Floor Statements

Mr. President, in a few moments, I will ask that an amendment be pending. First, I will speak on the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that will strengthen small charities around our country, especially in places where resources are scarce.

My amendment will create a ``Nonprofit Capacity Building Program.'' I am pleased to have worked with my colleague Senator Grassley to develop this program. I have worked with Senator Grassley for several years on oversight of tax-exempt organizations and efforts to strengthen the nonprofit sector.

Our amendment will connect Government funds with private-sector funds to provide education and training to small and midsize charities.

Small charities around our country serve people in need of food or clothing, run afterschool programs, provide housing counseling, and other services that are vital to our communities. But in many cases, these small charities lack access to education opportunities where they might learn how to manage the charity's finances, fundraise effectively, accurately file tax forms, adopt new computer programs or plan a long-term budget.

In nonprofit circles, folks would say these small nonprofits lack ``capacity,'' and training in these areas is called ``capacity- building.''

Our amendment will add $5 million per year over 5 years to the budget of the Corporation for National and Community Service to make matching grants to larger organizations so they will, in turn, provide training to small and midsize charities throughout their State or region.

These kinds of training opportunities are especially rare for charities located in rural areas. Folks running a charity in a rural area may never have the chance to attend a grant-writing training or a class on nonprofit budget management.

That is why our amendment states that nonprofit training opportunities should be targeted at charities in areas with these resource challenges.

The amendment also requires the grants to be dollar-for-dollar matching grants. The match must come from non-Federal sources, such as private foundations or corporate giving programs. It is important that both the Federal Government and the private sector pitch in to provide this support.

Government and private giving must coordinate better in support of people and communities. The underlying bill, the Serve America Act, supports the development of public-private solutions to problems facing our country. Some of my colleagues believe that the private sector must solve every problem facing our communities. Many others believe that Government is essential to solve the same problems. I believe that we need a combination of the best ideas from both. That is the spirit behind this amendment.

I hear from folks in my home State of Montana on a weekly basis in support of this idea.

The National Council of Nonprofits, Independent Sector, and the Alliance for Children and Families have voiced their strong support for this amendment.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Baucus-Grassley nonprofit capacity building amendment.

Amendment No. 692 to Amendment No. 687

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside so I may call up my amendment No. 692.

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

Mr. President, I hope Senators will support this at the appropriate time. Pending that moment, I yield the floor.

Yes, that is correct.

I deeply thank the Senator from Maryland, who is a strong advocate for Serve America, a wonderful program. I think this will make it a little better. It is bipartisan, as she said. This helps more people. I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. President, our next big objective is health care reform.

We have a unique opportunity to move forward on health reform this year. Now we must act. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer to fix our Nation's health care system.

We must work together to reduce health care costs, improve quality, and make coverage affordable for all Americans.

In the Finance Committee, we have held 13 hearings to prepare for health reform. Last week, we held a hearing on our Nation's health care workforce. The hearing examined ways to address our current workforce needs. The hearing considered ways to prepare our medical providers for health care reform.

At our hearing, four experts in the field testified about current health care workforce shortages, especially in primary care and nursing, and the witnesses told us that we must address these health workforce needs to meaningfully reform our health system.

Dr. David Goodman, the director of the Center for Health Policy Research, said: ``The workforce we train today will shape, for good or bad, tomorrow's health system.''

Dr. Goodman continued, ``It will be hard to improve access, achieve better health outcomes and decrease health care expenditure growth rates unless we get workforce policy right.''

I could not agree more.

Our efforts on health care reform are only as strong as our Nation's health care providers--the nurses, doctors, and other professionals-- who are on the front lines caring for patients.

Investing in our health care workforce is critical as we work to expand health insurance coverage to millions of currently uninsured Americans.

During our hearing, Dr. Allan Goroll, a primary care doctor and professor at Harvard University, told us about the Massachusetts experience following the enactment of State health reform. Dr. Goroll said that some newly insured people in Massachusetts are waiting up to 2 months to get a doctor's appointment. That is simply unacceptable.

For our health care reform efforts to succeed, we must directly address these health workforce challenges.

It starts with primary care. Our current system greatly undervalues primary care. As a result, fewer students are going into the field. A recent study found that only 1 in 50 medical students plans a career in primary care internal medicine. That is down from more than one in five in the early 1990s. This trend is especially troubling, because it is clear that a strong primary care system is a key determinant of high quality, efficient medical care.

During our hearing, we learned that areas of the country with a high proportion of primary care doctors spend less money on health care. And patients there have the same or better outcomes.

We need to invest in our Nation's primary care providers to help improve the quality of our medical care and to bring down health care costs.

Our workforce challenges extend beyond primary care. Our Nation's hospitals continue to face a nursing shortage. Recent news reports tell of shortages of general surgeons and dentists in rural areas. Many parts of the country need more mental health practitioners. And the list could go on.

We need to tackle these challenges head-on. We need to place our Nation's health care workforce on sound footing. And we need to meet the medical needs of all Americans.

This is going to require a renewed focus on the way that we pay for and deliver health care. We must ensure our payment systems reward high quality medical care and encourage medical students to go into critical fields like primary care.

And we are going to need to take a hard look at our national workforce policies to make sure that our health care providers have the right training and skills to deliver excellent care.

This effort is vital for our health reform efforts to succeed. So let's get to work now.

Let's work together to strengthen our Nation's health care workforce. Let's build a health care system that delivers high-quality medical care for everyone. And let's act now.

Mr. President, over the past week, we have heard a lot about AIG paying out $165 million in bonuses to employees of its financial products unit. This is the same company that took $170 billion in taxpayer money just to stay afloat.

The Government owns 80 percent of AIG. Yet some people in the Government say that they were not able to do anything to stop these bonuses from being paid.

The country is angry, and I am angry.

President Obama ordered Secretary Geithner to use all available legal means to recover these bonuses. But that may not be enough. We may never be able to recover these payments.

The truth is we should not have to be in this position in the first place. When

we first passed the TARP funding, Senator Grassley and I fought hard to include strong provisions in the bill on executive compensation. Unfortunately, the TARP program was not run as originally intended.

Even as we discuss this issue, reports are coming out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are planning on paying retention bonuses to their executives.

This type of behavior has to stop, and it has to stop now.

Companies should not be taking taxpayer money for a bailout with one hand, and then paying out big bonuses with the other. Across the country, Americans are losing their jobs. They are stretching every dollar to cover the basic costs of living. Meanwhile, executives and employees at financial institutions are receiving big bonuses--bonuses that are being paid with taxpayer dollars.

I think that almost all of us can agree that companies receiving taxpayer money should not be paying these big bonuses. Unfortunately, it seems that this type of behavior is not going stop, unless we take action. Using Congress's power to tax appears to be the best option available to us to address these excessive bonuses.

So today, I join with my colleagues Senators Grassley, Wyden, and Snowe, as well as others, to introduce a bill to do just that.

This bill makes sure that if a large institution receives government funds, and it then wants to pay out big bonuses, then it is going to face significant tax consequences. This bill would impose a 35 percent excise tax on each of the employer and the employee. It would apply to bonuses earned or paid after January 1 of this year.

For retention bonuses, the excise tax would be imposed on the full amount of the bonus. For all other bonuses, the excise tax would be imposed on all amounts over $50,000. The bill includes regulatory safeguards that would help to prevent companies from characterizing bonus payments as salaries to avoid the taxes.

This bill would also prevent companies from just deferring these bonuses to avoid paying this excise tax. This bill would prevent taxpayers from deferring more than $1 million in a 12 month period. If a taxpayer deferred more than $1 million, then the bill would impose a 20 percent penalty and interest.

Some have concerns about the small banks that want to take Federal money through the new SBA program that the President announced. Others have concerns about the larger banks that did not take much in TARP funds. The restrictions in this bill would not apply to small banks as defined in the tax code. And the restrictions would not apply to banks that receive less than $100 million of TARP funds or other Government assistance. And if those institutions wanted to pay back their TARP funds, they would no longer be subject to these restrictions.

The way that these companies are doing business must stop. This bill would change the way that TARP recipients and recipients of other similar Government aid operate. These companies would no longer be able to pay out big bonuses or give out huge amounts of deferred compensation without facing significant tax consequences.

The country is going through difficult times. Americans are scrimping and saving just to get by. We owe it to the American taxpayer to do all that we can to ensure that banks do not use taxpayer dollars to pay out big bonuses. I urge all of my Colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important bill.

Mr. President, over the past week, we have heard a lot about AIG paying out $165 million in bonuses to employees of its financial products unit. This is the same company that took $170 billion in taxpayer money just to stay afloat.

The Government owns 80 percent of AIG. Yet some people in the Government say that they were not able to do anything to stop these bonuses from being paid.

The country is angry, and I am angry.

President Obama ordered Secretary Geithner to use all available legal means to recover these bonuses. But that may not be enough. We may never be able to recover these payments.

The truth is we should not have to be in this position in the first place. When

we first passed the TARP funding, Senator Grassley and I fought hard to include strong provisions in the bill on executive compensation. Unfortunately, the TARP program was not run as originally intended.

Even as we discuss this issue, reports are coming out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are planning on paying retention bonuses to their executives.

This type of behavior has to stop, and it has to stop now.

Companies should not be taking taxpayer money for a bailout with one hand, and then paying out big bonuses with the other. Across the country, Americans are losing their jobs. They are stretching every dollar to cover the basic costs of living. Meanwhile, executives and employees at financial institutions are receiving big bonuses--bonuses that are being paid with taxpayer dollars.

I think that almost all of us can agree that companies receiving taxpayer money should not be paying these big bonuses. Unfortunately, it seems that this type of behavior is not going stop, unless we take action. Using Congress's power to tax appears to be the best option available to us to address these excessive bonuses.

So today, I join with my colleagues Senators Grassley, Wyden, and Snowe, as well as others, to introduce a bill to do just that.

This bill makes sure that if a large institution receives government funds, and it then wants to pay out big bonuses, then it is going to face significant tax consequences. This bill would impose a 35 percent excise tax on each of the employer and the employee. It would apply to bonuses earned or paid after January 1 of this year.

For retention bonuses, the excise tax would be imposed on the full amount of the bonus. For all other bonuses, the excise tax would be imposed on all amounts over $50,000. The bill includes regulatory safeguards that would help to prevent companies from characterizing bonus payments as salaries to avoid the taxes.

This bill would also prevent companies from just deferring these bonuses to avoid paying this excise tax. This bill would prevent taxpayers from deferring more than $1 million in a 12 month period. If a taxpayer deferred more than $1 million, then the bill would impose a 20 percent penalty and interest.

Some have concerns about the small banks that want to take Federal money through the new SBA program that the President announced. Others have concerns about the larger banks that did not take much in TARP funds. The restrictions in this bill would not apply to small banks as defined in the tax code. And the restrictions would not apply to banks that receive less than $100 million of TARP funds or other Government assistance. And if those institutions wanted to pay back their TARP funds, they would no longer be subject to these restrictions.

The way that these companies are doing business must stop. This bill would change the way that TARP recipients and recipients of other similar Government aid operate. These companies would no longer be able to pay out big bonuses or give out huge amounts of deferred compensation without facing significant tax consequences.

The country is going through difficult times. Americans are scrimping and saving just to get by. We owe it to the American taxpayer to do all that we can to ensure that banks do not use taxpayer dollars to pay out big bonuses. I urge all of my Colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important bill.

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

Mr. President, I might ask, what is the pending business?

I thank the Chair.

I would like to speak on the Kirk nomination.

Mr. President, Ralph Waldo Emerson said:

[T]he most advanced nations are always those who navigate

the most.

Today, the Senate considers the nomination of Mayor Ron Kirk to be U.S. Trade Representative. As we consider the nomination, America is navigating a shifting economic landscape. And so are our trading partners.

As financial systems weaken, protectionist sentiments strengthen. As markets crumble, import barriers rise. And as jobs disappear, trade violations emerge.

Ron Kirk has been asked to navigate U.S. trade policy through these difficult waters. To ensure that America keeps moving forward, he must navigate the right course.

Many feel our trade policy has veered off course. They argue the Government has not safeguarded our workers. They argue the Government has not enforced our trade agreements. They argue the Government has not dismantled barriers to our exports.

I believe Mayor Kirk will chart the right course. He understands he must steady the tilting ship of public opinion. He will do so by rebuilding America's faith in the benefits of international trade. He will remain constantly on the lookout for America's workers. He will shine a spotlight on trade violations. He will vigilantly enforce our international agreements. He will speed our economic recovery by opening markets for American exports.

Let us chart the right course on international trade. Let us rebuild America's faith in our trade policy. Let us confirm Ron Kirk to be the U.S. Trade Representative.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my friend Senator Crapo to introduce an important piece of legislation that would help to strengthen the financial health of America's firearm and ammunition manufacturers, who in turn support wildlife conservation in America.

The firearm and ammunition industry pays a Federal excise tax of 11 percent on long guns and ammunition and 10 percent on handguns. The Tax and Trade Bureau in the Treasury Department collects this tax. The Bureau sends the proceeds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where they are deposited into the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund, also known the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund.

The tax is a major source of conservation funding in America. Since 1991, the firearm and ammunition industry has contributed about $3 billion to the Pittman-Robertson Fund and since the inception of the tax, has contributed over $5.5 billion. In 2008, over $321 million was collected.

Of all the industries that pay excise taxes on the sale of their products to support wildlife conservation efforts, firearms and ammunition manufacturers are the only ones that have to pay excise taxes every 2 weeks. Other industries, such as archery and fishing, pay their tax every 3 months.

This frequent payment obligation imposes a costly and inequitable burden on the firearms and ammunition industry. Manufacturers spend thousands of additional man-hours just to administer the paperwork associated with making the bi-weekly excise payments.

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, changing the deposit schedule from a bi-weekly to quarterly payment would save the industry an estimated $21.6 million dollars a year. That is money that the industry could use for investment in researching and developing new products, purchasing new manufacturing plants and equipment, and communicating with the hunting and shooting sports community.

Let me take a moment to explain what this legislation does not do. It does not reduce the firearm and ammunition industry's excise tax rates. It simply adds fairness to the tax code.

It is important for my Colleagues to understand the history and nature of the firearm and ammunition excise tax. During the Great Depression, hunters and conservationists recognized that overharvesting of wildlife would destroy America's treasured wildlife and natural habitats. Sportsmen, state wildlife agencies, and the firearm and ammunition industries lobbied Congress to extend the existing 10 percent excise tax and impose a new 11 percent excise tax to create a new fund. The fund was called the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund after Senator Key Pittman of Nevada and Representative A. Willis Robertson of Virginia. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the legislation into law in 1937.

The industry, hunters, and conservationists came together to create this structure. They recognized the importance of conservation. And they encouraged Congress to impose a tax on their guns and ammo. It is rare thing when taxpayers ask to be taxed. But preserving our country's wildlife habitat was and continues to be that important.

Today, more than $700 million each year is generated and used exclusively to establish, restore, and protect wildlife habitats.

Now let me explain the effect that the bill we are introducing today would have on the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund. As the Joint Committee on Taxation explained in its revenue estimate, the net budget effect to the fund is $4 million. This is purely a result of the shift in the timing of collections, from bi-weekly to quarterly, over a 10-year budget window. Consumers of firearms and ammunition would still pay the exact same amount of tax.

The firearm and ammunition industry recognizes the ten-year $4 million loss to the trust fund. The industry developed a comprehensive 5-year proposal to ease this effect. Under the proposal, the industry would contribute $150,000 a year for the next 5 years, a total of $750,000, to the fund.

These actions again show the partnership between hunters, conservation groups, and the firearm and ammunition industry to protect conservation programs and initiatives. That's why this legislation is supported by the following groups: Archery Trade Association; Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Boon and Young; Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation; Delta Waterfowl; Ducks Unlimited; National Rifle Association; National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.; National Wild Turkey Federation; North American Wetlands Conservation Council; Pheasants Forever; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation; Safari Club International; Wildlife Management Institute; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance.

I urge my Colleagues to support this legislation. I am very glad that Senators Lincoln, Snowe, Roberts, Ensign and Enzi have also signed onto this legislation as original cosponsors. I hope that we can come together, just as the industry, hunters, and conservation groups have, to pass this legislation. It is a matter of tax fairness. Let us do our part to correct this inequity in the tax code. Let us do our part to support an American industry that in turn supports wildlife habitat restoration and conservation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my friend Senator Crapo to introduce an important piece of legislation that would help to strengthen the financial health of America's firearm and ammunition manufacturers, who in turn support wildlife conservation in America.

The firearm and ammunition industry pays a Federal excise tax of 11 percent on long guns and ammunition and 10 percent on handguns. The Tax and Trade Bureau in the Treasury Department collects this tax. The Bureau sends the proceeds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where they are deposited into the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund, also known the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund.

The tax is a major source of conservation funding in America. Since 1991, the firearm and ammunition industry has contributed about $3 billion to the Pittman-Robertson Fund and since the inception of the tax, has contributed over $5.5 billion. In 2008, over $321 million was collected.

Of all the industries that pay excise taxes on the sale of their products to support wildlife conservation efforts, firearms and ammunition manufacturers are the only ones that have to pay excise taxes every 2 weeks. Other industries, such as archery and fishing, pay their tax every 3 months.

This frequent payment obligation imposes a costly and inequitable burden on the firearms and ammunition industry. Manufacturers spend thousands of additional man-hours just to administer the paperwork associated with making the bi-weekly excise payments.

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, changing the deposit schedule from a bi-weekly to quarterly payment would save the industry an estimated $21.6 million dollars a year. That is money that the industry could use for investment in researching and developing new products, purchasing new manufacturing plants and equipment, and communicating with the hunting and shooting sports community.

Let me take a moment to explain what this legislation does not do. It does not reduce the firearm and ammunition industry's excise tax rates. It simply adds fairness to the tax code.

It is important for my Colleagues to understand the history and nature of the firearm and ammunition excise tax. During the Great Depression, hunters and conservationists recognized that overharvesting of wildlife would destroy America's treasured wildlife and natural habitats. Sportsmen, state wildlife agencies, and the firearm and ammunition industries lobbied Congress to extend the existing 10 percent excise tax and impose a new 11 percent excise tax to create a new fund. The fund was called the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund after Senator Key Pittman of Nevada and Representative A. Willis Robertson of Virginia. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the legislation into law in 1937.

The industry, hunters, and conservationists came together to create this structure. They recognized the importance of conservation. And they encouraged Congress to impose a tax on their guns and ammo. It is rare thing when taxpayers ask to be taxed. But preserving our country's wildlife habitat was and continues to be that important.

Today, more than $700 million each year is generated and used exclusively to establish, restore, and protect wildlife habitats.

Now let me explain the effect that the bill we are introducing today would have on the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund. As the Joint Committee on Taxation explained in its revenue estimate, the net budget effect to the fund is $4 million. This is purely a result of the shift in the timing of collections, from bi-weekly to quarterly, over a 10-year budget window. Consumers of firearms and ammunition would still pay the exact same amount of tax.

The firearm and ammunition industry recognizes the ten-year $4 million loss to the trust fund. The industry developed a comprehensive 5-year proposal to ease this effect. Under the proposal, the industry would contribute $150,000 a year for the next 5 years, a total of $750,000, to the fund.

These actions again show the partnership between hunters, conservation groups, and the firearm and ammunition industry to protect conservation programs and initiatives. That's why this legislation is supported by the following groups: Archery Trade Association; Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Boon and Young; Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation; Delta Waterfowl; Ducks Unlimited; National Rifle Association; National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.; National Wild Turkey Federation; North American Wetlands Conservation Council; Pheasants Forever; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation; Safari Club International; Wildlife Management Institute; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance.

I urge my Colleagues to support this legislation. I am very glad that Senators Lincoln, Snowe, Roberts, Ensign and Enzi have also signed onto this legislation as original cosponsors. I hope that we can come together, just as the industry, hunters, and conservation groups have, to pass this legislation. It is a matter of tax fairness. Let us do our part to correct this inequity in the tax code. Let us do our part to support an American industry that in turn supports wildlife habitat restoration and conservation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business and that the time be charged against the time under the control of the majority on the nomination.

Mr. President, on February 24, President Obama said:

[N]early a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for

reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our

economy and the conscience of our nation long enough. So let

there be no doubt: Health care reform cannot wait, it must

not wait, and it will not wait another year.

I could not agree more with our President. Our next big objective is health care reform. Comprehensive health care reform is no longer simply an option, it is an imperative. If we delay, the problems we face today will grow even worse. If we delay, millions more Americans will lose their coverage. If we delay, premiums will rise even further out of reach. And if we delay, Federal health care spending will soak up an even greater share of our Nation's income.

In the Finance Committee, we have now held 11 hearings preparing for health care reform. We held our latest hearing yesterday. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Dr. Peter Orszag, testified to the Finance Committee about the President's health care budget.

Yesterday, Director Orszag told the committee the cost of not enacting health care reform is enormous. He said:

The cost of doing nothing is a fiscal trajectory that will

lead to a fiscal crisis over time.

Director Orszag said if we do not act, then we will further perpetuate a system in which workers' take-home pay is unnecessarily reduced by health care costs. Director Orszag said if we do not act, then 46 million uninsured Americans will continue to be denied adequate health care. According to the Center for American Progress, the ranks of the uninsured grow by 14,000 people every day--14,000 more people uninsured every day. And Director Orszag said if we do not act, then a growing burden will be placed on State governments, with unanticipated consequences. For example, health care costs will continue to crowd out State support of higher education. That would have dire consequences for the education of our Nation's young people.

We must move forward. Senator Grassley and I have laid out a schedule to do just that. Our schedule calls for the Finance Committee to mark up a comprehensive health care reform bill in June. We should put a health care bill on the President's desk this year.

The President's budget makes a historic downpayment on health care reform. Over the next 10 years, the President's budget invests $634 billion to reform our health care system.

Reforming health care means making coverage affordable over the long run. It means improving the quality of the care. And I might say, our quality is not as good as many Americans think it is, certainly compared to international norms. It means expanding health insurance to cover all Americans. We need fundamental reform in cost, quality, and coverage. We need to address all three objectives at the same time. They are interconnected. If you do not address them together, you will never really address any one of them alone.

Costs grow too rapidly because the system pays for volume, not quality. Quality indicators such as lifespan and infant mortality remain low. Why? Because too many are left out of the system. Families do not get coverage because health costs grow faster than wages. And without coverage, health insurance costs increase because providers shift the cost of uncompensated care to their paying customers. It is a vicious cycle. Each problem feeds on the others.

We need a comprehensive response. Let us at long last deliver on the dream of reform Teddy Roosevelt called for nearly a century ago. Let us at long last lift the burden of health care costs on our economy and on the conscience of our Nation. And let us at long last enact health care reform this year.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time consumed during the quorum call be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 11, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Violent Islamist Extremism: al- Shabaab Recruitment in America.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 11, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``S.J. Res. 7 and H.J. Res. 21: A Constitutional Amendment Concerning Senate Vacancies'' on Wednesday, March 11, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

I thank Senator Grassley. We worked together on the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 in what was a model of bipartisan and bicameral legislating. I do not want to see any provisions of that work jeopardized.

While I am certain that our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee in no way mean to jeopardize the adoption incentive provisions of the Fostering Connections and Increasing Adoptions Act, I also feel that communication with the Finance Committee would have led to an easy remedy. My staff, working with the Congressional Research Service, caught the error as soon as the language was introduced and made available.

We need to work together toward a solution. I am prepared to introduce legislation to correct the error and preserve the work of the Finance Committee, Ways and Means Committee, and child welfare community.

I thank the Senator. I share the Senator's views on this matter. It has taken too long to correct what all parties agree was an unintended outcome of the DRA. I had asked the previous administration to use the discretion provided in the DRA to designate additional health providers as entities to whom the sale of nominally priced drugs is appropriate. The Bush administration chose not to make these designations when it promulgated final regulations on July 17, 2007, and so Congress is acting now to correct this error. The Senate included this provision in last year's Iraq supplemental appropriations bill, but the administration objected to its inclusion so it did not become law.

It is my understanding that, once this provision is enacted into law, drug manufacturers will immediately be able to restore the nominal drug prices they provided to these types of clinics--family planning clinics and college and university health centers--for decades.

This provision simply restores the original policy in place since the enactment of the Medicaid rebate program in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990. Then, as now, no administrative action is necessary for manufacturers to commence offering deep discounts to the entities described in this provision.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act.

This legislation, if passed, is an unprecedented action. For the first time in history, Congress will grant the District of Columbia a voting seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. For decades, citizens of the District of Columbia have fought for their right to vote in Congress.

But this legislation sets precedence in another way. The bill we discuss today does not provide merely one additional seat in the House of Representatives. It adds two. The second seat is given to Utah.

For the first time in history, Congress will specifically set out in legislation an additional seat in Congress for an existing State.

This measure is included in this bill not because of the belief that the people of Utah are in the same position as those living in the District of Columbia. Instead, this additional seat is included in the legislation in an effort to balance the supposed political makeup of the two new districts--one Republican and one Democratic.

I do not support the reasons behind this second additional seat, and thus, I cannot vote in support of this bill.

The State of Utah failed to obtain an additional seat in the last apportionment by a narrow margin. Many in the State felt the reapportionment was unfair. In fact, the State of Utah took its argument all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court but lost that battle in court.

But Utah is not unique. The people of the State of Montana can relate. Mr. President, I would like to share with you today Montana's story.

In the 1910 reapportionment, with a population of 243,000, Montana gained an additional seat in the House of Representatives, for a total of 2 seats. But 80 years later following the 1990 census, 8 States gained a total of 19 additional seats in the House of Representatives, and 13 States lost an equal number.

Montana was one of those States. With a population of over 800,000, Montana lost 1 seat, reducing its voice in the House in half. Losing this seat established the State of Montana as the largest single congressional district in the United States.

In 1990, the average size of the 435 congressional districts was 572,466 people. From 1910 to 1990, Montana's population increased by 563,000 people roughly the size of a modern congressional district.

Yet in 1990, Montana lost a congressional seat. In fact, if Montana had retained its two districts, each would have been closer to the ideal, average district size than the single congressional district.

The State of Montana--just like Utah--sued the U.S. Department of Commerce, asserting the reapportionment was unconstitutional. A three- judge district court panel ruled in favor of the State of Montana. The district court held that the principle of equal representation for equal number of people as applied to State districting by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964, should also be applied to the apportionment of seats among the States.

The U.S. Government appealed the decision. On March 2, 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments on the case. I attended the oral arguments, sitting behind then-attorney general for Montana Marc Racicot, as he argued on behalf of the State of Montana.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court reversed the district court decision, upholding the reapportionment and Montana's lost seat.

The people of Montana accepted that fate and patiently waited for the next reapportionment, hoping to obtain the second seat Montana lost 10 years earlier. Early estimates were promising. The 1995 projection for 2000 census estimated that Montana would regain its second seat.

However, Montana came up short in the 2000 census. Though Montana's population grew by 12.9 percent, nearly matching the national rate, Montana's congressional representation remained the same. In fact, the State came up only 8,000 people short of the number needed, just nine- tenths of 1 percent of the State's population. Only Utah missed gaining another seat with a narrower margin.

Marc Racicot, then-Governor of Montana in 2000, said the unfairness of having such a large district was obvious. The ability of one person to represent over 900,000 is substantially strained, he said.

Today, the State of Montana remains the single most populated congressional district in the United States, at a population over 947,000--far larger than the average population per district of 625,000.

But mere population doesn't tell the whole story.

The State of Montana is the fourth largest State in the country. With over 145,000 square miles, Montana is bigger than the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina combined. It is larger than all of New England.

Though Montana may not be the biggest congressional district based on land mass--Alaska has us beat--Montana's population is spread out more evenly across the State's vast area. Billings, Montana's largest ``city,'' only just recently surpassed 100,000 people.

In Montana, we don't distinguish between rural and nonrural. Rural is a matter of degree, as it compares to an increasingly more urban and suburban Nation.

This bill should be about the District of Columbia and the merits of awarding the taxpayers of the District their right to vote in Congress. Indeed, the bill itself is called the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. But to strike a political deal to maintain the status quo in the Halls of Congress is something I cannot support.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado.) The Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, President John F. Kennedy said:

There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they

are far less than the long-range risks and costs of

comfortable inaction.

President Kennedy's observation applied well to the economic policies of the late 1920s and 1930s. When we look back at the late 1920s and early 1930s, we wonder what our leaders must have been thinking. With the benefit of hindsight, we see that they should have acted more forcefully. We see they should have used the tools of government to increase the demand for goods and services in the economy. By failing to act to spur demand, our leaders prolonged the Great Depression. By seeking to balance the budget in the face of economic decline, our leaders only worsened that decline.

President Kennedy's adage about action applies as well again to the economic policies of our time. Yes, there are risks and costs to the bold program of action we recommend today. But those risks are far less than the long-range risks and costs of failing to act forcefully.

Since this recession began, 3.6 million Americans have already lost their jobs, and job loss is accelerating. In each of the last 3 months, more than half a million American workers lost their jobs. Economists warn that the worst is yet to come.

Last month, before the latest bad news, the Congressional Budget Office--a nonpartisan professional organization--said:

Under an assumption that current laws and policies

regarding Federal spending and taxation remain the same, CBO

forecasts . . . an unemployment rate that will exceed 9

percent early in the year 2010.

Those are the costs of inaction. The costs of inaction will be paid with millions--millions--more lost jobs. The costs of inaction will be paid by the heartache of millions of families plunged into economic hardship.

And so, with the leadership of our new President, we have sought to act forcefully. We have put together this $787 billion package designed to help bring our economy back. We have assembled this package, designed to create and save jobs.

The day before yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office said it will work. The Congressional Budget Office--again, a nonpartisan professional organization--said:

The legislation would increase employment by . . . 1.2

million to 3.6 million by the fourth quarter of 2010.

That is an objective observation done by professional analysts. The administration agrees. The administration projects the legislation before us will create or save 3\1/2\ million jobs.

That is what this debate is about. It is about creating or saving millions of jobs. It is about acting forcefully to avoid yet more hardship. It is about avoiding the far greater risks and costs of comfortable inaction.

The history of the 1920s and 1930s teaches us what we must do. The history of the Great Depression teaches us the costs of delay. This recession is the economic test of our generation. Responding to it with forceful action is our duty. Let us not be found wanting.

So let us not find comfort in ``no'' votes and the blocking of action. Rather, let us rise to the challenge of our generation and let us finally send this jobs bill to the President's desk to become law.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The Senator is correct. In fact, IRS currently counts vehicle registration fees based on a vehicle's value as a personal property tax, which

is deductible. This is true even if the State calls the fee a ``registration fee'' or a ``vehicle use fee.'' In Montana, new passenger vehicles are subject to a $217 fee, as well as a county option tax-based on the value of the vehicle. The same standard should apply to Section 1008.

Yes, that is correct.