Floor Statements

Mr. President, in March, Gil Kerlikowske was tapped by the President to be the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Chief Kerlikowske is certainly qualified for this position. He is a 36-year veteran of law enforcement. He has been the chief of police of four police departments, and most recently chief of the Seattle Police Department. If confirmed, Chief Kerlikowske would be charged with the mission to develop and implement the Nation's drug control strategy. My hope is that he would be confirmed today.

The formal announcement of Seattle Chief Gil Kerlikowske as the new Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy was heralded by none other than Vice President Biden. In 1982, Vice President Biden saw the need for a Cabinet-level position to coordinate the efforts of various agencies. He is credited with coining the term ``Drug Czar.'' Then Senator Biden was always a champion for elevating this position to Cabinet-level status. During our time on the Senate Judiciary Committee we often collaborated on keeping the Office of National Drug Control Policy relevant in the country's efforts to curb illicit drug use and increase education. Unfortunately, Chief Kerlikowske will be assuming a position that was downgraded by the administration. The Obama administration has elected to downgrade the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy from a Cabinet-level position to a presidential appointment in the Executive Office. This is a major departure from the precedent which was set in 1993 under President Clinton.

As the Mexican drug cartel violence has been placed front and center by the media and this body, Cabinet-level executives deploy their personnel and weigh in on the illicit drug trade and violence that has consumed the southwest border. Mexico is the leading supplier of methamphetamine. Recent analysis suggests that meth manufacturers are adding chocolate flavoring so that their product will be more appealing to a younger customer base. The Office of National Drug Control Policy has an annual operating budget of over $14 billion. Current estimates indicate that the cartel's profits exceed what we spend on deterrence by more than a 2 to 1 ratio.

By downgrading this position, President Obama is not sending a vociferous message about the future of the national drug control strategy. A key element of the Office of National Drug Control Policy is its control over the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area designation. Stabilization of the southwest border with Mexico needs all the resources of the U.S. Government to include the Federal and local task forces operated and funded by the HIDTA initiatives. The principal purpose of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, is to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for the Nation's drug control program. The goals of the program are to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing, trafficking, and drug-related crimes of violence. The ONDCP also develops initiatives and campaigns that educate youths on the ill effects of drug abuse and drug-related health consequences. To achieve these goals, the Drug Czar is charged with producing the National Drug Control Strategy. This delegation of authority was established through previous Executive orders and legislative authority as crafted by Congress.

In some respects, I believe the President and I are on the same page when it comes to addressing our Nation's illicit drug problem. You cannot solely arrest your way out of this issue. I have always believed that everybody makes mistakes and is entitled to forgiveness. I believe in putting some emphasis on rehabilitation in conjunction with appropriate punishment. The Director of the National Office of Drug Control Policy is supposed to have the ear of the President on how the approaches of rehabilitation and the criminal justice system will meet to curtail this crime. I commend his choice of Gil Kerlikowske to head the ONDCP. However, I question the President's decision to downgrade this important position at a time when our Nation needs key leadership to form our strategy to combat our Nation's addiction to illicit drugs.

It is my sincere hope that this ill-advised decision by President Obama to downgrade the position of the Director of the National Office of Drug Control Policy, which Mr. Kerlikowske will hold, will not come back to haunt Americans for years to come with increased illicit drug use by our children, increased illicit drug manufacturing, increased trafficking, and increased drug-related crimes of violence. That would be a truly tragic mistake for all Americans. The ramifications of a vibrant illicit drug market in the U.S. will take lives, ruin families, destroy potential and leave us a much weaker nation.

I support Mr. Kerlikowske in his new post and I wish him the best. I offer him my support as he undertakes this large assignment. Also, I encourage our President to return the Director's office back to a Cabinet level position where it belongs.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend, Senator Kent Conrad, and others in introducing the Medicare Long-Term Care Hospital Improvement Act of 2009. This legislation would help ensure that Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to long-term, acute-care,

LTAC, hospitals. These hospitals provide inpatient care to Medicare beneficiaries who spend at least 25 days in the hospital. Typically, the average patient stay in an acute care hospital is only six days. We have several LTAC hospitals and facilities in Salt Lake, Provo, and Bountiful, UT.

Our bill would extend for two more years the LTAC hospital moratorium included in the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007, MMSEA, P.L. 110-173. While MMSEA's LTAC hospital provisions helped the LTAC hospitals, they also addressed important issues raised by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, regarding these hospitals. Under MMSEA, new LTAC hospitals would not be allowed to open until the three year moratorium ends in 2010--the intent was to give CMS time to develop new federal standards on LTAC patient criteria. The bill that we are introducing today would extend the MMSEA moratorium for another 2 years.

To my friends in the hospital community and to those responsible for issuing federal regulations impacting the hospital community, I urge you to work together to address some of the valid concerns that have been raised with regard to LTAC hospitals. But I want these concerns addressed fairly so that beneficiaries will continue to have access to quality care and choice of long-term care coverage.

I also believe that while most LTAC hospitals provide good care in many parts of the country, the industry must do a better job convincing Congress and Federal agencies that the type of care you provide is valuable and necessary. Only truly sick patients should go to LTAC hospitals. Less medically-complex patients should be seen at less intensive facilities.

It is my hope that Federal officials making important decisions regarding LTACs get the job done. Five years ago, LTAC hospitals were told that they needed new standards and yet, we have made limited progress in this area. You need to finish this important job once and for all! It needs to be done in partnership with the LTAC community. Hopefully, the introduction of this bill will get the ball rolling in this area.

Finally, President Obama's budget guidelines for fiscal year 2010 has a bundling proposal that would include the payment of post-acute care with the hospital payment system. The Senate Finance Committee is considering a similar proposal. Therefore, I do not want to leave the impression with anyone that the introduction of this legislation is meant to delay such a proposal from moving forward. However, I do believe that should bundling be seriously considered by Congress, all stakeholders should be included in those discussions, including the LTACH hospitals.

I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues on this important bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend, Senator Kent Conrad, and others in introducing the Medicare Long-Term Care Hospital Improvement Act of 2009. This legislation would help ensure that Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to long-term, acute-care,

LTAC, hospitals. These hospitals provide inpatient care to Medicare beneficiaries who spend at least 25 days in the hospital. Typically, the average patient stay in an acute care hospital is only six days. We have several LTAC hospitals and facilities in Salt Lake, Provo, and Bountiful, UT.

Our bill would extend for two more years the LTAC hospital moratorium included in the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007, MMSEA, P.L. 110-173. While MMSEA's LTAC hospital provisions helped the LTAC hospitals, they also addressed important issues raised by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, regarding these hospitals. Under MMSEA, new LTAC hospitals would not be allowed to open until the three year moratorium ends in 2010--the intent was to give CMS time to develop new federal standards on LTAC patient criteria. The bill that we are introducing today would extend the MMSEA moratorium for another 2 years.

To my friends in the hospital community and to those responsible for issuing federal regulations impacting the hospital community, I urge you to work together to address some of the valid concerns that have been raised with regard to LTAC hospitals. But I want these concerns addressed fairly so that beneficiaries will continue to have access to quality care and choice of long-term care coverage.

I also believe that while most LTAC hospitals provide good care in many parts of the country, the industry must do a better job convincing Congress and Federal agencies that the type of care you provide is valuable and necessary. Only truly sick patients should go to LTAC hospitals. Less medically-complex patients should be seen at less intensive facilities.

It is my hope that Federal officials making important decisions regarding LTACs get the job done. Five years ago, LTAC hospitals were told that they needed new standards and yet, we have made limited progress in this area. You need to finish this important job once and for all! It needs to be done in partnership with the LTAC community. Hopefully, the introduction of this bill will get the ball rolling in this area.

Finally, President Obama's budget guidelines for fiscal year 2010 has a bundling proposal that would include the payment of post-acute care with the hospital payment system. The Senate Finance Committee is considering a similar proposal. Therefore, I do not want to leave the impression with anyone that the introduction of this legislation is meant to delay such a proposal from moving forward. However, I do believe that should bundling be seriously considered by Congress, all stakeholders should be included in those discussions, including the LTACH hospitals.

I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues on this important bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Limitation On Government Spending Act of 2009. This legislation will set limits on the amount of Government spending in comparison to the Nation's gross domestic product.

Abraham Lincoln once said, ``You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.'' While we remain in an economic recession, the Obama administration continues to spend our way out of it, disregarding the future consequences.

As we continue on this route of reckless government spending, we continue to increase our debt that will be passed down to our children, grandchildren, and many generations to come. The only way to repay this debt is to increase taxes. That is why I believe it is so important that we restrict ourselves from spending too much, especially during this economic recession.

At a time when Utahns and Americans are tightening their wallets, this budget grows the size of Government, excluding nondefense-related spending in just 2 years by 22 percent.

Many Americans, as demonstrated last week through TEA parties, are asking if this Government spending will ever stop. After trillions for bailouts and other Government spending, this budget makes no hard choices to reform runaway spending.

I keep hearing my friends on the other side of the aisle eagerly point out that President Bush never vetoed a spending bill. While I may agree that the former President should have restricted more in Government spending, President Obama's budget spends more than President Bush's did every year, even after adjusting for inflation.

Furthermore, the spending in this budget is so massive that independent estimates suggest roughly 250,000 new Government bureaucrats may be needed to spend it all. While President Obama would like to claim this as job growth, I think this is a false sense of economic recovery. Long after our economy has hopefully recovered, we will need to continue financing these new 250,000 new Government bureaucrats through, you guessed it, more Government spending.

My Republican colleagues want to work with the President to improve the economy. This should be done by focusing on the issues that are hurting Americans the most. Fixing housing, reforming financial markets, developing clean energy and providing affordable health care are all common goals that both sides of the aisle share. But President Obama's European-style approach to achieve these goals is to socialize America--to spend, spend, spend and not worry about the enormous price tag it will leave.

If you look at the proposed budget, you can see the reckless spending. This budget increases discretionary spending by $490 billion over 5 years, and it promises much more spending than that--$1.3 trillion over 5 years--through 27 reserve funds. The total spending in this budget is $3.9 trillion in 2009, or 28 percent of GDP, the highest level as a share of the GDP since World War II. This is absurd.

How can we tell the American public, who are budgeting themselves and making sacrifices, that we are going to spend our way out of this, then come back to them and tax them until they are back in the same position? It is ludicrous.

We are moving toward what I call the Europeanization of America. To understand what I mean, it is helpful to compare European countries' total government spending as a percentage of GDP with our Nation's Government spending. In France, for example, government spending is close to 50 percent of GDP. England's government spending is roughly 44 percent of GDP. In Germany, government spending is 45 percent of GDP. In the US Federal Government spending has been around 20 percent. However, to accurately compare the US to European nations, it is necessary to include state and local spending. Once that is factored in, US Government spending exceeds 37 percent of GDP, and that is before President Obama's stimulus package and budget for this year are taken into account. Thus, it is almost a forgone conclusion that by the end of this year, total government spending in the US will be in line with most European governments. Do we really want to move toward this Europeanization of America?

Despite what you may hear, trivial attempts to cutback will not make an impact on Government spending. This past week, President Obama admirably asked his administration to trim $100 million in Government spending. While this amount would be significant a century ago, it doesn't do much today to reduce government spending. This cut would amount to just 1/400 of 1 percent of total Federal spending for fiscal year 2009. The Federal Government spends $100 million about every 13 minutes. So, while President Obama's restraint on Government spending is admirable, it is just a drop in the bucket for what we really need to achieve.

It is time for us to take a stand on Government spending. We need to show self-discipline when dealing with Government spending. Since World War II, Federal spending has been between 18 and 22 percent of GDP. I am calling upon my colleagues to restrict Government spending to the historical average of 20 percent. This limitation may be waived by an approval of 3/5 of members of this body.

It is time that we restrict government spending. It will cause us to make some tough decisions about what is really important. One thing is certain, we cannot continue down the path we are headed. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to change

course and get back on the path to fiscal sanity.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Limitation On Government Spending Act of 2009. This legislation will set limits on the amount of Government spending in comparison to the Nation's gross domestic product.

Abraham Lincoln once said, ``You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.'' While we remain in an economic recession, the Obama administration continues to spend our way out of it, disregarding the future consequences.

As we continue on this route of reckless government spending, we continue to increase our debt that will be passed down to our children, grandchildren, and many generations to come. The only way to repay this debt is to increase taxes. That is why I believe it is so important that we restrict ourselves from spending too much, especially during this economic recession.

At a time when Utahns and Americans are tightening their wallets, this budget grows the size of Government, excluding nondefense-related spending in just 2 years by 22 percent.

Many Americans, as demonstrated last week through TEA parties, are asking if this Government spending will ever stop. After trillions for bailouts and other Government spending, this budget makes no hard choices to reform runaway spending.

I keep hearing my friends on the other side of the aisle eagerly point out that President Bush never vetoed a spending bill. While I may agree that the former President should have restricted more in Government spending, President Obama's budget spends more than President Bush's did every year, even after adjusting for inflation.

Furthermore, the spending in this budget is so massive that independent estimates suggest roughly 250,000 new Government bureaucrats may be needed to spend it all. While President Obama would like to claim this as job growth, I think this is a false sense of economic recovery. Long after our economy has hopefully recovered, we will need to continue financing these new 250,000 new Government bureaucrats through, you guessed it, more Government spending.

My Republican colleagues want to work with the President to improve the economy. This should be done by focusing on the issues that are hurting Americans the most. Fixing housing, reforming financial markets, developing clean energy and providing affordable health care are all common goals that both sides of the aisle share. But President Obama's European-style approach to achieve these goals is to socialize America--to spend, spend, spend and not worry about the enormous price tag it will leave.

If you look at the proposed budget, you can see the reckless spending. This budget increases discretionary spending by $490 billion over 5 years, and it promises much more spending than that--$1.3 trillion over 5 years--through 27 reserve funds. The total spending in this budget is $3.9 trillion in 2009, or 28 percent of GDP, the highest level as a share of the GDP since World War II. This is absurd.

How can we tell the American public, who are budgeting themselves and making sacrifices, that we are going to spend our way out of this, then come back to them and tax them until they are back in the same position? It is ludicrous.

We are moving toward what I call the Europeanization of America. To understand what I mean, it is helpful to compare European countries' total government spending as a percentage of GDP with our Nation's Government spending. In France, for example, government spending is close to 50 percent of GDP. England's government spending is roughly 44 percent of GDP. In Germany, government spending is 45 percent of GDP. In the US Federal Government spending has been around 20 percent. However, to accurately compare the US to European nations, it is necessary to include state and local spending. Once that is factored in, US Government spending exceeds 37 percent of GDP, and that is before President Obama's stimulus package and budget for this year are taken into account. Thus, it is almost a forgone conclusion that by the end of this year, total government spending in the US will be in line with most European governments. Do we really want to move toward this Europeanization of America?

Despite what you may hear, trivial attempts to cutback will not make an impact on Government spending. This past week, President Obama admirably asked his administration to trim $100 million in Government spending. While this amount would be significant a century ago, it doesn't do much today to reduce government spending. This cut would amount to just 1/400 of 1 percent of total Federal spending for fiscal year 2009. The Federal Government spends $100 million about every 13 minutes. So, while President Obama's restraint on Government spending is admirable, it is just a drop in the bucket for what we really need to achieve.

It is time for us to take a stand on Government spending. We need to show self-discipline when dealing with Government spending. Since World War II, Federal spending has been between 18 and 22 percent of GDP. I am calling upon my colleagues to restrict Government spending to the historical average of 20 percent. This limitation may be waived by an approval of 3/5 of members of this body.

It is time that we restrict government spending. It will cause us to make some tough decisions about what is really important. One thing is certain, we cannot continue down the path we are headed. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to change

course and get back on the path to fiscal sanity.

Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to call up an amendment following the remarks of Senators Dodd and Dorgan.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 1007.

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

Madam President, I rise to propose an amendment that will ensure transparency and prevent egregious cases of fraud against American workers. My amendment is very simple, and I think it is compelling. All it does is prevent the administration from rescinding current regulations that require transparency in the way that union management chooses to spend the hard-earned dues collected from their members. This amendment is specifically directed at preventing the weakening of the Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards--or OLMS it is called--which is the sole Federal agency tasked with protecting the interests of American workers who pay union dues.

Under current Federal law, the OLMS requires financial reporting that ensures the transparency of how labor union management spends labor union dues in the area of compensation of labor leaders, the purchasing of union assets, and additional information regarding various union receipts. This law requires union leaders to disclose how members' money is spent and provides protection from fraud, waste, and abuse.

Public opinion and our Nation's dire economic conditions have driven us to require banks, corporations, and even Presidential administrations to do business in the light of day--in full transparency. Therefore, the same expectation of transparency should apply to labor unions. The previous administration took steps to do that in 2003 by updating reporting requirements and forms. These updates allowed the electronic filing of disclosures on the Internet. The Office of Labor-Management Standards--OLMS--was about to implement a second update that would require information about compensation to union officers. This revision also would have required the disclosure of transactions involving union assets.

Unfortunately, as was reported this year in the April 21 Federal Register, the Labor Department and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis have delayed the effective date of these revisions. Furthermore, on this same date, the Labor Department has published a notice that seeks to withdraw the rule entirely. By doing this, Secretary Solis has effectively neutralized OLMS in its mission to ensure the transparency in the way labor unions spend the hard-earned money of their Members. Ironically, this is being done by an administration that has told the American public that transparency and change has returned to Washington. It would appear to me that the Labor Department did not get that memo. I feel confident President Obama would be on my side on this, that he would want the transparency. It is in the best interests of union workers. It protects them from fraud. It protects their dues as they put them in there. Unions can run the unions just as businesses run businesses, but they ought to do it honestly. That is why these regulations are so important. That is why this amendment is so important.

There should not be any debate as to the effectiveness of the OLMS. From 2001 through 2007, OLMS investigations resulted in 1,000 indictments. The Office of Labor-Management Standards fraud investigations between 2001 and 2007 resulted in 1,000 indictments and convictions of 929 of those indicted. The funds recovered that were illegally taken amounted to $93 million. Think about that: $93 million in restitution was paid back to the victims of those crimes. I am sure I need not remind any Member of this body that union dues are seldom voluntarily given. Men and women who join these unions are often compelled to pay as part of their employment agreement. Union funds are also comprised of pension funds, which have occasionally been targeted by organized crime and used to underwrite mob activities. I know. I was a member of the AFL-CIO. I went through a formal apprenticeship. I paid dues, and I became a journeyman metal lather, a skilled trade, back in those years when I was working in construction.

Union funds, as I say, are also comprised of pension funds, which sometimes are targeted by organized crime and used to underwrite mob activities. When I was chairman of the Labor Committee, we did a lot to try and overcome these things, but it has never been done better than between 2001 and 2007. From October 2000 through May 2007, in the State of New York alone, the OLMS conducted 334 audits and obtained 87 indictments, resulting in 82 convictions. That is a high constriction rate, showing this is not some little itty, bitty problem. This, in turn, resulted in the recovery and restitution of $39.6 million. In Illinois, the OLMS indicted 44 persons in connection with fraudulent activity involving union funds, resulting in 42 convictions.

These are statistics we can all be proud of. OLMS investigations produced 1,000 indictments and obtained 929 constrictions--a 92.9- percent conviction rate.

We are debating legislation that provides more investigators and remedies to prevent fraud and enforce Federal laws. The OLMS enforces the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act, a bipartisan law with roots back to another former Senator who was young, inspiring, and went on to become President: John F. Kennedy. It was then-Senator Kennedy who inserted into this act the union members' bill of rights. It is the union members who are entitled to transparency. The whole world is entitled to transparency in these instances as well. It is the mission of the OLMS to ensure that union business is conducted in the light of day, with its members'--and that is plural--interests at heart.

It is for this reason that I have risen to propose this amendment and I ask my colleagues for their support and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Well, then I will ask for the yeas and nays at the appropriate time.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I thank the majority leader for his kindness and, of course, we are willing to have this come up whenever the majority leader and the minority leader determine.

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

Mr. President, I am indebted to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his remarks today, and I certainly join with him in

requesting the Chinese Government to make this matter right. I am very grateful he has taken the time to come and tell us about Mr. Gao as well as this wonderful woman who is being held in Iran. I wish to compliment him for it and say that I wish to be identified with his remarks.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to CPL Micheal B. Alleman of Logan, UT. Corporal Alleman died in the service to our country on February 23, 2009, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using small arms in Iraq's Diyala Province. He was 32 years old and is survived by his parents Boyd and Susan Alleman, his wife Amy, and their two sons Kai and Kennet.

Corporal Alleman served in the 5th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Fort Wainwright, AK.

Two years ago, Micheal Alleman decided to put his teaching career on hold to enlist in the U.S. Army. When he explained this decision to his fifth grade class at Nibley Elementary School, he said he wanted to be like the Nation's first President, who left his career as a Virginia planter to take up arms against the British monarchy. He said that George Washington was his hero.

I am proud to talk about another American hero today, CPL Micheal Alleman. He defines what makes our Nation great. With absolute surety, he exhibited a devotion to duty and sense of purpose that transcends personal comfort and desire. Corporal Alleman heard his country's call to duty and in that service he gave his last full measure of devotion. He gave his life so we can continue to remain safe and free each day.

As I read accounts from his family and friends, it was readily apparent he was a tremendously selfless and caring man. He was described as a man who deeply loved his family and cared about those around him. His family would bend over backward for anyone. It is no wonder he so readily decided to serve this Nation.

Let us not forgot the sacrifice of CPL Micheal Alleman. His service should inspire everyone in this Chamber. I thank him for his service and pray for his family and friends during this tremendously difficult time. His wife Amy stated, ``My boys will always know their father stood up to defend this country.'' Well, so shall we also remember and cherish the memory of his service.

Madam President, as the ranking Republican on the Antitrust Subcommittee, I rise to voice my support for the confirmation of Christine Varney to be the next Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division.

This is a role to which, I believe, she is ideally suited.

Ms. Varney served as a Federal Trade Commissioner from 1994 to 1997. As we all know, our Nation has two separate agencies, the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission, that are responsible for enforcing our antitrust laws. Ensuring that these agencies efficiently and effectively execute those laws is a major concern of the Antitrust Subcommittee. In fact, I recently posed the theoretical question as to whether a merger of the FTC's antitrust arm and the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division would not create a more efficient regulatory regime. Although I believe this question deserves further close consideration by the Antitrust Subcommittee, I was delighted to see that Jon Leibowitz, Chairman of the FTC, was present, and even an active participant, at Ms. Varney's nomination hearing. Undoubtedly, this was to support her confirmation and, presumably, to show the intent of these two leaders to bring greater cooperation between the Antitrust Division and the FTC.

In addition to Ms. Varney's experience with an executive agency enforcing our antitrust laws, she has also developed a strong reputation in the private sector. Ms. Varney was heavily involved in one of the most important antitrust cases of modern time: U.S. v. Microsoft. In that matter, she represented Netscape. She also represented Netscape in its merger with AOL. Presently, she is a partner at Hogan and Hartson, where she is head of that firm's Internet Law practice group. Her experience in these matters is of particular relevance due to the recent number of proposed mergers affecting the Internet. The importance of these contemplated mergers has only been highlighted by the number of hearings that the Antitrust Subcommittee has held on the issues that have arisen because of these proposed transactions.

I also appreciate the commitment she made in her written responses to the committee's questions to work with me on an antitrust issue that is close to the hearts of every Utahn: the inequities that occur currently due to the so-called Bowl Championship Series. The current system is a clear violation of our Nation's antitrust laws and I look forward to working with the Antitrust Division to develop an appropriate remedy.

On a personal level, I have had an opportunity to meet and talk to Ms. Varney. I appreciate her collegial and professional manner. I believe she is an individual who will strive to work with Congress to ensure that fair competition is maintained and the rule of law enforced.

Therefore, I recommend Ms. Varney's confirmation to colleagues and look to working with her in the years to come.

Mr. President, since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has taken steps to give the Federal law enforcement and intelligence community the necessary tools to keep our citizens safe from terrorist attacks. Last week, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. When asked about expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, Director Mueller urged Congress to renew these provisions. He referred to them as ``exceptional tools to help protect our national security.'' Director Mueller further provided the committee with information regarding the use of these provisions.

From 2004 to 2007, the roving wiretaps provision was used 225 times-- that is--25 times over 3 years. That breaks down to 75 times a year. Roving wiretaps were only used 147 times in 3 years. Congress granted the FBI the authority to use national security letters, NSL, in counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations. The use of NSLs is invaluable in these investigations. Their use also predates the attacks on 9/11.

The uninformed and the paranoid portray these tools as an example of unchecked government monitoring reminiscent of a scene from George Orwell's book ``1984.'' I would submit to my colleagues that these figures show that these necessary tools have not been overused. Fail- safes and checks against overuse and improper application exist at numerous levels in this process. Changing administrations does not diminish the terrorism threat to our country. Two days ago, a Taliban leader responsible for brazen attacks in Pakistan issued a threat to attack the White House.

Mr. President, today, Senator Blanche Lincoln, Senator Herb Kohl, Senator Olympia Snowe and I will be introducing the Elder Justice Act. The Elder Justice Act we are introducing today was reported by the Senate Finance Committee during the last Congress. In fact, this legislation has been introduced consistently since the 107th Congress. Additionally, it has been reported unanimously by the Finance Committee during the last three Congresses.

I want to express my gratitude to Senator Blanche Lincoln, the other lead sponsor of the Elder Justice Act. Senator Lincoln's strong commitment to reducing elder abuse has made a tremendous difference. It has been a pleasure to work with her on this important legislation.

In addition, I want to acknowledge the other original cosponsors of this bill, Senator Herb Kohl and Senator Olympia Snowe. Over the years, Senator Kohl has been strong supporter of this legislation and, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Aging, his support has been greatly appreciated by me. Senator Snowe has been a strong supporter of the Elder Justice Act for many years.

The Elder Justice Coalition, headed by Bob Blancato, also has been a great ally of the Elder Justice Act. The coalition, which has close to 560 members, is dedicated to eliminating elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation in our country. Over the years, coalition members have worked hard to educate Congress about the Elder Justice Act.

I also must acknowledge the work of former Senator John Breaux on this important legislation. Senator Breaux was the original sponsor of the Elder Justice Act.

In fact, Senator Breaux and I first introduced this legislation in the 107th Congress.

Even though Senator Breaux is no longer in the Senate, he has still fought for passage of this legislation and currently serves as the Honorary Chairman of the Elder Justice Coalition.

As far as the Elder Justice Act is concerned, one of the most significant provisions of this bill is the creation of an Elder Justice Coordinating Council and an Advisory Board on elder abuse, neglect and exploitation.

The Coordinating Council, which would be chaired by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, would be made up of Federal agency representatives who would be responsible for overseeing programs related to elder abuse.

Advisory Board members would include citizens who have extensively studied issues surrounding elder abuse.

Together, the Council and Advisory Board would be responsible for coordinating public and private activities and programs related to elder abuse.

Today, that goal is unattainable because quite simply, the approach to addressing elder abuse is disjointed among Federal agencies.

Therefore, the major goal of the Elder Justice Act would be to encourage a comprehensive and coordinated response by these Federal agencies to elder abuse.

I also want to take a minute to address a concern that has been raised by some who believe that the Elder Justice Act is duplicative because federal programs already exist to address elder abuse.

I respectfully disagree with that assessment. In fact, last Congress, we spent a lot of time with agency officials to address some of the concerns raised about the bill. It is my hope that we will continue those discussions this year.

That being said, I truly believe that our government needs to do more when it comes to elder abuse. As more and more baby boomers retire over the next 3 decades, we can no longer ignore the reality that elder abuse is prevalent within our society and we must do something to address it. Enacting the Elder Justice Act is the first step.

Senior citizens cannot wait any longer for this legislation to pass. Getting this bill signed into law continues to be one of my top priorities. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Elder Justice Act and support the passage of this legislation.

Our seniors deserve no less.

Mr. President, today, Senator Blanche Lincoln, Senator Herb Kohl, Senator Olympia Snowe and I will be introducing the Elder Justice Act. The Elder Justice Act we are introducing today was reported by the Senate Finance Committee during the last Congress. In fact, this legislation has been introduced consistently since the 107th Congress. Additionally, it has been reported unanimously by the Finance Committee during the last three Congresses.

I want to express my gratitude to Senator Blanche Lincoln, the other lead sponsor of the Elder Justice Act. Senator Lincoln's strong commitment to reducing elder abuse has made a tremendous difference. It has been a pleasure to work with her on this important legislation.

In addition, I want to acknowledge the other original cosponsors of this bill, Senator Herb Kohl and Senator Olympia Snowe. Over the years, Senator Kohl has been strong supporter of this legislation and, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Aging, his support has been greatly appreciated by me. Senator Snowe has been a strong supporter of the Elder Justice Act for many years.

The Elder Justice Coalition, headed by Bob Blancato, also has been a great ally of the Elder Justice Act. The coalition, which has close to 560 members, is dedicated to eliminating elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation in our country. Over the years, coalition members have worked hard to educate Congress about the Elder Justice Act.

I also must acknowledge the work of former Senator John Breaux on this important legislation. Senator Breaux was the original sponsor of the Elder Justice Act.

In fact, Senator Breaux and I first introduced this legislation in the 107th Congress.

Even though Senator Breaux is no longer in the Senate, he has still fought for passage of this legislation and currently serves as the Honorary Chairman of the Elder Justice Coalition.

As far as the Elder Justice Act is concerned, one of the most significant provisions of this bill is the creation of an Elder Justice Coordinating Council and an Advisory Board on elder abuse, neglect and exploitation.

The Coordinating Council, which would be chaired by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, would be made up of Federal agency representatives who would be responsible for overseeing programs related to elder abuse.

Advisory Board members would include citizens who have extensively studied issues surrounding elder abuse.

Together, the Council and Advisory Board would be responsible for coordinating public and private activities and programs related to elder abuse.

Today, that goal is unattainable because quite simply, the approach to addressing elder abuse is disjointed among Federal agencies.

Therefore, the major goal of the Elder Justice Act would be to encourage a comprehensive and coordinated response by these Federal agencies to elder abuse.

I also want to take a minute to address a concern that has been raised by some who believe that the Elder Justice Act is duplicative because federal programs already exist to address elder abuse.

I respectfully disagree with that assessment. In fact, last Congress, we spent a lot of time with agency officials to address some of the concerns raised about the bill. It is my hope that we will continue those discussions this year.

That being said, I truly believe that our government needs to do more when it comes to elder abuse. As more and more baby boomers retire over the next 3 decades, we can no longer ignore the reality that elder abuse is prevalent within our society and we must do something to address it. Enacting the Elder Justice Act is the first step.

Senior citizens cannot wait any longer for this legislation to pass. Getting this bill signed into law continues to be one of my top priorities. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Elder Justice Act and support the passage of this legislation.

Our seniors deserve no less.

Mr. President, I rise to speak today regarding a troubling situation facing Magna Water District in Utah. Magna's drinking water is threatened by contamination from an underground plume of perchlorate which is heading towards its wells. The perchlorate is the result of decades of rocket motor production at a Department of Defense site currently operated by Hercules, ATK Launch Systems. In order to address the threat to its water system, the district plans to implement a unique water reuse and groundwater recharge project that would serve to demonstrate a bio-destruction process combining wastewater with a desalination brine stream to destroy the perchlorate. This new technology would give water districts throughout the country a more effective and more economical method of mitigating perchlorate contamination.

The district has already invested a significant amount of its own funds toward the effort, and it is now seeking a 25 percent match from the Federal Government. This funding would preserve the district's crucial water resources while finding an efficient and beneficial use of treated industrial and domestic wastewater. In addition, this funding is vital in order to provide our Nation with a better way to destroy harmful perchlorate plumes that may threaten community water supplies.

As you know, our Nation's clean water supply is a precious asset to our country. In desert places like Utah, the need for the best use of our available water is critical to preserving the limited amounts of clean water available

to us. This water reuse and groundwater recharge technology is crucial to ensure clean drinking water for the citizens of Magna. Not only would this funding benefit the Magna district, but it would provide our Nation with an inexpensive and powerful new tool to clean up contaminated water. This is an investment in our Nation that will be paid back many times over.

I urge my colleagues to lend their support to this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to speak today regarding a troubling situation facing Magna Water District in Utah. Magna's drinking water is threatened by contamination from an underground plume of perchlorate which is heading towards its wells. The perchlorate is the result of decades of rocket motor production at a Department of Defense site currently operated by Hercules, ATK Launch Systems. In order to address the threat to its water system, the district plans to implement a unique water reuse and groundwater recharge project that would serve to demonstrate a bio-destruction process combining wastewater with a desalination brine stream to destroy the perchlorate. This new technology would give water districts throughout the country a more effective and more economical method of mitigating perchlorate contamination.

The district has already invested a significant amount of its own funds toward the effort, and it is now seeking a 25 percent match from the Federal Government. This funding would preserve the district's crucial water resources while finding an efficient and beneficial use of treated industrial and domestic wastewater. In addition, this funding is vital in order to provide our Nation with a better way to destroy harmful perchlorate plumes that may threaten community water supplies.

As you know, our Nation's clean water supply is a precious asset to our country. In desert places like Utah, the need for the best use of our available water is critical to preserving the limited amounts of clean water available

to us. This water reuse and groundwater recharge technology is crucial to ensure clean drinking water for the citizens of Magna. Not only would this funding benefit the Magna district, but it would provide our Nation with an inexpensive and powerful new tool to clean up contaminated water. This is an investment in our Nation that will be paid back many times over.

I urge my colleagues to lend their support to this important legislation.

Madam President, I rise today to express my deep concern about the tax increases--both explicit and hidden--in President Obama's budget and in the Democratic budget resolution before us today.

Erwin Griswold, the former Solicitor General under President Lyndon Baines Johnson, and also President Richard M. Nixon, once said:

We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of

inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is

the preferable of the two. At least, as one man said, there's

one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time

Congress meets.

Unfortunately, this budget would lead to taxes getting worse. In fact, they would get much worse, and not just for the so-called well- off and well-connected, as the budget refers to those who are targeted for explicit tax increases.

The title of President Obama's budget is ``An Era of Responsibility-- Renewing America's Promise.'' However, this budget is irresponsible as to its implications for the next generations.

As I have mentioned before many times on this floor, I have 6 children, 23 grandchildren, and 3 great-grandchildren, and I am very concerned about their future and the future of all of our families throughout America, just as all of our colleagues are concerned about their posterity as well.

When I think about responsibility and the promise of America, I think about these next generations, both in my family and in the families of my constituents, and others, of course. This is why I am so concerned about this budget, and especially the tax burden this budget would place on the next generations of my fellow Utahans and all Americans.

This budget includes a number of tax increases, but I want to focus on just three of the major ones that would particularly affect these next generations.

Now, the Obama ``tax-orama:'' There will be a tax hike on America's industrial output and energy, a tax hike on America's job creation, and a tax hike on America's competitiveness.

During his address to Congress last month, President Obama promised:

[I]f your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will

not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one

single dime.

That is what he said. We have heard this promise before. However, from his first days in office, the President has proposed raising taxes and the cost of living on lower income wage earners, as well as on all Americans.

Now, how? Through the trillion-dollar-plus cap-and-trade climate change legislation that President Obama is proposing. This proposal, if enacted, would force energy and industrial companies throughout America to either pass these gargantuan costs on to their customers and employees or go out of business.

This tax on America's industrial output and energy is not even called a tax in the President's budget. Instead, it is referred to as ``climate revenues.'' However, we should not let that fool us. As the old saying goes: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. This tax, estimated to total between $1.2 trillion and $1.9 trillion over the next 10 years, would be by far the largest tax increase in the history of the world.

It is true these new taxes might not be paid directly to the IRS or be withheld from workers' paychecks. Instead, they would be much more insidious. They would show up in the form of higher utility bills, higher costs for consumer goods, lost jobs, and a lower standard of living for everyone.

This tax hike on America's industrial output and energy--just think about it, called cap and trade--they refer to as ``climate revenues.'' Potentially, it is a $1.9 trillion tax on energy costs and an increase in the cost of living.

Well, the nasty thing about them is the American family may not even know how much they are paying--just that their standard of living has gone down.

The administration tries to tell us lower income Americans will be held harmless because the revenues from this new tax will be used to compensate them. Now, we have seen this type of compensation already from this administration, particularly in the stimulus bill.

If you look back to last year, before a Senate Finance Committee hearing, Peter Orszag, then CBO Director and now President Obama's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, admitted:

Under a cap-and-trade program, firms would not ultimately

bear most of the costs of the allowances but instead would

pass them along to their customers in the form of higher

prices.

That was before the Senate Finance Committee on which I sit, on April 28, 2008. That is what OMB Director Orszag said about cap and trade.

Well, passing these costs on to consumers is bad enough and will cause a

great deal of hardship to families and to the economy, but my question is, what happens if the firms are not able to pass these costs on to their customers? The answer is, they will go out of business and jobs will be lost. Either way the American family loses under this proposal.

As I mentioned, the President's budget says Americans will be compensated for these higher prices. However, I think a better word for the kind of compensation this budget has in mind is ``income redistribution:'' Let's take from those who have and give to those who have not. It is the same philosophy that brought us tax cuts for people who do not pay taxes.

Well, I suggest in the name of responsibility that if we want to raise taxes on Americans, let's do it in a straightforward way, where it is visible and does less damage. Raising taxes on anyone at this time of extreme economic vulnerability is a mistake, but this proposal does exactly what the President promised never to do and then excuses it by saying this is not a tax. Now, that is a bunch of hooey.

This new tax on America's industrial output and energy would be a colossal error and could cripple the ability of the next generations to reach, let alone exceed, the standard of living we now enjoy. This would be a tragedy because seeing our children and grandchildren do better than we have done is the real promise of America.

If this new tax on our industrial output and energy were the extent of the tax increases the President's budget proposes, it would be bad enough. Unfortunately, there is more bad news. The budget goes so far as to undermine and weaken the so-called stimulus bill enacted in February by calling for an increase in taxes that will affect job creation.

As we all know, the goal of all of our colleagues is to save or create millions of jobs. The explicit tax increases called for in the budget, however, would take away the very means for the private sector to perform this job creation. It would do this through increases in taxes on capital gains taxes, dividends, carried interest, and by raising the top individual rates where most small business income is taxed.

Just ask any small business owner who reports his or her business income on their own tax returns, as most do, and they will tell you if you increase taxes for the top two rates, then they will be forced to either reduce salaries or put a freeze on new hires. With nearly 200,000 small businesses in Utah, I do not think Utah can generate substantial job growth if small businesses face these tax increases. The same is true for other States. Two-thirds of jobs and small businesses are in firms with employees numbering between 20 and 499. These small businesses are the ones owned by individuals and taxed as individuals who would be targeted by President Obama's tax increases. The Small Business Administration tells us that 70 percent of new jobs each year are created by small businesses. Why in the world would we want to harm the ability of America's job-creation engine--small businesses--to help us create or save the jobs we so badly need right now? This is sheer folly.

Time and time again, research has shown that decreasing taxes on small businesses increases employment and raises wages. On the other hand, increasing taxes on small businesses hinders investment, including employment. Research by the Tax Foundation shows that raising the marginal tax rate by 5 percentage points reduces the percentage of entrepreneurs who invest by 10.4 percent and lowers their average investment by 9.9 percent. Reducing the tax rate from 39.6 percent to 33.2 percent increases the likelihood of hiring by 12 percent and raises the median wage for those hired employees by 3.2 percent.

These tax increases, which target the so-called wealthy, will miss the mark and hurt everyone, particularly those who lose their jobs or who do not get the job that might have been. The tax hike on America's job creation: two-thirds of small business jobs are targeted by President Obama's tax increases. Seventy percent of all new jobs each year are created by small businesses. These tax increases are going to hinder job growth.

Tragically, there is even more in this budget that would attack our ability to create jobs. The third leg of this assault is on America's competitiveness in a global economy. Beyond strengthening job growth for small businesses, we must also create an environment that encourages companies to invest in the United States as well as to expand worldwide to meet growing opportunities. Academic scholarship has shown that domestic companies that invest overseas strengthen their employment at home.

Unfortunately, we are moving in the wrong direction already. According to last year's listings of the world's largest companies, the so-called Global 500, only 8 of the top 25 corporations in the world were headquartered in the United States. Forty years ago, almost all of the top 25 were headquartered in America and were American firms.

This trend has a significant impact on jobs and the economy in the United States. Just this past month, several energy companies have announced plans to move to Switzerland because of that country's low corporate tax. To be frank, after looking at President Obama's budget proposal, I do not blame them. Such a move could become a matter of corporate survival if we are not careful. In fact, our system of worldwide taxation, coupled with one of the highest tax rates in the world, is enough to cause any firm to think twice about locating its worldwide headquarters here. And this is before the changes included in the Obama budget, which make the business landscape far less friendly.

How are we supposed to be globally competitive when we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world? Our corporate tax rate is currently at 35 percent, second only to Japan's, with the average global corporate tax rate around 26 percent. It is no wonder that many companies in the United States are looking elsewhere. These are tax hikes on America's global competitiveness. Think about that. Domestic companies that invest overseas strengthen their employment at home. The United States is one of the few major nations to tax companies on worldwide income. The average global corporate tax rate here is 35 percent. We are the second highest in the world, second only to Japan.

The President believes our Tax Code includes incentives for U.S. businesses to ship jobs overseas, and the budget includes vaguely defined proposals that would supposedly put an end to this practice. However, the evidence shows that our tax laws do not lead to U.S. job loss but to increases in U.S. employment when companies invest overseas.

In summary, the Obama budget for fiscal year 2010, along with the budget resolution before us today, is a three-pronged assault on American job creation through new taxes on America's industrial output and energy, tax increases on America's job creation for small businesses, and tax increases on America's competitiveness. This assault is a huge contradiction to the stated goals of the President to create or save 4 million jobs. I know he is sincere and believes he can do that, but not with this budget. While it is true that most of these tax increases will not hit until 2011, this is likely to be just as dangerous a time for these job-killing tax hikes as 2009 would be. Most economists believe that if we are lucky, we will just be beginning to recover from this ugly recession in 2011. Instead of these antigrowth policies, we should be enacting policies of support, investment, and growth.

The great American satirist Ambrose Bierce once described responsibility as:

A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God,

Fate, Fortune, Luck, or one's neighbor. In the days of

astrology it was customary to unload responsibility upon a

star.

In President Obama's budget titled the ``Era of Responsibility,'' President Obama is attempting to unload responsibility on future generations. This is the wrong way to go. I hope we can make some changes to the budget this week that will help us grow the economy instead of growing the size of the Government. A stronger economy is the best legacy we can leave to the next generation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, if the Senator will yield on that.

I understand the nominal rate argument. The problem is that we are talking about taxing the corporate profits that are earned overseas. No other major industrialized nation in the world does that. If they do that, they make us globally uncompetitive.

In just the last couple of weeks, I have been trying to raise money for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. As I have called around, it is amazing to me how many corporate executives have said to me: We love this country. We want our companies to grow in this country. We want to be able to stay here.

Some of them are second-generation folks. But I have had a number of them say that if we do some of the corporate tax changes and some of the tax expenses that are assessed in this bill, they will move. One in particular said: I am going to have to move my company to Switzerland because we will not be competitive if that particular budget passes.

Now, I believe we can make arguments that the nominal rate may be something that must be considered, and I think it should, but I don't think you can argue against the fact that we are doing some very stupid things in this budget. Frankly, in the end, we might wind up having a lot more difficulty and we may lose even more of our major businesses because to be competitive they will move, and a lot of them have already moved.

So let's wake up around here and let's realize that--look, I respect the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. He has one of the tougher jobs--he and our colleague, the Senator from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg, have one of the tougher jobs in the history of the country. Doing these budgets is very difficult with some of the problems we have. But I have listed three things that are going to sock corporate America like you can't believe. Frankly, one of them is the third point on the prong, and that is taxing corporate profits overseas. It is just a matter of reality that if we do this, we are going to reap the whirlwind. It is just that simple.