Floor Statements

Madam President, I just had the opportunity to hear the initial--what we used to call the maiden speech around here--of the new Senator from Nebraska. I want to congratulate him on an extraordinarily insightful presentation that melded his own personal history in government with his thoughts about this massive bill that we will be considering this week, and his feelings about it, which he expressed to his constituents today. On behalf of all of us, I welcome the Senator to the Senate. I would say he just made a great start, and I know he is going to have an incredibly effective career representing the people of Nebraska and America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me just say I think the amendment process has been well handled. We had a lot of amendments to offer today, and they are in the process of being voted on. We have a lot more amendments to offer tomorrow, and then I think we can discuss sometime during the day tomorrow exactly what the endgame might be on this legislation.

I am pleased and my Members are pleased, I would say to the majority leader, with the way it has been handled to this point, and sometime tomorrow we will discuss how we might move toward a conclusion.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 277

I am going to proceed for a few moments on my leader time.

Evidently, the President had a meeting with House and Senate Democratic leadership last night, impressing upon them, obviously, the urgency of approving a stimulus bill that actually works. But I think it is safe to say that the version House Democrats approved last week certainly does not meet that test. Most of the infrastructure projections it includes would not impact the economy for at least a year.

I was recently talking to my Governor, and he indicated basically that the spend-outs were in year 2 and 3 in much of this, thereby kind of illustrating my point that in terms of immediate impact, it is quite deficient. Worse still, permanent spending--or what we call, inside the Beltway, ``entitlement spending''--is actually increased by $200 billion.

The President has talked on a number of occasions--I know I have spoken with him about it--about my willingness to work with him on a bipartisan basis to get entitlements or permanent spending under control. We know it is going to ruin our country in the near future. This bill, in the name of stimulus, actually increases permanent spending, entitlement spending, by $200 billion, making an already incredibly difficult problem worse. As everybody--almost everybody--is now fully aware, the House bill was, of course, additionally loaded with wasteful spending. Unfortunately, the version Senate Democrats put forth is not a whole lot better.

President Obama said 75 percent of the bill's discretionary projects should be paid for within 2 years. Yet more than half of the spending in the Senate version would not be spent until after 2 years. President Obama said 40 percent of the bill should be tax relief. Yet less than one-third of the spending in the Senate version would go to tax relief. And like the House bill, the spending portion in the Senate version is simply way too big. The spending portion is way too big. If you include the interest payments on all of this money we are purportedly about to spend, the Senate Democratic bill is nearly $1.3 trillion. So I cannot imagine President Obama is terribly pleased with the proposal Democrats in the House or the Senate have put forward at this point. I am hoping he convinced them last night that it is time to put forth, together, a bill that gives an immediate jolt to the economy and creates jobs right now, not a bill that increases permanent spending, not a bill that spends out in years 3 and 4. A stimulus package ought to do something right now to stimulate the economy.

President Obama has acknowledged that Senate Republicans have a number of good ideas that he would like to incorporate into the final bill. So has the senior Senator from New York. Republicans will be pursuing these ideas this week, and how they would help President Obama achieve his goal for the stimulus bill. We Republicans think we can send the President a simpler, more targeted stimulus bill that gets right at the root of our current economic troubles, that does not waste money we do not have on projects that do not create jobs now.

Most people recognize that housing is at the root of the current economic downturn, so we would fix this problem before we do anything else. Republicans believe that one way to do that is to provide a Government-backed, 30-year fixed mortgage at approximately 4 percent to any creditworthy borrower. That would reduce monthly mortgage payments and increase demand for homes. According to this proposal, the average family would see its monthly mortgage payment drop by over $400 a month. That comes out to over $5,000 a year. Over the life of a 30-year loan, that is a savings of over $150,000. That is a proposal to get right at the housing problem now.

Next, in order to get money into the economy quickly, Republicans propose that we cut income tax rates for working Americans right now. The Federal Government imposes a 10-percent tax on married couples for incomes up to $16,700. By cutting that rate in half, we put $500 into the pockets of every working family and give an immediate jolt to the country. Incomes between $16,700 and $67,900 are taxed at 15 percent. Republicans would cut that rate to 10 percent, putting another $1,100 into the pockets of working couples. And single filers would get similar rate reductions. In other words, everyone who works and pays income taxes would see an immediate increase in pay. This simpler, targeted plan gets at the root of the problem, which is housing. It puts money into people's pockets immediately.

President Obama asked Congress to put together a bill without wasteful

spending that creates jobs now. We Republicans believe we have better ideas for doing both. We look forward to having the chance to explain these ideas this week to the American people through our amendments, and we look forward to having votes on those amendments in the hope that many of them will pass.

I yield the floor.

I say to my friend the majority leader that the two managers on this side will be Senators Cochran and Grassley, of the two relevant committees.

I appreciate very much the thought about Wednesday. My Members are anxious to offer amendments, and that gives us an opportunity to do that during the day on Wednesday, even though your conference is tied up. It would be my hope that we could vote Wednesday night and process amendments. This is such a big week, and such an important measure, as we all know, that I have told my Members--and I hope it is the case-- that after tonight, all bets are off in terms of working in the evening, and my Members are expecting that to happen. I ask my friend the majority leader if it is his view that is the way we will operate this week?

May I ask the majority leader one other question?

I have a very short statement, unrelated to the Holder nomination, if the majority leader wouldn't mind.

On the same subject, Mr. President, I think we all agree it is important to jump-start the economy, and this week we will have the opportunity, as the majority leader and I have been discussing, to have full debate and many amendments on how to do that and how to improve on the bill passed by the House.

Republicans agree with President Obama that we should trim things out that don't put people back to work. The standard he set for this bill is pretty simple and easy to understand. He wanted to incorporate good Republican ideas and trim the fat that won't put people to work right now. I think that is a pretty good principle. Republicans believe a stimulus bill must fix the main problem in the economy, which is housing. We need to fix housing first.

Republicans also believe we must put money back into the pockets of taxpayers, and we believe we must eliminate wasteful spending from this package.

The American people have real questions about the merits of spending tens of millions of dollars sprucing up government buildings here in Washington, for example, or removing fish barriers, rather than growing the economy and creating jobs. We will have an opportunity to further craft this measure as it moves through the Senate. Republicans are anxious to offer amendments, have debate, and have votes.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank the majority leader for deferring to me for a moment.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the accomplishments of the Grayson County DECA from my home State of Kentucky and their efforts of promoting entrepreneurship through education and community awareness.

DECA is a high school association of marketing students which promotes the development of professionalism especially with regards to entrepreneurship and is the high school equivalent to the college association of Delta Epsilon Chi.

The Grayson County chapter works under the advisement of Cynthia Smith and Diane Horne, and comprised of dedicated young men and women, including two juniors from Grayson County High School, Tyler Lewis and Alex Henderson, who recently participated in the Entrepreneurship Promotion Project for organization.

The project has integrated its ideals into the local Grayson County schools with ventures such as developing different business ideas and creating sales presentations. They have reached out to the community with public service announcements on the radio and editorials in the local newspaper.

The Entrepreneurship Promotion Project earned the group a sixth place honors in their category at the spring 2008 International DECA competition.

In addition to the promotion of entrepreneurship, DECA requires that its members participate in many hours of community service.

Recently, DECA has organized a job shadowing program for the senior advanced marketing class at Grayson County High School. The program allows students to explore a career of their choice and gain professional experience by pairing them with local businesspeople.

The students explored careers at the Grayson County News Gazette, the Grayson County Sheriff's Department, the Leitchfield Police Department, the County Courthouse, CPA firms, law offices and the Chamber of Commerce.

The members of DECA have worked to raise awareness and have successfully obtained a proclamation from Grayson County Judge Executive Gary Logsdon and Governor Steve Beshear designating the last week in February as Entrepreneurship Week in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and in Grayson County. The group was also honored with a citation from the Kentucky House of Representatives.

DECA is a wonderful example of students striving for excellence both in

education and community. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join with me in recognizing Grayson County DECA's hard work and dedication to education, community, and Kentucky.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a well-respected Kentuckian, Dr. John Logan. Mr. Logan's outstanding dedication to Kentucky history is truly immeasurable as is his devotion to the Commonwealth itself.

Recently the Gleaner in Henderson, KY, published a story highlighting Dr. Logan's new book about the extraordinary history of Methodist Hospital in Henderson, KY. The story highlights not only Dr. Logan's allegiance to the medical industry but his unknown talents as an archivist. Dr. Logan was able to compile such a vast amount of research for his new book because, as he says, he ``lived'' it. Having been involved with the hospital since 1962, Dr. Logan has certainly seen his share of history firsthand. Without Dr. Logan's remarkable efforts to preserve history, the triumphant story of this great Kentucky institution would be lost forever.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. Logan as a true patriot and Kentuckian whose legacy will forever be remembered, and I further ask unanimous consent to have the full article printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Spencer County FFA Dairy Judging Team for winning the 2008 National FFA Dairy Cattle Judging Contest. This team is comprised of four outstanding young ladies: Whitney Owen, Cassandra Peterson, Kelli Smitha, and Michella White.

After countless hours spent preparing for the Kentucky FFA Dairy Judging Contest, they were awarded top honors at the State competition last August. The team then had the privilege of representing the Commonwealth at the 2008 National FFA Dairy Cattle Judging Contest in Indianapolis, IN, where they were again victorious.

Founded in 1928 as the Future Farmers of America, the group that is today known as the National FFA Organization brings together students, teachers, and members of the agribusiness community to promote agricultural education. In Kentucky, the National FFA Organization has over 15,000 members spread across 145 chapters. And over 24,000 Kentucky middle- and high-school students are enrolled in agricultural education programs.

Agriculture is obviously an important sector of the economy for my State, and I am proud of the many young people and adults who work with the National FFA Organization in Kentucky to ensure that the Bluegrass State remains at the forefront of agricultural education and innovation for years to come. Members are always recognizable during their visits to our Nation's Capitol by their distinctive blue jackets.

By securing a first-place finish at the national competition, the Spencer County FFA Dairy Judging Team now has the opportunity to represent America this summer at the International Dairy Judging Contest in Scotland. FFA is known for producing many of our Nation's future leaders, and I won't be surprised to see that trend continue

based on the success Whitney, Cassandra, Kelli, and Michella have already achieved. I know my fellow Senators join me in wishing them the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Mr. President, Republicans have had an opportunity this week to highlight a number of our better ideas to ensuring low- income children receive quality health care. We will continue to offer our plans to improve this program. I think there is certainly a possibility of finishing the SCHIP bill today, which will let us turn to the economy next week.

We all know the economy is clearly the top issue on the minds of all Americans. I think we all agree we need to act to strengthen our economy and to create jobs. Unfortunately, the bill produced by the Democratic Congress falls short on a number of important fronts. First, it does not fix the main problem, which is housing. We need to address that issue, and my colleagues will have better ideas to stimulate home ownership. Next, we need to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn. Finally, we should not be spending taxpayer dollars we do not have on programs we do not need.

We have seen a lot of reports recently on what is in the bill-- everything from buying cars for Federal employees, to beautifying ATV trails, to spiffing up the headquarters building at the Department of Commerce. In a time of trillion-dollar deficits, we cannot afford Washington business as usual. We should insist on the highest standards. Are these projects really necessary? Will they stimulate the economy? Will they create jobs? Should we ask the American people to foot the bill? Republicans believe that letting individuals and businesses keep more of what they earn will have a quicker stimulative effect than having the Government spend it on projects, particularly ones that are likely to be delayed for 3 to 4 years.

We look forward to offering amendments to improve this critical legislation and move it back to the package President Obama originally proposed--40-percent tax relief, no wasteful spending, and a bipartisan approach.

Republicans have better ideas to dramatically improve this bill that will go at the problem, create jobs, and stimulate the economy. We have better ideas to address the housing crisis, which is where this problem originated. But in order to pass these and other commonsense amendments, we will need support from our friends on the other side of the aisle. Fixing our economy requires innovative ideas, commonsense solutions, and bipartisan cooperation. It is clear from last night's vote in the House that the only thing that is bipartisan about this bill is the opposition to it. It simply does not meet the standard of bipartisan cooperation set by President Obama and welcomed by Republicans in Congress.

Republicans stand ready to work with our friends across the aisle to create truly bipartisan legislation which will actually stimulate the economy and create jobs, and we are ready to start next week.

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

Mr. President, there is no debate among Republicans concerning access to affordable health care for children--we believe every child should have access to quality affordable health care.

Many of us are proud of our role in creating the children's health program, SCHIP. We think it ought to be reauthorized responsibly.

But we are troubled by the direction the program has taken in recent years. It has strayed from its original purpose--the purpose Republicans support--of providing coverage to low-income, uninsured children.

This bill before us would only exacerbate those troubling trends.

That is why I offered an alternative--the Kids First Act--to return the children's health program to its original purpose of covering low- income children.

Senate Republicans also believe we need to focus scarce resources on those families who need it most. Mr. Cornyn offered an amendment to use any leftover state funds to help insure children who are eligible, but not enrolled, rather than expanding to high-income beneficiaries.

Senate Republicans believe SCHIP should cover those children who don't have insurance yet. Senator Kyl offered a commonsense amendment which says kids should be able to keep the coverage they have, freeing up resources to enroll more children who don't have insurance.

Senate Republicans believe that States should cover low-income children who are not yet enrolled before they expand subsidies to wealthier families. Senators Murkowski, Specter, Collins, and Johanns offered an amendment to require just that.

Regrettably, our friends across the aisle rejected each and every one of these commonsense proposals.

As a result, we are left with a bill that fails to address the fundamental problems facing this children's health program--and that I cannot support.

Mr. President, this week people all across Kentucky are dealing with the effects of a massive snow and ice storm that ravaged the entire Commonwealth on Tuesday. This storm has caused the worst power outage in Kentucky history--more than 600,000 are without power.

This number is all the more devastating given that the previous record had been set only 4 months ago when the remnants of Hurricane Ike battered Kentucky last fall.

The power outages cover the entire Bluegrass State and have caused enormous problems, as you can imagine. Many schools and businesses are closed. Many roads are blocked from downed trees or power lines. Most dangerous of all, some people are unable to heat their homes in this time of freezing temperatures.

Given the severity of the storm, the Governor of Kentucky, Steve Beshear, rightly reached out to President Obama to request a Federal declaration that a major emergency exists. I also contacted the President to ask that he respond quickly to the Governor's request.

I am pleased to say that the President did respond quickly and declared a Federal emergency in most of Kentucky. Doing that has triggered the release of urgently needed Federal authority and funds that will give the people of my State the help they desperately need.

I want to thank the Governor for his quick and decisive action, as well as President Obama for his speedy response. It is making a real difference in the lives of Kentuckians as we speak.

Governor Beshear and his team have been working day and night to ensure all parts of the State are getting the relief they need. Our offices have been in close contact since the storm, and I am proud of the leadership he is demonstrating.

Most of all, I want to thank the many men and women across Kentucky who are working to aid their communities during this disaster.

From the police and firefighters, to the first responders, the power company employees, the shelters taking in those without power, and the people knocking on doors to check on their neighbors, everyone is pitching in to make sure Kentucky makes it through this storm.

And I am sure that we will. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to keep the citizens of Kentucky in their prayers during this difficult time.

Madam President, let me say I share the view of the majority leader that we debate and vote on a number of amendments today. That certainly is our plan on this side of the aisle.

With regard to the SCHIP legislation, I do think we had a good day of debate yesterday, in spite of the interruptions the majority leader referred to in relation to the Finance Committee and the Appropriations Committee action on the stimulus package. I know Members of both parties were participating in that business most of the day. I particularly compliment Senators Coburn and Burr for the outstanding job they did managing the Republican time while our colleagues were occupied at that markup.

Republicans are committed to making sure every child has access to affordable health insurance. But there are some pretty important differences between Republicans and Democrats in how we get there.

Today the Senate will vote on our Republican alternative, the Kids First Act. To remind our colleagues, the Kids First Act refocuses SCHIP on its intended purpose, which is providing insurance to low-income, uninsured children.

The Kids First Act closes a number of loopholes and gimmicks that are being used to expand the definition of ``low income'' to families making up to $88,000 a year. I don't know anyone in Kentucky who would characterize $88,000 a year as low income.

Some States have used SCHIP to cover adults--remember, this is a program for children--even when thousands of eligible low-income children

are still lacking coverage. It is worth repeating. Insurance for children is being used instead for adults. That is wrong, and the Kids First Act would ban such practices.

The CBO reports that our legislation will provide coverage to nearly 2 million low-income children who currently lack health insurance, and it does so in a fiscally responsible manner without raising taxes.

I know many of my Republican colleagues have other commonsense ideas to improve this legislation, and those will be offered. Republicans understand taxpayer resources are too scarce to be squandered away by waste, fraud or abuse. And Republicans are prepared to offer amendments to fix those problems and make the bill better.

For example, one provision of the bill allows a select few States to expand coverage to more than three times the Federal poverty level. Let me say that again. One of the provisions in the underlying bill allows a few States to expand coverage to more than three times the Federal poverty level. We don't think it is fair to provide special treatment to certain States, and we expect an amendment to address that situation.

The bill also provides Government health insurance to 2.4 million kids who already have health insurance, providing Government-paid insurance to kids who already have health insurance. Republicans believe those kids should be able to keep the coverage they have, and we will have amendments to let kids who already have health insurance keep that coverage, freeing more resources for kids who are actually in need.

Just as working families are trying to get the most out of every dollar, Republicans believe Government needs to do the same thing by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in all programs, including Medicaid and SCHIP.

These are a few of the ideas we will be discussing today and tomorrow as the Senate continues this very important debate.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I wanted to make a few observations on the pending amendment, the McConnell amendment, before the vote. What we are trying to do here in this amendment is to refocus SCHIP toward low-income children. This amendment would close loopholes that allow States to use SCHIP funds to cover both adults and children in higher income families.

What has happened here is some States have drifted off in the direction that was not the original intent of the measure, which was supported on an overwhelming bipartisan basis, and written by both Republicans and Democrats in the 1990s.

So the goal of the Kids First amendment, upon which we are about to vote, is to refocus the program on low-income children, and to take the funds that are being diverted to high-income families and put them back in to cover low-income children, and it probably would cover up to 2 million additional low-income children.

So if you are in favor of putting kids first and focusing the SCHIP program as it was originally intended, I would recommend strongly that you support the amendment upon which we are going to vote here shortly.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 41

Would the Senator from Montana yield?

Madam President, I am reminded that I have not requested the yeas and nays yet on my amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, are we now on the bill?

Can I suggest we go to the bill? I was going to lay down an amendment, consistent with the majority leader's suggestion that we get started.

Madam President, I support the State Children's Health Insurance Program. I think virtually every Member of the Senate does. I voted to create the program and believe we need to responsibly reauthorize it.

In its original form, the State Children's Health Insurance Program was meant to provide insurance to children from families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.

There is no doubt, as I indicated earlier, we all support providing insurance to low-income children. I am sure that is 100 Members of the Senate. In fact, this program originally passed on a broad bipartisan basis with 43 Republicans and 42 Democrats supporting it. It was enacted by a Republican Congress, signed by a Democratic President, and was a model of bipartisanship. Two of my colleagues, Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch, reached across the aisle to craft a bipartisan compromise in the last Congress. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues have gone back on many of the prior agreements that were reached in creating that bill last year, making this issue more contentious than it ought to be and setting a troubling precedent for future discussions on health care reform.

The original purpose of the State Children's Health Insurance Program was to serve low-income, uninsured children. The bill we are being asked to consider sanctions a loophole that allows a few select States, such as New York, to provide insurance to children and families earning more than $80,000 a year--$80,000 a year--instead of insuring low- income children first. This is more than double the median household income in many States, including my State of Kentucky. It is grossly unfair that a family in Kentucky making $40,000 must pay for the health insurance of a family making double that, especially if the Kentuckian cannot afford it for his own family.

The bill before the Senate is not limited to children either. It preserves loopholes that allow adults to enroll in a program that is intended for children.

Earlier estimates of similar legislation found that nearly half of the new children added by this bill already have private health insurance. Let me say that again. Earlier estimates of similar legislation found that nearly half of the new children added by this bill already have private health insurance. Republicans, on the other hand, believe we ought to target scarce resources to uninsured children, not those who already have coverage.

Republicans will offer amendments to fix the shortcomings of this bill and to provide a responsible alternative that will return SCHIP to its intended purpose: serving the kids in struggling families who need the help most. That is whom we ought to be helping.

Our bill, the Kids First Act, will provide funding increases to State SCHIP programs and help them find those eligible children who are not yet enrolled, and our Kids First idea is better because it closes the loophole that allows some States to extend their program to higher income families, even while they have thousands of lower income children who still are not covered. The Kids First Act truly puts kids first, eliminating nearly all adults from a program designed for children so that more children can be covered. Finally, by responsibly allocating scarce resources, our bill increases funding for SCHIP without raising new taxes. We believe Republicans have a better alternative.

Madam President, I now send that alternative to the desk.

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

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

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