, my time provided me a more indepth view, with a focus on the counternarcotics objectives of NATO's ISAF mission.

Now, first, the good news. The work of our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen is nothing short of amazing. Serving in one of the poorest, roughest, and most remote parts of the globe, they have crushed al- Qaida's training bases, they have driven the Taliban from government, they have fostered a new elected government, and welded 47 allies into a force for human rights, development, and education--especially for girls.

Now, 42 percent of Afghans live on just $1 a day. Only one in four can read. Malnutrition is a serious problem, and infant mortality is the third highest of any country. According to the United Nations, nearly 40 percent of Afghan children under 3 are moderately or severely underweight, and more than 50 percent of children under 3 experience stunted growth. Afghanistan has more than twice the population of Illinois, but its electricity generation for the entire year is less than 2 percent of the electricity generated in Illinois just for the month of May.

The nearly 30 million people of Afghanistan are victimized by a number of terrorist groups beyond just the Taliban, such as the HIG, the ETIM, and a new threat called the Haqqani network, which I will go into detail about. But the Afghans are mostly victimized by their neighbors, the Pakistanis.

I served as a reservist in Afghanistan for the first time in 2008, and I believed then that Pakistan was complicated; that we have many issues there and that we should advance our own interests diplomatically. I no longer agree with that.

Pakistan has now become the main threat to Afghanistan. Pakistan's intelligence service is the biggest danger to the Afghan Government. Pakistan also poses a tremendous threat to the lives of American troops. Let me be clear: Many Americans died in Afghanistan because of Pakistan's ISI.

Sitting in our commander's briefs for 2 weeks and talking to our headquarters' leaders and spending a few days in the field, it became clear to me if we were working in Afghanistan alone we would have had a much better chance to turn that country around more quickly, restoring it to its status as an agricultural economy with a loose government and a high degree of autonomy given to each tribe or region. But we are not alone.

While our military reduced al-Qaida in Afghanistan to a shadow of its former self, a new force is emerging. On the 10th anniversary of 9/11, al-Qaida, I must report, is still armed and dangerous, but it is far less numerous or capable than it once was. But al-Qaida is not the most potent force that is arrayed against us.

The new face of terror is called the Haqqani network. Built around its founder Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Siraj, it has become the most dangerous, lethal, and cancerous force in Afghanistan.

One other thing. As much as Pakistani officials claim otherwise, the Haqqanis are backed and protected by Pakistan's own intelligence service. Statements by Pakistani Government officials to the contrary are direct lies. The Haqqani network kills Americans, it attacks the elected Government of Afghanistan, and remains protected in its Pakistani headquarters of Miriam Shah. Without that Pakistani safe haven, the Haqqani network would suffer the same fate as al-Qaida. Afghan and U.S. special operations teams take out many Taliban and al- Qaida commanders, and these operators operate each night also against numerous Haqqani leaders. But the Haqqanis are able to spend all day planning attacks on Afghans and Americans and then sleeping soundly in their beds in Pakistan.

In such an environment, with our deficits and debt, military aid to Pakistan seems naive at best and counterproductive at worst. I am seriously thinking we should reconsider assistance to the Pakistani military.

Recently, our President chose to withdraw 33,000 American troops from the Afghan battle. General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen did not choose this option. Nevertheless, I think our new commander, General Allen, can withdraw the first 10,000 American troops by Christmas without suffering a military reversal in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's Army and police are growing in size--now numbering over 300,000--and capability. Despite recent reports of desertions, Afghan security forces will soon reach a level where some of our troops may safely leave the country. As we withdraw, we should consider enablements, such as a pay raise for Afghan troops, to improve their retention and morale.

I spoke with General Allen about a commander's assessment that should be delivered at the end of the year. After withdrawing 10,000 troops, I hope

he will clearly define when the next 23,000 can come out.

In the United States, politically there is little difference between withdrawing at the end of the year and withdrawing at the end of the fiscal year, but militarily there is a world of difference. The fighting season in Afghanistan runs through October. If General Allen is ordered to withdraw his troops by September 30, then many of his forces will disappear during the Taliban's key offensive months. But if the troops leave in November-December, we will guarantee another bad military year for the Taliban and the Haqqanis and an even stronger Afghan Army in the long term.

I hope the President sets an end-of-year deadline rather than an end- of-fiscal-year deadline. It is right to do militarily and politically. If he does this, he reduces the chance of a radical Islamic extremist victory on the Afghan battlefield in 2012.

While in Afghanistan, I worked to help update and rewrite ISAF's counternarcotics plan. Afghanistan is the source of over 80 percent of the world's heroin and opium. The drug economy fuels the insurgency and corruption of the Afghan Government itself. From 2001-09, Secretary Rumsfeld and then-Ambassador Holbrooke blocked ISAF from doing much about narcotics. This left a huge funding source for the insurgency untouched.

ISAF was able to change direction slightly in 2009 and 2010 by supporting interdiction and eradication and alternative livelihoods for Afghan farmers. While commendable, these programs didn't work and the size of the Afghan poppy crop is likely to go up.

The plan I worked on advocates a shift in ISAF to apply its military strength of intelligence, helicopters, and special operations to support Afghan decisions to arrest the top drug lords of Afghanistan, starting with the ones who heavily financially back the insurgency. We joined in 2005 to arrest bin Laden's banker Haji Bashir Noorzai, and we should do it again.

I strongly back the Afghan Counternarcotics Ministry idea to announce a top 10 drug lord list to emulate the early success of J. Edgar Hoover when he established the reputation of the FBI. In our remaining 2 years in Afghanistan, we can do a lot to cripple the insurgency and help the 2014 elections by removing a number of key bad actors from the battlefield.

What about the future? The President says our formal current mission will end in 2014. Much of his vision will be approved at the Chicago NATO summit in May of 2012. By 2014, I believe Afghans will be able to do nearly all of the conventional fighting, with some U.S. special operations support remaining.

But remember, while the Afghan Army is likely to win, its budget for this year is $11 billion. The Afghan Government collected only $1 billion in tax revenue in 2010. We will have to help. Without regular U.S. combat troops, we risk a Taliban-Haqqani-ISI alliance winning unless we do help that Afghan military.

On the 10th anniversary of 9/11, we should all agree that Afghanistan should never become a major threat to American families again. Should Pakistan not change its ways, we can do one other thing: an American tilt toward India, to encourage the world's largest democracy to bankroll an Afghan Government that fights terror and the ISI. Given the outright lying and duplicity of Pakistan, it appears a tilt toward India will allow us to reduce our forces in Afghanistan, knowing India will help bankroll an Afghan Government. This would allow us to reduce our troops while also reducing the possibility of Afghanistan once again becoming a terrorist safe haven.

Pakistanis would object to this pro-Indian outcome, but they will only have their own ISI to blame. September 11 teaches us that neither the United States nor India can tolerate a new formal Afghan terror state. It is too bad Pakistan has chosen to back the losing side--the terrorists--against the Afghan people and the two largest democracies on Earth.

Finally, a word about our troops. Each night they combat the most dangerous narco-insurgents on Earth, and many 19- and 20-year-old Americans volunteer to serve over 7,000 miles from home. Their generation is named after September 11, but these Americans in uniform not only carry their generation's label, they are personally employed in risking their lives to ensure that all Americans will never again witness another September 11.

They are America's best hope, and I hope to God when I am older some of them run for President. From my own nursing home, I know the country would be in good hands if one of these young Americans were to guide our Nation's destiny.

I am lucky to know many of their names. MAJ Fred Tanner, U.S. Army; LT Doug McCobb, Air Force; MG Mick Nicholson, Army; and our allies, Wg Cdr Howard Marsh, Royal Air Force; GEN Renee Martin, French Army; RADM Tony Johnstone-Brute, Royal Navy; and COL Robin Vickers, British Army. I honor them and their younger comrades, wishing all the military personnel of ISAF's 47 nations a very good day as they awake in Afghanistan tomorrow morning for another hard day's work on one of the toughest battlefields in the world.

I yield back.

Madam President, I support H.R. 1249, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, because this long-overdue patent reform will spur innovation, create jobs and strengthen our economy.

In particular, I am proud that this legislation contains a provision I worked to include in the Senate companion, S.23, that would establish the US Patent and Trademark Office Ombudsman Program to assist small businesses with their patent filing issues. This Ombudsman Program will help small firms navigate the bureaucracy of the patent system. Small businesses are the economic engine of our economy. According to the Small Business Administration, these companies employ just over half of all private sector employees and create over fifty percent of our nonfarm GDP. Illinois alone is

home to over 258,000 small employers and more than 885,000 self- employers. Small businesses are also helping to lead the way on American innovation. These firms produce thirteen times more patents per employee than large patenting firms, and their patents are twice as likely to be the most cited among all patents. Small business breakthroughs led to the development of airplanes, FM radio and the personal computer. It is vital that these innovators spend their time developing new products and processes that will build our future, not wading through government red tape.

However, I vote for this legislation with the understanding that Section 18, which establishes a review process for business-method patents, is not too broadly interpreted to cover patents on tangible products that claim novel and non-obvious software tools used to execute business methods. H.R. 1249 seeks to strengthen our patent system in order to incentivize and protect our inventors so that Americans can grow our economy and bolster our global competiveness. Thus, it would defy the purpose of this bill if its authority were used to threaten the viable patents held by companies that employ hundreds of Americans by commercializing software products they develop and engineer.

Our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of a strong patent system. I am proud to support H.R. 1249, which will provide strong intellectual property rights to further our technological advancement.

Madam President, although this bill reflects a balanced approach, Americans also expect a balanced budget. We need to apply the common sense of the heartland to spend within our means, as each family does with their monthly budget.

The battle over this legislation was hard fought. We have finally started to change a 40-year culture of overspending and overborrowing in just 40 days. We hear the American people, and we respect their judgment. They tell us they are not undertaxed. They tell us Washington overspends.

We have a government that claims to support a strong economy but urges tax increases that will weaken it. We hear speeches from some who want to expand employment but then attack employers. They argue for more access to credit but then assail the banks that would provide it. They call for more American energy but decry the very explorers who would find it. We need more straight talk and accountability.

Small businesses provide the most jobs, and we should reward them. Inventors create new economies, and we should encourage them. Many government programs fail in their objectives, sometimes for decades, and we should cancel them. We face mounting government debt. The way to pay this debt is to generate more jobs, creating more taxpayers who will provide additional revenue, not new Federal job-killing taxes.

Given the views of our President and the economically liberal Members of this Senate, the legislation before us is the best deal we can get. This legislation caps regular appropriations of the Congress. It eliminates procedural impediments so that we will vote on how to cut automatic spending programs. We even installed automatic spending programs regardless of congressional gridlock as a backstop to ensure fiscal responsibility. This bill prevents a crisis from breaking out this week. It also begins to control automatic spending programs, many of which have run without much accountability since the 1960s. All of this is a downpayment on further ways to bring commonsense accountability and control to the spending of our government.

These basic values are the foundation of America's 200-year experiment in self-government. If we fail, we deliver a free people into the hands of a financial bondage. If we succeed, we honor the promise of limited government that offers greater and greater liberties to each generation of Americans so that they can reach their own potential.

I will vote for this legislation because it begins to make the hard choices to keep us free. But it is only a first step, and a crucial one, to increase the transparency, the performance, and results we should demand from America's government.

This bill sets an important precedent to reform automatic spending. If we use that precedent again, then I can imagine an America that once again becomes the best place on Earth for inventors and families to start and expand businesses that will provide for their children and, in a few cases, will span the globe with American exports to each market of the planet.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of the fallen soldiers from Hero Street USA in Silvis, Illinois and ask that the Senate recognize the memorial park on Hero Street as Hero Street Memorial Park.

In 1967, 2nd Street in Silvis, Illinois was renamed ``Hero Street USA'' in recognition of the fallen soldiers and their families who grew up on that street. When World War II and the Korean Wars broke out, 78 young Mexican-American men, who lived on Hero Street, bravely went to war to serve our Nation and defend our freedoms in battle. Six soldiers lost their lives during World War II and two others lost their lives during battle in the Korean War.

Located halfway down the block on the east side of Hero Street USA there is a neighborhood park that was redesigned to honor these fallen soldiers in 1971. This memorial park honors the story that brought these families together and brave sacrifices these men made to defend of our freedom and to uphold liberty and the principles of the Constitution of the United States.

Recognizing Hero Street Memorial Park will tell the story of these fallen soldiers for future generations and will honor the bravery and selfless sacrifice of those who gave so much for their country.

Mr. President, I just filed an amendment to S. 1323 to BRAC the spectrum. This would give us the maximum auction revenue and access to spectrum for economic development and deficit reduction. I am proud to have the amendment endorsed by Americans for Tax Reform.

It is very important for the Congress to authorize spectrum incentive auctions. While we should protect broadcasters who choose not to participate in such actions and their customers who rely on over-the- air broadcast for entertainment and public emergency information, incentive auctions would free up much needed spectrum for the civilian side in making sure that broadband communications are fully available in the United States.

It should be, in short, the policy of the United States to offer the widest

amount of broadband spectrum to empower the 21st century economy here-- cell phones were invented in the United States, in fact, mostly in my home State of Illinois--and making sure this is the country where not just 1G and 2G and 3G were invented and deployed, but to make sure 5G and 6G and 7G are also deployed first in the United States and not in a country such as China or India.

According to the Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. Treasury has already collected $50 billion in spectrum receipts since 1993. Senator Reid's plan does authorize such auctions, but it is missing a key element to ensure they are very successful. Unfortunately, like many other agencies in the administration, the Federal Communications Commission has worked to promulgate regulations that stifle innovation and economic growth. It is important for Congress to prohibit the FCC from establishing new, similar rules or conditions that are outside the scope of technical, ethical, or geographic qualifications. Such conditions, for example, the ``net neutrality'' provisions, will only serve to depress the market value of the spectrum; therefore, decreasing government revenues and lowering our ability to reduce the deficit in this way.

One recent study found that ``Congress has tremendous discretion about the amount of proceeds it could raise in exchange for spectrum'' because ``the amount of money that an auction can raise for the [U.S.] Treasury [and the government] is impacted at least in part by controllable decisions about how the auction configures the spectrum for sale and the conditions imposed on it.'' The study analyzed a previous spectrum auction to estimate the potential receipts from future actions based on conditions the FCC may or may not impose. The researchers found that the full auction potential of the broadcast spectrum with no conditions imposed would raise as much as $91 billion, whereas the same auction with heavy and unappealing conditions, such as net neutrality, would only raise $26 billion. That is a difference of $65 billion. We could raise, to lower our deficit, 250 percent more in funds with an incentive auction if we ensure that the FCC does not impose market-killing restrictions.

My proposal would place limits on the FCC, in addition to establishing a number of other prohibitions to make sure the FCC does not artificially reduce the spectrum value, to lower our deficit. The Kirk amendment would prohibit the FCC from restricting participants in any auction and from prescribing certain rates, terms, or services that may be offered by bidders in order to encourage the most robust participation and license bidding. To avoid future devaluation of spectrum licenses, the amendment would also prohibit the FCC from changing the rules of the game after an auction was completed.

But simply selling spectrum voluntarily given up by broadcasters is not enough to solve our credit crunch. We know that wireless subscribership in the United States has increased more than 400 percent in the last 15 years, and experts expect mobile data traffic to be 35 times higher in 2014 than it was back in 2009. Yet only 22 percent of all viable wireless frequencies are licensed for mobile broadband. Industry experts anticipate spectrum will be exhausted in the most populous markets by 2014. Such a restriction then would stunt wireless and other technological development in the United States because we will not have enough bandwidth to continue innovating. Internet service will then slow and calls will be dropped. We should not let this scenario unfold. We should reach our full technological potential because broadband development is a key job creator for the 21st century.

According to one estimate, the information and communications industry contributed more than $1.7 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product in 2009 or over 12 percent of our total national income. Another study found that broadband provides additional annual consumer benefits of roughly $32 billion per year. It is widely acknowledged that wireless broadband also generates productivity gains of approximately $28 billion annually, and one cost estimate even puts productivity gains from the development and use of wireless broadband at almost $860 billion in 2016. In my own State of Illinois, this study estimates that the savings from increased productivity will reach about $5.8 billion in 5 years. This demonstrates that every sector of our economy benefits from wireless development.

For example, broadband development will vastly improve health care services for seniors. One study finds that reduced medical costs, reduced costs of institutionalized living, and increased output generated by seniors and disabled individuals will save about $927 billion between 2005 and 2030. Advancements in wireless technologies aim to reduce the burden on the chronically ill by providing remote monitoring of medical functions and to save lives through public safety interoperable networks.

Yet very little of this will be achievable unless we make more spectrum available to the civilian sector. Not surprisingly, the Federal Government itself is the largest and most stubborn squatter on the spectrum. According to the Technology Policy Institute, the government currently has exclusive or shared ownership of more than half the ideal spectrum for wireless development.

Much of the spectrum is not even being used or used efficiently by the government. Unfortunately, it is largely unknown how exactly Federal agencies and departments are using the spectrum and which spectrum we could better use on the civilian side.

My amendment, in short, would establish a process identical to the successful Base Realignment and Closure Commission to determine which Federal spectrum should be offered for sale or shared use by the private sector. While the government has much of this authority, it consistently fails to utilize it.

A BRAC-like commission for the spectrum is a key model for its reallocation and would help accelerate the development of broadband in the United States, without the standard congressional roadblocks that would inhibit development.

The amendment also provides assurances that the government will vacate spectrum once the process is complete and requires the Office of Management and Budget to intervene in the relocation process if agencies are failing to comply with the relocation plan and penalizing agencies if they do not meet the BRAC timeline.

The Kirk amendment would provide the telecommunications industry with a certain path forward for reliably clear spectrum to advance employment in the United States through wireless advancement.

I urge congressional leaders to consider this proposal. It comes from neither Republican nor Democratic sides. It is one of the most valuable assets that the government is currently squatting on and could be part of an overall deficit reduction plan totalling upward of $90 billion, but I think that benefit understates the true potential. Because if we set a goal of the United States being the country that offers the most broadband wireless spectrum, then we ensure that this critical 21st century industry remains in the United States and that the pace of innovation in wireless always is fastest in America as opposed to Asia or Europe.

That is why I put the amendment forward. I would seek its adoption as part of our deficit negotiations.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this past Sunday a New York Times editorial entitled ``In the Wake of Fukushima'' noted:

If nuclear power is to have a future in this country,

Americans have to have confidence that regulators and the

industry are learning the lessons of Fukushima and are taking

all steps necessary to ensure safety.

Following the events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in March, it is clear that maintaining America's confidence in the safety of our nuclear reactors is paramount. The disaster at Fukushima should not lead to a freeze of the nuclear industry; instead, it should be an opportunity to upgrade the safety of our nuclear fleet. Both industry and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission assure us that currently there is no immediate threat to the operation of our nuclear plants.

Nuclear power is especially important to my home State of Illinois, where nearly half of all electricity in the State is nuclear. With 11 of 104 operating nuclear power plants and stations in our State, we have more reactors than any other State in the Union.

In the near term, it is my hope that nuclear regulators and the industry will take actions necessary to increase safety measures and integrate emergency operating procedures. Furthermore, nuclear plants should swiftly implement sensible measures to increase flood protections, enhance containment-venting capabilities, install remote monitoring controls of spent fuel pool conditions, and upgrade the ability to cope and maintain operations by a single station sustained for initially 8 hours and eventually up to 72 hours utilizing preplanned and prestaged resources.

Moving forward, one of our top priorities should be enhancing flood protection at reactors. Obviously reactors, for their cooling, need to be near large bodies of water, subject to flood. Fukushima highlighted the need to take additional protections to guarantee that current backup pumps and generators are also protected against flood or other seismic events. A recent flooding on the Missouri River is a demonstration of the need for such enhancements. Although flood barriers and procedures have so far protected the Fort Calhoun nuclear powerplant in Nebraska, this is not the time to look away from making further efforts on protecting reactors from floods.

One of the ringing lessons of the Fukushima disaster is the need for enhanced capabilities for nuclear operators to cope with prolonged power outages. Every U.S. nuclear powerplant should be able to cope with a prolonged loss of power for at least 8 hours for an initial period and eventually 72 hours using only the resources onsite so that powerplant operators can utilize preplanned and prestaged equipment and muster other resources if necessary. We should be prepared for simultaneous events for multiple reactors onsite and should be able to maintain key power functions in the face of varying circumstances, including debilitated infrastructure, lack of communication, and especially the loss of onsite power.

It is clear that operators' ability to cope with the prolonged loss of power was critical at Fukushima. We know that the tsunami hit the Fukushima Daiichi powerplant and wiped out all alternating power and backup power necessary to provide resources to the cooling pumps. This eventually caused overheating in both reactor vessels and cooling ponds. The ability to perform these critical functions and to monitor them--providing power to fans and pumps and to remotely open and close vents and valves--the inability of the Japanese to perform these functions caused them to lose control of key areas or to maintain cooling to critical spent fuel ponds and reactor vessels.

The Japanese also were unable to remotely monitor conditions, especially in their spent fuel pools, and struggled continuously to pump enough water into the reactors. Operators need to have proper instrumentation at far, remote locations so they can continue to understand what is happening in reactors and cooling ponds if an event occurs.

Furthermore, we need to install proper venting upgrades on all reactors with the Mark II containment design. This is an important step in preventing any kind of overpressurization and in reducing the risk of operations that we saw so clearly at Fukushima.

In the United States, there are 23 reactors with the Mark I containment design. We have known since 1989 that there are flaws with the pressure containment system of the Mark I boiler reactor. As a precaution, industry upgraded the Mark I containments with the hardened vent to deal with the excessive pressure in the containment.

According to the NRC task force's 90-day report, which examined the safety of U.S. nuclear powerplants, the hardened vents are not universally installed on the Mark II containments in the United States. The task force noted further that because the Mark II containments are only 25 percent larger than the volume of the Mark I, it is conceivable that the Mark II containments, under a similar situation, would suffer the same consequences as Nos. 1 through 4 at Fukushima. We should install hardened vents on all Mark II containment reactors and not allow any more time to pass before making deliberate improvements to address these safety concerns.

As we press forward with nuclear power generation, I believe the NRC should also update our emergency planning zones. This is the evacuation zone that is preplanned around every nuclear powerplant. It seems prudent now, in the light of the experience of Fukushima, that we should expand the emergency planning zone to the Japanese radius of 20 kilometers or 12.5 miles around each nuclear reactor. These EPZs should be updated with the latest 2010 census data of the number of Americans residing around these reactors, and the NRC should require enough radiation dose medication to handle at least two full EPZ evacuations if necessary.

We also know that the spent fuel pools posed a serious threat to the safety of the site. Throughout the crises, Fukushima crews struggled to maintain water levels at the spent fuel pools to prevent an escape of uncontained radiation into the environment. For those of us who know a little bit about reactors, this was a surprise because normally we are totally focused on what is happening inside the reactor, but at Fukushima, as much attention had to be paid on overheating in the spent fuel ponds.

This warning should serve as the beginning of an effort for us to relook at the issue of spent fuel in the United States, especially spent fuel which is stored near our drinking water sources. We all know 96 percent of all the fresh water in the United States is in the Great Lakes, and I am concerned that we store approximately 1,000 tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel just 200 yards from the Lake Michigan shoreline at the now defunct Zion nuclear reactor. Any proposal to stop the permanent disposal of nuclear waste in Nevada is a proposal to continue storing highly radioactive nuclear fuel right next to America's source of 96 percent of its fresh water.

I believe we should now continue to reinvigorate the process of building the Yucca Mountain facility. Any proposal to not build Yucca is a proposal to pose a clear-and-present, long-term danger to the environmental future of the Great Lakes.

The bottom line is we should not let the lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster become a forgotten story, and that the NRC task force and its 90-day report issued after the Fukushima disaster is a serious document that now should lead not just to further studies and consultant reports but comprehensive action, such as hardened vents, such as making sure we have remote monitoring of spent fuel ponds, and that all reactors be able to operate first 8 and then 72 hours without outside power, and that we take the other measures to upgrade our measure, such as expanding the EPZs.

Tomorrow I will be testifying before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and as the junior Senator of the State of Illinois, the most nuclear State in America, I will carry a strong message: Nuclear power has a strong future in the United States but one that should be going forward in light of the lessons of Fukushima.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, As we continue to debate our economic future I would like to announce July's Silver Fleece Award winner. This month's most wasteful spending project is another example of the egregious Federal spending habits of this government and demonstrates why exactly we need to enact the Cut, Cap and Balance Act.

The Silver Fleece Award for the month of July goes to a $64 million stimulus award to provide broadband service to Gallatin County, MT. According to an analysis conducted by Navigant Consulting, 93 percent of the households in the project's proposed service area were already served by five or more broadband providers. The fact that tens of millions of taxpayer dollars were spent to subsidize broadband service in an area with already strong private sector representation is reprehensible. Perhaps even more staggering, though, is the taxpayer cost of these services per unserved household.

According to the program's own definition of ``unserved household,'' this project cost taxpayers more than $340,000 per unserved household.

However, many of these so-called unserved households have access to 3G

wireless broadband. Not only are 3G speeds approaching or even meeting administration broadband standards, but 3G will soon be replaced with 4G broadband, which will far exceed current standards. Subtracting the number of homes that had existing access to 3G wireless leaves only seven households in the Gallatin County service area unserved by broadband. It cost the U.S. taxpayer an astounding $7,112,422 per household to provide broadband service to the truly unserved population.

I wish I could say this project is the exception, but I cannot. This funding was provided through the stimulus' $3.5 billion Rural Utility Service Broadband Initiative Program. On average, this program cost the taxpayer over $1,000 per household. In the projects analyzed by the Navigant study, 85 percent of the households served already had access to broadband.

Unfortunately, rural broadband subsidization has been long mismanaged by the Rural Utility Service. A 2009 inspector general report found that just 2 percent of Federal broadband buildout funds provided between 2005 and 2008 went toward unserved communities. The same IG report found that funds were also going to areas that were not rural at all. In fact, 148 of the communities provided with subsidized broadband between 2005 and 2008 were within 30 miles of cities with at least 200,000 inhabitants. We continued to see this occur in the stimulus funding, where in my home State, Cook County, home of Chicago with a population of 2.79 million, and suburban Will County received funds.

Ensuring connectivity in rural America is a worthy endeavor that will bring much needed economic development to small communities around the country. But as we face budget shortfalls and a crippling debt, we cannot afford to subsidize duplicative broadband service to urban and suburban areas.

Now, during the stimulus debate when the bill was considered by the full Appropriations Committee, I raised concerns with the then chair of the Agriculture Subcommittee, Rosa DeLauro on this issue. I said it was a waste of money. I said that we should probably redirect the funds. I said that we should not support this legislation.

I was defeated in the House of Representatives and the stimulus bill was put forward. I even wrote a memo highlighting the waste in this rural broadband initiative.

Unfortunately now seeing--especially in Gallatin County, where we have now subsidized each recipient of unserved broadband services at a cost of $7,112,422 per person--we have seen that the remarks that I made in opposition to this funding when I was a member of the House dramatically understated the waste to the U.S. taxpayer.

As we face a future of deficits and debt, we need to highlight the waste of the Rural Broadband Program, which is why the July Silver Fleece award went to this program in Gallatin County, MT.

Mr. President, I wish to join with my colleague and say that Republicans unanimously supported this bill that provides appropriations for our veterans and for our military construction needs unanimously in the subcommittee. Our Republican members unanimously supported this bill in the full committee, and the reason why is because this bill is marked to the House budget. This bill cuts spending on the budget authority discretionary side about $1.2 billion below the President's request. The bill also cuts spending $620 million below last year's level, and it even comes in $2.6 million below Chairman Culberson's bill that passed the House of Representatives under their very strict budget guidelines.

I will note that we came together on a bipartisan basis in the Senate to bring up this very first of the appropriations bills, and the cloture motion to move forward to bring this bill to the floor passed by a vote of 71 to 26, with Leader McConnell and our vice chairman, the lead Republican on the committee, Mr. Cochran, supporting that.

This bill has been endorsed by AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

I think it is very important as we look at the wider issue of deficits and debt, any danger of interrupting payments to veterans because of negotiations here on Capitol Hill, it is a very important signal that not just the House pass the appropriations bill to support our veterans but also the Senate. So my hope is we will consider the amendments this afternoon and then advise Members that we would seek to go to final passage and get this first of the appropriations bills done this year, sending a very clear message, especially to our veterans and men and women on Active Duty, that we are supporting their construction and veterans health care needs in a way that spends money according to the dictates of the House budget resolution.

I yield back and wait for our senior Member from Maryland.

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

Madam President, we are wrapping up to a vote that we hope will occur on Senator Vitter's amendment at noon. I will summarize where we are.

We are completing debate on a bill that provides funding for the Veterans' Administration and military construction needs. This bill backs up over 22 million veterans who have served our country.

The reason I and the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee have unanimously supported this bill is, it is

marked to the House budget resolution, the Paul Ryan budget resolution number. We cut funding by $1.2 billion in budget authority discretionary numbers below the President's level. This bill comes in $620 million below the 2011 enacted level, and it is even $2.6 million below the House-passed level just adopted earlier this year, Chairman Culberson's bill in the House of Representatives.

The Senate voted by a vote of 71 to 26 for cloture to bring up this bill. This is the first of the working appropriations bills. I hope there are many others. The legislation is important. People may ask: How did we make the funding cuts to come in at the House level? The answer is, Chairman Johnson and I made some difficult decisions. We cut 24 separate military construction programs. A list is available in the report that accompanies this bill.

We made some very tough calls regarding spending that was proposed for Bahrain, for Germany, and for Korea. There was a worthwhile project proposed for the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. They wanted a brandnew building and a courtroom. That was denied outright. Those tough decisions--those 24 reductions denying a new Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims building--making those cuts necessary then brought us under the House level, as approved by the Paul Ryan budget.

I remind Members the legislation is endorsed by the VFW, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. It had the unanimous support of Republicans in the subcommittee and in the full committee because it comes in at the House budget level. That is why I think it is necessary to move forward, especially as we talk about a budget crisis, in which checks may or may not go out. I very much hope they do. I think it is an important signal to send that the Paul Ryan-approved budget number, which is what this bill is at, goes forward, which ensures 2012 appropriated funding for our veterans and the military construction needs of our men and women in uniform.

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

Mr. President, I remind Members, we are now moving to final passage on our first appropriations bill of this Congress. It has been 2 years since the Senate has passed a separate freestanding appropriations bill, but this is a bipartisan measure. It is marked to the House budget level, the Paul Ryan budget. We made difficult decisions cutting 24 separate military construction programs. We denied the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims a new building. We came in below the President, about $1.2 billion below the President; $620 million below last year, and even $2.6 million below the House-passed bill.

This is the bill that takes care of over 22 million veterans and our military construction needs. I thank Chairman Johnson for his work as we get the Appropriations Committee going again in a bipartisan way.

With that, I yield back to the chairman.

If the Senator would yield?

I also thank Dave Schiappa, Laura Dove, and Ashley Messick on the Senate floor for guiding this bill through; Chairman Inouye and especially his staff director, Charlie Houy; Vice Chairman Cochran and his staff director, Bruce Evans.

I thank Chairman Johnson and especially Tina Evans, Chad Schulken, Andy Vanlandingham, Dennis Balkham, D'Ann Lettieri, and Patrick Magnuson who have brought this first appropriations bill of this Congress through.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I extend my thanks to Chairman Johnson

again. This bill passed by a vote of 97 to 2. It is the first appropriations bill separately passed by the Senate since November of 2009. It represents a substantial achievement of bipartisan cooperation between the majority and minority. It meets the needs of our over 22 million veterans and the military construction needs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and allied services around the world.

I am happy that the Senate has begun working again on separate appropriations bills. I commend Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran for moving forward, as well as the leadership staff. I only hope that further subcommittees can bring other bills forward, as Chairman Johnson and I have done, to return regular order to the Senate and its appropriations process.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.