Floor Statements

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on cloture on the motion to proceed on H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

Full and fair debate is one of the hallmarks of American democracy and the Senate in particular. All we are voting on today is whether we are going to get to debate, not whether we are going to have FDA regulation of tobacco. But if this vote does not get 60 votes, we will not have the opportunity in this Congress to see whether we can take real steps to curb tobacco use.

Whether you are for this bill or against it, I urge you to support cloture on the motion to proceed. We cannot get to substantive amendments and improvements to the bill until we have cloture on the motion to proceed.

I will have a number of amendments to improve this bill and fight the scourge of tobacco use and its deadly health consequences. In order to get to offer my amendments, I will support cloture on the motion to proceed, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam President, I rise today to talk against the deadly scourge of tobacco. Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. We have to take some dramatic steps to reduce smoking.

Smoking killed my dad, my mom, and my mother-in-law, and secondhand smoking conclusively affected me. This isn't political; this is about the health of all Americans. This bill comes out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, mentioned that we don't want kids to start. We don't want anybody to start. There is enough information out there that can tell you that this will kill you. So don't do something that will kill you. Yes, it is a slow death; it may take a number of years, but it will kill you. Cancer is one of the big results of smoking.

I wish to share a little bit from a contract that an oncologist--a person who deals strictly in solving cancer and providing cancer treatment--makes his patients sign before he will treat them because if they keep smoking, they are adding to the problem, causing recurrences of the problem. It starts off this way:

Tobacco is a dangerous substance. It contains 50

carcinogens (cancer-causing substances) and is a Group A

Carcinogen in the same class as asbestos and radon. It has

many toxic substances besides cancer-causing agents; among

these are insecticides which are used on the tobacco plant.

In some parts of the country, tobacco is used as an

industrial insecticide because of this composition. Tobacco

use is considered the number 1 preventable cause of death in

the world. On average, tobacco users live 35 years less than

non-tobacco users.

I go on to quote:

Tobacco has been found to cause a multitude of cancer

types, whether it is smoked or used in a smokeless fashion.

Tobacco is the number one cause of cardiovascular disease

leading to heart attack and strokes. Emphysema, chronic

bronchitis, and many other diseases are a consequence.

When I care for patients, I expect them to be involved in

the healing process, no matter what disease they are

afflicted by. If they continue to smoke, they do not want to

improve their health. Because of this, they can either

discontinue tobacco and continue under my care, or find

another health care provider.

Any tobacco user followed in our clinic will be given the

opportunity for tobacco cessation (quitting the habit).

They work with them on that.

Tobacco users must discontinue tobacco use within 2 weeks

of the initial consultation.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire contract be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I did notice that in the last couple of weeks, a Federal appeals court has even looked at a landmark ruling that found that the Nation's top tobacco companies were guilty of racketeering and fraud for deceiving the public about the dangers of smoking. A three-judge panel of U.S. courts of appeals in Washington unanimously upheld requirements that manufacturers change the way they market cigarettes. The requirements, which have been on hold pending appeal, would ban labels such as low tar, light, ultra light, or mild, since such cigarettes have been found to be no safer than the others. That is one of the requirements in this bill--that they cannot use that kind of false advertising.

I wish to share some facts with you. The Senator from Connecticut shared some with you. These are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Among current U.S. adult smokers, 70 percent report they want to quit completely. In 2006, an estimated 19.2 million adult smokers had stopped smoking for at least 1 day during the preceding 12 months because they were trying to quit. That is more than 44 percent of the smokers. Think about it--70 percent of smokers want to quit, and 44 percent of them are trying each year. Unfortunately, not enough of them succeed. I know what a terribly addictive thing it is. I watched my parents deal with it. The numbers are even more shocking when we consider youth smokers. Nearly one in five young people smokes, but more than 54 percent of current high school smokers in the United States tried to quit smoking during the preceding year.

We need to get people to stop smoking or, better yet, never start. I support incentives to quit smoking--for example, offering incentives to lower health insurance premiums for those who stop smoking or, better yet, who never start. That becomes a continuing cost to us. The cost of health care is out of control. There seems to be support in the context of health care reform.

Full, fair, and open debate is critical to the democratic process. I am pleased to have the opportunity this week to offer amendments to this bill to help lessen the toll tobacco takes on our society. Senator Dodd mentioned the committee action. We have a committee that works a little differently from some of the others. We look at that opportunity of the committee process to see what the key concerns are and to see how they can be incorporated into making a better bill. That is what Congress is about. That is why we have 100 people here and 435 on the other end of the building, so that we get a lot of backgrounds, opinions, and ideas, so that can avoid unintended consequences and tighten up processes so that what we are trying to do can actually get done.

I appreciate the way this bill has been worked on. One of the things we did, of course, was leave about six amendments to be worked on in the interim, before we actually get to amendments on this bill. I am hopeful those can be worked out so they will tighten up the bill a little bit more.

This Congress does have a unique opportunity to have an impact on smoking and health consequences. My record is clear when it comes to tobacco. I am no friend of big tobacco. I have never taken a dime of tobacco company money for my campaigns, and I don't intend to start now. I have ideas to make a real impact on the public health and win the war on tobacco.

I thank the Senator and all those on the other side of the aisle for the serious consideration they are giving the bill and the opportunity now to have the floor debate. I am hoping we will stick to germane issues so that it will stay a tobacco bill. That is the only way we will actually reach a conclusion on it.

I hope the ideas presented with the goal of making this a better bill will get serious consideration. I am sure they will. I encourage people to bring those ideas forward and, if they will, talk to us a little bit before they put them in to see if they are already under consideration as opposed to already in the bill.

I am thankful for this opportunity. I am glad that the bill is being brought to the floor and that it went through the regular process. I hope something good can come out of this. We need to make sure what we are doing will stop smoking.

I yield the floor.

President, I rise to speak on the introduction of the Livestock Marketing Fairness Act. I want to also acknowledge that I am joined in introducing this legislation by Senators Dorgan, Grassley, and Johnson. The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 was enacted at a time when there was significant concentration in the livestock and poultry industry. That law has since provided livestock producers, the family farmers and ranchers of our country, with a remedy to protect themselves against manipulative and anti-competitive practices in the marketplace. However, since the early 1920s our domestic livestock industry has changed significantly and so too have the ways in which producers market their livestock. Gone are the days when a simple handshake between buyer and seller was all you needed. Changes in marketing have introduced new ways for bad actors to manipulate prices and this legislation is designed to strengthen the laws originally enacted in the Packers and Stockyards Act.

It is no secret that the packing industry in the U.S. has again become increasingly consolidated. In 1985, the four largest packers accounted for 39 percent of all cattle slaughtered in the U.S. Twenty years later, the top four firms controlled over 69 percent of the domestic cattle slaughter and this statistic does not even include the acquisitions that have taken place in the industry since 2007. Being big in agriculture is not bad, but it does present opportunities for a select few to manipulate the market for their own gain. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act strikes at the heart of one particular anti- competitive practice. Over the years, livestock producers, feeders, and packers have been given a number of new marketing tools for price discovery and hedging risk. One of those tools is the forward contract where a buyer and seller agree to a transaction at a specified point of time in the future. However, certain types of forward contracting agreements have become ripe for price manipulation. This is because a growing number of packing operations own their own livestock or control them through marketing agreements. These firms then can buy from themselves when prices are high and buy from others when prices are low. Captive supplies are animals that packers own and control prior to slaughter. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act prohibits certain arrangements that provide packers with the opportunity use their captive supplies to manipulate local market prices. First, the legislation requires that forward contracts contain a ``firm base price'' which is derived from an external source. Though not outlined in the legislation, commonly used external sources of price include the live cattle futures market or wholesale beef market. This ensures that both buyers and sellers have a basis for how pricing in a contract will be derived at the time

the contract is agreed upon. Second, the bill requires that forward contracts be traded in open, public markets. This guarantees that multiple buyers and sellers can witness bids as well as offer their own. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act also ensures that trading of contracts be done in a manner that provides both small and large buyers and sellers access to the market. Contracts are to be traded in sizes approximate to the common number of cattle or pigs transported in a trailer, but the law does not prohibit trading from occurring in multiples of those contracts for larger livestock orders.

I travel to Wyoming nearly every weekend and have heard the same concerns from many of our ranchers. They want to be competitive in the market and sell the best animals possible so that they can continue the work that so many in their family have done for so many years. However, this problem is not isolated to Wyoming. Livestock producers from coast to coast are finding that with consolidation there are fewer and fewer buyers for their animals and their options for marketing too are being lost. This legislation not only increases openness in forward contracting but preserves the right for ranchers to choose the best methods for selling their animals without worry that their agreements will be subject to manipulation. The bill does not apply to producer cooperatives who often own their processing facility. The legislation also carefully targets the problem--large packers owning captive supplies--by also exempting packers that only own one facility and those that do not report for mandatory price reporting. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act does not apply to agreements based on quality grading nor does it affect a producer's ability to negotiate contracts one-on-one with buyers. Therefore, sellers can still choose from a variety of methods including the spot market, futures market, or other alternative marketing arrangements.

This bill is common sense and ensures that our ranchers have access to a competitive market in these difficult economic times. Ranchers aren't asking for a handout. What I am asking for is a level-playing field and an equal opportunity for our ranchers to succeed. I am pleased to say that I am joined by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in working to address this problem. I encourage my other colleagues to support the Livestock Marketing Fairness Act and to join me in giving ranchers an honest chance to make a living.

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

President, I rise to speak on the introduction of the Livestock Marketing Fairness Act. I want to also acknowledge that I am joined in introducing this legislation by Senators Dorgan, Grassley, and Johnson. The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 was enacted at a time when there was significant concentration in the livestock and poultry industry. That law has since provided livestock producers, the family farmers and ranchers of our country, with a remedy to protect themselves against manipulative and anti-competitive practices in the marketplace. However, since the early 1920s our domestic livestock industry has changed significantly and so too have the ways in which producers market their livestock. Gone are the days when a simple handshake between buyer and seller was all you needed. Changes in marketing have introduced new ways for bad actors to manipulate prices and this legislation is designed to strengthen the laws originally enacted in the Packers and Stockyards Act.

It is no secret that the packing industry in the U.S. has again become increasingly consolidated. In 1985, the four largest packers accounted for 39 percent of all cattle slaughtered in the U.S. Twenty years later, the top four firms controlled over 69 percent of the domestic cattle slaughter and this statistic does not even include the acquisitions that have taken place in the industry since 2007. Being big in agriculture is not bad, but it does present opportunities for a select few to manipulate the market for their own gain. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act strikes at the heart of one particular anti- competitive practice. Over the years, livestock producers, feeders, and packers have been given a number of new marketing tools for price discovery and hedging risk. One of those tools is the forward contract where a buyer and seller agree to a transaction at a specified point of time in the future. However, certain types of forward contracting agreements have become ripe for price manipulation. This is because a growing number of packing operations own their own livestock or control them through marketing agreements. These firms then can buy from themselves when prices are high and buy from others when prices are low. Captive supplies are animals that packers own and control prior to slaughter. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act prohibits certain arrangements that provide packers with the opportunity use their captive supplies to manipulate local market prices. First, the legislation requires that forward contracts contain a ``firm base price'' which is derived from an external source. Though not outlined in the legislation, commonly used external sources of price include the live cattle futures market or wholesale beef market. This ensures that both buyers and sellers have a basis for how pricing in a contract will be derived at the time

the contract is agreed upon. Second, the bill requires that forward contracts be traded in open, public markets. This guarantees that multiple buyers and sellers can witness bids as well as offer their own. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act also ensures that trading of contracts be done in a manner that provides both small and large buyers and sellers access to the market. Contracts are to be traded in sizes approximate to the common number of cattle or pigs transported in a trailer, but the law does not prohibit trading from occurring in multiples of those contracts for larger livestock orders.

I travel to Wyoming nearly every weekend and have heard the same concerns from many of our ranchers. They want to be competitive in the market and sell the best animals possible so that they can continue the work that so many in their family have done for so many years. However, this problem is not isolated to Wyoming. Livestock producers from coast to coast are finding that with consolidation there are fewer and fewer buyers for their animals and their options for marketing too are being lost. This legislation not only increases openness in forward contracting but preserves the right for ranchers to choose the best methods for selling their animals without worry that their agreements will be subject to manipulation. The bill does not apply to producer cooperatives who often own their processing facility. The legislation also carefully targets the problem--large packers owning captive supplies--by also exempting packers that only own one facility and those that do not report for mandatory price reporting. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act does not apply to agreements based on quality grading nor does it affect a producer's ability to negotiate contracts one-on-one with buyers. Therefore, sellers can still choose from a variety of methods including the spot market, futures market, or other alternative marketing arrangements.

This bill is common sense and ensures that our ranchers have access to a competitive market in these difficult economic times. Ranchers aren't asking for a handout. What I am asking for is a level-playing field and an equal opportunity for our ranchers to succeed. I am pleased to say that I am joined by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in working to address this problem. I encourage my other colleagues to support the Livestock Marketing Fairness Act and to join me in giving ranchers an honest chance to make a living.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Margaret Hamburg on her confirmation last night by the Senate to be commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. I wish to also thank Dr. Hamburg for her previous public service and her willingness to once again go through the process of Senate confirmation. The vetting process for executive nominees is thorough and not without some degree of personal and professional sacrifice. I thank Dr. Hamburg for her willingness to serve.

Dr. Hamburg is an internationally recognized leader in public health and medicine, and an authority on global health, public health systems, infectious disease, bioterrorism and emergency preparedness. This background is especially important given that the swine flu--H1N1 influenza--has been on the front pages for several weeks and spread across the globe during that time. Dr. Hamburg has a tremendous amount of experience with emergency preparedness.

The FDA has a very broad and critical mission in protecting the public health. Dr. Hamburg is in charge of an agency that regulates $1 trillion worth of products a year. The FDA ensures the safety and effectiveness of all drugs, biological products such as vaccines, medical devices, and animal drugs and feed. It also oversees the safety of a vast variety of food products as well as medical and consumer products, including cosmetics.

As commissioner of the FDA, Dr. Hamburg is responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations in its mission areas, and by helping the public get accurate, science-based information on medicines and foods.

Another core mission of FDA is approving drugs and ensuring their safety. However, the FDA can not ensure the safety of deadly products such as tobacco--it kills people, not cures them. Yet this week the HELP Committee, of which I am the ranking member, is set to consider legislation that would require the FDA to regulate tobacco. At a time when federal dollars are stretched and resources are limited, I have serious concerns about adding more statutory responsibilities at FDA. In addition, given the recalls of spinach, peanuts, peppers, and tomatoes over the past two years, FDA's resources are already stretched too thin on the food safety front.

I represent a State that has substantial agricultural interests. Food safety and food labeling are critically important to me and my constituents. I am hopeful that Dr. Hamburg and I can work together on protecting the American food supply.

Additionally, I look forward to working with the new commissioner to restore the FDA's status as one of the strongest regulatory agencies in the world. I have no doubt that with the right leadership in place and with Congressional oversight, the FDA will again be the gold standard and our regulatory process the envy of the world.

Given Dr. Hamburg's expertise in emergency preparedness, pandemics and public health, I am pleased that the Senate acted quickly on this nomination. Again, I would like to congratulate Dr. Hamburg on her confirmation.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce a resolution today to designate Saturday, July 25, 2009 as ``National Day of the American Cowboy.'' My late colleague, Senator Craig Thomas, began the tradition of honoring the men and women known as ``Cowboys'' five years ago when he introduced the first resolution to designate the fourth Saturday of July as National Day of the American Cowboy. I'm proud to carry on Senator Thomas's tradition.

The national day celebrates the history of Cowboys in America and recognizes the important work today's Cowboys are doing in the United States. The Cowboy Spirit is about honesty, integrity, courage, and patriotism, and Cowboys are models of strong character, sound family values, and good common sense.

Cowboys were some of the first men and women to settle in the American West and they continue to make important contributions to our economy, Western culture and my home state of Wyoming today. This year's resolution designates July 25, 2009 as the National Day of the American Cowboy. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the important role Cowboys play in our country.

Madam President, I thank the chairman for his kind remarks and for the great job he does on very difficult issues.

Anytime you talk about money, whether it is at home, at work, or here in the Senate, it raises a lot of concern and difficulty.

I know this has been a difficult process to work through. Of course, I have a major disagreement with the budget that I want to concentrate on because I am not only on the Budget Committee, I am also on the HELP Committee, which is a big bite of the apple, especially since the President has placed so much emphasis on health care reform and education reform this year. I also happen to be on the Finance Committee. So the three committees have to interact on those issues, particularly the health care issue. I have never been involved in an issue with as many moving parts or as difficult as health care reform, probably because it involves 100 percent of the American people. Seldom do we have a bill that involves that. This also involves every single business and every single health care provider. All of them are nervous and probably ought to be as long as we are in session. I will speak in opposition because of a particular part of the budget resolution conference agreement that I am disappointed in.

As I review the agreement before the Senate, it once again reminds me of the old adage that I have referred to before: You can pay me now or you can pay me later. This budget conference agreement leaves the bills for later. It taxes too much, it spends too much, and it borrows too much. I ask my colleagues if this is the legacy we want to leave our children and grandchildren. Actually, we are going to be paying for it within our lifetimes; it will not be just the next generation. We ought to know better.

Yesterday, we were having a hearing in the HELP Committee where we were talking to several States that have done something significant in the area of health care. I like the roundtable approach. That is where we bring in people who have done something, and they explain how they did it, why, what the results were, what they would do differently. It is not like a regular hearing where one side invites in some of the witnesses, the other side invites one of the witnesses, and then everybody shows up to beat up on the witnesses. This is to get information. It was fascinating because we had Massachusetts, California, Vermont, and Utah--four States that have tried or done something in the area of health care.

Yesterday, California explained their health care reform and had to mention that it failed. I asked why. They said it was primarily because they had a $14 billion deficit they were trying to figure out how to cover, and health care costs money. I did have to point out that our deficit is significantly bigger each and every year. Even proportionately, it is significantly bigger. So that will raise some difficulties. This budget resolution conference agreement doesn't get near to solving that problem, not even in the long run. So we are not considering a conference report that will confront any of the tough financial priority choices that face our country.

As I have said repeatedly, we cannot sustain the current level of spending without inflicting grave danger on the fiscal health of the country. Recently, I noticed that England tried to sell some bonds. They had difficulty selling them. They didn't sell them. Everyone will recall that China has been asking what additional guarantees we would give on our bonds. What does that say? That says that we have maxed out our credit cards. Every individual in America who has ever had a maxed- out credit card knows what that means. It means you can't get more credit. We run on credit, particularly if we run deficits.

One of the most offensive and dangerous parts of this conference agreement is the use of budget reconciliation. It is a procedural tool, and it is a backdoor method to bypass the full and fair legislative process. The Senate was designed to include minority views, and there aren't issues where it is more important to do this on than with health care reform and education reform. I am hoping that on either of those, in order for the American people to have confidence in what we are doing, we will put together a bill that will have 75 or 80 votes. We need to have that kind of agreement in order to have a plan that will work. And Lord help the party that designs one that does not work or that stops the process of getting one to work. Both sides have a tremendous responsibility in the health care and education debates. Either one can end their party with either of those bills. Reconciliation's intended use is for meaningful deficit reduction on budgetary issues. If you attack those problems purely from a budgetary issue, you cannot get to the core of the problem and you cannot resolve it.

I just came from a Senate Finance Committee meeting where we are talking about the Senate Finance Committee piece of health care. That is separate from the HELP Committee portion of health care. Both have to work together, along with the Budget Committee, in order to come up with a plan. Today, we were going through roughly one-third of the problem. We were going to go through the delivery system part, how do we deliver health care. We have a little eight-page document. The first page is just a cover page. The second page is just a summary. The third page is where we spent the last 2 hours. There are five more pages to go. The other five pages are more difficult than the first page. After we finish all of this and reach some resolution, which we are hoping to do before the middle of May, then we have to look at coverage, what kind of coverage people will be given if they are under health care, and we want to get everyone under health care. The final piece we have to do is how to pay for it. So you can see it is a very complicated process.

Reconciliation is intended for the use of meaningful deficit reduction on

budgetary issues. The budget resolution that passed this Chamber in March, the Senate version, was silent on reconciliation. Reconciliation is included in the House budget resolution and was, therefore, an item we resolved during the conference process.

The conference agreement provides reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee and the HELP Committee on both health care reform and higher education. I serve on both committees, and as the ranking Republican on the HELP Committee, I do have expertise on the issues at the heart of the debate.

I also have a track record of legislative accomplishments and getting bills across the finish line. It doesn't do any good to just debate them. If they don't get finished, it never helps anybody. I work on getting them across the finish line. The way to do that is to focus on the 80-percent rule. That means focusing on the issues where there is general agreement 80 percent of the time rather than the 20 percent of the issues where consensus is not likely. On that 80 percent, you have to pick out the 80 percent of the issue that everybody can agree on and find another way, a new way of doing that other 20 percent. Then you can reach the goal. If you are divided at the beginning, you won't get the 80 percent, let alone the other 20. It takes time to keep everybody calm and focused and listening. It takes time to reach solutions, particularly on the 20 percent where you are trying to come up with a new way, where neither side loses face, and get a result.

What we have is a situation where the House of Representatives is dictating the Senate process. How did reconciliation instructions make it into the conference report after so many powerful Senate Democrats-- the Budget Committee chairman, the Finance Committee chairman, the HELP Committee chairman, all of the committees involved in this--opposed using reconciliation and said they would fight to keep it out of the budget? How did that many important people get rolled on this thing? How did that happen? They said they opposed it, but it winds up in there.

The House Rules Committee can allow large, comprehensive bills to be cleared in a single afternoon. They don't need it. They can do it irrespective of whether the bill is designated as reconciliation legislation. However, in the Senate, without privileged designation, it could take a week or more to consider the same legislation. It does take longer over here. That is because we want to get it right. Using the reconciliation process does not allow for a full and open debate in the Senate. It does not allow a thorough vetting and amendment process. Its fast-track nature shuts out Members, particularly from the minority party. It also shuts out centrist Democrats. So it is a declaration that Republican ideas and centrist Democratic ideas are going to be left out of the mix. It is counter to the successful way legislation is typically considered in the HELP Committee. We often work in a bipartisan way that results in much of our legislation being worked out to achieve strong support from both sides of the aisle. Laws such as the Pension Protection Act and the Head Start reauthorization were hundreds of pages in length, and they passed the Senate with little debate and by huge margins.

I am deeply disappointed that the final budget resolution paves the way for a partisan process, particularly on these issues that are important on education and health. I have to say that the most radical on both sides will favor this. The far-left Democrats see this as a way to do it their way. The far-right Republicans see it as a way to delay it so it doesn't get done because they will be able to cause confusion with the amount of time that is involved. That will be bad for both sides. It won't work for the American people. That is why it won't work for either side. That is why we have to be centrist on this and pull together 75 or 80 people who can agree on these issues. That will take time in committee. If we do the proper amount in committee, it will take less time on the floor. We have proven that with past legislation. To just throw out this little bomb that says we are going to do this in a very short period of time really affects the ability to work closely together.

One truly difficult challenge this Congress has to address is how to get control of America's exploding health care costs. Simply throwing more money at the problem is not a solution. Real health care reform has to be bipartisan. It has to have a full and open debate. If we enact the wrong health care fix, we will worsen our budget crisis. Enacting reforms without reducing costs represents an unsustainable promise that the American people will long regret.

It is taking us time to do these roundtables and hearings. Yesterday, Massachusetts, Vermont, California, and Utah talked about their experiences. We learned a lot. Both sides learned a lot. They have learned a lot. The States are really laboratories for the Federal Government. What works at the State level might have some transformation to the Federal level. On the other hand, if we take it all at the Federal level and we do one-size-fits-all, we can damage efforts that can be done at the local level. The local level is where people live.

Health care reform is too big an issue to advance with procedural shortcuts. There never has been a bill with as many moving parts that affects as many people as health care reform will. To get a workable solution, it will require the effort of everybody in the Senate. We can bring them together and do that. If we can't come up with a plan that will garner the support of at least 75 or 80 Senators, this institution will not gain the confidence of the American people. Without that confidence, the plan will fail. We will never overcome the objections that will be raised.

Misusing the reconciliation process to get a health care bill or higher education reforms is not the right approach. It conflicts with the new bipartisan spirit the President has promised. This is a disappointing day in the Senate. Moving a health care reform bill through reconciliation rehashes what we have been suffering from--the Pelosi war cry: We won the election, we get to write the bills. That is not right. This kind of partisanship disenfranchises millions of Americans--not just Senators, millions of Americans--and it is wrong. They are looking for commonsense solutions, not party messages.

The American people deserve a good bipartisan bill that will work. Using reconciliation will make that impossible. While I expect that Chairman Conrad has the votes to adopt this conference agreement, I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution and on the basis of needing to have good health care reform done the right way with everybody working on it. That is exactly how it has to be. It cannot be just one side. Anybody who opposes health care reform--unless it is because it was rushed through with just one party listening--will suffer too. If we get everybody together, we can come up with a plan that will work. I regret that ever made it into the budget. I still cannot believe that could be a part of it--the House, that does not need it, imposing it on a Senate that knows better.

Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Governor Kathleen Sebelius as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. As U.S. Senators, one of our most important responsibilities is confirming qualified, and, hopefully, superior nominees to lead our executive agencies. I am one of several Senators with strong reservations regarding the nomination of Governor Sebelius, and it is important to take this time to explain my opposition to this appointment.

In order to fulfill our responsibilities under the advice and consent clause properly, this institution has a process for vetting Presidential nominees. The nominee is required to complete a host of paperwork to the authorizing committee, in this case the Senate Finance Committee, accompanied by a sworn affidavit. I was very disappointed to learn that Governor Sebelius amended her paperwork to the Finance Committee as a result of unpaid taxes and understated campaign contributions.

The HELP Committee held a hearing on Governor Sebelius' nomination due to the high number of health and early learning statutes and programs that fall under the committee's jurisdiction. During this hearing, I asked Governor Sebelius her thoughts on using reconciliation to advance comprehensive health care reform legislation. Her response was to keep all options on the table.

I couldn't disagree more. But unfortunately it appears that is the direction health care reform will take this year. This week the Senate will vote on a conference agreement for the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution that includes reconciliation for health care reform. Using budget shortcuts--known inside the beltway as reconciliation--is the exact opposite of keeping all options on the table because it shuts out members of the minority party. It will also shut out many centrist Democrats, who want to see health care reform based on a competitive private market, which is fully paid for. That is not a formula for bipartisan success. An open, transparent process with a full debate is the best way to achieve a bipartisan product.

At both the Member and staff level, Senators on both sides of the aisle continue to meet regularly to discuss health care reform, and specifically what shape it will take. I believe that if we continue to negotiate in good faith, this process can lead to a bipartisan health reform bill that will enjoy broad bipartisan support now and in the future.

Ensuring access to affordable, quality and portable health care for every American is not a Republican or a Democrat issue--it is an American issue. Our health care system is broken, and fixing it is one area where I hope my 80 percent rule comes into play so commonsense reforms can be made. People who have worked with me over time know that the 80 percent rule is one of the main philosophies I follow to get things done. In applying this rule, I try to focus on the 80 percent of the issues the Senate generally agrees upon, while not fixating on the remaining 20 percent, which are divisive and can sometimes overwhelm the majority of issues that we agree on.

The next Secretary of HHS will undoubtedly have a critical seat at the table in the health care reform debate. For these reasons it is important to have a Secretary in place who supports an open, transparent process without the distraction of tax issues, misreported campaign contributions, and questionable affiliations.

I respect that the President is entitled to staff the executive branch with individuals of his choosing. We may not always agree on every issue. I am and will remain staunchly pro-life, and will continue to advocate for legislation to protect the rights of the unborn. However, if Governor Sebelius is confirmed, I will diligently work with her to overcome obstacles standing in the way of solutions to the health care problems facing America.

Prior to her hearing, I met with Governor Sebelius and we discussed the unique challenges that face rural and frontier states. People living in rural areas in Kansas, similar to those in Wyoming, face difficulties in access to primary care physicians and preventive services. Rural and frontier areas struggle to attract and retain doctors and other health care providers. In the 10-steps health care reform bill I introduced last year, I emphasized the importance of access to affordable health care for people in rural and underserved areas. Governor Sebelius understands the challenges in this area--and I hope we can work together to find solutions for this common priority.

In closing, while I intend to vote no on this nomination, it is my hope and expectation that we will put aside our differences to find meaningful solutions that will make a positive difference in people's lives.

Madam President, built into this budget is an assumption that the 33 percent and 35 percent tax brackets would be allowed to expire. As a result, many individuals and small businesses would see their taxes rise substantially in the very near future.

The Administration has been quick to explain that the tax hike wouldn't

take effect until January 2011 after the economy has rebounded. But no one can be sure when our economy will turn the corner and the administration's economic assumptions have been criticized as being more optimistic than most.

While I do not support raising taxes--especially in this economic climate--I realize I am in the minority in this Chamber. So I am here now to offer my friends across the aisle a chance to improve this budget resolution.

My amendment would block any tax increase until the economy has recovered. A sure sign of recovery would be a reduction in the unemployment rate to 5.8 percent, a level many private sector economists associate with a fully productive economy.

Common sense tells us that employment is a key indicator of our economy's strength and potential for growth. The organization formally tasked with identifying U.S. recessions, the National Bureau of Economic Research--NBER--used job numbers to determine the start date of our current recession and it is only right to use job numbers as a signal that it has ended.

I don't support the tax increases in this budget, but if the majority in this Chamber insists on moving forward with higher taxes, they shouldn't do it while the economy is mired in recession.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I have been allocated 5 minutes. I ask the Chair to let me know when 1 minute is remaining.

Mr. President, today is April Fool's Day and the biggest prank I have seen so far is the one proponents of this budget are trying to pull on the American taxpayer.

Proponents of this budget say the plan is transparent, but the authors knowingly hide a stunning explosion in long-term debt by conveniently dropping the last 5 years of their budget.

Proponents of this budget say the plan cuts taxes for low- and middle-income families, but right there on page 32 is the blueprint for a plan that would raise taxes on anyone who drives a car or heats their home that probably includes almost everybody.

Proponents of this budget will say that it cuts spending, but this plan adds nearly $5 trillion to the public debt in just 5 short years.

Proponents of this budget say this plan is honest because for the first time it extends protections against the tenacious reach of the alternative minimum tax, but revenues from the AMT mysteriously reappear in 2013 and 2014.

Proponents of this budget will say it contains no reconciliation instructions and preserves an important minority privilege. But this budget doesn't preclude reconciliation either, and my colleagues know that our brethren in the House of Representatives are banging on our Chamber doors with a budget that does include reconciliation--which is odd because they don't need it at their end at all. They have a Rules Committee that takes care of all that.

Now I know folks back home in Wyoming are listening to me, scratching their heads and saying ``what the heck is reconciliation and why should I care?'' Let me sum it up this way: reconciliation is the on-ramp to a national energy tax. Reconciliation will make it impossible for me to protect your family from higher energy prices. Reconciliation will make it impossible for me to protect your community from cost-cutting layoffs. Reconciliation will make it impossible for me to make your voice heard here in Washington, DC.

Reconciliation does not allow for a full and open debate. Reconciliation does not allow a thorough vetting and amendment process. Reconciliation's fast-track nature shuts out members of the minority party and will shut out

many centrist Democrats too. Reconciliation is the declaration that any idea other than the majority party idea has no place at the drafting table--just as, so far, there has been no recognition of a Republican idea. I know all the ideas aren't great--but not even one?

As a former committee chairman and the co-author of many successful bipartisan bills, I know firsthand that ramming through reconciliation is not a successful model for good government, and it is certainly counter to the way Senator Kennedy and I work together on the HELP Committee. Senator Kennedy and I strive to work together in a bipartisan fashion to achieve legislation that both sides can support. Laws like the Pension Protection Act, the Head Start reauthorization, and the MINER Act were hundreds of pages in length but passed with little dissent in the Senate. The budget resolution we have adopt for the new fiscal year ought to follow a similar bipartisan model, especially on issues like education and health care which are so important to the future of our Nation.

Misusing the reconciliation process to get a health care bill is not the right approach and it conflicts with the new bipartisan spirit that President Obama has promised. A bill passed without work and agreement by both parties on the front end is more like a shotgun wedding than legislating.

This budget includes a massive tax increase--$361 billion in explicit tax hikes and $1.3 trillion embedded in 27 different reserve funds. And despite the ``Robin Hood'' rhetoric of taxing just the ``rich,'' the tax increases contained in this budget will hit all Americans. No one is spared: This budget raises taxes on energy. If you drive a car or heat your home, your taxes will go up. That comes under cap and trade, and there is a clever little thing in here which is where they get the tax cut from. They are going to raise your taxes on all the energy you use, then they are going to give it back to you so you can pay for that. But it will not be an equal distribution based on what you are using.

This budget raises taxes on senior citizens who are dependent on dividend and capital gains income for the retirement income.

This budget raises taxes on charitable contributions at a time when we need charity the most.

This budget reinstates the death tax, making it harder to keep the family ranch or family farm or family business in the family.

This budget raises taxes on small business. More than half of all small businesses that employ between 20 and 500 employees will see their tax bills rise and jobs eliminated. Small business is the incubator for entrepreneurship and we should protect it and nurture it, not tax it. That is where the community donations come from.

And most foolish of all, none of this ``new'' money will help reduce the deficit. Instead, this budget directs all new taxpayer money to the expansion of big Government--more Government programs we can't afford.

I think a newspaper columnist, Diane Badget from Lovell, WY, said it best when she wrote how her mother would react to what is happening in Washington today. Diane wrote, ``Momma always said, `If you don't have enough money to buy a quart of milk you don't take someone else's hard- earned cash and buy ice cream.' ''

The budget we are debating this week certainly would put us on the hook for a lot of figurative ice cream all right--all kinds of flavors. This budget charts ominous new policy directions for healthcare, education and energy.

I ask unanimous consent her entire article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, has argued that we need to fix health care in order to address our current economic crisis--a sentiment echoed by many in this Chamber. But this argument misses an important point. If we enact the wrong health care fix, our budget crisis will get even worse. Simply throwing more money at the problem--as this budget suggests--is not a solution.

I am concerned about the direction of energy policy in this budget. This budget leaves open the possibility of putting in place a carbon cap-and-trade system which will lead to higher energy prices for families and small businesses. Enacting such a system is the equivalent of placing a national tax on energy usage. Raising energy prices at a time when families are struggling to make ends meet just doesn't make sense.

I don't support Federal policies that will increase energy costs, even in good economic times, but it is especially troubling that the budget lays the framework for this national energy tax when unemployment is above 8 percent and rising.

What we need to do now is prepare for the worst and hope for the best. That is the way to make a better future because in the end this budget isn't about numbers. It is about people. But this budget doesn't prepare us for the future. It robs from it.

America, this budget taxes too much, spends too much and borrows too much. I am not fooled by this budget and I hope you are not either.

Exhibit 1

[From the Lovell Chronicle, Mar. 26, 2009]

If Ma Was in Charge

(By Diane Badget)

Gee, I wish my mom was in charge in Washington. Things

would be a lot different with her up there watching every

move. She had eyes in the back of her head and nothing got

past her radar.

Ma would have taken one look at the stimulus package and

had a fit. ``You have one minute to explain to me what you

were thinking. Your time started yesterday.''

She would have chewed out our president for spending so

many hours each day in front of TV cameras pushing his

inflated budget and stimulus package at the expense of

everything else. ``Barack,'' she would scold, ``you get out

of that TV set right now and let someone else have a turn.

For heaven's sake, you are a President now, not a candidate--

start acting like it.''

Boy, she would have let Congress have it! ``You kids have

until the count of three to stop that arguing and stomping

around. Don't make me come up there or you'll all be sorry!''

There'd be a long pause and then she'd warn, ``I don't CARE

who started it--if I have to come up there I know who'll end

it!''

If Ma asked a plain question she'd expect a plain answer,

and that would mean accepting responsibility for mistakes

immediately. I can hear her now: ``Don't you be blaming this

mess on each other. I know when someone is wetting on my leg

and telling me it's a rainstorm.''

Ma didn't believe in complex ideas. Heck, I'm not even sure

she understood them. ``If you keep things simple,'' she'd be

telling the economists, ``you don't have so much to remember

and fix later.''

I don't think the banking executives would get by

unscathed, either. ``Now, fellas, how much sense does it make

to bounce a check and then send the bank another check to

cover your overdraft? You know better than that! If you can't

learn how to handle money then we need to rethink your

allowances.''

She would have rolled those incredible blue eyes and

questioned the experts. ``We have to jump start the banks,

jump start the auto industry, and jump start the economy?

Maybe it's time to stop jump starting and just replace the

stupid battery!''

Throwing good money after bad was a pet peeve of hers, and

she'd flat let the politicians hear about it. ``Doggone it!

If you drop a one dollar bill in the john and are dumb enough

to throw a five dollar bill in after it to see what's gonna

happen, don't whine when someone else comes along and flushes

the toilet.''

She wouldn't have cared that Congress has its own agenda

and that it has nothing to do with what she would think was

best. She'd hit the hallowed halls of the Capitol Building

yelling, ``As long as you are under MY roof you'll do as

you're told.''

Ma didn't believe in politics. She never voted. With an air

of superiority I once made the mistake of telling her that if

she didn't vote she really shouldn't be complaining about the

people who got elected. I don't remember much after that.

Senators and Representatives wouldn't stand a chance

against her common sense and strong moral fiber. She'd give

one of those guaranteed-to-have-you-regret-your-conception

looks and pull no punches. ``I don't care what the Speaker of

the House said to do. If she told you to jump off a cliff

would you do it?'' Um, no Ma, not with you at the bottom

ready to kick my behind when I landed.

She definitely wouldn't be happy about the amount of money

being discussed. ``What in the heck is wrong with you? If you

don't have enough money to buy a quart of milk you don't take

someone else's hard earned cash and buy ice cream.'' And she

never would have understood the concept of deficit spending.

``You be careful with that money. When it's gone, it's

gone.''

If she'd known about the way health care reform would be

buried in the stimulus package she would I have come

uncorked. ``Alright, just for that little stunt I'm going to

sneak broccoli into everything you eat--and

you'll eat it and be grateful. There are thousands of

starving Americans who would be thrilled to have what you

have.''

She would have chewed them out for being wasteful and for

hoping that waste would somehow make things all better.

``Garbage is garbage. No point in giving it a fancy name

because it won't change the smell.''

She'd look at all the palms outstretched waiting for their

share of the bailout and just shake her head. ``I told you

what would happen if you got too big for your britches,''

she'd lecture. ``You got yourselves into this mess, so now

you get yourselves out.''

What Washington needs is a good dose of Ma. She'd get them

back on track. I think they've forgotten that you can't fill

up the bathtub unless you put the plug in the drain first.

Good Grief! It's finally happened. I sound just like my

mother! Thank you, Lord.

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

Madam President, I rise in support of the Serve America Act. I haven't been here for the debate. Wyoming has been under snow, particularly the part of Wyoming I happened to be in. I thank the people who made it possible for me to get back as soon as I have. It has kept me from this very important legislation. I am grateful for the leadership of Senator Hatch in the management of this bill and keeping the process moving. He has played a tremendous role in the drafting of this bill, and it is appropriate that he manage the bill and continue to do so.

I also thank Senator Mikulski for defending the bipartisan process. I know it has not been easy. I am sorry I missed my friend Senator Kennedy's appearance on Tuesday evening. I look forward to his quick return to the day-to-day business of the Senate.

Let me turn to the issue of the national service reauthorization before us. My mother always told me service to others is the rent we pay for the space we take up. This bill will help millions of Americans fulfill that rent payment. After 16 years, we finally have the opportunity to take a hard look at the law surrounding national service and making necessary changes to improve accountability, reduce bureaucracy, and ensure we get the maximum return on the investment we are making.

Although the process we took to reach this point was rushed, it was bipartisan throughout. It is not a perfect agreement, but it includes key Republican concepts such as eliminating waste, and it addresses serious concerns about the management and operations of the AmeriCorps program. Senators Hatch and McCain have been stalwarts in keeping us focused on the importance of national service. Each of them has given back to their communities and country through their individual sacrifices and commitment to service. Without their leadership, we would not be here today.

I also congratulate Senator Mikulski on the work she has done to ensure this bipartisan process and her willingness to focus on the 80 percent we can agree on to get this bill done. We do need to get it done.

Finally, I cannot proceed without acknowledging our friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy, and his lifelong commitment to the issue of national service. He is dedicated to making sure everyone who is called to national service has the opportunity to serve in programs that address the needs of their communities. We look forward to his speedy recovery and return to the Senate.

A comprehensive reauthorization of our national service programs is long overdue. Congress has not given these programs a hard look for 16 years. Working across the aisle and with our colleagues in the House, we have been able to identify areas where we can enact reforms, eliminate waste, and expand our national service efforts responsibly. This bill strengthens the management, oversight, and fiscal accountability of these Federal programs while it expands accessibility and streamlines bureaucracy, which is particularly critical for smaller and rural programs.

As the Senate's only accountant, I am particularly concerned about how these programs have struggled to get their financial house in order. I am pleased that the bill before us strengthens the role of the chief financial officer and the inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community Service and moves to fixed price grants that will streamline these programs. This bill now requires the Corporation's board of directors to review the national service budget submission before it goes to OMB.

Additionally, when the inspector general recovers misspent national service funds, the bill requires that those funds go back into the national service trust. With these changes, I believe we are creating tools that will allow the corporation to better safeguard taxpayer dollars.

I hear from Wyoming constituents about the need to make these programs more responsive to the challenges facing small grantees and rural communities. In this bill, we have taken steps to reduce Federal bureaucracy and improve access for small grantees. By giving the corporation the flexibility to use fixed price grants, we are reducing the significant paperwork and administrative burdens that have plagued these programs in the past. We will really see the impact of streamlining access to these programs as the corporation reaches out to more effectively help Native American communities and tribal governments.

In the past, a significant portion of the 1 percent set-aside for programs serving Native American communities has not been used. Too often, these are communities that experience the most extreme needs for education, health, and workforce services. I am encouraged that the corporation has recently brought on board a strategic adviser for Native American affairs. They are bringing to the table the kind of focused expertise that can help improve the ability of tribes to access the programs in the National and Community Service Act and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act.

These opportunities are critically important. One of the ways youth in Wyoming engage in service is through the Congressional Award Council which connects them to service opportunities and sponsors an award ceremony. In Cheyenne, young people are conducting CPR and first aid classes, improving disaster preparedness training in the community. That is all on a completely volunteer basis. They get a little medal for doing a lot of hours of service. Each year the council sponsors an award ceremony where members of the congressional delegation award certificates and bronze and silver medals. Gold medal recipients have a special opportunity to travel to Washington, DC, in June to receive their medals.

I am also pleased this bill creates a veterans corps that provides veterans with an opportunity to use their skills and leadership abilities after they leave the military. Participating in this corps is a way for Americans to provide the essential support that military families need while their husbands, wives, sons, and daughters are deployed.

An opportunity corps has been included to address challenges in disadvantaged low-income communities, which is particularly fitting in this time of economic uncertainty. As part of this corps, we have emphasized the need many Americans have for financial literacy education and job placement assistance. I am very supportive of provisions in this bill that build connections to the needs of our workforce.

I thank Senator Mikulski for working with me to find a third way to resolve the issue of how best to introduce competition into the senior corps program. In Wyoming, over 1,000 people a year participate as senior companions, foster grandparents, or community volunteers. They perform services such as conducting safety patrols and participating in environmental cleanup projects. The original proposal around competition would have seriously disrupted the important services provided by these programs. In this bill, we have arrived at a workable solution that will improve the good work being done in these programs through technical assistance and responsible competition.

I also thank Dr. Coburn for his thoughtful contribution to the establishment of metrics to be used in evaluating the performance of our national service programs. We reached quick agreement around his proposal between committee markup and today, and we will be able to incorporate his suggestions into this bill.

I want to focus on that a little bit more because this is a committee that has been one of the most contentious and is now one of the most productive because of this working together, working through the process, and then working after the process. Dr. Coburn brought up these important changes that he thought the bill needed. We looked at them. They were good ideas. We were able to get the language right and get it incorporated into this bill so we will have a better idea of how each of these programs is working.

I understand the concern that we are going too far in expanding these programs. I agree it is not a perfect bill.

We took out a number of programs and put in some ideas that were important to Senator Hatch and to Senator Kennedy. It has held the line and focused on what needs to be done.

By being at the table and working in a bipartisan way, we have been able to limit the number of new programs and control the proposed increases in discretionary spending. We have also added accountability and performance measures at every step of the way for each program.

I also would like to clarify further what this bill does. In exchange for an education award and small stipend, we are supporting Americans who have made a commitment to mobilize their neighbors to address the pressing needs of their communities. We are leveraging the efforts of a few to mobilize millions. I am pleased we have worked in a bipartisan way to negotiate a bill we can support in the Senate. It should receive strong support in the House. The 80 percent we have agreed upon is good policy. It reinforces both Democratic and Republican principles, and it will benefit disadvantaged communities across the country.

I am confident the House will concur with the bill ultimately passed off of the Senate floor. This bill will then reach the President's desk quickly. I do hope we can get finished in an expedited manner. I am pleased with the cooperation and the work that people who were not even on the committee have done. That will make a difference in getting this very important bill to the finish line.

As I mentioned, it has been 16 years since we took a hard look at these programs. The committee, particularly Senator Hatch and Senator Mikulski, worked through this bill, along with Senator Kennedy and myself. We made some very strong improvements that will make this a very workable program and one that we will be proud to move forward.

I ask Members to restrain amendments and help us get this bill finished today.

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

I would like to thank Senator Mikulski for all the hard work that she, Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch have put into crafting this bipartisan legislation. After 16 years we finally have the opportunity to take a hard look at the laws surrounding national service, and we are making necessary changes to improve accountability, reduce bureaucracy, and ensure that we get maximum return on the taxpayer's investment.

Early in this process we recognized that an important challenge we would face in the reauthorization of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act was the desire of many to inject more competition into the SeniorCorps programs.

These programs provide important services in every one of our States. In Wyoming there are more than 1,300 older Americans who are working to meet the needs of their communities in one of three Senior Corps programs: Retired Senior Volunteers, Senior Companion, and Foster Grandparents. In the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program--RSVP-- volunteers are working in Casper and Cheyenne to conduct safety patrols, participate in environmental projects, and provide tutoring and mentoring services.

We have included performance indicators throughout the bill that will help us to evaluate the work of these programs. In the RSVP program, we reached bipartisan agreement to phase in a competitive grant process that provides incentives for organizations to improve their coordination with other community-based organizations, to increase their compliance with program requirements, and to assess their strengths and areas in need of improvement.

We have included requirements that this new process put transparency first. The process by which the Corporation develops regulations and performance measures should be open and inclusive. As the Corporation for National Community Service moves through the regulatory process, we expect them to take seriously the public comments they receive for how best to move forward with greater competition in this program. There is a lot of on-the-ground expertise within the community of RSVP directors, and we expect the Corporation will listen to their recommendations, the recommendations of the National Association of RSVP Directors, and involve representatives from these communities in the peer review process.

Finally, I understand that this new process has the potential for creating some new paperwork and administrative burdens on grantees in the RSVP program. Does the Senator see a way for those concerns to be addressed?

Madam President, I am pleased that the Serve America bill was considered through the regular legislative process. We held a hearing and a markup in the HELP Committee and reported it to the floor. Amendments have been offered, debated and dealt with, and we are about to vote to pass the bill. Although we have had to work faster than most of us would have preferred, it has been a bipartisan process every step of the way. While this is not a perfect bill, it is a better bill because we have followed regular order. The result is good policy with bipartisan support.

We have finally taken a hard look at the laws surrounding national service, and made necessary changes to improve accountability, reduce bureaucracy, and ensure that we get maximum return on the investment we're making. The bill includes key Republican concepts such as eliminating waste, and addressing serious concerns about the management and operations of the AmeriCorps programs. It strengthens the oversight and fiscal accountability of these Federal programs, while it expands accessibility and streamlines bureaucracy, which is particularly critical for smaller and rural programs.

The role of the chief financial officer and the inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community Service are strengthened. Additionally, the Corporation's board of directors is required to review the national service budget submission before it goes to OMB, and recovered misspent funds must go back to the national service trust.

As the only accountant in the Senate I wanted to make sure that we provided the Corporation with the tools it needs to be on sound financial ground as it moves forward. I believe that with the changes we have made, the Corporation for National and Community Service will be a better steward of the taxpayers' money, and we will see ever increasing numbers of Americans serving in their communities to address locally determined needs and challenges.

This bill is good for Wyoming because it makes programs more responsive to rural needs. It reduces paperwork and administrative burdens through fixed price grants so that so that programs can work better for small and rural communities.

The impact of streamlining access to these programs will allow the Corporation to reach out more effectively to Native American communities and tribal governments, particularly now that it has brought on board a strategic adviser for Native American Affairs. Often these communities are the ones experiencing the most extreme needs for education, health and workforce services. With these changes I am hopeful that the increased set-aside for programs serving Native American communities will not be underutilized and used more efficiently.

During the course of this debate we have heard about the many other important changes and improvements that we have made to the national service programs. I am glad that we have been able to improve the bill even more through the amendment process.

This bill represents a landmark bipartisan achievement in a time of fierce partisanship. By working in a bipartisan way we have limited the number of new programs and controlled increases in discretionary spending. We have also added accountability and performance measures at every step of the way for each program. This bill will mobilize millions of faith-based organizations, church groups, nonprofits, and individuals to volunteer their time and energy freely to serve their communities. It does not include any mandates of any kind for individuals or groups to volunteer.

I am pleased that this bill creates a Veterans Corps that provides services so important for returning veterans and their families. The bill establishes an Opportunity Corps to address issues in disadvantaged, low income communities, emphasizing financial literacy, education and job placement assistance, which are particularly fitting in this time of economic uncertainty. I am very supportive of provisions in this bill that build connections to the needs of our workforce.

With Senator Mikulski I believe that we have found a way to introduce responsible competition into the SeniorCorps programs. The original proposal around competition would have seriously disrupted the important services provided by these programs. Finding a solution was particularly important in Wyoming as over 1,000 people a year participate as senior companions, foster grandparents or community volunteers.

This is a bill that deserves our support, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for it. What we have agreed upon is good policy that reinforces Republican principles and will benefit disadvantaged communities across the country. I am confident that the House will concur with what we have done, pass the bill quickly, and send it to the President for his signature.

As debate on this legislation comes to a close it is necessary to thank those who have worked long and hard on this bill. First and foremost I would like to thank Chairman Kennedy and Senator Hatch for agreeing to work together on designing the Serve America Act. It is a fine example of the importance of working together. I want to further acknowledge our friend and colleague Senator Kennedy. His is a life of dedication to national service and commitment to the issue of national service. I am sorry that I missed him when he was here earlier this week. However, I know that we all look forward to his complete recovery and return to the Senate.

I also want to thank Senator Hatch for his management and leadership in shepherding this bill over the past few days. He has kept us focused on the importance of national service through his actions and dedication.

And I want to congratulate Senator Mikulski for the work she has done to ensure a bipartisan process and her willingness to work round the clock to get this bill done.

I would like to thank everyone on my staff who has worked tirelessly to get us to this point. In particular I would like to thank Frank Macchiarola, Greg Dean, Adam Briddell and Beth Buehlmann. I would also like to thank members of Senator Kennedy's and Senator Mikulski's staff for their hard work--Michael Myers, Portia Wu and Emma Vadehra, and Mario Cardona and Ben Gruenbaum. Thank you also to Senator Hatch's staff, Chris Campbell and Bryan Hickman. I also want to thank Liz King and Kristin Romero, the excellent legislative counsels who worked many long hours to carefully draft bill language. Finally, I thank all of the members of the HELP Committee and their staffs for their hard work.

Madam President, I would like to state my position on four votes I missed in the Senate on March 23 to 25, 2009.

I was unable to vote due to being in Gillette, WY, during blizzard conditions.

If in attendance, I would have voted as follows: March 23, 2009-- ``yea'' on vote 108, motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 1388; and March 25, 2009--``yea'' on vote 109, confirmation of David S. Kris, of Maryland, to be Assistant Attorney General; ``yea'' on vote 110, motion to waive Congressional Budget Act on the Crapo amendment No. 688; and ``nay'' on vote 111, motion to table Ensign amendment No. 715.

Mr. President, I was intending to walk through here on the way back to my office when I saw the sign blaming Republicans for everything--it blames us for the crisis, it blames us for--we keep talking about bipartisanship, but that is not the way you develop bipartisanship.

We did have some bipartisan votes today in the Budget Committee. One of them was to have an investigation into what is happening. I bet you are not going to point the finger at just one party on that. I am betting there is plenty of blame to go around on the situation we are in. Congress has contributed, as well as business, as well as employees. We are going to find out the country has been on a path and is still on a path that is not sustainable. We maxed out our credit cards and that causes a lot of problems. Now we are still trying to figure out how to spend more money.

I was disappointed that we went into a partisan speech right after such a bipartisan effort that happened in this Chamber. We passed a bill this afternoon that is going to provide 7 million volunteers across America, that is going to make a real difference for America.

One of the problems I have with Washington is when something good like that happens, it kind of disappears overnight; when something nasty happens, it is talked about forever. We have to talk more about bipartisanship. We have to stop blaming each other and start working together.

One of the ways that bill got done this afternoon is we have been following an 80-percent rule. We know we can agree on 80 percent of the stuff, and we did. Actually, we went a little further than that because we found some third ways in part of the other 20 percent. That made a bill that both sides could agree on that could get finished. There will be more work to do in that area.

I am glad we got that done this afternoon. I hope it is not a little, tiny paragraph in the paper. It probably will not be because it was named after the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, because he has been such a leader in this effort and worked on this bill for years and certainly deserves to have the bill named after him.

That should not be the only reason we get publicity on something such as this bill. There ought to be people looking at what we achieved and talking about what was achieved and talking about how, on a bipartisan basis, Democrats and Republicans sat down and said: This is what we need. We also said these are programs that are not working; let's replace them. We did that, and we did that in a very fiscally responsible way.

That is what can happen when both sides work together. We need to do more of that. We need to do a little bit less blaming. We are not even close to an election right now. So the blame game does not need to be done.

I certainly hope we can work for some common goals. I think we have some common goals. Next week, we will be talking about the budget, and there are even some common things on that. But I am willing to bet what we talk about on this floor will be the 20 percent we do not agree on, and that is the 20 percent that can ruin America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this morning I want to address the budget a little bit, and to all Americans, I want to be clear: I want to work with the President to get our economy back on track. I want to fix housing, reform the financial markets, and help every citizen get access to high-quality, affordable health care. I want our President to succeed in leading our Nation out of this economic crisis.

But I draw the line with President Obama's idea of raising taxes. He may think it is a great idea to raise taxes in the midst of a recession, but I surely don't. The President's proposed tax increase is a whopper--$1.4 trillion in new taxes, which is equal to the annual economic output of all of Spain.

Despite the White House rhetoric, these taxes will hit all Americans. No one is spared. This budget raises taxes on energy. If you drive a car or heat your home, your taxes are going to go up.

This budget raises taxes on small business. More than half of small businesses that employ between 20 and 500 employees--that is the Federal definition of ``small business,'' 20 and 500 employees--will see their tax bills rise and jobs eliminated.

This budget raises taxes on senior citizens who are dependent on dividend and capital gains income for retirement income.

This budget raises taxes on charitable contributions. Just the announcement that it will happen, we have already seen decreasing charitable contributions. Of course, a lot of those charitable contributions are ones that come from these small business employers who have single proprietorships or small business corporations where they have to pay their taxes right away, even though they have to put all that money back into the company. I will talk about that later.

This budget reinstates the death tax, making it harder to keep the family farm, the family ranch, or the family business in the family.

This budget simply taxes too much. I heard lots of complaints from Wyoming ranchers about the President's tax increase. Many of our ranches and farms are structured as S corporations or limited liability corporations, and this tax hike would hurt them.

The President will say his proposal to let some 2001 tax cuts expire will affect only 3 percent of all taxpayers, but this statistic obscures the fact that these taxpayers employ the most number of workers and generate the most economic activity of all small business entities.

According to a 2007 Treasury Department report, over 30 percent of all business income comes from passthrough entities, such as S corporations, partnerships, and limited liability companies. That means it goes right back in to take care of the business.

Last weekend, I was in Wyoming. I visited Sanford's restaurant in Gillette, WY. They started with one restaurant and now they have eight different locations. At the location I went to, one of the owners happened to be there. He said proudly, and he should: We started this business on $2,000. Now we have eight stores, and we still only have $2,000. That is because everything has been plowed back into the business, which results in more jobs for more people.

That is what we are talking about. We want this economy to grow. Small businesses are the ones making this grow. It is the guys and women with an idea they can take their last $2,000 and put it into something productive and they can grow it. The problem is, when they grow it, they pay the taxes on it immediately. They pay the taxes as though it actually flowed into their pocket. But it doesn't. As a result, some of these people who have been successful who are creating all these jobs make more than $250,000 a year. They don't get to keep it. That is the important part. They don't get to keep it. They have to pay taxes on it right away. That puts them into this new higher tax bracket.

It is going to have a devastating effect. Suddenly, the house they own--they are not going to have the same kind of house deduction, as if they didn't have a business at all.

Charitable contributions--it is the small businesses that keep the towns going. It isn't the big corporations that buy the ads in the yearbooks. It isn't the big corporations that make a donation when somebody comes around because there has been a fire. It is those little businesses that want to grow. They are growing, but they have to put everything they have back into it. I know small businessmen who have been able to pay everybody who works for them but not themselves.

We are not talking about the big corporations with the big bonuses. We are talking about the little corporations that are family. By ``family'' I mean every employee who works for them understands how difficult the business is, how close to not succeeding the business is, and because they want their job, they help the business to succeed. As a result, they are included in ``the family.'' All of those people are going to suffer.

Because 30 percent of all business income that comes through these passthrough entities, such as S corporations, partnerships, and limited liability companies, these small businesses that are hiring people-- they are hiring people; they are not laying them off. The unemployment would be tremendously higher if it were not for this 30 percent of all business income that gets passed through and back into the business.

Over 70 percent of that income is concentrated in the top two marginal income-tax rates. They pay the highest rate we have because they did business and because the business is making money. But it isn't money they get to put in their pockets; it is money they put back into the business. So nearly a quarter of all business income would be subject to higher taxes under this budget.

Let me repeat that. Nearly a quarter of all business income would be subject to these higher taxes under this budget. According to a 2007 survey completed by Gallup for the National Federation of Independent Businesses, 50 percent of all businesses that employ between 20 and 499 workers will face higher taxes if the 2001 rate reduction in the top two rates is allowed to expire. Fifty percent of all businesses that employ between 20 and 499 workers will face higher taxes if we do not change that, if we allow it to expire. And the plan, according to the budget, is to let it expire, to shove these taxes off on these small businesses, the ones that are still doing well, the ones that have not succumb to the greed, the ones that have been doing the right thing, particularly with their community. Raising taxes on our Nation's job creation engine at any point in the business cycle is just bad economic policy.

The key to our Nation's economic growth and our ability to recover from a crisis such as this one is the flexibility and the vibrancy of our non-corporate sector. Small business is the incubator for entrepreneurship, and we should protect it and nurture it, not tax it.

For example, many in the companies that fueled the economic growth of the 1990s and beyond started as passthrough entities: For example Yahoo and Microsoft, just to mention a few that the President mentioned earlier in the week when he was talking about the importance of helping out small business and said all the right things about small business.

I am encouraged by what he said. I am encouraged by the differences he is going to make in the way the Small Business Administration works. But it is going to come back again in the way of higher taxes for those same people. We need to encourage, not discourage, those people.

When I was in Wyoming, I had a procurement conference. That is where the Federal Government comes to Wyoming and talks to my businessmen to see if small business can't provide for some of the Government contracts. Every year it is a huge success. People from all over the Nation, not just Wyoming, are able to take advantage of that sort of thing.

At that conference, a guy in Montana was talking about the need for some liquidity so he could get a loan--a loan, not a bailout--a loan so he could grow his business. As we learned at the White House summit on Monday, the banks do not have a secondary market for their loans. That means when they make the loan, they cannot turn around and sell the loan to free up the capital to make another loan. When that happens, these small businesses cannot get loans, and a lot of them need short- term credit.

You have to order your inventory a year ahead of time often. When it gets there, you have to pay for it, and then you sell it. A lot of them need just a kind of cashflow loan, one that will pull them through that time when all the inventory hits and gets paid off and the time the inventory gets sold.

A guy in Montana talked to a guy in Wyoming who talked to me and proposed several different ways that I have passed on to the White House and to Secretary Geithner that money could be freed up for these businesses to grow. I am encouraged and hope that will happen. I hope it is not reversed by these new taxes.

I will fight to preserve low taxes for our Nation's small business, and I am prepared to offer an amendment to any legislation that attempts to raise taxes on small business income.

I have pledged to work with the White House to fix housing, to reform our financial markets, and to help every citizen get access to high- quality, affordable health care. My question today is: Will the White House work with me to protect small business from the harmful effects of this budget's tax increase?

This budget taxes too much, spends too much, and borrows too much.

I yield the floor.